-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (MDR)
- Thread starter Linus
- Start date
Scott1
Well-Known Member
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.
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.(Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.)
He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. ( Cf. Mt 19:7-9.)
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."
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.
Scriptural and historical references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html
Seems like a pretty clear cut issue Linus... how's the discussion going?
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.(Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.)
He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. ( Cf. Mt 19:7-9.)
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."
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.
Scriptural and historical references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/divorce_remarriage.html
Seems like a pretty clear cut issue Linus... how's the discussion going?
Linus
Well-Known Member
I agree. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything you stated, Scott, accept for one tiny, practically miniscule detail. And yes it is a semantic one, but still... This one:Scott1 said:
Emphasis mine.Scott1 said:
I would not define marriage as a contract, but a covenant. A promise. Especially in light of Malachai 2:14 -
Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
But that is neither here nor there, I suppose.
Anyway there are those, even among the brethren (as I'm sure you've guessed), that don't. Mainly with the remarriage part. I guess the main issue here is this: Does the "guilty party" (that is, the spouse who has commited adultery) have the right to remarry? I say no.
Very well so far. We just started last week so we haven't delved very deeply into it yet.Scott1 said:
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Mutual submission..... Trinitarian self-giving .... I can't remember.Victor said:
I get ya..... but we believe it's more than a simple promise.... covenant speaks more towards contract:Linus said:
Every religion has to do with some form of union, fellowship, friendship or relationship with the Deity. This is not peculiar to the Hebrew religion. What is peculiar to the Hebrew religion is that this union, fellowship and partnership with the Deity is based on a legal arrangement called a covenant. " ... covenant is a legal conception. . . . a legal basis is inherent in the very nature of the covenant." ~ lbid., p.257. This means that God's union, fellowship and partnership with man are based on a legal contract. Further, God will have no relationship with His people outside of this legal contract.
It may help us to grasp the significance of this point if we observe that the covenant between God and His people is often likened to a marriage contract (see Ezek. 16:8, 60; Hosea 2:16; Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:14; 31:32). In some respects Israel's solemn promise before Mount Sinai ("All that the Lord hath spoken we will do," Ex. 19:8) sounds like a bride making her wedding vow. The marriage contract, of course, is only one illustration and by no means exhausts the meaning of God's covenant with His people. But since this concept of a marriage contract is still with us moderns, it does help us to understand the biblical thought that our union with God is first of all a legal union. Just as the most sacred human relationship is based on a legal covenant, so God's union with man must be based on a legal covenant. God, being holy love, will have nothing to do with spiritual fornication.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/wordofgod/CovtBrins.cfm
Linus
Well-Known Member
As do I. But it is a promise nonetheless.Scott1 said:
I read you loud and clear.Scott1 said:
But what do you all think of the question I posed earlier? That is, If someone commits adultery and is divorced by their spouse, should the adulterous spouse be allowed (scripturally) to remarry someone else?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
The spouse who cheated? No.Linus said:
.... but the innocent spouse 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/cheated on, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. The innocent spouse should be allowed to remarry in the Church.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I know this is in biblical debates and I am not going to interject anything biblically...just a question. What are your stances on abuse? Even if there is no adultery in a marriage...is any form of abuse reason for divorce in your eyes? Be the abuse verbal, mental, emotional, or physical. At what point during abuse is it okay in your eyes for a divorce? And remarriage?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
For a Catholic, a marriage outside the Church would not be valid..... it may be blessed by the Church afterwards, but many Priests would make a huge deal about it....Linus said:
According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person)an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.
In marriages with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.
Linus
Well-Known Member
Good question Draka. One to which I'm still trying to figure out the answer myself.
Let's make this clear: God hates divorce.
Malachai 2:16 - "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
In no case does God enjoy divorce. He would rather see the marriage worked out than ended for good. But he allows it to occur ine one case. That is adultery. Having said that, I think it would be safe to say that It would please God more to see the abusive spouse put and end to his hurtful ways. Is abuse bad? Of course. Does it permit divorce? I would hesitate to say yes. In truth, I do not know, biblically.
Let's make this clear: God hates divorce.
