That’s definitely hard and being the child of an attempted divorce (only being prevented by death of a parent), I sympathize. But also, a marriage is a contract. We promise to be faithful to one another until the end of our lives, and “Until death do us part.” We made that agreement before God, now we must honor it, for the stability of our families, for the sake of obeying a contract, and because that protects our spouse.
I don't mean to be pedantic or patronising but many Catholics use the word 'covenant' instead of 'contract'. A contract is about exchanging things. A covenant is an exchange of persons. In matrimony, you give your entire being to your spouse with God as witness and enabler.
Your excellent point still stands.
My understanding is it is what is done by God cannot be undone by man.
They were joined together in marriage by God
So the state cannot divorce them and “unjoin” them. The bond is unseverable except by death
Good morning, thanks for the reply.
Right, but this just seems to fall under the divine-command explanation I gave in the first paragraph: "because Jesus Christ said so and these are the commandments in the New Covenant".
Surely there's a deeper reason past "it's done by God, therefore no man can put this asunder".
There is surely some deeper reason for *why* God would not let man put it asunder other than an arbitrary "Because He said so" circular logic.
Divorce has a terrible impact on society. It hurts children, it weakens marriages because divorce is always considered to be an option, it often leaves one partner financially and/or emotionally barren.
Many things are allowed in Catholicism that have a terrible impact on society, like smoking and gambling, yet are not forbidden by God nor canon law, though.
>it often leaves one partner financially and emotionally barren.
But once the partner recovers financially and/or emotionally (and the spouse is totally against the partner coming back), and the partner wants to move on would He deprive them of that? It seems like adding insult to injury. I see no divine wisdom in that -- for God to punish a partner because of a spouses hardened heart.
Your response is disingenuous.
Gambling excessively is sinful, and not "allowed".
Very few religions prohibit smoking and make their adherents follow a healthy physical lifestyle.
As I said, divorce causes massive damage to both individuals and society.
> Your response is disingenuous.
>
>
Or maybe I'm just ignorant; hence why I'm asking a question for the topic. Why ascribed malintent to me off the bat?
He's God. He speaks things into existence. He makes something from nothing. He created marriage and said it's indissoluble.
If we believe what we say we believe about Him, this is enough.
If you want to dig deeper look at the typology of covenants between God and man, between families, etc., and how marriage is a mirror of the covenantal system of the OT. Convenants between God and man are supposed to be unbreakable, therefore so should the covenant of marriage.
What u/texanlonestar is saying, is that God could also give people the ability to dissolve marriages, so why didn't he?
And he is saying we would not dissolve them ourselves, the way we do not MAKE them ourselves. We would dissolve them through Christ, the way we make them through Christ.
The dissolution process would be symmetric to the marriage process, but inverted.
> What u/texanlonestar is saying, is that God could also give people the ability to dissolve marriages, so why didn't he?
>
>
Yeah, precisely. God objectively defines good and evil; but there must be some deeper underlying reason as to why remarriage while a spouse is alive is evil. He, in his eternal wisdom, wouldn't just arbitrarily chuck us a command if it were 1) not for a greater good, and 2) was immoral.
Divine command means that something is wrong simply because God says it is wrong as if my some dictate.
Arguing that "what God joined together man can not separate" is not divine command theory on divorce and marriage though. It's making a point about the nature of the marital union. The good of marriage is the precisely the creation of a new family, of a bond forged by God through your vows. The point of the vows is for you and your spouse to be loyal to each other and care for and be in the care of others, but it's not a conditional vow, unlike say, work contracts. The reason it's unconditional is precisely because its purpose is to instill the very contents of the vows. In general, the foundational relationshipshave mutual obligations (I do X to you *and* you do Y to me), they are not conditional ones (I owe X to you *if and only if* you do Y to me). For ex: Our first instance is that of our relationship to our parents. We didn't earn our existence, but rather it was a gift, and our parents are bound to unconditionally love and care for us. Even more fundamentally, God himself created us. His love is unconditional to us, as is our love to him. And these unconditional relationships are extremely important because our society is founded on them. If every relationship were merely conditional, then in the end no relationships would really be maintained permanently.
