Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Divorce: The Authorized and Compleat® Argument

Thread: Purgatory: Divorce: The Authorized and Compleat® Argument Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001048

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

[Bear with me, this is going to be a long OP]

I have asked several people in the context of the +Robinson arguments [which I'm not proposing to continue here], why it is that the Episcopal Church which has its current collective knickers in a twist about homosexuclergy (thanks, Wood, for a great word) will ordain divorced and remarried bishops, without even conducting long, horrible inquiries into whether their divorces were based on the only ground arguably allowed by NT scripture (adultery) (the OT writers were clear that more causes were allowed to our OT forbears).

The answer I have heard is that the key difference is, if homosexuality is in fact a sin, then the non-celibate gay bishop in question is living a public life of sin, and asking that it be celebrated. Whereas the bishop who is divorced may say, I sinned a while back, but I'm in a good Christian marriage now and I'm sorry for what happened. The sin was in the past and is repented. (now, I realize that +Robinson is both non-celibately gay and divorced, and so he is not off the hook on this point)(and as I mentioned, I really don't want to talk about him anyway)(Really. Go somewhere else to do that).

But then I thought, this is a nonsensical distinction. The Gospels have Jesus several times indicating that those persons who divorce and then remarry (assuming that the one condition mentioned by Matthew (not Mark), adultery, is absent) are themselves committing adultery. Presumably, ongoing adultery, too. Every sexual act with the new spouse is adulterous and sinful.

Therefore, the remarried bishop is living in as flagrant and ongoing a sin, and is every bit as much asking the Church to celebrate it (assuming he remarried in the Church) as the gay bishop living with his partner is.

So, being an religioacademigeek, I went and looked for all the scriptural bases for Christian attitudes on divorce.

+++

The OT clearly shows that it was accepted under certain circumstances, and there was a procedure for it; other passages show it disapproved of or not thought of well.

In Genesis 2:24,

quote:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

According to one source I have read, "joined" here is the translation from the Hebrew word "dabaq" which means to "make a permanent alliance." Nobody knows whether this is a simple statement of practical truth or a theological "fact" meaning divorce isn't possible. There have been arguments on both sides (e.g., C.S. Lewis)

The writer of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 speaks of allowing a man to divorce for "uncleanness", and prohibits a woman so divorced from remarrying her first husband, but she can marry another:

quote:
1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Ezra 10:1-16 and Nehemiah 13:23-30 tell of the forced divorce of foreign wives taken by Jews during the Babylonian captivity:
Ezra 10:10-11:

quote:
Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt of Israel. 11 Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers, and do His will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the pagan wives.

Malachi says that (2:14-16) divorce is very bad:

quote:
14 Yet you say, "For what reason?"
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the
wife of his youth.

16 "For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one's garment with
violence,"
Says the LORD of hosts.
"Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.

Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.

Mark 10:2-12 admits of no valid grounds for divorce in what I find a very elegant passage.

quote:
2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her."
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female.'
7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

What is Jesus saying here? Is it (with his customary "you have said/but I say" didactic format) that divorce is not the ideal, but was in the past allowed because of human imperfection, and he is now saying that that doesn't apply anymore? It seems to me that this could be so.

Matthew and Luke have Jesus being more lenient on the subject. According to a religioustolerance.org article re: divorce, "by the first century CE, the law of divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1 was being interpreted in many ways: the Shammai school taught that a man could only divorce his wife if she committed adultery; the Hillel school taught that the man could divorce her if he found anything disagreeable in her. Jesus here is making his views known; he agrees with the Shammai interpretation. He says that a wife's adultery is the only valid grounds for divorce."

Matthew 5:31-32 states

quote:
31 Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

and later,

Matthew 19:3-9

quote:
3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' 5 and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

According to Luke (16:18) Remarriage is not permitted, but divorce isn't, explicitly:

quote:
18Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Finally, Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians 7:10-17 that separation is okay for those who choose to live a chaste life and that remarriage is permitted when a non-Christian spouse divorces a Christian one.

quote:
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

I read Paul as saying that Jesus (yet not I, but the Lord") rejects divorce, but Paul would say ("I, not the Lord") that the Christian whose unbeliever spouse has left may remarry.

++++++++++++++

Given all of this clarity on the subject (in contrast to other vexed issues), why do so many churches allow divorce/es to remarry in the Church, or will bless the Civil Unions of those who remarry/marry a divorced person? And why remarried/divorced bishops?

In my mind, the only acceptable justification has to be that Scripture, with Tradition and Reason (or with Tradition, Reason and Experience, if you're into four-legged stools) lead us to believe that divorce and remarriage is really okay after all. I say "okay", because allowing divorce/es a church marriage is certainly celebrating what Jesus said several times was adultery. And we do know how God felt about adultery. (See, e.g., Commandments 7, 10).

I'm not convinced that Scripture, Tradition and Reason support any such statement. On the other hand, the Catholic Church allows for annulments under several circumstances in which adultery is not an issue -- immaturity, non-consummation, mental defect, non-consent. I would personally say that a spouse should not have to tolerate abuse or cruelty. Is cruelty arguably a form of infidelity that would trigger the adultery exception?

I'm not here intending to criticise our divorced shipmates, and am not primarily interested in personal/anecdotal arguments about "why you've hurt my feelings because my divorce is justified". I personally have no idea whether remarriage after divorce is adultery. I'm interested in knowing how we are to understand the scriptural restrictions on divorce; and by what justification modern churches came to the decision to allow ordinary divorcees to remarry, given the clear voice of scripture on this issue.

I guess a sort of sidebar to all of this is my own personal suspicion that divorce is allowed because the Church at some point privately conceded that Jesus' teachings thereupon are impractical and further, that there are so very many divorcees these days, that the modern church can't afford to alienate them; whereas many Churches can afford (at least for the present) to hold the line on other forms of scripturtally and traditionally condemned sexual conduct because they apply to fewer persons. But that's just an unworthy personal suspicion.

What thinks anyone else about any of this?

[thought I'd get out an OP that long without one mistake?]

[ 08. January 2006, 21:58: Message edited by: Erin ]

Posted by sharkshoooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
[Bear with me, this is going to be a long OP]
...
What thinks anyone else about any of this?

Wow. What an OP.

Divorce is a sin. I have no problem with that - I have always believed it. In fact when faced with it, I felt I might be abandoned by my family and my church because of it. That that did not happen is a tribute to love reaching to a higher level than the law.

Remarriage - I never dealt with whether this was a sin or not. It was never communicated to me that it would not be appropriate. Not my church, not the church my wife was from, not my family or friends. It is only in the last few years (not coindidentally after joining the Ship) has the argument really struck me.

I was again surprised when my current church ordained me as an elder in spite of my divorce and remarriage.

As you can imagine, it is not completely resolved in my mind. I am looking forward to seeing what others have to say as well.

Posted by Borzoi Wally Boy (# 3245) on :

My understanding in Orthodoxy is that remarriage after divorce is granted as part of the economy of salvation. I believe it must be done after consultation with a priest and that the rite is different, I think maybe having a penitential aspect. I know other shipmates know much more about this than me. My understanding is also that the Orthodox Church does not view adultery as simply a physical sexual act, adultery can have a much more complex meaning.

This isn't an issue as far as the clergy go. Priests married before ordination cannot marry again, or marry after ordination and bishops can't be married at all.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Borzoi Wally Boy:
This isn't an issue as far as the clergy go. Priests married before ordination cannot marry again, or marry after ordination and bishops can't be married at all.

Well, it isn't an issue in the Orthodox Church, maybe. [Big Grin]

I'm more interested in what you say about the Orthodox understanding of what "adultery" is. I'm sure it has something to do with Orthodox Tradition, and that Pops Gregorios will be around to explain it all shortly.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Laura wrote:

quote:
I guess a sort of sidebar to all of this is my own personal suspicion that divorce is allowed because the Church at some point privately conceded that Jesus' teachings thereupon are impractical and further, that there are so very many divorcees these days, that the modern church can't afford to alienate them; whereas many Churches can afford (at least for the present) to hold the line on other forms of scripturtally and traditionally condemned sexual conduct because they apply to fewer persons. But that's just an unworthy personal suspicion.

It's one I've always shared. [Two face]

Divorce seems to be acceptable because it affects "people like us" while other things are not okay because they affect "people like them". And "we don't like them" [Big Grin]

Tubbs

[ 11. March 2004, 19:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

From the Religious Tolerance website, the following is a good summary of the current scope of Christian views on the subject:

1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. (Religious liberal and secular view).

Posted by Borzoi Wally Boy (# 3245) on :

Hopefully Pops or another more knowledgeable shipmate will be along to correct or add to what I said. In the meantime though...

I think adultery can be seen not merely as an act of sexual infidelity, but as a witholding of oneself from the partner in a marriage and giving onself to something else. Examples I can think of would be an addiction to drugs or gambling, or excessive devotion to a career or other pursuit.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

I did some poking around, and determined that revised language for the CofE position on remarriage was in the works a few years ago -- in 1999, the House of Bishops, proposed new laws concerning remarriage, allowing that "...divorced persons may remarry if they meet at least twice with their parish clergy, who must seek the advice of the bishop; if each person has looked honestly at his or her first marriage, fully disclosing to the prospective partner the background that led to the divorce; if the children and spouse from the previous marriage are provided for; if the couple's new relationship was not responsible for the end of the previous marriage; and if neither the bride nor the groom has been divorced more than once."