Malachai 2:16 - "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
In no case does God enjoy divorce. He would rather see the marriage worked out than ended for good. But he allows it to occur ine one case. That is adultery. Having said that, I think it would be safe to say that It would please God more to see the abusive spouse put and end to his hurtful ways. Is abuse bad? Of course. Does it permit divorce? I would hesitate to say yes. In truth, I do not know, biblically.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
You are welcome in any thread I'm a part of my friend.Draka said:
Physical abuse is not only immoral, it is a crime and sould be punished to the full extent by law. A spouse that commits physical abuse fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.
.... OK, that's the "easy" part.... but as we move on to verbal/emotional abuse, it becomes more complicated. In my view, a couple in a situation like this would seek some marital counseling.... to me, the bonds of marriage are strong enough to work through most anything for the sake of family.... but yes, I am sure that there are cases where one spouse is beyond help/refuses help and will continue the abuse. The abused spouse in this instance would be forced to seek a divorce decreed by civil law. This spouse, would fall into the same category as one who was the victim of adultery in my opinon and would not be guilty of anything. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abused, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Abuse destroys the victim and the relationship is never the same. I bring this up because my ex-husband, while he did cheat on me, abused me a lot, in all ways. I could actually deal with the cheating, but it was the abuse I couldn't handle. Aside from the extremely hurtful things he said to me that tore me down as a person he actually took extreme joy in physically torturing me. From throwing me into furniture and walls, to striking me and biting me to tear flesh, to choking, strangling me and trying to kill me twice. The adultery at that point seemed like nothing at all. I didn't care who he slept with at all...just wanted to get away from his abusive mouth and hands...I feared for my life and sanity. Even if there was no cheating, I would have still divorced him...I had my life and the life of my daughter to think about. There was no way I could have stayed with the insane abusive man who thought he was an all powerful demon...literally he thought he could go into Hell and command other demons! He was crazy and violent and I had to get away from him.Linus said:
Draka
Wonder Woman
Thank you Scott...on all counts.Scott1 said:You are welcome in any thread I'm a part of my friend.
Physical abuse is not only immoral, it is a crime and sould be punished to the full extent by law. A spouse that commits physical abuse fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.
.... OK, that's the "easy" part.... but as we move on to verbal/emotional abuse, it becomes more complicated. In my view, a couple in a situation like this would seek some marital counseling.... to me, the bonds of marriage are strong enough to work through most anything for the sake of family.... but yes, I am sure that there are cases where one spouse is beyond help/refuses help and will continue the abuse. The abused spouse in this instance would be forced to seek a divorce decreed by civil law. This spouse, would fall into the same category as one who was the victim of adultery in my opinon and would not be guilty of anything. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abused, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.
Draka
Wonder Woman
What I'm curious to know...you now knowing that, is that if the cheating wasn't even a factor do you think it was "biblically" okay for me to divorce him?Linus said:
And also, do you think it is possible for two people to grow apart in who they are any more that communication breaks down to the point that counseling does not help and there is constant bitterness and spiteful things said between the two. If one person or both are no longer even happy in the relationship...is it "right" to continue in the marriage...especially if there are children involved that will see the bad relationship as an example of what a relationship or marriage is?
chuck010342
Active Member
Linus said:
I'm skeptical about this question here Linus. Why are you even studying it?
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
there is one passage, plenty of others are teaching on marriage.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I would say no because I think many marriages go thru stages like this. Even if the stage may last a long time, I have seen marriages come back after over 20 years. Keep in mind that a covenant has been made with God as well. You must be faithful to that as well.
~Victor
Draka
Wonder Woman
So it is better to spend 20 years of your already short time on this earth miserable and a bad example to your children of what a loving caring relationship should be? Wouldn't "God", if he so truly cares for his children, want us all to be happy and raise our children in kind and loving homes? When does it become more important for the health and happiness of the relationship and the children involved than the doctrine that says you shouldn't get divorced?Victor said:
We only have so many years of this life to lead...why should we be miserable during it and be bad examples to our children? Isn't our children what come first? I have personally found that children of divorced yet happy parents are often happier and more well adjusted than those of married unhappy parents. Children are smart...they see the strain on their parents and feel it in the family and that is the example and life we give them. Doesn't "God" want what is best for us and our children? Especially if there is the knowledge that we are only human with free will and that free will enables us to make mistakes...like being with the wrong person...why should we have to live with that mistake and not try to fix it? Are we not to learn from our mistakes?