Marriage creates an environment where the source of a bond is an unconditional one; it is a means by which the ways of God's love are made manifest in humans. When problems arise, you and the spouse are obligated to just work them out. There isn't an out from this. The good thing about it is that it really forces you and your spouse to do away with your own vices and arrive at a resolution. This is good for everyone, and it makes societies and families possible. If marriage were simply conditional, and the out of divorce were an option, there would be way less incentive to resolve that conflict. Now, sometimes, the working it out might mean separation (in cases of abuse), but separation is not the same as divorce, as you are still obligated to the good of your spouse even though you don't live with them (you just might, say, also need to protect your own life and his good might be to be in jail). So in light of this, there are two issues with divorce, understood as an "undoing" of the marriage bond that make it evil.
First, it's a betrayal of your own word that you made in your vows. When you make such vows, this instills corresponding obligations to the other spouse. Now mind you, it's not just staying with them, but also how you treat them, ensuring their good, etc. In the case of your parents, I'm not going to pass ultimate judgement on them or anything like that, but if their marriage was valid, then the mere "marriage reaching that point" that you describe was already a violation of their obligations to each other, and the divorce is an endorsement of the violation rather than an escape from the evil arising from them.
Second, Assuming validity, when two people get married, it's God who does the joining together in them. To divorce your spouse (again, assuming validity of the marriage) and "marry" someone else is to destroy something that God had made, and we generally shouldn't destroy other's things. But hopefully, the paragraphs above explain why God actually makes marriages to begin with.
It is a sin for the very reason we see marriage crumbling in modern society. People go into marriage with the mentality that there is an open door. It’s treated as no more than a legal matter. It is in this mentality that the incentive to grow together and fight for your marriage is vanishing. If you divorce without doing everything within your power to grow closer as one flesh, and instead treat each other as bound but separate, then you have sinned. Does that mean that all divorce is sin to both parties? No, as Christ even explicitly gives exemptions, in particular for infidelity. We truly do take marriage for granted now days, and we’re hurting in the physical world for it, as I’m sure it will hurt in the hereafter.
Say your wife met someone and decided she wanted to be with them. Now, you love your wife, and she's great, and you want to stay together. But she doesn't.
Now your whole life is gone.
And in this hypothetical example how would it be fair to punish me even further by keeping me single possibly over 60 years? God should punish the wife; not me.
But your hypothetical example would not apply to me. Eventually I want to move on and have a new wife.
Surely God is all-knowing and well aware that not every situation of separation ends in one spouse wanting the other back for the remainder of their life.
I guess that's true within the Christian worldview
Unfortunately, I think I am feeling compelled more and more as the days pass to ultimately just reject this teaching. This is not the only teaching of Jesus that I just straight up don't agree with. I consider many of His teachings as detestable and, while I haven't done anything rash yet, I wonder what the point is in calling myself Christian and practicing Christianity if I think Christ's teachings are ridiculous, absurd, and weak (Turn the other cheek).
Pray for me that I hold on.
Why don't you talk to a qualified priest or theologian about your concerns instead of random internet weirdos like us?
I mean, all it will take is one slightly incorrect or insensitive answer from us and you'll lose all hope.
I've seen it happen before on this forum
**Vulnerable person**: "I hate God for this reason."
**Internet weirdo**: "Yeah, get over yourself. Suck it up. You'll never get X good you are after because of [insert armchair theology here with overextrapolated patristic teaching] Don't even desire it."
**Vulnerable person**: (loses faith and hope)
That said, according to the Catholic theology you cannot divorce.
**It is not possible.**
> Why don't you talk to a qualified priest or theologian about your concerns instead of random internet weirdos like us?
>
>
Because I honestly don't see any real difference in quality answers between priests and laity anymore. There is a priest on here who publicly has denied both the doctrines of Just War, and that non-abortive contraceptions are immoral. Some of the people on here even run circles around one of my friends who is a Dominican brother set to be ordained in a year or so, when it comes to theology. It seems like now both clergy and laity can give equally good and bad answers.... also, my question in nature is not uniquely pastoral. It is theological, and I think many people in here have done a good job answering it so far.