Did this change ever go into effect?

Anyway, as to Wally's point, what do you think Jesus was talking about? Did he mean by adultery that your spouse was a workaholic? I suspect not. I suspect that "adultery" was understood in the common way, and that abandonment to play Civilization III for weeks on end doesn't count. The word in Matthew is porneia, usually understood to refer to habitual sexual immorality.

[ 11. March 2004, 20:17: Message edited by: Laura. ]

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

More poking around reveals that there are two different ways of understanding the impact of remarriage after divorce. The Catholic view is that the adultery is ongoing with each sexual act, because the former marriage is still operational. One protestant view is that the second marriage and subsequent sexual acts represent adultery, which is a sin, but also breaks the first marriage, freeing the wronged spouse. The sinning spouse is also, therefore, free, and bound to the second marriage. This seems a bit circular.

As to priests, I presume the Orthodox restriction against remarrieds becoming priests is from (in part) I Timothy 3:2, 12, re elders and deacons being "the husband of one wife". Some have read this against polygamy, but that's probably not so, because polygamy was not widely practiced at that time, but divorce was widespread among Jews and Gentiles alike.

[ 11. March 2004, 20:26: Message edited by: Laura. ]

Posted by Borzoi Wally Boy (# 3245) on :

I think the understanding of what adultery meant in Jesus' words is clear, and that is the standard. I think the broader meaning of adultery is what plays in to the economy aspect, i.e. why there can be exceptions in some cases for the laity. Should someone willingly withdraw themselves from a marriage, but there are other factors at work aside from sexual infidelity, the church will show compassion over strict adherence to the rules.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

First of all, Christian marriage, in theory and in practice, has not been an unchanging institution since Jesus spoke about it. Even our Orthodox brothers should admit aspects of an Orthodox marriage today don't enjoy the witness of two thousand years.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed. (Roman Catholic)

I would consider this inaccurate. Perhaps when the Church controlled all legal aspects of marriage this may have been true. Now, one can file for divorce without recourse to the Church, and the Church may advocate doing so in cases of abuse.

However marriage remains a valid sacrament, and as long as the marriage remains valid in the eyes of the Church, "remarrying" would constitute adultery. If it can be shown that the marriage was for some reason invalid, an annulment can be granted and the man and woman couldn't commit adultery by marrying someone else.

A survey of the history of the sacramental nature of marriage will reveal that often there have been those opposed to considering marriage as a sacrament (Calvin and Luther come to mind among others). In the court of popular opinion it appears that this view is prevailing.

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage, really I do."-- Britney Spears

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.

Back to the so-called adultery exception, I've just read something that makes an interesting point. Jesus' citation of the Mosaic exception is not for adultery (moiceia), but for fornication (porneia). The argument goes that, as fornication referred to sexual indiscretion before marriage, this exception referred to later-discovered sexual activity before marriage. Under Jewish law, if a husband found upon consummation that his wife had not been a virgin, he was allowed to put her away and try again -- this is what Joseph is thinking of doing with regard to Mary.

What Jesus is saying then, is if someone puts away his wife, except for fornication (porneia), he forces her to commit adultery (moiceia). He isn't saying you can put away your spouse for adultery, (moiceia), because you wouldn't have to -- adultery was at the time punishable by death -- and the wronged spouse would be free then to remarry.

So there arguably goes even that exception.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

Although I suppose you could say, as the law currently discourages stoning your adulterous husband or wife, a modern reading of Jesus would require that there be some sort of "out". [Big Grin]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

A few observations to start with...

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
According to a religioustolerance.org article re: divorce, "by the first century CE, the law of divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1 was being interpreted in many ways: the Shammai school taught that a man could only divorce his wife if she committed adultery; the Hillel school taught that the man could divorce her if he found anything disagreeable in her. Jesus here is making his views known; he agrees with the Shammai interpretation. He says that a wife's adultery is the only valid grounds for divorce."

The School of Hillel did, indeed, teach that a man could divorce his wife for a wide range of reasons, including failing in her domestic duties, for example. Rabbi Akiba went further and said that a man could divorce his wife if he found another woman fairer than his wife.

This makes the account as given in Mark rather odd, as Jesus is asked whether divorce is permissible. In first century Judaism this doesn't seem to have been an issue; the issue was on what grounds divorce was persmissible.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.

I agree that Mark is quite clear, and the exception in Matthew is likely to be a later addition (there is no exception in Luke [Confused]

). It is unlikely that Mark dropped from the saying of Jesus an exception originally there, as it would make the saying harder to accept and more likely to be rejected.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Anyway, as to Wally's point, what do you think Jesus was talking about? Did he mean by adultery that your spouse was a workaholic? I suspect not. I suspect that "adultery" was understood in the common way, and that abandonment to play Civilization III for weeks on end doesn't count. The word in Matthew is porneia, usually understood to refer to habitual sexual immorality.

There is much debate on the meaning of porneia. It suggests sexual immorality of some sort, but exactly what is unclear. It seems to be different from simply adultery which in Greek is moicheia. That the two can be distinguished is suggested by the fact that the two words are used alongside each other in the list in Mark 7:21-22. It has been suggested that it means incest, but this would make the exception almost meaningless as an incestuous marriage wouldn't have been regarded as a marriage and the question of divorce wouldn't have arisen. There may be a conflict between Judaic and Roman pratice here, however.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
He isn't saying you can put away your spouse for adultery, (moiceia), because you wouldn't have to -- adultery was at the time punishable by death -- and the wronged spouse would be free then to remarry.

The death penalty for adultery had probably ceased to be practiced by this point. Joseph found that Mary had, it seemed, been unfaithful. His reaction was to put her away (divorce), not stoning.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.

I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.

Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.

Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?

WRT to fornication, again, I think that the anachronistic suggestion that today's proscription against "sexual indiscretion before marriage" has an unbroken Jewish or Christian history is overly simplistic.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Regarding the "one flesh" idea, the implication seems to be of something like a blood tie, as between a child and its parents or between siblings. The tie of child to parents is replaced by an equally binding tie to a spouse, and one which cannot be broken as a child-parent bond cannot be broken, except by death. However, it is unclear in what sense God can be said to join together in marriage. In Judaism, as in Christianity, it is the two parties who bind themselves to each other. Marriage can be seen as a civil action, not requiring the sanction of God.

Posted by JohnBoot (# 3566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:

1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)

I'll reveal my ignorance of Protestantism: what Protestant denominations uphold either (1) or (2)?

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

Chapelead - taking you up on that idea, a step-parent who was there for most of your cildhood may be a very *real* parent but not flesh and blood... *thinking*

Im curious too when to define the "ending" of a marriage... when the heart strays/ is absent, seperate rooms, when one leaves, when the divorce papers come through. It can take 5yrs legally if both parties arent happy... but if we stick to a "one flesh" idea, then 5years seperate living isnt very one flesh.

Maybe seperating the communion isnt ideal but happens...

Posted by Martin PC not & unOrthodox (# 368) on :

I find 1st Corinthians 7 awesomely balanced, fair, merciful and honest: Paul faithfully extrapolating from the intent of the law, the definitive basis for Christian marriage law. It seems to cover all contingencies.

Posted by Saviour Tortoise (# 4660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.

Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.

Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?

I think this is an interesting point. It has always seemed to me that churches which allow remarriage after divorce should have some ceremony by which the couple are divorsed. I'm making no judgement as to whether they should allow remarriage or not. But if they do, then the couple must be freed/absolved/somethinged from the vows they made in the name of God the first time around. Otherwise, they are breaking those vows publicly with the encouragement of the church and this seems like a bad idea.

If the church is going to recognise divorse it should have the honesty to do it properly and make it part of the life of the church. At the moment those churches which allow remarriage seem to get involved with the nice bit, the wedding, and ignore the tricky bit, the divorse. Doesn't seem right some how.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Let's look a little closer at this passage:

quote:
Mark 10
11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).

Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.

Posted by josefina (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
It has always seemed to me that churches which allow remarriage after divorce should have some ceremony by which the couple are divorsed.

The Orthodox Church doesn't have a ceremony for divorce, because a divorce is a sin. Always, no matter what the grounds are, it is a sin. Having a ceremony in which one sins, formally, before the whole church, just isn't something we're going to do.

However, the Orthodox Church recognizes that, because we are fallen, the ideal of one marriage for life is not going to be possible for some of us. That reality has to be dealt with.

It's normal for someone to be excommunicate for a period of time after a divorce is finalized. On the approval of a bishop, the person can be readmitted to communion through the Sacrament of Confession.

As for remarriage, we have a separate rite for second marriage, which is penitential in character, making it clear that the second marriage is permitted as a concession to human weakness and frailty.

Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)

Posted by JohnBoot (# 3566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)

Well, I'll bite. Why is a second and a third marriage okay but a fourth is not? How about a fifth? Who made up this rule?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Here we go again. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Ley, it should be clear that I'm talking not about the state at all in any of this. I'm talking about what the Churches hold, individually. The Catholic Church officially takes no notice of secular divorce. Nor do I imagine it should.
I'm guessing that someone with an anullment would also have to secure a secular divorce to marry in the Church.

