Unfortunately, Christianity as a whole doesn't pay much attention to these old fashioned ideas anymore.

The result, in my opinion, is an overall increase in the amount of loneliness and pain.

I assume that you would have people stay in broken and loveless marriages or in marriages shattered by adultery and that in those marriages they would neither be lonely or hurt.

You say; “This is the time meant in Matthew 24.12: "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

Are you absolutely sure that Jesus was referring to this issue (divorce)? And how do you figure that this is the time?

Really you have gone to far, Please consider the harmful nature of your comments in regard the real lives of people who will read them and substantiate your points or retract.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Really you have gone to far, Please consider the harmful nature of your comments in regard the real lives of people who will read them and substantiate your points or retract.

---

Sorry Pyx. I'm just affirming Jesus' words. Are you saying He was wrong?

As for substantiating my points, I work in schools and the pain that I observe every day emanating from broken homes is pretty sad to see. My opinion is that in most cases the parents would have been better off "suffering through" a "loveless" marriage. That is what Jesus seemed to think as well.

But read Matthew 19.9 if you think that Jesus asks people to remain married to an adulterer.

I'm not saying that I really know that this is the time that Jesus was speaking about in Matthew 24. I only mean that this kind of lawlessness is abounding. That is, that Christians routinely ignore Jesus' words about divorce. The result is that the love of many has grown cold - at least that is what I observe.

While there are many positive indicators regarding life in these times, it is no secret that people are more isolated and that relationships are more difficult to sustain than ever. The divorce rate is very high, births out of wedlock are very common, many people are not marrying, and it is difficult to find someone to love. There is a good deal of anxiety about this in the Christian world.

Jesus said what He did for the purpose of reducing pain. I don't see how anyone could argue that the increase in divorces over the past century in Christian countries has led to an overall increase in marital happiness.

Okay - how?

I agree with you in a way. Going through divorce is painful and difficult, and has taken far more thought even than going into marriage did, for me anyway. And I am now Doomed to be Second Class in certain folk's eyes, because I'm tainted, any relationship I ever enter into now will not be My First, and I have failde the test of lifetime fidelity.

Granted, all the above.

However you do perhaps need to leave room for the fact that a lot of us have neither gone into marriage lightly nor left it lightly. The paradox for me is that I felt called out of this one. To remain would have meant utter hypocrisy and a lifetime of lies - and I don't see that that is God's call either.

Perhaps it's one of those issues which you really can't be too black and white about - especially if you haven't gone through it? Iknow for me the immediate result is thinking of all the churches where I wouldn't fit now, and therefore can't get pastoral care. For one thing, my life experience has led me to believe (sadly, but utterly) that some of the 'Bible Truths' we uphold aren't always tenable - which I recognize, coupled with my relative intelligence and leadership qualities, would make me a liabiliy in an Evangelical church -I'd do a lot of damage. So I'll be keeping away.

That's the best some of us can do - marginalize ourselves to save others from having to do it for us!

my in-laws never forgave us for not having a church wedding (even though they lived in saudi arabia at the time). ironically, the other favored siblings who had "church" weddings have had nasty divorces. their marriages are still more valid in my in-laws eyes. too bad having a church wedding isn't like swallowing a magic potion. a marrige, like all relationships, takes work.

i can't say i've ever worried about what God thinks as far as who i should love. love is love. try it on everyone. (i don't mean sex.)

freddy, i agree that there is brokenness all over the place. but i have to disagree when you say people should stay in bad marriages. some are intolerable. somewhere on another thread (?) was mentioned the concepts of a marriage based on friendship and a marriage based on sex.

if there is not friendship, or there is outright abuse, i think it should be ended. if, however, you have a great friend in a marriage, but are sexually dysfunctional or incompatible, i would rather see the marriage stay intact and allow for the development of a relationship outside the marriage. yes, i'm talking adultery. (oh my, what will happen to the Family? well, what's happening to it now?)

admittedly, there are many dangers here. many of these dangers stem from fear and the ability for abuse inherent in "secrecy." also, there are no acceptble models for this type of relationship. it seems easier to weigh the acceptability of war and killing people than to weigh the acceptability of "adultery" and making love. but then, what do i know, not having been married in the church.

lastly, not being RC, if i were faced with re-marriage, divorce would be one of the least of my criteria for judging a suitable partner. though i would want to know as much as possible about what caused it, since history has a way of repeating itself.