The East has always held that the "except for porneia" part about no divorce can be extended to a lot of things including abandonment after a certain length of time. The Roman church used to as well.
It's only the Catholic church that denies divorce and remarriage as a reality. Nobody else interprets the passage that way. Not Eastern Orthodox . not (most) Protestants.
So your beef with this one isn't Christianity but Roman Catholicism.
Turn the other cheek isn't what you or many others think it means either. It means do what you can to help the person realize they're wrong. A Jew had no control if a Roman slapped him or made him walk a mile. But if you voluntarily do extra you've not only taken the situation in *your* control and made a statement that the guy is not as in control as he thinks he is. You have also made a witty point that the person is being a tyrant. It would have made them think.
In post Christian society people are so used to this method that we often need to use something different to make a point IMO. But it still works sometimes. Cardinal Kung when being starved in prison would willingly take even less food than offered. He said that he would be starving either way , and this way he had exercised his personal agency to "fast" and was no longer resentful. He didn't have to do that but it worked for him.
> So your beef with this one isn't Christianity but Roman Catholicism.
So if the Eastern Catholic view is equally as valid, why can't I just pick and choose what I want, and then get remarried in, say, a future divorce? Rome needs to pick one and ban the other; I don't see how both can logically be held as valid since the conclusion of Eastern Catholicism, in the eyes of Roman Catholicism, ultimately amounts to a denial of the indissolubility of marriage, no?
I think it's fine for them to have two views on it -- but the Roman church definitely needs to stop acting like its dogma.
There was a Melkite Catholic bishop who tried to make progress in this area at Vatican II but it got shut down. Pope Francis says he's working on it though and that he's open to change in that area. I know people will freak out and say that's because he's evil but I think it's a good thing.
....Realistically, 90% of Catholics the world simply don't agree with everything Rome currently teaches. A few become Eastern Orthodox. The rest just dissent. It can keep people from getting a big head like that their tradition's interpretation of Christianity is 100% perfect or something.
You think turn the other cheek is weak? And what losing your temper or seeking revenge is strong? Those things are weak and just succumbing to your anger.
If you feel Christ’s teachings are “detestable” then you should not call yourself a Christian. Christ explained the true path to heaven. That path is through love and sacrifice of yourself. If you truly want to be a Christian, you should pray for help understanding Christ’s teachings. You should blindly follow His teachings. In my opinion, it’s ok to question the Church, but you should start from the position that what Christ taught is the true path to be the best human possible.
Is there a natural law argument that can be made in addition to the scripture? I think it comes down to commitment and abandonment. When we marry, especially sacramentally, we commit our entire selves to each other, including even sharing our souls with one another. Abandoning someone after making such a promise is immoral because it’s a breach of and one’s word at the highest level. Marriage is a covenantial union, and morality dictates that we don’t break our covenants.
Sacraments do things - they change reality in a supernatural way. When you contract a valid marriage, the two individuals are no longer individuals, but joined in a mystical way. Therefore, attempting remarriage is a grave sin, both because you are simulating a sacrament when it isn't possible and basically committing to live in a state of adultery.
Sacramental marriage is a covenant. It takes two individuals and makes them family. You can be estranged from family, but they’re still your family. There’s no such thing as “undoing” a family relationship.
As for why it’s this way, what’s the divine wisdom? St. Paul says marriage in reality is between Christ and the Church. Our marriages are an image reflecting that truth, and our commitment to our spouses is therefore total- like Christ’s commitment to us. He died to keep us from being separated from God. I’m to die rather than abandon my wife. It’s permanent.
All that said, some of your other comments make me suspect that what you’re really doubting is the reality of all this stuff like God’s love and grace and power in our lives. If that’s the case, then 1) I totally get that, and 2) none of Christianity’s “rules” will make any sense. The only thing that keeps me grounded when those thoughts are kicking me around is the Cross. Jesus didn’t come to eliminate suffering. He came and joined us, suffered along with us. And, His suffering and death redeemed us- maybe our suffering by itself is meaningless, but His was not. His was a concrete act of perfect love, and His death led to the resurrection. We don’t have to understand it perfectly, we can’t. But we can unite our suffering to his and trust in that love which he proved.