Likewise I bet protestants require previously married people to have a secular divorce before they marry again.

I'm sure they do, but that would be because they don't want to create a situation where someone is breaking the civil law by entering into bigamy. And in the US at least, doesn't the priest/minister/JP sign the marriage certificate? If I'm correct about this, it's an unfortunate side effect of the delegation of enacting a civil legal function to church officials. (But that's another, though related, subject.)

quote:
Given that very few religious organizations have divorce ceremonies, I think the role of secular divorce is important. When does one cease to be married, after divorce or right before you say "I do" again?

As Saviour Tortoise has already pointed out, it would be a lot cleaner and clearer if churches which accepted grounds for dissolving marriage vows (annulment, divorce, whatever they want to call it) had some sort of formal process and/or ceremony.

Of course, there would still be the problem of deciding how to deal with the marriage/divorce/annulments of potential partners which took place under the auspices of civil authorities and/or other church authorities with different policies, so there would still be problems at the day-to-day level with the laity. But it seems to me that it would make things a lot clearer at the bishop level.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:

quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
Further, a second (or third) marriage requires the permission of the bishop. (Fourth marriages are not permitted.)
Well, I'll bite. Why is a second and a third marriage okay but a fourth is not? How about a fifth? Who made up this rule?

As a (divorced and remarried RC) friend of my father's used to say, "You're allowed to make one mistake, but you're expected to learn from it and not make it again."

Perhaps the Orthodox Fathers, in their wisdom, realized that they needed to give themselves a bit of wiggle room to accommodate the really slow learners?

Posted by Katie L. (# 1996) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look a little closer at this passage:

quote:
Mark 10
11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).

Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.

Well, whenever I look at Jesus' statements on divorce (which I agree, seem pretty unambigous), I notice that they don't mention two people agreeing mutually to divorce. Such situations were perhaps rare or even non-existent in those days.

Are two people who really tried but failed to work it out less sinful than the man who dumps his wife of 30 years for somebody younger, or the wife who disappears with another man because he has rock-hard abs? To me they are less sinful, but would it make any difference to Jesus? Should it make any difference to the church?

Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :

I'm not sure what the policy of my current diocese is, but I do know what the policy of my old one was.

In Oklahoma, in the Episcopal Church, first marriages are allowed (obviously). Second marriages are allowed IF the couple goes to see a therapist chosen by the Church to make sure that whatever issues caused the first marriage to fail have been resolved, and the Bishop must give his permission.

To get married a third time would take almost an act of God, as it again takes the Bishop's approval which is almost never given. Anything beyond that...Nope, not in the Church.

Posted by josefina (# 3899) on :

I forgot to mention, the rite of second marriage is used in the Orthodox church for any second marriage -- that is, if you've been married before, whether you were divorced or widowed, you'd get the rite of second marriage the second time around.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :

My older brother managed to have his third marriage blessed by the church in a church. Still not sure how he managed it. Maybe because the first two were garden weddings. Who knows.

And here am I, still stuck with the same old Sig Other. And I didn't get so much as a toaster.

Posted by Katie L. (# 1996) on :

quote:
Originally posted by josefina:
I forgot to mention, the rite of second marriage is used in the Orthodox church for any second marriage -- that is, if you've been married before, whether you were divorced or widowed, you'd get the rite of second marriage the second time around.

So, even if your spouse died you are only allowed to marry again as a concession to human frailty? Why is that?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Katie L.:
Well, whenever I look at Jesus' statements on divorce (which I agree, seem pretty unambigous), I notice that they don't mention two people agreeing mutually to divorce. Such situations were perhaps rare or even non-existent in those days.

Presumably Jesus didn't mention such a scenario because it would not have made sense to his listeners – there simply was no ‘divorce by mutual consent’ per se .

In Judaism a man could divorce his wife, but a woman could not divorce her husband (the most she could do was ask for a divorce). In Roman society men and women could divorce each other. Herodias seems to have divorced her first husband, Philip, in order to marry Herod. Possibly she was taking advantage of Roman ideas, or perhaps it was a case someone in a position of power doing what they liked (and dealing effectively with that meddlesome John the Baptist when he told them off).

Mark’s account is again noticeable with regard to this point. He describes the situation where a woman divorces her husband. This may well indicate the growing effect of Roman society on the early church by the time he wrote his gospel.

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :

1Timothy:11-12

"As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge."

St Paul seemed to be of the opinion that a widow or a widower should remain faithful to the marriage even after bereavement. As to how this sits with his encouragement of younger widows to remarry in order to avoid the temptation to gossip, I am unsure.

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :

Divorce is no light matter but to view a subsequent marriage as adultery is too harsh(IMO). I have have three reasons for holding this view. 1) I find arguments that Jesus' apparent position on adultery perhaps needs to be seen in the light of his specific history and culture persuasive (does that make me a cultural relativist?) 2) people make mistakes (even about important things). 3) We are forgiven for our sins past and present, so long as we are sincere in our repentence.

Of course such a position could leave the sanctity of marriage open to abuse, however, marriage and life long commitment are serious undertakings and I think the church does its best to uphold them. But we now live in a different society than Jesus did. Notions of personal fulfilment and quality of life have changed (no one has to live as battered wife, a bullied husband, or to passively accept being misunderstood and lonely for 20 years or more any longer). These days "So long as we both shall live" is perhaps best viewed as an achievable ideal rather than an absolute rule.

I think the debate is less about scripture and tradition and more about reason and experience and knowledge of people and the realities of life. Does that disempower the Church? Possibly, but one of the things I most dislike about the Church is its notion of authority over its members. Perhaps that why, although my iconography is Catholic my intellectual position is liberal Protestant.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

[Potential Pile of Crap Alert]

Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :

Dyfig wrote:

quote:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?

How do you work that one out?

J

Posted by IâñB (# 38) on :

St. Paul certainly pointed to the fact that the one was iconic of the other. Dyfrig has a point, but I suspect it is a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" point.

Ian

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?

Yes, but the implication is that he was speaking about divorce, but was also speaking about the relationship of God to his people. Everything he said still, presumably, applies to ‘ordinary’ divorce.

[Crossposted with IanB]

[ 12. March 2004, 09:12: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by phudfan (# 4740) on :

I live under grace - not under law. If divorce is a sin, it is no greater a sin than looking at someone lustfully, or bearing false witness. Should churches only have ministers who promise they're going to stop sinning from now on? What about the laity? Are they allowed a couple of sins a week? [Biased]

Ok, I believe God wants us to strive to be Holy, which means avoiding (what we believe to be) sin. But we will still sin. Surely attitude of heart is more important, and there is only one who can accurately judge that, so shouldn't we leave it to him.

Apologies for being rather simplistic, but I'm left a bit mystified by a lot of this thread.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by phudfan:
I live under grace - not under law. If divorce is a sin, it is no greater a sin than looking at someone lustfully, or bearing false witness.

To some extent I agree with you; divorce is not greater than, worse than or, in many respects, different from many other things we can do. On the other hand the existence of other sins does not mean that we should never discuss divorce (if divorce is regarded as a sin).

I believe that the teaching of Jesus in the six ‘antitheses’ in Matthew 5 could be summarised as

Absolutely no anger in your heart.
Absolutely no lusting after someone not your partner.
Absolutely no divorce.
Absolutely no swearing of oaths.
Absolutely no taking of revenge.
Love your enemy – absolutely.

All equally important.

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :

And all incredibly difficult.

(Forgive me father for I have sinned)
J

[ 12. March 2004, 10:13: Message edited by: dorothea ]

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

The idea (my own, to be honest, hence the Pile of Crap Alert) is this: one of the models of the relationship between God and Israel is that of a marriage. NOw, if Jesus is saying things about divorce, is he also (for those to have ears to hear) saying things about the God-Israel relationship? Is he suggesting that God and Israel cannot "divorce" as easily as a marriage can end? Is he suggesting that God could end his relationship with Israel if there is adultery? Is he saying that it would be "adulterous" for God to be in relationship with anyone else after that "divorce"? Ok, a rather eccentric expansion of NT Wright's theory about story-telling and use of symbols, so take it apart if you want.

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :

Dyfig,

Not so much eccentric as different.

J

Posted by phudfan (# 4740) on :

Chapelhead said

quote:
I believe that the teaching of Jesus in the six ‘antitheses’ in Matthew 5 could be summarised as

Absolutely no anger in your heart.
Absolutely no lusting after someone not your partner.
Absolutely no divorce.
Absolutely no swearing of oaths.
Absolutely no taking of revenge.
Love your enemy – absolutely.

All equally important.

I agree completely that these are all equally important, and they are things that I believe that, as Christians, we should strive to achieve. They are though, I believe, unachievable, unless you're Jesus (especially that last one!).

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss divorce. I think its incredibly important to discuss our attitudes, prejudices and also our interpretations of scripture. What I am saying is that a) I'm not sure divorce is a sin, and b) if it is, why are those who have committed that 'sin' treated differently, in some cases, to those who have committed less visible sins?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Given the symbolic power of divorce as a concept in the OT (e.g. in Hosea), could it be that Jesus isn't just talking about actual divorce, but about the whole relationship between God and Israel?

Of course he is, quite explicitly. But he is also talking about marriage.

