When Pentecostal power couple Randy and Paula White recently announced they were headed to divorce court, the most remarkable part of the reaction was that there wasn’t much reaction at all.
For increasing numbers of clergy, a divorce no longer generates the kind of career-killing hue and cry of decades ago, in part because plenty of people in the pews have experienced divorce themselves.
The shifting views on divorced clergy reflect a growing concession among rank-and-file conservative Christians that a failed marriage is no longer an unforgivable sin.
For many evangelical Christians, the line seems to have shifted from a single acceptable reason for divorce — adultery — to a wider range of reasons that some say can be biblically justified.
“I am probably one of those evangelicals who would say it would be three A’s for me,” said Chris Bounds, a theologian at Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Ind. “Abuse, abandonment and adultery.”
Adultery is clear cut acceptable included in Matt 19, but one must ask whose adultery (we should never ostracize the innocent victim – yet I fear sometimes we may). The others two “A” my heart agrees and theologically, I can see making a case for the abandonment (“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 1Tim 5:8), oddly abuse would be a complex argument. Roman Catholics will annul on the ground of violating the sacrament of marriage (love as in Eph 5:28-30) and certainly 1Cor 7 allows for separation.
I don’t think the Protestant Church has a problem with a fault divorce, and it’s the loose commitment to the marriage covenant that’s been the issue. I don’t think Christian should go for a ‘no-fault’ divorce or at least accept celibacy or remarriage to the same spouse if they go that route for Jesus did set a high bar in Matt 19:4-9.
I think most marriages have their ups and downs. I know mine has. I’m glad we have stuck with it even through the long downs, when going our own ways seemed like the easier option. I think once you get past the fighting stage and trying to change your other half into someone else, and you start to realise that you are still loved regardless of how much you have hurt your partner, and that you still love your wife even though she has hurt you, its kind of a reflection of the love that God has for us. I look at some of my divorced friends, and see the bitterness still there, and I realize that the bible is right as usual. If you stick to its truth, that divorce is wrong, you eventually reach that stage where you get past the fighting and the love comes back, a different kind of love, but a much stronger love.
Isn’t the issue not divorce (or separation) per se, but [b]divorce and remarriage?[/b] Separation with the hope that there might one day be reconciliation seems to me defensible. Remarriage, on the other hand, irrevocably breaks the marriage bond that already exists.
To proscribe the latter will naturally lead to injustice when there is an innocent party. It may be, however, that this is a necessary price if the Church is actually to recover some consistency on the issue. That doesn’t mean, incidentally, that we stop providing pastoral care to the divorced or to those who remarry under civil law, merely that the Church ceases to validate divorce through a “renewal” of the sacrament.
Divorce is a hard issue, but there is at least some biblical warrant for divorce in some circumstances. As #3 says, it’s divorce followed by remarriage that’s the hardest teaching and the one no one wants to hear.
The traditional teaching of the church is that one who remarries during the life of a divorced spouse commits adultery. Outside of the Roman Catholic church (where the issue is fudged by annulment or by turning a blind eye to remarried parishioners), essentially no one in the modern US would counsel divorced and remarried people to end their adulterous remarriage or live a celibate life with their second (or third, etc.) spouse.
In TEC there are at least two bishops each with two living ex-wives, and any number of other divorced bishops and priests. In the matter of marriage and divorce, I think it’s safe to say that TEC has no policy other than to accept whatever the larger secular society accepts.
All of the foregoing comments are good, thoughtful reflections on the issue. While divorce treatment is often raised by reappraisers as a precedent, note the critical distinction. Reasserters continue to accept that divorce is sin (“missing the mark”). There are differing levels of pastoral accommodation, but none rise to the level of “blessing” something that is clearly defined as sin. By contrast reappraisers seek to bless relationships that are defined by behavior that is condemned by the Bible, without exception, as sin.
One of the first orders of business of the newly emerging Anglican Church in North America should be to restore fidelity to the Bible’s teaching on divorce. The casual way even “orthodox” churches treat divorce and remarriage is a scandal. It’s even more of a scandal how many divorced and remarried priests and bishops there are among the “orthodox.”
First the contentious parts:
#1 KAR: you write “Roman Catholics will annul on the ground of violating the sacrament of marriage,†a statement whose meaning is not expressly clear to me.