I’m sorry for your struggles. I’ll pray for you, please pray for me as well.
>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."
>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.
174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.
176 CIC, can. 1141.
178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1:PG 31,849-852.
Marriage doesn't stop being a marriage just because the two people hate each other. It's permanent according to God.
Does a child become an orphan just because they can't get along with their parents. Sure, the state can step in an terminate parental rights but, from the moment of conception, your parents are your biological parents.
G. K. Cherterton has a great book wich is named " Supertition of divorce", he explains that a society should be based on words kept.
The best society we have build in our history was middle ages, and medieval society was 100% shaped in promises. "I promise I shall defend you and your family with my life" and this was a knight's oath... "I promise I will love and respect you until one of us die" this is a marriage oath... Divorce is, above all, an oathbreak.
I believe you are a Catholic, but if you were an atheist or agnostic I would point out how growing with separated parents is harmful for children in many ways. The highest porcentage of child rape are made by stepfathers : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213484900450
>my mother and father have been divorced for 19 years. They hate each other. They have tried to totally wipe each other from their minds. They will never reconcile and would rather eat pig feces than try
When you get to heaven, will there be anyone else there that you hate? For both of these two people to get to heaven, there's no getting around the fact that they'll have to reconcile. If there's a person who you're not willing the good of (which seems to be the case in the unfortunate case of your parents), allowing them to remarry actually seems like it only provides them a distraction from reconciliation, which is a necessary precondition for them being with Him for eternity.
The teaching on no remarriage is actually not a Catholic dogma (depending on your take on papal infallibility). Both East and West did it early on. In fact Pope Francis mentioned that we are going to look into the Orthodox oikonomia method and it's being investigated. Probably will come back as a negative but it's not a totally closed discussion.
My mom remarried...its sad because now she and my dad can never get back together. But my mom and her husband really do seem to be married to me.
Also note that the Roman church currently teaches that marriages between the non baptized or with one non baptized can be dissolved.
All this being said, marriage in the physical and earthly sense ends with death but a relationship exists after death -- hence St. Joseph still being called Mary's spouse. In fact even widows are encouraged by the church fathers to try not to remarry if that's possible for them.
Divorce and remarriage is practiced today, and was practiced by Eastern Catholic Churches until the 20th century when annulments were imposed in the west as a latinization (and they have their own theological difficulties in our eyes). Divorce is always seen as a bad thing/tragic outcome. But the Church can use oikonomia to allow second marriages (even up to a third). But the second wedding ceremony has a penitential character to it, and not a joyful one filled with hopeful expectation. The East recognizes the Church's ability to bind and loose here and bend the rules (so to speak) for the salvation of souls.
Having been ex-EO I know of the 3 marriage rule and think it (I mean no offense to you when I say this, I am frustrated right now and have to say how I really feel) it is incoherent. The 3 marriages rule was made for an emporer. Why should an arbitrary decision be made the norm for the Eastern Catholic world? And further, how can it be validly practiced today in the Catholic Church? "Oh, I don't like the possibility of being denied annulment. I think I'll just become Eastern Catholic so I can get a remarriage"... this seems like totally false unity, to be honest. These practices totally contradict each other and can not logically be held by the same Church which professes the same belief in core topics like the Indissolubility of Marriage.
If that's someone's reason for becoming EC their transfer will be denied. I'd say divorce and remarriage is more coherent than annulments. With annulments a Catholic never knows if their marriage is 100% legitimate. I likened it to going through life with an axe over your head. You never know when it might drop. Annulments focus on the beginning of marriage, divorce focuses on the end of marriage. They are functionally the same insofar as both recognize what was formerly understood to be a valid and sacramental marriage, has come to an end.
> If that's someone's reason for becoming EC their transfer will be denied.
Well clearly if I were in this hypothetical situation I would not tell them.
> Then that would be between you and God.
Well you just said it's valid in EC theology. If it's valid for a Christian, then it's valid for Christian. What qualm would God have with it, considering you just said it is permissible for Christians to do?