The spiritual reality principle is incarnated in human life. The material (biological, social, and political) reality is illuminated and made holy by the spiritual.

And Jesus's words can mean more than one thing at at time. (After all, if we can be allusive I bet he can)

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :

I think it's interesting that Jesu shalf addresses adultery elsewhere - in the woman at the well. She's had 5 husbands and the 5th is not even married to her. Jesus says repent and go and sin no more. Does he mean - make it official and marry the guy or does he mean go be celebate and split up, and by the way the others were bad too?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

There are some very good books by David Instone-Brewer (of Tyndale House in Cambridge) on this. A short Grove Booklet Divorce and Remarriage in the 1st and 21st Century (which I've read) and a longer book Divorce And Remarriage in the Bible - The social and literary context (which I bought the other week but haven't read all of yet). There is also a lot of stuff online which you can get to from that link.

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The School of Hillel did, indeed, teach that a man could divorce his wife for a wide range of reasons, including failing in her domestic duties, for example. Rabbi Akiba went further and said that a man could divorce his wife if he found another woman fairer than his wife.

This makes the account as given in Mark rather odd, as Jesus is asked whether divorce is permissible. In first century Judaism this doesn't seem to have been an issue; the issue was on what grounds divorce was permissible.

Yes - the link & book I mentioned above try to put Jesus's words in the Rabbinical context.

I think its fair to say that he thinks that the later early church (IYSWIM) read the practices of their own time back into the Gospel accounts so that some things which became church teaching (in at least some parts of the church) are not supported by Jesus's words.

In particular he'd say that there is no hint at all of a ban on remarriage after a valid divorce - the concept would have been meaningless as in a Jewish context a divorce was (and is) nothing more nor less than clearance to remarry.

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.
I agree that Mark is quite clear, and the exception in Matthew is likely to be a later addition (there is no exception in Luke ). It is unlikely that Mark dropped from the saying of Jesus an exception originally there, as it would make the saying harder to accept and more likely to be rejected.

It's odd how the fiercest of inerrantists assume that Matthew has been tampered with here [Smile]

(Not that I think either of you are inerrantists). You could as well say that Matthew is quite clear, and Mark dropped the reference because it woudl have been obvious.

quote:

The death penalty for adultery had probably ceased to be practiced by this point. Joseph found that Mary had, it seemed, been unfaithful. His reaction was to put her away (divorce), not stoning.

Yes that was another argument at the time - some rabbis held that an adulterous wife must be divorced - that it was immoral to continue to live with her. There was also apparently argument about the legality of remarrying one's divorced ex-spouse - most rabbis found that that was not permitted.

I really would recommend reading Dr. Instone-Brewer's book. His summary on the website starts:

quote:

The purpose of this book is to understand the meaning of the New Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage as it would be understood by its original readers. This is as close as historical research can get to the elusive 'authorial intent'.

The conclusions, in brief, are:
Jesus and Paul both condemned divorce without a valid ground, and discouraged divorce even for valid grounds.
Jesus and Paul both affirmed the Old Testament grounds for divorce.
The Old Testament allowed divorce for adultery and for neglect or abuse.
Jesus and Paul condemned remarriage after an invalid divorce, but not after a valid divorce.
These conclusions are very different from the traditional church interpretation of the New Testament texts, which concluded that divorce with remarriage was not allowed on any grounds, and that separation was only allowed in the case of adultery, and possibly desertion by an non-believing spouse. The reason for this difference is that the background knowledge and assumptions of a first century reader were already forgotten by the second century, so that the texts were misunderstood even by the Early Church Fathers.

In order to understand the New Testament through the eyes of a first century reader, the historical context and literary background needs to be understood in great detail.

(I have to declare an interest - (a) I am divorced (though clearly within the Matthean exceptions) and (b) David is an old friend of mine, we used to be in the same class at school, and he was one of the two people most implicated in my own conversion - so I am naturally disposed to favour his arguments!)

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I think it's interesting that Jesu shalf addresses adultery elsewhere - in the woman at the well. She's had 5 husbands and the 5th is not even married to her. Jesus says repent and go and sin no more. Does he mean - make it official and marry the guy or does he mean go be celebate and split up, and by the way the others were bad too?

Actually Jesus did not say anything about her marital status after he said that she had had five husbands and was now living with a man who was not her husband. Here is the relevant Bible passage.

What fascinates me about this passage is that although Jesus knew about the irregularities of her sex life, she was the very first person to whom he revealed himself to be the Messiah.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So possibly, if a woman divorces her husband she cannot remarry, but he can (and, of course, vice versa).

Is who divorces whom important? Opinions please.

I believe that in Jesus's day the Jewish law allowed a man to divorce his wife, but did not allow a wife to divorce her husband.

Nowadays, of course, divorce is carried out under civil law. Either partner can divorce the other. Jewish religious law still gives special status to the man, however. A divorced Jewish man is always free to remarry. A divorced Jewish woman must obtain a get from her ex-husband before she can re-marry with Jewish ceremonies. My Jewish friends have told me about men who refuse to give their ex-wives a get unless they agree to greatly reduced child-support payments. [Mad]

Many rabbis have spoken out against this, but it's still part of Jewish law.

Moo

Posted by Callan. (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Ken:

quote:
It's odd how the fiercest of inerrantists assume that Matthew has been tampered with here (Not that I think either of you are inerrantists). You could as well say that Matthew is quite clear, and Mark dropped the reference because it woudl have been obvious.

To be honest, I don't think that inerrancy has anything to do with it. I think that the suspicion is that Matthew has watered down the sterner Markan teaching because:

a) Mark is earlier, and therefore more likely to be authentic.
b) Matthew is more concerned to uphold the Torah (witness Jesus' comments in Matthew 5 about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away) and, therefore, makes Jesus' teaching on divorce closer to conservative Rabbinic orthodoxy, rather than the counsel of perfection found in Mark.

E.P. Sanders considers that the Markan prohibition is Dominical whereas the Matthean prohibition is, as it were, merely Matthean and thinks it highly unlikely that the early Church would have invented the Markan prohibition - compared to Jewish and Roman practice of the period it is astonishingly hawkish.

I find this approach plausible, but am open to correction from those better informed than myself.

Posted by Faithful Sheepdog* (# 2305) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
The idea (my own, to be honest, hence the Pile of Crap Alert) is this: one of the models of the relationship between God and Israel is that of a marriage. NOw, if Jesus is saying things about divorce, is he also (for those to have ears to hear) saying things about the God-Israel relationship? Is he suggesting that God and Israel cannot "divorce" as easily as a marriage can end? Is he suggesting that God could end his relationship with Israel if there is adultery? Is he saying that it would be "adulterous" for God to be in relationship with anyone else after that "divorce"? Ok, a rather eccentric expansion of NT Wright's theory about story-telling and use of symbols, so take it apart if you want.

That's quite an interesting idea. In the OT, marriage, sexual immorality and adultery are used as metaphors for Israel's covenant relationship with Yahweh and their subsequent apostasy with idolatry and other gods, thereby breaking the covenant and leading to a divorce.

I strongly suspect that Jesus' words about the subsequent marriage being adultery need to be interpreted in the light of OT models of covenantal faithfulness, rather than in a narrower legal sense relating only to sexual acts. The subsequent marriage is technically adultery, since it destroys the first marriage covenant permanently (as per Dt. 24:1-4), but thereafter it is a lawful marriage.

Neil

[edited spelling mistake]

[ 12. March 2004, 14:19: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog* ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Moo--the deserted wife whose husband cannot be proved dead and/or will not give her a bill of divorce is the agunah. She remains married to the man who has deserted her; she cannot remarry. She's in an awful quandary; in a state (as the philosopher Gillian Rose says) of aberrated mourning. Within Judaism, particularly in the last century, the agunah is often understood typologically as the Jewish people (which tallies with Dyfrig's point). This was, IIRC the case for Walter Benjamin; S.Y. Agnon who adopted Agunah as a pen-name, identified it typologically with the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence in the world. Those who read Martin Buber's Tales of the Hasidim will remember the story of the great sage who, as a little boy was heard singing a Polish folksong about an abandoned wife, but with 'Shekhinah' substituted for the wife's name. So it wasn't new with Agnon. In Israel, family court cases involving agunot (which is the plural) are among the few places where you can find female Talmudic scholars being allowed to do their stuff. And, yes, I've known of women who have accepted awful divorce settlements just to get the get .

With respect to Laura's original point: Absolutely!

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think its fair to say that [David Instone-Brewer] thinks that the later early church (IYSWIM) read the practices of their own time back into the Gospel accounts so that some things which became church teaching (in at least some parts of the church) are not supported by Jesus's words.

I'd agree, the tricky part is working out which bits they are!

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In particular he'd say that there is no hint at all of a ban on remarriage after a valid divorce - the concept would have been meaningless as in a Jewish context a divorce was (and is) nothing more nor less than clearance to remarry.

Again I'd agree, in that in first century Judaism divorce automatically implied the right to remarriage. The idea of a separation without the reight to remarriage would have seemed very odd to most 'conventional' Jews at the time. However (and I'm working from dodgy memory here) I believe there are suggestions of divorce-as-separation without the right to remarriage in the Essene community, so the idea might not have been entirely implausable.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:

Originally posted by Laura.:
Mark is extremely clear that Jesus rejected divorce. This was later softened by the addition of the adultery exception in Matthew and Luke, some speculate, because Jesus' teaching was thought to be too hard.
I agree that Mark is quite clear, and the exception in Matthew is likely to be a later addition (there is no exception in Luke ). It is unlikely that Mark dropped from the saying of Jesus an exception originally there, as it would make the saying harder to accept and more likely to be rejected.