I am not at all pro-divorce, having experienced it from the child's point of view, and do think that some people go through it far too easily, labelling boredom or a bad patch as "growing apart" or "irreconcilable differences". But I have also seen some people for whom, after much struggle, it was really the only option.

Before I set off down the road of discussing your overly legalistic position, your ignoring of Jesus’ actions towards the women caught in adultery and the Samaritan women by the well (you know the one with 7 husbands) and your adherence to rules not principles would you please make clear whether divorce is a no no or it is acceptable when adultery is involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Freddy : are you saying you thinks its OK to divorce because of adultery? I am confused, you seem very set on the “no divorce” thing but then you agree with one of my points and quote the Lord back at me!

---

Sorry to be unclear. Jesus said, "whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery." Matthew 19.9

So, yes, it is OK to divorce for adultery. Apparently the reasoning is that the partner has dissolved the marriage by his or her actions. Anyone who has gone through this will tell you that it is pure hell.

quote:

---

Before I set off down the road of discussing your overly legalistic position, your ignoring of Jesus’ actions towards the women caught in adultery and the Samaritan women by the well (you know the one with 7 husbands) and your adherence to rules not principles would you please make clear whether divorce is a no no or it is acceptable when adultery is involved.P

---

Yes, I think I've done that. It is acceptable when adultery in involved.

As for being legalistic, my comment was that this causes a lot of pain in our part of the world. I don't think this is legalistic. I know a lot of people who suffer a great deal because of divorce. I'm not advocating stoning or shunning or anything. We can accept and understand and forgive all we want, but it still hurts when mommy and daddy don't love each other anymore. Jesus was very forgiving of the woman in adultery and the other one as well, and we should be also. My point is that these things are painful anyway.

This morning I sat in church, and the person across from me was an old friend who recently left his very wonderful wife in favor of a new one. Their two teen-age daughters sat beside them. Without in any way suggesting that he made a mistake in leaving the one wife in favor of the other, the pain on the faces of the girls was unmistakable. The pain on the part of the forsaken wife is also, I know, very great. I know these people pretty well, and am very sorry that this has happened.

My point is that in my experience divorce is very sad and painful. I am not thinking that this is news to anyone. When you have good reasons, such as Jesus suggested, you may have to do it. It is still sad and painful, and the pain affects many people. When many people find it necessary to divorce, society as a whole suffers. That is my only comment. I'm not condemning anyone. I'm only saying that it is a sad and painful thing, and that Jesus was right in teaching us that we should limit this kind of thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
I would like to add to those who think that a divorce will affect children less than a bad relationship between parents. Wrong. Every study done support the view that stability is more important than happiness in the life of a child. The generation of rootless children who habitate our streets are the results of selfish parents of whom I was once, one who lost sight of the fact that personal fulfillment is much less important than duty to our children, our families, and most importantly to our God.

---

No, actually, not every study shows this. The majority, as I said and can show you the literature, show that conflict in the home is worse than divorce for long-term outcomes for children. Where the parents can make an effort and get along, that's better than divorce. Where they simply cannot and the only way to prevent conflict is to divorce, the children's outcomes are better than if the parents had stayed together.

my closest friend just filed for divorce 2 weeks ago after 25 years of marriage. she's RC and has 3 daughters. her husband has punished her emotionally for years. he hasn't spoken to her for 4 months (the straw that broke the camel's back.) and won't even tell her why. yet he still wanted sex. obviously she refused. he has refused counselling for 10 years...claims she has problems, he doesn't. she's been on tranquilizers for 3 years. not to belabor her details, but what can a person do in this situation except get out of it? she's a generous, beautiful woman. why should she have to stay in a horrid situation like this? i don't believe Jesus would expect her to.

adultery makes things cut and dry...what about if your life is just a living hell?

quote:

---

daisymay said:
I think that the church /vicar/priest does not marry people - the couple marry each other.

---

Yep, agree totally. And that's the teaching of the church as I understand it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

quote:

---

1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by
expressing their consent before the Church

---

But... it certainly does not follow on that:

quote:

---

God does not join them together; they join themselves.

---

No - the text of the wedding ceremony specifically states "What God has joined together let no man put asunder". Again, from the Catechism:

quote:

---

1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.

---

So God is very much the "third party" in the joining and sealing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
I wonder what the 'divorce is ok only in cases of adultery'poster would say about this situation, and whether it would be fair to condemn someone who did not want divorce from ever marrying again?