#4 Jason S: you write “where the issue is fudged by annulment or by turning a blind eye to remarried parishioners†of the Catholic Church. I think this comment is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church expressly teaches and firmly holds that a marriage between the baptized is indissoluble.
There is no dissolution of a valid marriage as can be clearly read in Cannon 1056 here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
A declaration of nullity is a juridical process to determine if a valid marriage existed. If one did not exist then the parties are free to contract a marriage with another party or each other (rare as that might be). If it is determined that a valid marriage did exist then the parties must reconcile or live in chastity. Reasons for finding that a purportedly valid marriage is actually invalid are the existence of a diriment impediment or a defect of consent at the time the marriage was purportedly contracted.
The relevant cannons for diriment impediment can be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM
and those concerning consent are here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM
Those are the laws of the Catholic Church; what is done in practice (especially here in America) and what a blind eye is turned toward are a separate matter. I just ask that all the facts be given honestly.
#3 Jeremy Bonner is absolutely correct that the issue is divorce and re-marriage. No one is trying to say that spouses should not be permitted to separate for grave reason. In Catholic cannon law separation is permitted for grave reasons but reconciliation is counseled as can be seen here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P45.HTM
Why is it that Mathew 19 is always cited? Why not cite Mark 10 where there is an absolute prohibition on divorce and re-marriage? After all, doesn’t modern criticism think that Mark is older than Mathew? (not that I’m supporting modern criticism)
I believe that it is the gravest scandal that ANY purportedly Christian body would violate the express words of our Lord by permitting the adulterous marriage of Christians who are separated from their legitimate spouses. Conforming to the practice of the world does not make the world better, it only makes us worse. We are to be a light unto the world and by capitulating to the world we serve no one, let alone Christ.
James G
With regard to #5, I think most members of TEC, whether reappraissers or reasserters, would agree that divorce is a sin or at least missing the mark. I’m not aware of anyone claiming that divorce in general is a blessing or should be blessed (although in cases of abuse, most people would probably agree that it is better than the alternative and should be at least approved, if not blessed).
But as I said, the hard question is remarriage during the life of a spouse. My personal experience is that there are “orthodox” who have remarried during the life of their spouse even though the traditional teaching of the church is that this constitutes adultery, and these second marriages were blessed by a priest. This is blessing something that, in the traditional teaching of the church, was sinful, and I don’t think the orthodox have a clean record on this issue.
With regard to #7, my point was that there is considerable distance between what the Roman Catholic church teaches and what occurs in practice in the U.S. And whatever validity annulment has in theory, in practice it allows divorce to Catholics who can work the system (Rudy Giuliani’s 1st marriage being a good example recently in the press).
#7 — I must defer to the Roman Catholics. On a blog a while back when the subject of divorce and remarriage came up, one lady was very upset because her first husband was very physically abusive and she fled fearing for her life, all of a sudden the Catholics on the blog chimed in that marriage could be annulled for that reason (or similar wording).
Observing: Thank you for your observations. I found them honest and practical.
#9 Jason S: I agree that there MAY be considerable distance between what the Catholic Church teaches and what occurs in practice. Still, there may be a legitimate reason why things that appear scandalous to people occur. I recommend cannon lawyer Ed Peters on the subject. Now I don’t think anybody could accuse Rudy of being a good Catholic; but it is not within our ability to judge since we do not know all that facts of that particular case. If memory serves there was an issue of consanguinity because he and the wife of his youth were cousins.
#10 KAR: If I haven’t already tipped my hand I should let it be known that I am a Catholic. I have been greatly scandalized by the ease with which many of my fellow Catholics just jump right out with “get an annulment†whenever divorce rears it’s ugly head. It just goes to show how many ill-informed (yet well intentioned) people are out there. Again I recommend Ed Peters on the subject.
The world (especial America) has become an anti-family, anti-marriage, and anti-life place and that poisonous culture permeates into all things, even Christians who are supposed to be in but not of the world. We (Americans) have lost the truth as to what marriage really is; by its nature and not just as raised to a sacrament by Christ. To most people (many Christians and Catholics included) marriage is just “shakin’ up†with tax benefits. It is our selfish fallen nature and hardness of heart that allows such an evil as divorce to occur. Believe me I know this from personal experience.