You could as well say that Matthew is quite clear, and Mark dropped the reference because it woudl have been obvious.

Unlikely, I'd have thought. If there was an exception then it has been dropped by both Mark and Luke, who seem to have different sources (Luke possibly from Q). Also I don't think it would have been obvious that it was implied. The reaction of the Disciples (shock, horror, we're better off not marrying) suggests that Jesus had said something radical, not just siding with one side in a rabbinic dispute). And including the exception turns one part of aa series of wholly radical and remarkable sayings of Jesus into just an opinion on an internal dispute between two rabbinic schools. The exception seems, IMHO, a Matthian addition.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:

The death penalty for adultery had probably ceased to be practiced by this point. Joseph found that Mary had, it seemed, been unfaithful. His reaction was to put her away (divorce), not stoning.
Yes that was another argument at the time - some rabbis held that an adulterous wife must be divorced - that it was immoral to continue to live with her. There was also apparently argument about the legality of remarrying one's divorced ex-spouse - most rabbis found that that was not permitted.

I agree about the rabbinic view that an adulterous wife must be divorced (or at least, should be). Matthew describes Joseph as being 'righteous' in intending to divorce Mary. And yes the view was held that a man couldn't re-marry a woman from whom he had been divorce,although offhand I forget the reason why.

Ken - I'd be interested in reading the books you mention. As you will have gathered, at the moment I certianly don't agree with the conclusions reached in them.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos
Moo--the deserted wife whose husband cannot be proved dead and/or will not give her a bill of divorce is the agunah. She remains married to the man who has deserted her; she cannot remarry. She's in an awful quandary; in a state (as the philosopher Gillian Rose says) of aberrated mourning.

After 9/11 there were Jewish women who could not prove their husbands had died in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

Civil authorities declared the men dead, but with no identified body parts, the wife is agunah.

Considering the extreme trauma of their husbands'deaths and the way they died, this is an especially awful situation.

Moo

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :

Er, Moo, that's what I said. She's had 5 and her current guy isn't married to her. Therefore, what does he mean by 'go sin no more'? How is she meant to rectify this current status of cohabitation?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

By not leaving this one the way she left the previous 4?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Er, Moo, that's what I said. She's had 5 and her current guy isn't married to her. Therefore, what does he mean by 'go sin no more'? How is she meant to rectify this current status of cohabitation?

Where does it say, "Go and sin no more"?

Moo

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
By not leaving this one the way she left the previous 4?

How do we know she left the previous four? How much power would she have had to exit marriages?

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

To what extent was Jesus prohibition on divorce a 'duty of care' thing, in a culture whare women were economicaly dependant on men. And to what extent is it aplycable today. Was it the breaking of a sacred vow or the plight of divorcee s that concerened Him?.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
By not leaving this one the way she left the previous 4?
How do we know she left the previous four? How much power would she have had to exit marriages?

No power to divorce them (assuming the marriages ended in divorce and not death). Only men could divorce, not women.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
With respect to Laura's original point: Absolutely!

I've entirely forgotten my original point by now!

I do think that it's reasonable in light of the provenance of the gospels, to assume that the Markian restriction is more authentic, and the Matthew "out" clause a later addition for the reasons enumerated (to tie things more closely with Jewish law).

Someone said something earlier about inerrantism -- I want to make clear I'm no inerrantist -- very, very far from it. My question is more, in the context of how the Churches make decisions about vexed issues, did it decide that divorce and remarriage in the Church was okay?

Oh, one other note: I think the idea of a Church "loosing" in any ceremonial fashion is vile. Divorce is, unquestionably, a sin, a violation of solemn vows made before God. It's a big sin. When the Episcopal church starts formally celebrating something that is clearly a sin, you'll find me down at St. Nicholas' knocking timidly on the door.

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :

So maybe Jesus was protecting women. Even so, don't we need to consider the context under which a divorce takes place and use our reason rather than rely on scripture for the answer? Furthermore, like the woman at the well, people's lives are complex and messy both before and after they become Christian (although they may try a lot harder to become loving, tolerant, sacrifice their own selfish needs, etc. once they commit to faith.)

On remarrying in Church: people without any faith who are on their second third or fourth marriage and just want a fancy do would be best directed to register office. But what about situations in which a Christian wants to marry a divorce non Christian? (Or am I straying too far from Laura's original point here?)

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :

Surely part of the answer to the problems posed in the original OP lies in the (irresolvable?) question of how Jesus saw himself? He was asked what the law said and he gave the correct, the only possible, interpretation. But did he then see himself as coming ‘not to change the law, but to fulfil it’? (I think that’s a quote but I’m not sure where from and I haven’t time to look - sorry).

There are other examples - most notably the Sermon on the Mount - of Jesus apparently setting an impossible standard. This is, of course, where he says that anyone who lusts after another has already committed adultery in their heart. This also contains the injunction - ‘if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out’.

What did he mean by that? Everybody knows he didn’t mean it literally. Personally, I think he was thinking along lines of detachment (as practised by Buddhists) but - let’s not get side-tracked - the point is that just as he didn’t actually intend people to blind themselves, so he also didn’t think real stonings were appropriate - he approved the fact that the practice had died out.

And this seems to be confirmed when he is faced with the woman taken in adultery, where his advice is, famously, that only those without sin can cast stones. Now then, as a man without sin himself, he could have cast a stone - but chose not to. Although that does, again, rather beg the question of how he saw himself - did he think/know that he was sinless? Would it have made any difference? I think not, because I think part of his message was that, if we live by the law, we are all damned.

As I see it, the early church's teaching on the subject is interesting but not binding - they were men (and I mean men) of their time.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Right, I’ve read the Grove booklet Ken linked to on page 1. My view is that I don’t find the argument convincing (sorry Ken).

The suggestion is in this booklet that Jesus is asked in Matthew 19 whether a man could divorce his wife for “Any Reason”, with “Any Reason” being a legal term that would have been understood by the original readers. Jesus then says ‘No, not for “Any Reason”’, with the implication that divorce was permissible for the “Good Reasons” that the readers would have known about. The argument continues that Mark and Luke do not include the exception or make reference to the context because it would have been obvious to their readers that the debate was on what ground were permissible for divorce.

I find this unconvincing for two reasons.

Firstly, although Matthew 19 has the question about “Any Reason” the other three gospel references to Jesus’ teaching on divorce do not. In the others Jesus teaching makes no reference to “Any Reason” and there is nothing in particular to tell the reader that the question being addressed is the “Any Reason” issue.

Secondly, the argument is that Mark and Luke leave out the “Any Reason” background because it would have been obvious to their readers, while Matthew includes it for completeness. But of the three it is Matthew that is most likely to have been intended for a Jewish readership. It is Matthew that has least need to put in the context if that context is first century Jewish legal practice. We don’t know who Mark’s intended readership was, but it is more likely that it was a martyr church at Rome with a largely gentile membership than a Jewish readership. And Luke was most certainly aimed at a Greek/Gentile readership. Both of these would hardly have assumed their readers were familiar with Jewish practices. It is Matthew who assumes familiarity with Jewish customs and Luke who takes care to explain them.

I remain of the view that the Mark/Luke treatment is the original and that Matthew is adding an exception not originally intended.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

One of the points that is often overlooked when reading Jesus teaching on divorce is how radical (at the time) the idea of adultery by a husband was.

In first century Judaism a married woman committed adultery against her husband if she had a sexual relationship with anyone else. A married man, on the other hand, would only be committing adultery if he had a relationship with a married woman, and the offence would be against the other woman’s husband. So when Jesus says

quote:
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

he is making a radical statement about the duty of a husband to his wife that would have been most striking to his audience.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
With respect to Laura's original point: Absolutely!
I've entirely forgotten my original point by now!

I do think that it's reasonable in light of the provenance of the gospels, to assume that the Markian restriction is more authentic, and the Matthew "out" clause a later addition for the reasons enumerated (to tie things more closely with Jewish law).

Someone said something earlier about inerrantism -- I want to make clear I'm no inerrantist -- very, very far from it. My question is more, in the context of how the Churches make decisions about vexed issues, did it decide that divorce and remarriage in the Church was okay?

Oh, one other note: I think the idea of a Church "loosing" in any ceremonial fashion is vile. Divorce is, unquestionably, a sin, a violation of solemn vows made before God. It's a big sin. When the Episcopal church starts formally celebrating something that is clearly a sin, you'll find me down at St. Nicholas' knocking timidly on the door.

The Church never decided that divorce and remarriage were OK. At best that's a minority opinion.

Given that you have mentioned Gene Robinson and ECUSA, this may be where your leadership is going

quote:
My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to "honor [each other] in the Name of God," made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows, asked each other's forgiveness, cried a lot, pledged ourselves to the joint raising of our children, and shared the Body and Blood of Christ.
Gene Robsinson

Posted by josefina (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Oh, one other note: I think the idea of a Church "loosing" in any ceremonial fashion is vile. Divorce is, unquestionably, a sin, a violation of solemn vows made before God. It's a big sin.