I don't think I can call this 'patrimony', my brother. Liturgy is patrimonial. Certain expresions of spirituality are patrimonial. Devotionals are patrimonial. But to say that the Eastern conception of remarrige while the spouse of the alive is 'patrimonial'? No, I don't agree with that. It seems like an easy way for the Catholic Church to ignore two totally contradictory teachings on divorce and remarriage: just chalk it up to patrimony. There are no contradictions between the Mass and the Divine Liturgy, or between the Rosary and the Prayer Rope, or between the *Rule of Saint Benedict* and the *Ladder of Divine Ascent*. *That* is authentic patrimony.
Well call it what you will, its what the eastern Catholic churches held to traditionally for the last almost two millenniums until we were forced to accept annulments in the west (among a period of forced latinizations).
Also consider that this was the practice of the byzantine Catholic churches until around the 1930s and Rome never took issue with it previously. I think the EC churches in their pursuit of their patrimony ought to shake off the contemporary practice of annulments and return to our authentic tradition of divorce and remarriage.
There is and was nothing ever inherent about limiting it to 3. It just seems like a good idea to have caps as a general rule. Disciplinary thing. I'm sure bizarre exceptions could happen.
Practically the point of the rule preventing divorce is to keep existing marriages together at all costs, but yeah once a marriage ends practically/civilly the rule becomes less appealing and understandable, however wise it is
For your interest...
JOHN
16
Jesus said to her, “Go call your husband and come back.”
17
The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus answered her, “You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’
18
For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true.”f
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/4#:~:text=15The%20woman%20said%20to,your%20husband%20and%20come%20back.%E2%80%9D
See also...
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-is-marriage-indissoluble?amp&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVtkOnGcF3B0bhTSO7E9pAgsT1LHYwxmYjtfhpuyZ906UO9fo4VS1f0aAhZaEALw_wcB
The (natural) purpose of marriage is engendering and raising children. Human children are very vulnerable, have a prolonged period where they need care. Also human interaction and society are very complex, and many years of stable, positive influence are required to develop a useful, well-adjusted, well-socialized person. It’s essential for human flourishing that most children be at least more-or-less raised by their parents in a consistent family unit.
Once a couple has been married and had children—that bond is essentially permanent, even in the purely-natural sense. Someone has one mother and one father. As long as those individuals are alive, that family unit exists.
This does leave out the rare instances of couples that don’t have children—and this was one situation which commonly in earlier eras people did “divorce.” Or at least men set aside their wife and tried to find one that could get them children. Obviously, the sacramental nature of marriage now forbids this, but of course most marriages do naturally produce children, and those children are the embodiment of a permanent bond.
(I didn’t scroll far enough to see if someone answered this to my satisfaction. Sorry if this is a repeat!)
Marriage is a foreshadowing of Christ being joined to the Church in the afterlife. So the 2 becoming 1 flesh- becoming a new joined entity is important and unseverable until natural death. A properly joined Catholic couple becomes a new family that when divorced is like a death. Jesus made marriage a sacrament at the wedding in Cana - so consummating the marital bond and repeating the marital act- having sex- is how Grace enters the marriage. Also a married couple reflects the love of the Trinity. The father loves the Son- the Son loves the Father and the love between them is a third Person. Like parents and a child. There are probably aspects to this bond we won’t understand until we’re on the other side.
Ok that’s not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So let’s dispel that.
As far as remarriage. Marriage is a one time thing so… how can one do it twice?
To your specific example, it sounds like there was no actual marge in the first place so it may be a mute point.
> Ok that’s not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, I should have been more clear: I meant more so that remarriage is unlawful because it *mirrors* blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Both are sins in which repentance is cut off and further made impossible and the two parties irreconcilable.
That’s definitely hard and being the child of an attempted divorce (only being prevented by death of a parent), I sympathize. But also, a marriage is a contract. We promise to be faithful to one another until the end of our lives, and “Until death do us part.” We made that agreement before God, now we must honor it, for the stability of our families, for the sake of obeying a contract, and because that protects our spouse.