If we followed the Truth contained in the Bible and truly sought to live in self-sacrificing fidelity to our spouses then our marriages and the world would be better. We should love our spouses as Christ loves the Church, and be willing to sacrifice everything for them as He did for Her, even unto death on a cross. As fallen man we will fail at times to live up to our calling but that is why we are counseled to forgive. We are to forgive 7 times 70 times and to forgive as we are forgiven by Him. While it may be near impossible for some things to be forgiven, we are called to it none the less. How many times has the Bridegroom Jesus forgiven the failings of his Bride? How many times did God forgive adulterous Israel? How many times has God forgiven me, or you?
There is simply no excuse to condone evil. That which we permit we promote and look at how much we permit in regards to this matter. We need to have the strength of character to stand up and say THIS is wrong and I will not stand by and permit it to occur without objection. Adultery is wrong, it’s even in the top 10 of wrong. If we permit that which Christ himself said is adultery to occur then we are complicit in the committing of grave sin. Where will you stand? As for me and mine we will serve the Lord.
James G
Sorry to come off so fiery but this is a passionate and personal subject for me.
Sorry to come off so fiery but this is a passionate and personal subject for me.
No worries, it’s a passionate subject for me as a Protestant who notices we can be strong on some sexual sin but so weak on others. Whenever the subject arises there is a personal story which is heart-breaking that causes me to ponder. One issue I think is clear is that the no-fault divorce should not be used by Christians. If the grounds can not be proven to a civil judge one wonders if there are any real grounds at all. When the numbers inside the Church are the same as outside, there is a deep spiritual depravity in our nation.
#5 Bill Matz wrote: [i]There are differing levels of pastoral accommodation, but none rise to the level of “blessing†something that is clearly defined as sin.[/i]
You obviously missed the very public blessing of the remarriage of a divorced woman (with a husband living) to the Prince of Wales. It was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.
I am trying to follow some of the above comments out to their logical conclusion. If a person who has never been married before marries someone who is divorced, is this second marriage viewed as valid? I am assuming that some here would say not. Say then that couple divorces. Is the person who married the already divorced person now guilty of adultery and not divorce? So why would that person not be allowed to remarry if their marriage wasn’t valid in the first place?
I’m not baiting here, BTW, just trying to find out what people think about this.
#13 KAR: “One issue I think is clear is that the no-fault divorce should not be used by Christians.â€
I’ll do you one further and say that divorce should not be used by Christians at all. Most (all?) states have legal separation. That severs the legal ties while still forbidding re-(civil)marriage. I live in AZ and we (along with AK and LA) have a type of marriage license called “covenant marriage.†Such marriages are not allowed a no-fault divorce (at least in theory). I will speak from experience and say that it still does nothing to prevent false fault allegations from being used to obtain a divorce. Still, I would recommend it as an (albeit imperfect) intermediary step to restoring the truth of marriage in this country.
James G
#15 Janet C: I am probably over-reaching my competence but I’ll try to answer your question. The gravest sin involved with divorce and re-marriage is the re-marriage part. To marry another while a valid spouse still survives is adultery (as Jesus teaches in Mark 10). Adultery is so bad that it’s in the Ten Commandments.
A person [P] who “marries†a divorced person [Q] while Q’s valid spouse still lives is committing adultery and is NOT contracting a valid marriage. If P then civilly divorces Q there is no sin because there was no valid marriage (I am not arguing that divorce in and of itself is not a sin but that since there was no marriage in this case then there is actually no divorce). P is actually better off because he is no longer committing adultery by having carnal relations with Q.
Now as to whether P having divorced Q is now permitted to contract a new marriage is a little more complicated. If P is a baptized non-Catholic and he wishes to marry a Catholic [R] then the Catholic Church will require that the matter be investigated. There is a possibility that Q’s first marriage was in fact NOT valid in which case the marriage between P and Q IS valid. However if Q’s first marriage IS valid then the marriage between P and Q is NOT valid and P will be free to contract a marriage with R. I hope I have not completely confused you on this subject. If you have more questions I again recommend Ed Peters or you can contact your local Catholic Diocesan Tribunal.
James G
Just one more point to make to #9 Jason S (I don’t mean to pick on you):
If someone abused the system to get a finding of nullity when they knew in fact that the marriage was really valid then they still commit adultery by marrying another person. The Tribunal makes a determination just like any other court based on the available evidence. The decision reached is the one believed to be true and those acting on it in good faith do so with a clear conscience. If some mistake occurs and a marriage is really valid but is found to be null and the innocent parties marry another they are not guilty of sin because they did not commit it with the knowledge that it was sinful. A person who obtains a false finding through lying or bribery or some other fraud still commits adultery and compounds that sin with further sins against truth and justice.
