Divorce

[Guest Guenevere]

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a member of the Church of Christ about divorce. His church forbids divorce except in cases of adultery, as stated in Matthew 19. My Catholic NAB translation reads "...whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." This seems to tally quite well with the Church's teaching on divorce and annulment. However, the translations he had as well as my NRSV did not read "unless the marriage is unlawful", they had phraseology that suggested impurity or unchastity as the only reason for divorce. What is the reason for this difference in translation and how does it fit with the original manuscript and with the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter. (Which, as I understand it, allows for remarriage after annulment of an invalid marriage, but not after a valid marriage that dissolved due to infidelity.)
Thanks!

[Era Might]

You're correct, a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved, although the spouses can separate for grave reasons, and they can also obtain a civil divorce if they need to protect some legal rights.

However, remarriage is not permitted, according to Our Lord himself, because they remain bound to one another by the Sacrament until one of them dies:

[quote]Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

--Luke 16:18[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that the Lord is referring to adultery in Matthew 19:9, but he still specifies that the spouses may not remarry, even in the case of adultery; Luke 16:18 states this plainly, that to marry a divorced man or woman is adultery.

[Guest Guenevere]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1112765' date='Nov 6 2006, 02:21 PM']
You're correct, a valid Sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved, although the spouses can separate for grave reasons, and they can also obtain a civil divorce if they need to protect some legal rights.

However, remarriage is not permitted, according to Our Lord himself, because they remain bound to one another by the Sacrament until one of them dies:
[/quote]


I definitely understand the reason for forbidding remarriage after divorce without an annulment, I just wondered if anyone knew why in some translations the verse suggests that "unchastity" is a valid reason for annulment, when as I understand it it is not?...

[Era Might]

The verse is dealing with divorce, not annulment.

By itself, no, adultery is not grounds for an annulment, because an annulment has to do with whether or not the marriage was valid when it took place, not whether the couple failed to live up to their obligations afterward. However, an investigation into an annulment would probably consider the adultery, and it may suggest that the marriage was originally invalid; but by itself it doesn't invalidate a marriage.

[beatty07]

You've actually just hit on one of the biggest disputes in New Testament Greek. The word in question is "porneia." It's easy to see the connection with English words like "pornography" etc., but the Greek sense is hard to pin down exactly. Some suggest adultery, while others propose indecent cases like incest, and still others press a wide definition that encompasses various types of sexual irregularity. The honest answer, translation-wise, is that we just don't know!

BTW, this serves as a great example of why it doesn't make sense to take the Bible out of the Church. Without the guidance of Catholic tradition, there would be no hope of knowing what this passage means. Your friend's Church is an example: they've based a very important doctrine on what amounts to no more than a "best guess." In the world of sola scriptura, that's the only option they have.

Given our doctrine on marriage and annulment, the interpretations related to impropriety...for example, incestuous marriages...seem most likely.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

A lot of non-Catholic Bibles translate the word as some sort of unchastity and it's no surprise, because the Greek is "pornea," the root for "porn." However, that word actually refers to incest (as in, husband and wife are brother/sister). Since we know incest to make marriages invalid and illicit, it's clear that all the Bible is saying is that consanguinity keeps couples from marrying and a divorce would be in order (but really not a divorce...it would be an annulment because there actually wasn't a marriage in the first place).

[Resurrexi]

In the Douay-Rheims, which is tranlated from the Vulgate which is free from all error as defined by the Council of Trent, the word is "fornication". So I would say that the Church offocially translates the word as "fornication" not incest.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113035' date='Nov 6 2006, 05:08 PM']
In the Douay-Rheims, which is tranlated from the Vulgate which is free from all error as defined by the Council of Trent, the word is "fornication". So I would say that the Church offocially translates the word as "fornication" not incest.
[/quote]


I'm so glad you know much more than Raphael and beatty07....they never sound like they know what they are talking about at all. i dont know what we would do without you.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113035' date='Nov 6 2006, 06:08 PM']
In the Douay-Rheims, which is tranlated from the Vulgate which is free from all error as defined by the Council of Trent, the word is "fornication". So I would say that the Church offocially translates the word as "fornication" not incest.
[/quote]
Indeed, the Latin word used is for fornication. However, I'm willing to bet that "fornicatio" is used for the translation of porneia every time, which would indicate that St. Jerome understood it to have the same semantic range.

Fornication is defined as "carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman" (CCC 2353). This definition excludes adultery.

That leaves two situations which can be considered fornication: strict fornication, as we consider it, and incest, which also falls under the provided definition.

[b]Strict Fornication[/b]

If we take Jesus' condemnation to mean strict fornication, we run into a problem. Strict fornication, by definition, is between unmarried people and, as we know, these people do not pretend to be married. No married couple would seek divorce on grounds of strict fornication because no married couple can be fornicating. They wouldn't say, "well, we're married, but we're fornicating, so we want a divorce." If they were merely fornicating, they were not married by anyone's standards, and they would simply decide to go their separate ways. There would be no divorce. Clearly, Jesus isn't addressing this issue because it is a non-issue.

[b]Incest[/b]

When fornication does become an issue with divorce is when a fornicating couple disguises itself as divorced. This happens in incest when the couple, though considering themselves married and when considered by much of society in those times to be married, is really not married, but fornicating. It was often back then and was therefore a big issue for Jesus to tackle. By saying that divorce was not allowed, He condemned all divorce, but He wanted to make sure that those who thought they really were married, but weren't because of fornication, had a way out. If a couple was in incest, they would be married by many secular standards, and thus couldn't just go their separate ways, but needed to be "divorced," even though they really aren't married.

In either case, the couple wouldn't really be married, so it wouldn't really be divorce in a theological sense, but the Good Shepherd was using the terminology used by His sheep in order to help them.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I have read the incest thing had to do with Gentile marriages that were not square with Christian teaching.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='thedude' post='1113211' date='Nov 6 2006, 08:48 PM']
I have read the incest thing had to do with Gentile marriages that were not square with Christian teaching.
[/quote]
Elaborate.

[jswranch]

One argument used for the disolvability of the marriage covenant is that since Israel broke the marriage covenant with God, spouses can break it with one another, hence they are no longer married and are freed to marry others.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1113230' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:21 PM']
One argument used for the disolvability of the marriage covenant is that since Israel broke the marriage covenant with God, spouses can break it with one another, hence they are no longer married and are freed to marry others.
[/quote]
They carry that over to the New Covenant?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1113228' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:19 PM']
Elaborate.
[/quote]
From the NAB footnote for Matthew 5:31-32:
[quote]Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.[/quote]
[url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm#foot21"]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm#foot21[/url]