---

I'm with you. It seems to me that a "victim" of a divorce, that is, someone who did not want the divorce and did not agree to it, but was divorced anyway, is in a similar position to one whose spouse has committed adultery. They are heartbroken and miserable, in my experience.

Even if the one leaving you does not actually commit adultery before the divorce is final, the intent is the same. They want out of the marriage so that they can be free to pursue others. That should make you free to remarry, in my opinion, without going against what the Lord taught us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
It always strikes me as unfair to treat both partners the same in the divorce/remarriage/adultery debate when one partner did not want a divorce, but the other was determined to go ahead. To say both have done wrong in getting divorced is very upsetting for the person who didn't want that situation in the first place.
I wonder what the 'divorce is ok only in cases of adultery'poster would say about this situation, and whether it would be fair to condemn someone who did not want divorce from ever marrying again? Demanding enforced lifelong celibacy on another person is rather a tall order, I think, especially when they would rather have stayed married.

---

So, are you saying that someone who divorces a partner who abuses them is at fault, or the abuser? - it seems me that you are suggesting the former, in which case your view is beneath dispising.

Sure, if there being no fair grounds, I'd suggest the respondent isn't to be treated as a second-class citizen, but I'd argue that in the case of fair grounds, surely the "victim" is the other party?

Also, those who focus on "beneath the waistline betrayal" seem to me clearly irrational, as it is known that the psychological consequences of other things such as physical assault are much deeper. To label, as some folks are clearly doing, divorce as a serious misdemeanour, doesn't at all start to recognise the emotional difficulties of the 20%+ of marriages in which at least one partner has been assaulted by the other. We don't, I trust, uphold the concept of a spouse as chattel, so reasonable limits of behaviour need to be understood.

Labelling the victim of abuse as a wrongdoer seems completely inconsistent with my conviction of what it is to be a Christian , indeed to be siding clearly and to salve one's conscience on the other side. Pharisees may love one, but I'm not so convinced about the Lord. When you remove from such people the legitimacy of their getting married after a divorce from such circumstances, you are reinforcing a message (and, sorry, your words of comfort are simply hypocritical) that the victim is the sin, and sinner, which is the only logical outcome of such a viewpoint. Indeed, worse than that you are clearly upholding the legitimacy of a marriage which involved degradation and harm, as were such a marriage null and void, then no blame or guilt should apply to a person who left it.

Treating divorce as always a "lifestyle choice" leaves much out of the picture. It sometimes is more of what seems like the only route out of a hell. Sanctifying a second marriage which hopes to resurrect the possibility of appropriate love seems more consistent with a resurrection faith than defending the integrity of the defiled.

However, to return to the OP, the original text I take to be rhetorical, the response to which requires the use of our (sadly fallible) judgement. Whilst we should be careful that repeated divorce and remarriage is not simply seen as a personal freedome, but that the sanctity of marriage (in deed rather than of contract) is to be defended against both human fickleness and human selfishness on both fronts, and thus in extreme cases, remarriage is both appropriate and consistent with a faith that hopes for life.

P.S. sadly much of the strong feelings above comes out of experience.

what about the person locked in a marriage where the other partner doesn't want sex or a divorce?

i must have misunderstood chorister's post, because i thought she was commenting on the unfairness of expecting someone to endure involuntary celibacy rather than allowing them a divorce.

paul, i agree. something is wrong with our understanding of marriage. i think your colleague is symptomatic of a great problem of our age. that of having to do something exciting every blessed minute of the day. add another person to that formula and it's no wonder someone, or both, get blamed for causing the boredom. couples should have to do lamaze(sp?) training (breathing excersises for birthing) for marriage, too. learn how to spend time together just breathing...no excitement. sometimes it will be that way.

If most of the divorces that happened were because someone was beating the hell out of the other, or because sex was being refused for no good reason (I consider regular beatings or being drug addicted a good reason) then I wouldn't be so worried about the divorce rate. I would be worried about the rate of violence and the lack of tenderness in marriage.

But I don't think that's the way it is. While violence in marriage is nothing to minimize, it does not explain anything like the majority of divorces. I know many people who have been divorced. I only know of one case where violence was involved (although I admit that you don't always know).

I don't think that we want to base societal norms on these extreme cases. On the other hand if marriages are really that bad, then what do we have to lose?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
If most of the divorces that happened were because someone was beating the hell out of the other, or because sex was being refused for no good reason (I consider regular beatings or being drug addicted a good reason) then I wouldn't be so worried about the divorce rate. I would be worried about the rate of violence and the lack of tenderness in marriage.