A further point of clarification about the annulment procedure in the Catholic Church: When one tribunal finds that a purportedly valid marriage is in fact null; that decision is immediately sent to the tribunal of another diocese for an independent review. This makes it much harder to fool or defraud. The intent is always to find truth and to do justice to all parties.
James G
Thank you for the info, James G, very helpful!
But that raises another question. If a couple who have been married for some time come to the realization that they are indeed committing adultery because of prior marriages, what are they to do? Especially in cases where they were not under proper teaching on marriage and divorce and married in good faith?
Great discussion folks.
IMHO, in practical terms for most families, this issue is of far greater importance than the “issue” before the Episcopal Church.
BTW, when exactly did divorce & remarriage stop being a career ender among Episcopal clergy or for those on track for a cope & mitre?
Peace,
I have some idea, but not an exact one. What’s the Eastern Orthodox teaching on such things?
#19 Janet C: I hope this is not a personal situation for you because I would not want anyone to ever experience such a painful thing. The first thing to remember is that God provides a solution; we just don’t always like the solution. Catholics have an established procedure and mechanism for dealing with such cases; unfortunately most other Christians do not. Just so you know, the diocesan tribunals can hear cases from non-Catholic Christians; the Catholic Church is happy to help those Christians outside of Her as well as inside. If someone is in such a painful position as you describe I would recommend contacting the local Catholic diocese and their local parish. The parish should be able to provide counseling and help and can start the process of a tribunal investigation if that is desired. And remember that if the first parish someone contacts doesn’t provide help; keep trying because I guarantee someone will help eventually. The diocese also has special people appointed to serve as a point of contact who can point one in the right direction.
As far as the path I would personally recommend: first the spouses should practice continence until such a serious doubt is resolved. I know that sounds hard but nothing about being a Christian is easy. One needs to thoroughly examine themselves, their marriage, and what marriage means to them now and in the past. If at the time that the first marriage was contracted the parties were under a mistaken idea as to what marriage is or if one or the other had fraudulent intentions or an impediment (see the links in my first post #7) then there is the possibility that the first marriage was not valid. Remember that the issue of validity is NOT one of blame or fault but an honest evaluation as to whether the necessary conditions for a valid marriage were present without an impediment. After such an examination one should then try to resolve the issue through a competent authority (i.e. the diocesan tribunal).
Remember, that even if it turns out that a couple are in an adulterous relationship they can still have a life together as chaste friends and if there are children there is a responsibility to care for them and raise them as a family. However, carnal relations (and I use carnal as different from marital) are not permitted because they would be sinful. There is always a path to follow Christ and it involves suffering and prayer; lots of prayer. I hope that my answer was helpful and remember that I am not an authority; just a layman with experience (unfortunately).
James G
Another point of clarification to make. Unless there is a previous purportedly valid marriage that raises the specter of adultery; one should not start freaking out about the validity of their marriage. A marriage is always presumed valid until proven otherwise. If you have a doubt about whether or not you had proper consent or not the matter can be resolved as easily as re-exchanging vows.
James G
James G – No, I am not in that situation, thankfully. However, I am divorced, but from all that I have read and from conversations with those familiar with the annulment process, should I ever convert to Catholicism I would very likely be granted an annulment because of the circumstances of my marriage.
I won’t disagree with your last comment, because I am in learning mode and it is obvious you’ve done more research than I have on this topic. That would be a hard pill to swallow, though. If what you are suggesting is correct, that a couple in that situation live together chastely, then what I am gathering from that is that it’s not the legal contract or having the same last name or living together under the same roof or having children together that makes a marriage, it’s the sexual act. And that brings to mind something I read somewhere that in the Judaic tradition, it was the sexual act that began a marriage, and not the ceremony. If that is the case, then Jesus was coming from the standpoint that if two virgins had sex with one another, then in God’s eyes they were married, and any subsequent sexual activity with another person was adultery. Now fast forward to our culture, where it is clear that a significant majority of the population has had sex with other people before they actually go through a church ceremony and get married. Would this then mean that all of those marriages were invalid?