In Orthodoxy, we don't make marriage vows, so we don't see divorce as the violation of solemn vows, but rather as the desecration of a sacrament. It's rather like filling a dog's water dish with water from the baptismal font, or urinating on an icon, or trampling the elements of the Eucharist underfoot. Which, as I said before, is why we deal with divorce through excommunication, confession, and reconciliation. There is no ceremonial release from the marriage, only a (very sad and painful) recognition that something that was given by God has been destroyed by sin.

The Orthodox Church has always been ambivalent about remarriage. The ideal is one marriage, period. Because it is a sacrament, not a contract, we don't view it as being ended by death.

But the Church realizes that some of us, for various reasons, are better off married, and remarriage is permitted as "economia" -- a concession offered for the sake of the salvation of the individuals involved, who, because of their weakness, are not strong enough to keep the normal discipline the Church expects.

In the Orthodox tradition, remarriage is always about salvation. I suppose it's true to say that of first marriages as well -- marriage is seen as a path to holiness, a way of salvation. But first marriages are not just about salvation. They're about starting families, having children, all those other wonderful things. But a second marriage is offered only because the bishop believes that these two people need to be married for the sake of their salvation.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

Josephine,

I agree, it isn't just the breaking of vows, but the violation of a sacrament.

And to L.Druid -- I'm aware of +Robinson's sacramental marriage-breaking. It bothers me far more than that he is gay.

[ 12. March 2004, 23:41: Message edited by: Laura. ]

Posted by sharkshoooter (# 1589) on :

Some of us don't see it as a sacrament. But being solemn vows before God, to break them is still sinful.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

No. I won't give up the thread without a fight.

*bump*

The more I think about this, the more confused I get. I agree that there's no difficulty with prayerfully deciding to grant divorces and to remarry those who've been divorced, but why does the same church (let's just pick the Anglican Church) then why stick at women priests or gay ones? It seems to me that there's no better argument for allowing remarried people to be bishops than any other variance from scripture and tradition. It's very perplexing.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
No. I won't give up the thread without a fight.

*bump*

The more I think about this, the more confused I get. I agree that there's no difficulty with prayerfully deciding to grant divorces and to remarry those who've been divorced, but why does the same church (let's just pick the Anglican Church) then why stick at women priests or gay ones? It seems to me that there's no better argument for allowing remarried people to be bishops than any other variance from scripture and tradition. It's very perplexing.

But Laura -- the Anglican church as a whole has accepted women priests. The Anglican church as a whole has accepted that gay people can be ordained -- there is disagreement over the ways in which those gay people (or indeed straight clergy) can be sexually active. What are you really saying?

John

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

I meant bishops, not priests, sorry.

Anyway, you're wrong. [Big Grin]

The Anglican Communion in general is ordaining women (and rightly so, imho), but the Church of England is still in a period of discernment about it. See, e.g., the Act of Synod. Similarly, the church ordains gays to the priesthood, but the jury is still out on the ordination either to the priesthood or the mitre of non-celibate homosexuals. See, e.g., the +Robinson Brouhaha.

Anyway, I'm sorry to use the ordination of a gay bishop as an example (as I've repeatedly said I don't want to debate that, as we've done it elsewhere); my question is really about divorce, genuinely.

Is it okay for people to divorce and remarry (everyone here seems to think so), and why? Is it for practical reasons the church has given in on this point? If so, it's pretty clear that we've for practicality's sake waived something scripture and early tradition was pretty clear about. I'm interested in why.

[ 15. March 2004, 16:02: Message edited by: Laura. ]

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Is it okay for people to divorce and remarry (everyone here seems to think so), and why? Is it for practical reasons the church has given in on this point? If so, it's pretty clear that we've for practicality's sake waived something scripture and early tradition was pretty clear about. I'm interested in why.

In the earliest days of the church, there wasn't such a thing as the sacrament of confession. It was assumed that, once you'd been baptized, you wouldn't sin any more. We are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness in Christ Jesus. But you know what happened? People sinned. And the Church had to deal with that.

There were rigorist sects, who held to the purity of the most ancient tradition, and said that, if you screwed up, that was it. And there were plenty of folks who delayed their baptism until their deathbed, just in case.

But the Church, desiring the salvation of all her children, finally decided that sin after baptism wasn't the end of the story. It's not okay for baptized Christians to sin. It's really, truly not okay. But the reality is that baptized Christians do sin. And the way the Church finally worked out for dealing with that reality is the sacrament of confession.

Divorce and remarriage is like that. It's NOT okay to divorce. Remarriage (whether you're divorced or widowed) isn't truly okay either. Just as confession is a concession to the sin and weakness of baptized Christians, so is divorce, so is remarriage.

Allowing remarriage isn't just for practicality's sake, though. In the Orthodox Church, it's economia -- something permitted for the sake of your salvation. It's not held up as the ideal -- and it's absolutely forbidden to priests and deacons, who are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. But it's offered in mercy to those who, in the opinion of their bishop, need that particular mercy to be saved.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I can't answer Laura's question other than to agree with her that I found Gene Robinson's attitude to his divorce much more aggravating thatn the homosexuality.

The first time I read that outrageous bit she quoted I confess I thought something along the lines of "Smug bastard! If it was up to me there's no way I'd choose him as a bishop!"

Posted by sharkshoooter (# 1589) on :

Laura, please bear with me for a moment. I think you have been asking two different questions:

1) Why does the church allow divorce and remarriage when it is contrary to scripture?

2) Since the church allows divorce and remarriage, should it not also allow gay bishops?

However, you are saying you do not want a discussion of 2, so, returning to 1:

The thing I am confused about in this thread is the use of the term "allow". The church does not "allow" a divorce. At least in my understanding, while marriages are often performed in a church, divorces are never done so. Therefore, the use of the term "allow" is, to me, confusing.

Another referrence you made was to "Is divorce OK?" OK, how? Do you mean "condoned"? Do you mean "celebrated"? Do you mean "tolerated, but not considered ideal"? Do you mean "ignored, as irrelevant"?

How should a church show its disapproval (if indeed it disapproves) of divorce/remarriage?

Should it excommunicate the member? I think the Orthodox do something like this.

Should it provide counselling? To teach the member the sinfulness of the decision, and to try to ensure that there is not a repeat of the sin?

Should it refuse to marry the divorced member?

Like I said earlier, I have more questions than answers.

Please forgive me if this is not where you want to go with this - it seems to be a subject with significant importance for you.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Is it okay for people to divorce and remarry (everyone here seems to think so), and why? Is it for practical reasons the church has given in on this point? If so, it's pretty clear that we've for practicality's sake waived something scripture and early tradition was pretty clear about. I'm interested in why.

ISTM that the Orthodox and Catholics on this thread keep saying that divorce and remarriage is not OK.
Why don't the people who do think divorce and remarriage is OK step forward and explain themselves? Will no one admit to this?

I bet that in 50 years the state will see no need to be involved in marriage contracts (only paternity records and prenuptial agreements). When marriage loses the elements of civil contract, it will lose a lot of meaning for the non-sacramentalists. The questions of this thread will be a moot point for most by then if they aren't already.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshoooter:
Why does the church allow divorce and remarriage when it is contrary to scripture?

I would not be so ready to throw out Matthew.

Also, isn't one of the points that Jesus is making in all these passages that to allow divorce is to allow remarriage? The idea of divorce withpout the possibility of remarriage is illogical. It woudl be like a driving license that didn't allow you to drive, a passport that didn't allow you to travel.

And again, even if divorce is wrong that doesn't mean it never happens. Murder is wrong, but it happens.

The traditional view of the RC & Anglican chuches seems to have been not just that divorce is [u]wrong[/i] (surely any Christian church with a pretence at a Biblical witness must accept that?) but that divorce doesn't exist. That people who think they are divorced are deluding themselves and in fact they are still married.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The traditional view of the RC & Anglican chuches seems to have been not just that divorce is wrong (surely any Christian church with a pretence at a Biblical witness must accept that?) but that divorce doesn't exist. That people who think they are divorced are deluding themselves and in fact they are still married.

What Catholic sources do you have for the suggestion that divorce doesn't exist or is always wrong,i.e. not tolerable?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
]What Catholic sources do you have for the suggestion that divorce doesn't exist or is always wrong,i.e. not tolerable?

Why, their catchism of course. A book I bought when it came out in English, and have read from cover to cover more than once.

And at least half a dozen books I read about Christian ideas on divorce and marriage, some Roman Catholic, some not.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Also, isn't one of the points that Jesus is making in all these passages that to allow divorce is to allow remarriage? The idea of divorce withpout the possibility of remarriage is illogical. It woudl be like a driving license that didn't allow you to drive, a passport that didn't allow you to travel.

Quoting myself from a previous post

quote:
in first century Judaism divorce automatically implied the right to remarriage. The idea of a separation without the right to remarriage would have seemed very odd to most 'conventional' Jews at the time. However (and I'm working from dodgy memory here) I believe there are suggestions of divorce-as-separation without the right to remarriage in the Essene community, so the idea might not have been entirely implausable

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
]What Catholic sources do you have for the suggestion that divorce doesn't exist or is always wrong,i.e. not tolerable?
Why, their catchism of course. A book I bought when it came out in English, and have read from cover to cover more than once.