---

The background population data is that about 30% of marriages will include a physical assault at some point, with about 20 to 25% of all marriages having multiple assaults. (i.e. the behaviour tends to be repetitive if it occurs at all).

Though such events do not explain the majority of divorces (and I suspect the 48% figure is baloney, personally) they do represent a substantial proportion of divorces. Scarier again is the 5% of marriages which include multiple and mutual assault.

We are a frightening species at times.

I can only speak for myself, and our circumstances are rather exceptional. But we have tried as far as possible to have a Christian separation. We've prayed about it together. Our kids support our decision. We are leaving church for new places in two weeks, and half the people at the farewell parties haven't realised we're splitting up yet.

It is POSSIBLE to be amicable. But I would say, not in every circumstance. My Gran stayed in an emotionally abusive marriage for over fifty years 'because God wanted it' - even though she had a way out... and I have drawn on that to find the courage to go through this. It ISN'T always better to stay.

Another aspect is the vows made to each other; a promise is a promise. A promise made before God is a VERY serious promise. Yet we seem to think we can walk away from it and get remarried.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
So God is very much the "third party" in the joining and sealing.

Kirsti

---

But I don't think the wedding ceremony is right; I think that people can be married in a civil ceremony, or by making a public statement of commitment to each other. I don't think God joins them. This is words made up by people in the past.

If a marriage is a living hell for the partners, the children too are in that hell. So free them. Let them all go free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's be clear - the issue here is remarriage; there is often a case for a marriage to be closed down by a legal seperation, but I am sceptical that there is often an excuse for remarriage given this argument. Yes life is tough - but given that that is the covenant you enter when you marry, then you don't have the right to renegotiate later. Of course this isn't a very popular belief these days....

---

So again thinking about the innocent parties here - the children - in many, many divorces the children lose contact with one or other parent. I am sure you would agree that it is better for children to be raised by two parents than only one.

And she hasn't even SEEN Ender's Shadow's posts! lol

No but seriously folks...

This Just Won't Do.

Are we saying 'Christian' (i.e. CHURCH) marriage is the only way?

Am I now genuinely doomed to being a Second Class Christian cos I still would like to meet the Right Person - or even have several shots at it??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:

This Just Won't Do.

Are we saying 'Christian' (i.e. CHURCH) marriage is the only way?

Am I now genuinely doomed to being a Second Class Christian cos I still would like to meet the Right Person - or even have several shots at it??

---

quote:

---

- in effect to punish the failure of both sides to deter them from failing

---

Since when was it our job (as Christians) to punish people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
My duaghter (14) wanted to start a thread called, "The church is a load of crap and bollocks."
And she hasn't even SEEN Ender's Shadow's posts! lol

---

This would logically follow, since Ender was merely affirming what the church routinely teaches. So our churches have doctrines, and we feel free to reject them, and vilify those who agree with them.

What kind of system is that?

Gill, it really seems as though you and your daughter should find a church that you actually like and agree with. Or maybe you do agree with your church and only disagree with Ender and others on this list who take Jesus' words literally.

But I don't agree that this makes you a second class church member. This is what churches were created to deal with.

It seems very sad that a church should believe that it's corporate role is to punish it's members.

I got married once, with lots of words from an Anglican prayer book. i was very disappointed to find, when reconsidering that decision, how abstracted and distant most of it's words are from anything in the bible. Inanna tells us that the Latin church says that people join themselves, and god gives consent. I hope that when i granted R her freedom, and absolved her of her promises, so did god.

People join themselves. people tear themselves apart. god loves them all anyway.

BUT which church do I decide I'm not in agreement with? For goodness' sake, I'm beyond the pale in some already for having preached whilst under the influence of oestrogen. This is why it's such a nonsense - denominations, shnominations.

My daughter, BTW, bases her view of the church on
a) how her gay father has been emotionally abused by some of those in authority
b) how we have been left to struggle with that as a family
c) the fact that we've brought them up not to keep 'Bad Secrets' whilst being forced to keep some ourselves so as not to rock the Ecclesiatical Ship.

She's 14. The age I was when I rebelled INTO Christianity. I'm not too worried about her! The 16 yr old is doing Theology 'A' level. And has some interesting insights.