I am not trying to play gotcha here, I am just trying to make sense of all of this and my head is about to explode at this point! 😉 Thank you for taking the time to write these comments, I really appreciate it.
Grace and peace.
Janet,
You may find it useful to peruse *Jesus and Divorce* by Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth (First Edition, 1984; Second Edition, 2002); ISBN: 1-84227-131-8. This is a book by two Evangelical authors (Wenham an Irish Anglican Calvinist and Heth an American Southern Baptist) who believe, based on the relevant Biblical texts alone, that divorce-and-remarriage is not legitimate under any circumstances, even in cases of adultery, and that the Protestant Reformers were simply mistaken in their acceptance of Erasmus’ novel views on that subject (and even moreso modern Evangelicals, who have rather expanded the relatively few grounds on which the Reformers would have allowed divorce-and-remarriage). Note that I use the phrase “divorce-and-remarriage” because it is clear that what Our Lord appears to forbid in the relevant NT passages is not “divorce” per se, but remarriage after divorce (which He characterizes as “adultery”).
This book caused a big uproar in evangelical circles when it appeared, and its authors were widely stigmatized as “catholicizing” — which is pretty ludicrous, as they go out of their way to trot out their belief in Sola Scriptura, their disbelief in an authoritative Tradition and so forth. Where they are good is in their painstaking discussion of Patristic, Medieval, Reformation and Modern views of the relevant biblical texts; and they are spot on in showing that the idea that Christ was “commending” or “urging” life-long marriage “as an ideal, but not as a law” for his followers was invented by the Renaissance Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) and was without any foundation in earlier exegesis — and, they believe, in the texts themselves.
One weakness of the book is that its authors give no attention whatsoever to the Eatern Orthodox practice (which does allow remarriage after divorce in some circumstances, with the permission of one’s bishop) and its rationale.
Another, older, book on the same subject is *Marriage in Church and State” by T. E. Lacey which dates from the 1920s or 30s. Lacey was an English Anglo-Catholic scholar.
#23 Janet C: This question is definitely beyond my competency to answer. After exchanging the vows the couple is married. However, until the marriage is consummated it is not completely indissoluble. See these pages from the cannon law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P44.HTM
As far as I know any sex outside of marriage is fornication and a sin. Even if the couple does get married, pre-marital sex is still fornication and a sin. Nothing I have heard or read suggests that sex confers marriage upon a couple; consent signified by the exchange of vows does that. Even in Jesus’ time, adultery and fornication were separate sins.
James G
Thanks again for the responses.
Dr. Tighe – I am not familiar with those books but they do sound interesting, especially as I just reread the relevant passages and cannot even from a Sola Scriptura standpoint see where they are coming from. If that were the case, why didn’t Jesus just say there is no such thing as divorce, why would he mention the adultery (or immorality) exception? Divorce implies that a marriage is over, which is exactly why God hates it so. And are you suggesting that the Catholic church is in error when it grants annulments that allow people to remarry? I know that annulments are supposedly declarations that a marriage was not valid in the first place, but there is an awful lot of wiggle room there, as I am sure you are aware. And if the Catholic church views marriage as a sacrament, why does it hold civil marriages to the same standard as those that are performed by a priest in a church?
James G. – Thank you for the citations, I will look them up. However, it does make me think about Jesus and the woman at the well. When he says she has had five husbands, what did that really mean? That she had taken vows with five men? Or that she had lived with five men as if they were her husband? Or that she had outlived five husbands? He differentiates the one she is with at that point as not being a husband. It seems to me that if Jesus did not view her marriages as valid, he would have said, you had one husband and you have committed adultery numerous times. I’m sure there is an explanation for it, I just haven’t done enough research to get to it yet.
I hope I am not coming across as pro-divorce in these comments. That is not at all the case. I just like for things to make sense and right now there are a lot of loose ends on this topic, some of them introduced by the comments here, that are preventing that! It is frightening to think that if what has been suggested by commenters here is true, then there are an awful lot of people living in mortal sin (to use a Catholic term) who have no idea, and in fact have been counseled by even the most orthodox of priests that their marriages are blessed and anything but adultery. If people really believe this is so, why aren’t they shouting it from the rooftops in order to save souls? Why did I have to read this for the first time in a thread on a blog and have never heard it preached once, nor ever read it, all the while worshipping in an orthodox diocese?
Grace and peace. And Happy Thanksgiving!
