|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Divorce: The Authorized and Compleat® Argument
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
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* ]
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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 ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ). 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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
By not leaving this one the way she left the previous 4?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
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?.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
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?)
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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. ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Some of us don't see it as a sacrament. But being solemn vows before God, to break them is still sinful.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I meant bishops, not priests, sorry.
Anyway, you're wrong. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) 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. ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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!"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
"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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
L
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lady A
Narnian Lady
# 3126
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2545 | From: The Lion's Mane, Narnia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ley Druid, I think the Greeks may be an oddity (no jokes please). Here is the OCA position on the matter.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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"?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