Back to the OP - I really feel more and more that there are plenty of people who remain married, even having the prescribed amount of sex (hatever that is) who - let me say it clearly - DON'T REPRESENT GOD'S LOVE TO PEOPLE IN THE WAY THEY SHOULD.

a) the church needs to do more to help Christians take marriage more seriously, and perhaps, enter into it more thoughtfully.

b) the church needs to help Christians learn how to build good, health marriages

c) create an atmosphere where people are able to be honest about what goes on behind closed doors and seek help and support when they need it

d) remember Christ's treatment of the Samaritian woman (the one with many husbands) and the woman taken in adultry - when he just showed love and acceptance to them first and then, challenged their lifestyle.

It's probably easier to change after you've been accepted and shown love than before. There's too much judgement here and not enough compassion. However glib people are about the whys and wherefores of their marriage breakup, it usually hides a world of pain and suffering ....

Some marriages fail because the people can't be bothered to sort their problems - true.

A lot fail because they simple do not know how to make it work.

We can address the last category with good marriage preparation (thankfully now being offered to registry office weddings here in Exeter) and support. Common Worship, at least, offers the following to be included in the marriage ceremony - we had it in ours and I'm very glad we did -
"Will you, the families and friends of N and N, support and uphold them in their marriage
now and in the years to come?
All We will."

quote:

---

Some marriages fail through no fault of at least one of the parties (eg the other partner is abusive).

Some fail because the two people were never really compatible in the first place - a mistake was made before the marriage even began.
...

Some marriages fail because the people can't be bothered to sort their problems - true.

A lot fail because they simple do not know how to make it work.

---

Thank you Sean

One of the things I really disliked about some of the posts here is the central assumption that alot of marriages fail because people simply can't be arsed to work things through ... And in all the cases I've seen, this isn't the case.

If all we have to offer people is judgement (You should do this ... You should do that ... Fancey being a divorcee ... What a failure you are ... ) and not help or healing then we have completely misunderstood the central message of the gospel

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In referring to punishment, I am only extending the logic of the criminal law to another equally sin filled area. If you think about the purpose of the criminal punishments in terms of detering a person's behaviour, then the same logic really does apply; we are seeking to prevent behaviour that tends towards the breakdown of the marriage by making the outcome very negative. Or rather that is the way that God requires for Christians - I am only trying to provide a rationale for the unambiguous teaching of Paul, reporting the words of Jesus, that divorcees should not marry someone else (1 Cor 7 v 10,11). Given that instruction from God, we are on very dangerous ground if we feel free to disregard it and go and marry again.

---

Okay, so it is better to punish those who find that their spouses are gay, or whose spouses have abused them or their children, etc. than to be just.

Fine.

Well in my view that those who would punish the innocent for the sins visited upon them, as you suggest, would be wise to take the views of Jesus on those who come between the children of God and the gospel - take a millstone around their neck and jump in the water.

I don't think children are better off in a desperately bad marriage - its harmful for them then, and is provably bad for them in their later life, particularly where they are also at risk. Giving children an experience of marriage which is twisted and warped seems to be a bad lesson of "love".

I have a friend whose husband was so violent, my family had to fend him off his wife and children with guns, and I kid you not. What sort of corruption of marriage is it to uphold such ties as valid? What 'love' do children get from being bound into such a contract? What holiness is to be found in such barbarity?

P.S. and arguing that those whose spouses turn out to be profoundly incompatible with a proper marriage are not "second class citizens" when you refuse to honour their right to finding a proper relationship is a clear dishonour to them on top of the difficulty of their experiences. In arguing such, one is clearly stating that they are less than when they first married, which is just rubbing salt in their wounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Punishment of the victim is, in my view, the joy of Satan, not of the Lord.

---

This talk of punishment leaves me a little queasy. Whoever gets punished for divorce? The worst I've observed is the disapproval of certain people, and the occasional unwillingness on the part of a priest to do a wedding. It's not exactly stoning.

Few people on this board are opposed to the expression of disapproval as a punishment, if what I've seen here is any indication. If Ender is talking abut anything more serious than that I would be surprised.

When Jesus spoke out about issues such as this He made people so angry that they wanted to stone Him, and eventually crucify Him. It is interesting that if you look at the kind of things that He advocated, you will never find Him recommending that people overthrow the government, or even the hirarchy of the chief priests and Pharisees. He never advocated anything that would amount to a punishment - except for prophecying eternal punishment for certain kinds of people.

People reacted to His words, however, as if He was holding their children hostage.

I know that it is only in fun, but I'm seeing suggestions here that people advocating certain positions ought to be drowned, or drown themselves.