Do you remember paragraph 2383?

quote:
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. Catechism of the Catholic Church

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

"Okay" is shorthand for "condoned". Sharkshooter, I may be talking about a number of things that are a bit intertwined. So let's bring Gene Robinson back for a moment.

I would say that, if ordaining +Robinson to the episcopacy means official approval of a state of ongoing sin (which many conservative members of the Anglican Communion believe and repeatedly assert), then ordaining a remarried bishop does the same thing vis-a-vis divorce. I am wondering why, based on the clarity of scripture and tradition on divorce and remarriage, one can say the one bishop ordination is bad and the other is not. That is, the remarried bishop is (at least in my reading of scripture) engaged in as flagrant and ongoing a sin as the practicing homosexual.

Now (and to clarify again) I don't have a major issue with the Bishop of NH, but I understand the arguments of the opponents, however I may disagree with them. But I don't really understand why there isn't the same hue and cry about divorcees in the episcopacy. There were in 1997 nine divorced bishops who remarried while serving as bishops, and three who divorced and remarried before being ordained, all of whom by this logic are adulterers.

(And as noted above as additional fuel the issue on episcopacy), 1 Timothy appears to limit ministry to those who are the "husband of one wife," which is generally (as indicated above) understood to mean not remarried.

So really, I'm talking about qualifications for the episcopacy and, separately, the good/bad divorce issue.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

Oh, and Ley Druid -- I'm only talking about dissolution of a marriage blessed by a Church. Civil divorce is entirely different. In the Catechism section you cite, the Church is saying that civil divorce is not a sin IF it's necessary for some really good reason. The Church is not saying that it regards the marriage as dissolved.

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I am wondering why, based on the clarity of scripture and tradition on divorce and remarriage, one can say the one bishop ordination is bad and the other is not.

In the Orthodox Church, we wouldn't say that. Neither the practicing homosexual nor the remarried man could be consecrated bishop in the Orthodox Church. In fact, I think the canons suggest that remarriage may be the worse offense of the two, since there is no reason I'm aware of that a celibate homosexual can't be made a bishop or a priest, but a man who has married twice can't ever be made a bishop or a priest.

Posted by IâñB (# 38) on :

I'm grateful to Laura for starting this thread. I wasn't originally going to add anything, as I think my views are so close to hers so far that anything I said would just be a "me too".

But on reflection, perhaps there is something more to add. It seems that the standard-bearing edge of ECUSA regards the acceptance of divorce, not as a necessary evil, but a positive good. Take a look at this article. - you'll need to scroll down to the quote from Bishop Schimpfky. Historically, the quote is utter hokum (with the exception of the bit about ordination of women priests). But it gives an insight into the mindset involved. I also find it monumentally patronizing, but being unenlightened, that's just me.

I've got to confess, this is the issue that's really taken me to the edge of being an Anglican. Every time I hear your top guy (Griswold) ask what the problem is, because the issue of divorce has already been tackled - and that was directly contrary to the teaching of Jesus - I feel a sense of dislocation. Of things being all the wrong way round - of inverted logic.

Ian

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I am wondering why, based on the clarity of scripture and tradition on divorce and remarriage, one can say the one bishop ordination is bad and the other is not.
In the Orthodox Church, we wouldn't say that. Neither the practicing homosexual nor the remarried man could be consecrated bishop in the Orthodox Church. In fact, I think the canons suggest that remarriage may be the worse offense of the two, since there is no reason I'm aware of that a celibate homosexual can't be made a bishop or a priest, but a man who has married twice can't ever be made a bishop or a priest.

Josephine,

You've been very patient -- please understand that when I keep saying "Churches" I mean "Churches which hold that divorce isn't a bar to ordination". I think the Orthodox approach eminently sensible, on all counts. To allow the laity to remarry for the reasons enumerated but set a limit thereupon, and to require that bishops meet a higher standard, seems very sensible indeed.

But I'm still not going to the English service at St. Nicholas'. I fear getting sucked in by the great orthodox conspiracy.
[Big Grin]

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
please understand that when I keep saying "Churches" I mean "Churches which hold that divorce isn't a bar to ordination".

Ahhh. I think I understand now. You're looking for someone to offer an explanation, from Scripture and Tradition, of why they have abandoned Scripture and Tradition.

It seems to me that the only way to get to the position you describe is to reduce the importance of Scripture, of Tradition, of the clergy in general (and the episcopacy in particular), or of marriage. Since you don't seem likely to adopt a low view of any of those, it hardly seems likely that you're going to find an explanation that satisfies you.

Posted by Lady A (# 3126) on :

For me the issue comes down to relationship. All the talk of marriage or divorce boils down to a commitment to a relationship with another person. Divorce is deciding that we no longer want that relationship, or pieces of it.

Is the heart of divorce really the realization that we are capable of banishing someone out of our existence, yet expect Christ to keep us in his? Is the sacredness of that commitment tied to our own fears that Christ could 'divorce' each of us? That the way we behave towards him and others shows that even though we may be 'saved', we are not really commited to our relationship with him?

Even though times, cultures, churches have changed, relationships have not. That is the defining centerpoint of marriage or divorce. The church in trying to 'decide' on the question of divorce is really trying to salvage relationships for the greatest relationship of all. That is what makes the issue such a Gordian Knot. Each relationship is unique, each history different, each couple makes thousands decisions on how to love, or not love, that other person.

Perhaps this is a bit muddled, but often I think how Jesus behaves towards me, and that influences how I behave toward my spouse (and sometimes not!). So I believe that to Jesus, divorce from us, each and every relationship, is not an option.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
Oh, and Ley Druid -- I'm only talking about dissolution of a marriage blessed by a Church. Civil divorce is entirely different. In the Catechism section you cite, the Church is saying that civil divorce is not a sin IF it's necessary for some really good reason. The Church is not saying that it regards the marriage as dissolved.

After some snooping aroung on the internet, ISTM that the Orthodox Church (Greek at least) does grant ecclesiastical divorces GOARCH Again, this seems like a sensible thing to do if one is going to allow remarriage. But I don't understand what the divorce means with respect to the sacrament. Presumably the Orthodox have a means of laicizing clergy which might be roughly analogous?

The Catholic Church does not grant ecclesiastical divorces.

Do any others grant ecclesiastical divorces? Should they?

Posted by Hieronymus Wally Boy (# 3245) on :

Ley Druid, I think the Greeks may be an oddity (no jokes please). Here is the OCA position on the matter.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
please understand that when I keep saying "Churches" I mean "Churches which hold that divorce isn't a bar to ordination".
Ahhh. I think I understand now. You're looking for someone to offer an explanation, from Scripture and Tradition, of why they have abandoned Scripture and Tradition.

That's it. Thanks. Actually, it doesn't have to come from scripture and tradition. I just want to hear that it isn't from scripture and tradition, if that is the case. And then of course, that raises the question of why (for a lot of the Anglican communion, for example, gay is nokay for bishops but divorce & remarriage is okay. I want to hear someone admit that it's for practical or arbitrary concerns or something, because it's starting to annoy me, the apparent inconsistency.

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It seems to me that the only way to get to the position you describe is to reduce the importance of Scripture, of Tradition, of the clergy in general (and the episcopacy in particular), or of marriage. Since you don't seem likely to adopt a low view of any of those, it hardly seems likely that you're going to find an explanation that satisfies you.

But I'm getting used to disappointment. And it's Lent! Disappointment is arguably sort of penitential, isn't it? [Smile]

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

Lady A, a very thoughtful post.

quote:
Originally posted by Lady A:

Perhaps this is a bit muddled, but often I think how Jesus behaves towards me, and that influences how I behave toward my spouse (and sometimes not!). So I believe that to Jesus, divorce from us, each and every relationship, is not an option.

This ties in neatly with the Orthodox view that divorce is a sin, but allowing remarriage is to keep people in the path to salvation, an allowance made necessary by our brokenness.

I know of marriages broken recently that were i) intolerably emotionally cruel; ii) several where one spouse left for another person, against the first spouse's will. I would not say that the spouse who left a cruel wife or that the non-leaving spouse were "wrong" to be divorced. So I'm not saying that divorce is never appropriate or allowable. IMHO, I do think it would be good if we went back to making people justify it to the Church. That is, the spouse wanting the divorce would need to explain before authorities in the Church why he/she thought that they were right to leave the marriage, and then having to do this again if they expected the church to marry them to someone else. Then perhaps we'd have a little less of people claiming they're bored or unfulfilled, and maybe a little more of making it work. By the same token, the Church should be supportive of, for example, the release of the battered from their marriages.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :

Excellently said, Lady A.

The interpretation of the “one flesh” expression that I have most often heard is that it indicates that a marriage cannot be ended (rather than merely should not be ended) because a single body cannot be divided, without the obvious sin of murder.

But perhaps this is taking the wrong idea of what this “one flesh” is. Jesus (taking an OT idea) describes a man leaving his father and mother and marrying his wife and the two become one flesh. So there is the idea of a blood tie between husband and wife like that between child and parents, between siblings (eg, Laban telling Jacob, “You are my own flesh and blood). Now a child is always the child of its parents, this cannot be changed. But a chid can reject its parents, it can decide to have nothing more to do with them. This may be all too common in modern society, but in Jesus’ day would have been regarded as a terrible thing, a most heinous act on the part of the child. As the parents have given life and care to their child, so the child owes duty and care to its parents.