#26 Janet C: I must say that I never expected to be writing so much on this post. I’ll attempt to answer your questions as best I can.
The big sticking point regarding Bible verses seems to be Mathew 19:9 and the “loophole†that many try to get from it. Now as I do not know Greek and cannot translate “porneia†myself I cannot give a definitive answer as to what exactly it means. Variously it is translated as: marital unfaithfulness (NIV); fornication (KJV, Douay, ASV); unchastity (RSV); sexual immorality (NKJV); whoredom (Young’s Literal Translation); you get the idea. So what exactly does this “exception†mean? I have read that it refers to adultery (the typical Protestant understanding as reflected by the NIV), but if that is the case then why is fornication or similar word used in most other translations if it was clearly referring to a specific sin (adultery)? If not adultery then what kind of sexual immorality is being referenced here? An interesting theory that I read once was that what was being referred to was a sort of concubinage that existed for sexual intercourse only (similar in nature to the temporary marriage for sex in some strains of Islam). All this speculation is interesting but in my view irrelevant.
I find it interesting that it is Protestants (as a generality) who use Mathew 19:9 to try and find a “legal loophole†to justify divorce AND re-marriage (and Catholics are the ones who are accused of being legalistic). As I stated in my comment #7, why not use Mark 10 which has NO exception and clearly and unequivocally teaches that divorce and re-marriage under any circumstance is adultery. I know of no other NT passage of Christ’s teaching (Mathew 5:32 excepted as it gives the same exception using the same/similar Greek word “ποÏνειαςâ€) that permits re-marriage during the life of a spouse (Luke 16:18 is quite clear on this and is the parallel to Mathew 5:32). 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that spouses should not separate and if they do they should live in chastity (the subsequent verses give the “Pauline privilege†wherein a convert my separate from her un-believer husband if he refuses to remain with her but St. Paul is explicit in that this is his teaching and NOT the Lord’s). Why try so hard to find a loophole in clear contradiction to our Lord’s teaching? Is it because of the hardness of our hearts; the same reason that Moses permitted divorce?
Regarding annulments see my comments and citations above. I often wonder if most marriages that occur in America are valid marriages. The Catholic Church teaches that a valid and indissoluble marriage between the baptized is a result of consent signified by the exchange of vows and is consummated by a “conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.†The consent part is where I think most marriages in America are spotty. A marriage is a life-long and indissoluble union, but how many people actually believe that is what they are entering into when they “get married,†even if that is what they say in their vows? Actions speak louder than words and in practice among most people in this country marriage is anything but life-long and indissoluble. If two people get “married†with the notion and belief that if it doesn’t work out they can just get divorced and marry someone else than I say that is not a real marriage. It is in fact a legal concubinage and that is what I think most “marriages†in America are today.
[Another place where modern American marriages goes wrong is in thinking that marriage is just about the spouses and has nothing to do with children. It is this same deficient view of marriage that has allowed the idea of homosexual “marriage†to gain ground. The traditional view of marriage (and one that was held to until quite recently by Christians and Jews and is still held to by the Catholic Church) is that it is ordered to the procreation and rearing of children (not to down-play the mutual help part). If marriage is divorced from the procreative aspect and is only about two people who “love†each other then why not allow homosexuals to marry?]
Janet C, I am not in the least surprised that you have not heard all this before, even in an “orthodox diocese.†Most people, even “orthodox priests,†can be reluctant to preach that which is unpopular. There is also the possibility that those who’s job it is to teach and preach are themselves ignorant of the truth. After all, if one’s church does not hold to the truth (on this and other matters as well) how can it’s members be expected to know or act according to that truth. [Please don’t take that as an insult as I did not intend it that way; but as a Catholic I believe that Anglicans and all Protestants do not hold to the fullness of faith. On a related topic, I (and other curmudgeons) believe that where Anglicanism really went off the rails (other than the whole Reformation thing) was not the recent unpleasantness or even women’s ordination, but was when they became the first group of Christians to allow the use of artificial contraception. Once you start divorcing things from aspects of their true nature and start compromising the Truth you soon loose other aspects of it as well. That the truth of marriage would then be lost is a logical consequence. This is, however, a topic for another thread.]