My own feeling is that we need to be very forgiving in these cases, and very unwilling to make judgments about the private lives of others. I can't see doling our punishments other than the inevitable disapproval of our peers when we break commonly held moral standards. We especially shouldn't do things that approach blaming or punishing the victim(s).

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
So, are you saying that someone who divorces a partner who abuses them is at fault, or the abuser? - it seems me that you are suggesting the former, in which case your view is beneath dispising.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
Hey! who said anything about in cases of abuse??? it certainly wasn't me! I'm talking about someone walking off if they get bored, want a change, think the grass is greener, etc. Talk about cases of abuse if you like, but don't blame me for it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
This talk of punishment leaves me a little queasy. Whoever gets punished for divorce? The worst I've observed is the disapproval of certain people, and the occasional unwillingness on the part of a priest to do a wedding. It's not exactly stoning.

---

quote:

---

Few people on this board are opposed to the expression of disapproval as a punishment, if what I've seen here is any indication. If Ender is talking abut anything more serious than that I would be surprised.

---

quote:

---

When Jesus spoke out about issues such as this He made people so angry that they wanted to stone Him, and eventually crucify Him. It is interesting that if you look at the kind of things that He advocated, you will never find Him recommending that people overthrow the government, or even the hirarchy of the chief priests and Pharisees. He never advocated anything that would amount to a punishment - except for prophecying eternal punishment for certain kinds of people.

---

Perhaps you could actually address the situation of those whom you would exclude from marriage due to them having been unfortunate enough to have had a hellish excuse of one before?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
I meant the millstone comment in all seriousness - I seem to remember Jesus making the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
You clearly stated that remarriage is never allowed - that is a punishment, as I have made clear.

---

Well it's not much of one. Few people are actually denied remarriage. Besides, this is simply what Jesus said. Would you care to comment on what you think of His views? What would you say to Him if you had heard His little proclamations on this subject?

To be clear, my own view is that remarriage is appropriate and according to Jesus' teaching when the former spouse has committed adultery.

This would include a number of things that amount to the same thing - such as being married to a practicing homosexual spouse, or having been divorced by your spouse against your will, or having a spouse who is obsessed with pornography and similar things.

In cases of abuse I would advocate getting the hell out of there as quickly as possible. But there is often no happy solution if you are married to a truly vicious or dangerous person. People do go to prison for spousal abuse, but I know that the victim is often treated as badly by the courts as by the spouse.

Strictly speaking I would advocate separation but not divorce if the abusive spouse remained faithful and was trying to reform. But practically speaking I know that the ramifications usually make divorce the only realistic option. I don't know of a priest who would refuse remarriage in that case if they knew the facts.

Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They were sure that it would somehow be better for their children that way. My observation is that their actions are cruel to their children, and that they themselves don't end up any happier than before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Well it's not much of one. Few people are actually denied remarriage. Besides, this is simply what Jesus said. Would you care to comment on what you think of His views? What would you say to Him if you had heard His little proclamations on this subject?

---

quote:

---

To be clear, my own view is that remarriage is appropriate and according to Jesus' teaching when the former spouse has committed adultery.

---

quote:

---

This would include a number of things that amount to the same thing - such as being married to a practicing homosexual spouse, or having been divorced by your spouse against your will, or having a spouse who is obsessed with pornography and similar things.

---

quote:

---

In cases of abuse I would advocate getting the hell out of there as quickly as possible. But there is often no happy solution if you are married to a truly vicious or dangerous person. People do go to prison for spousal abuse, but I know that the victim is often treated as badly by the courts as by the spouse.

---

quote:

---

Strictly speaking I would advocate separation but not divorce if the abusive spouse remained faithful and was trying to reform. But practically speaking I know that the ramifications usually make divorce the only realistic option. I don't know of a priest who would refuse remarriage in that case if they knew the facts.

---

quote:

---

Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They were sure that it would somehow be better for their children that way. My observation is that their actions are cruel to their children, and that they themselves don't end up any happier than before.

---

quote:

---

This is an area, however, where it is extremely difficult to generalize. Every case is different. We shouldn't make judgments. Still, we have to acknowledge that divorce causes a great deal of pain in our world.

---

quote:

---

Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They

---

You might find Rob Parson's marriage books extremely helpful on this issue.

Rob talks about the loss of love very well, and with great common sense. One of the points he makes is that the "loss of love" is usually caused by years of neglect etc. And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things