So possibly even taking “one flesh” very seriously doesn’t mean that divorce is impossible and that a marriage cannot be ended, just that it is wrong to do so.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Do you remember paragraph 2383?

quote:
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. Catechism of the Catholic Church

Yes, I read it yesterday. It's saying that someone who is forced to go through the form a civil divorce according to the laws of whatever copuntry they live in is not neccessarily committing a sin.

But the Catechism quite explicitly points out that a "civil divorce" isn't a real divorce, it does not dissolve a marriage. It's just a piece of paper you might need to sign to get over a little local difficulty.

In order to avoid what by Charismatic bretheren might call a spirit of selective quotation, I'll copy the whole section:

quote:

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

It's very clear that divorce is always wrong - though that does not mean that both partners have committed the wrong, or the same degree of wrong. It is also quite explicit that a "civil divorce" is not, in the eyes of Rome, a valid divorce that allows remarriage. It's just a legal form you might have to go through in order to live separately, or to protect yourself or your property from your spouse.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The interpretation of the “one flesh” expression that I have most often heard is that it indicates that a marriage cannot be ended (rather than merely should not be ended) because a single body cannot be divided, without the obvious sin of murder.

But perhaps this is taking the wrong idea of what this “one flesh” is. Jesus (taking an OT idea) describes a man leaving his father and mother and marrying his wife and the two become one flesh. So there is the idea of a blood tie between husband and wife like that between child and parents, between siblings (eg, Laban telling Jacob, “You are my own flesh and blood).

I have read books which claimed that "one flesh" would have meant "members of the same family or clan" and that later metaphysical ideas of a married couple becoming in some sense one being were imported from Platonism. But then I've read somewhere or other that practically every distinctive Christian doctrine is due to Greek contamination of a pure Jewish original. They usually blame either Paul or the Gnostics or Constantine, depending on taste.

Also worth pointing out, again, that murder may be an obvious sin, but that doesn't mean a murdered person is still alive.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They usually blame either Paul or the Gnostics or Constantine, depending on taste.

Personally, I blame the gnostics. It's usually their fault.

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
After some snooping aroung on the internet, ISTM that the Orthodox Church (Greek at least) does grant ecclesiastical divorces GOARCH

When I had heard of the Greeks granting "ecclesiastical divorces" (and note that, in the quoted article, on first reference, the author does use scare quotes), I'd assumed they meant just permission to remarry.

However, on reading the GOARCH information, they clearly require the one before the other.

This is an unjustified aberration, not part of Orthodox Tradition. However, I have a strong suspicion how it came to be -- under the Ottomans, the Orthodox Church in Greece was required to serve as the civil authority for all marriage-related matters for Greeks in the Ottoman Empire. All Greeks had to be married by the Church; I assume that, by extension, if they wanted a divorce, they had to go to the Church for that as well.

This put the Church in something of a bind. Before this, the marriage rite included the Eucharist; if you weren't able to take the Eucharist, you couldn't get married in the Church. Civil marriage was still an option for you, of course. But when the Ottomans did away with the option of civil marriage for Greeks in their empire, the Church had to figure out how to deal with this situation.

One thing they did was to remove the Eucharist from the wedding service, replacing it with a "common cup." Not ideal, but a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances.

I assume that the granting of "ecclesiastical divorce" was another such accommodation.

It's too bad that, when the Ottoman empire fell, these accommodations were allowed to linger on.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is also quite explicit that a "civil divorce" is not, in the eyes of Rome, a valid divorce that allows remarriage. It's just a legal form you might have to go through in order to live separately, or to protect yourself or your property from your spouse.

A "valid divorce". What is that? Certainly not mentioned quite explicitly in the catechism.

Rome doesn't have the authority to dissolve a marriage bond -- no possible valid divorce here. Rome doesn't have the authority to abrogate a contract of marriage, but the competent legal authorities do. Why would the "civil divorce" not be "valid"? It doesn't claim to dissolve the sacramental bond does it?

Josephine gave an interesting account of the relationship between civil and ecclesiastical elements of divorce and remarriage in the Greek Church. Both aspects are important. The Catholic Church acknowledges the importance of each and keeps each subject to its proper authority.

What about others? What is a "valid divorce"?

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

There is no "valid divorce" that covers both state and church in a catholic sense. These are two different questions. The Catholic church does not recognize state divorces as dissolving marriage bonds. The Anglican Communion mostly does, as it will bless a civil remarriage in the UK, and will in other parts of the world, remarry people in the church.

But I guess most Protestant Churches must regard a civil divorce as a divorce for their purposes as well, in the sense that if they did not, they wouldn't allow remarriage later in the Church without some process to be got through, like anullment.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

Laura,
Doesn't your post about "valid divorce" answer your question: The grounds upon which some Christians are divorced and remarried doesn't rest on Scripture or Tradition, but rather on the authority of the state to dissolve marriages.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The grounds upon which some Christians are divorced and remarried doesn't rest on Scripture or Tradition, but rather on the authority of the state to dissolve marriages.

- for those who think that neither Matthew's Gospel, nor the teachings of the eastern Orthodox churches, are part of "Scripture or Tradition".

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

I didn't say that these churches do regard civil divorces as valid divorces for their church's purposes. I said that, I guessed they must, because they will remarry people who have civil divorces. But I don't know whether there's a scripture/tradition justification for that or not.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

ken has intimated at a possible justification by scripture and tradition. Let's consdier what he said

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The grounds upon which some Christians are divorced and remarried doesn't rest on Scripture or Tradition, but rather on the authority of the state to dissolve marriages.
- for those who think that neither Matthew's Gospel, nor the teachings of the eastern Orthodox churches, are part of "Scripture or Tradition".

So all of the thousands and thousands of marriages of divorced people are justified because the state issued divorces faithful to the Matthean exception of "porneia" and the teachings of the eastern Orthodox churches.
Is that the kind of honest answer you were looking for?

Wouldn't it be more honest (and appealing) to say that no one has to justify their (re)marriage to anybody based on scripture/tradition or anything else. They can remarry, so they do.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
ken has intimated at a possible justification by scripture and tradition.

[...]

So all of the thousands and thousands of marriages of divorced people are justified because the state issued divorces faithful to the Matthean exception of "porneia" and the teachings of the eastern Orthodox churches.
Is that the kind of honest answer you were looking for?

Please don't deliberatly twist what I said. You know I didn't say that or mean it. I am trying to have a reasonable exchange with you - as so often its bloody hard.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I didn't say that these churches do regard civil divorces as valid divorces for their church's purposes. I said that, I guessed they must, because they will remarry people who have civil divorces. But I don't know whether there's a scripture/tradition justification for that or not.

Well there obviously isn't is there?

If there was Gene Robinson and his friends might have used it.

Instead they seem to be saying "divorce is obviously good, the Scriptures say it isn't good, so we can ignore them"

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

I think +Robinson's position is more refined than that, actually. I think he's saying that because he is oriented gay, and marriage to a woman is therefore (as he later in life discovered) not sexually fulfilling for him, that the scriptural things about divorce apply less to his case. I doubt if he'd assert it wasn't a sin or was a positively good thing. But then, I don't know.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I think he's saying that because he is oriented gay, and marriage to a woman is therefore (as he later in life discovered) not sexually fulfilling for him, that the scriptural things about divorce apply less to his case.

I must be thick because I can't see how that is any different from divorce because one partner no longer fancies the other, or is bored by living with them, which are the usual reasons for divorce these days.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I didn't say that these churches do regard civil divorces as valid divorces for their church's purposes. I said that, I guessed they must, because they will remarry people who have civil divorces. But I don't know whether there's a scripture/tradition justification for that or not.
Well there obviously isn't is there?

If there was Gene Robinson and his friends might have used it.

I'm sorry ken, I didn't mean to twist anything you said. I think we're mostly in agreement. Some people may be able to justify divorce/remarriage with appeals to scripture/tradition, but others maybe not, and they may not care.
Nobody has said on this thread that divorce is good or even OK. I suspect anyone who thought so wouldn't feel the need to justify their opinions with or without recourse to scripture/tradition.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I'm sorry ken, I didn't mean to twist anything you said. I think we're mostly in agreement. Some people may be able to justify divorce/remarriage with appeals to scripture/tradition, but others maybe not, and they may not care.

Sorry if I was flying off the handle there. It seemed as if I was being pushed onto the side of thinking that divorce was a good thing, or that a "civil divorce" claimed to dismantle the same thing that a Christian marriage claims to build.

Posted by Laura. (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Laura.:
I think he's saying that because he is oriented gay, and marriage to a woman is therefore (as he later in life discovered) not sexually fulfilling for him, that the scriptural things about divorce apply less to his case.
I must be thick because I can't see how that is any different from divorce because one partner no longer fancies the other, or is bored by living with them, which are the usual reasons for divorce these days.

I didn't say I agreed with him. I don't regard him in that sense any different than any other divorced man who is ordained. But I do assume he was more than usually discontented with the sex life he was stuck with, given his orientation. So in a moral culpability way, he's not just the usual fifties power-male trading up for a younger model.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0