The reason that the Catholic Church treats “civil marriages†between non-Catholic Christians the same as “church marriages†is because the Sacrament of Matrimony is conferred by the spouses upon each other and not by the priest. Because the spouses confer marriage upon each other the location where it occurs is immaterial. The Catholic Church requires Catholics to be married in a Catholic church in order for the marriage to be valid as an additional requirement imposed upon those under Her jurisdiction; but it does not apply to those outside Her jurisdiction. [A Catholic can get a dispensation from canonical form in order to have a valid marriage that occurs in a non-Catholic church (as I got in order to be married by the wife of my youth’s Episcopalian priest grandfather); the Church can dispense from Her laws, but not from God’s.]
Regarding the woman at the well (John 4:7-30), I am not quite sure what you mean. What I come away with upon reading it is that Jesus is listing her sins to her so that she (and others) would believe in Him. As such He tells her what her sins are according to her understanding. Additionally, the woman is operating in a society that permitted divorce and re-marriage, yet her having been married five times is listed as part of her sins along with living with a man that is not her husband (fornication and possibly adultery). This suggests to me that Jesus is saying that her having been re-married multiple times is sinful as well.
Don’t worry Janet C, I don’t think you are coming across as pro-divorce. I too like to have things make logical sense. To me the Catholic understanding of marriage (including annulments, properly understood) ties up the loose ends; but I don’t expect that to hold for all people, otherwise they would be Catholics too. I also worry very much about the many people living in grave sin by being in an adulterous second (or more) marriage. I hold out hope for them precisely because they do not know that what they are doing is sinful; after all Jesus prayed, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.†[A point of clarification, in order to be a mortal sin it must be grave matter (adultery is that) and done with full knowledge that it is sinful]
James G
James G – Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. You have given me much to think about and pray about, and I see that I have a lot of research to do! As an Episcopalian, I agree that this denomination has gone far astray and Protestantism as a whole maybe a lost cause. Divorce is just one aspect of that. And your point about legal concubinage is very interesting and I would agree that most people are not entering marriage with the ’til death do us part’ foremost in their mind. As far as the Catholic church goes, from what I have read about the annulment process, it actually seems a much more compassionate and reasonable response to bad situations than some Protestant churches in cases I have heard of.
Thank you again, and may God bless you!
Janet,
Re: your response to me in #26, James G answered more fully and clearly than I think I could have done, but I will add this. There is one word in NT Greek that means “adultery” and that is “moicheia.” The exceptive phrase in Matthew 19:9 is “me epi tes porneias” or “unless on account of porneia” and so it seems that it must mean either something more, or something less, than adultery. It certainly is a word that has strong connotations of “sexual impropriety” or “filthiness” (think “pornography;” the word for “prostitute” in Greek is “porne”). Erasmus took it to mean adultery both real and “spiritual,” and included under the latter such things as desertion or neglect, and some of the Reformers expanded it further (and brought in impotence as well). Years ago I was very impressed by the argument that as “porneia” is a word regularly used in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament of ca 225 BC to translate the Hebrew word “‘heth” meaning an improper sexual relationship, as between brother and sister or half-sister, or between a step-parent and step-child, “porneia” could be well understood in Matt. 19:9 as meaning “except in the case of a purported “marriage” that is in reality no marriage” and so was quite easily congruent with the Catholic concept of “annulment” but not at all with that of “divorce.” Wenham & Heth, in the book that I referred to in my last posting, dismiss that notion, but they really don’t explain their reasons beyond alluding to “recent scholars” and those names that I recognize among them seem to be those of liberal Catholics, who might have reasons of their own for disparaging that view.
I agree with James G that the decline of Anglicanism into a liberal “revisionist” version of Christianity, ever accomodating itself to the shifting values of its surrounding culture, began with the 1930 Lambeth Conference’s acceptance of contraception; tolerance of repeated divorces and remarriages, even in the case of bishops, WO and SS are but further examples of the same sort of thing. From my own perspective, however, these developments all both reflect and manifest the underlying Erastian genetic code of Anglicanism that goes right back to Henry VIII, Cranmer and Elizabeth I. You might find this book review of mine interesting in this regard:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0599-tighe
as well as this recent little piece by Fr. Geoffrey Kirk of the Church of England:
http://trushare.com/0150NOV2007/17Way%20we%20live.htm
Dr. Tighe, the explanatory notes to my RSV Bible from Ignatius Press says the same thing about the meaning of “porneia.”
“The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18.6-16) or contracted with a Gentile.”
James G