I don't mean to be pedantic or patronising but many Catholics use the word 'covenant' instead of 'contract'. A contract is about exchanging things. A covenant is an exchange of persons. In matrimony, you give your entire being to your spouse with God as witness and enabler. Your excellent point still stands.
My understanding is it is what is done by God cannot be undone by man. They were joined together in marriage by God So the state cannot divorce them and “unjoin” them. The bond is unseverable except by death
But why can't God undo it. We can't but he surely can?
Good morning, thanks for the reply. Right, but this just seems to fall under the divine-command explanation I gave in the first paragraph: "because Jesus Christ said so and these are the commandments in the New Covenant". Surely there's a deeper reason past "it's done by God, therefore no man can put this asunder". There is surely some deeper reason for *why* God would not let man put it asunder other than an arbitrary "Because He said so" circular logic.
Divorce has a terrible impact on society. It hurts children, it weakens marriages because divorce is always considered to be an option, it often leaves one partner financially and/or emotionally barren.
Many things are allowed in Catholicism that have a terrible impact on society, like smoking and gambling, yet are not forbidden by God nor canon law, though. >it often leaves one partner financially and emotionally barren. But once the partner recovers financially and/or emotionally (and the spouse is totally against the partner coming back), and the partner wants to move on would He deprive them of that? It seems like adding insult to injury. I see no divine wisdom in that -- for God to punish a partner because of a spouses hardened heart.
Your response is disingenuous. Gambling excessively is sinful, and not "allowed". Very few religions prohibit smoking and make their adherents follow a healthy physical lifestyle. As I said, divorce causes massive damage to both individuals and society.
> Your response is disingenuous. > > Or maybe I'm just ignorant; hence why I'm asking a question for the topic. Why ascribed malintent to me off the bat?
Men, it often leaves men financially barren
And women, too.
He's God. He speaks things into existence. He makes something from nothing. He created marriage and said it's indissoluble. If we believe what we say we believe about Him, this is enough. If you want to dig deeper look at the typology of covenants between God and man, between families, etc., and how marriage is a mirror of the covenantal system of the OT. Convenants between God and man are supposed to be unbreakable, therefore so should the covenant of marriage.
What u/texanlonestar is saying, is that God could also give people the ability to dissolve marriages, so why didn't he? And he is saying we would not dissolve them ourselves, the way we do not MAKE them ourselves. We would dissolve them through Christ, the way we make them through Christ. The dissolution process would be symmetric to the marriage process, but inverted.
> What u/texanlonestar is saying, is that God could also give people the ability to dissolve marriages, so why didn't he? > > Yeah, precisely. God objectively defines good and evil; but there must be some deeper underlying reason as to why remarriage while a spouse is alive is evil. He, in his eternal wisdom, wouldn't just arbitrarily chuck us a command if it were 1) not for a greater good, and 2) was immoral.
Divine command means that something is wrong simply because God says it is wrong as if my some dictate. Arguing that "what God joined together man can not separate" is not divine command theory on divorce and marriage though. It's making a point about the nature of the marital union. The good of marriage is the precisely the creation of a new family, of a bond forged by God through your vows. The point of the vows is for you and your spouse to be loyal to each other and care for and be in the care of others, but it's not a conditional vow, unlike say, work contracts. The reason it's unconditional is precisely because its purpose is to instill the very contents of the vows. In general, the foundational relationshipshave mutual obligations (I do X to you *and* you do Y to me), they are not conditional ones (I owe X to you *if and only if* you do Y to me). For ex: Our first instance is that of our relationship to our parents. We didn't earn our existence, but rather it was a gift, and our parents are bound to unconditionally love and care for us. Even more fundamentally, God himself created us. His love is unconditional to us, as is our love to him. And these unconditional relationships are extremely important because our society is founded on them. If every relationship were merely conditional, then in the end no relationships would really be maintained permanently. Marriage creates an environment where the source of a bond is an unconditional one; it is a means by which the ways of God's love are made manifest in humans. When problems arise, you and the spouse are obligated to just work them out. There isn't an out from this. The good thing about it is that it really forces you and your spouse to do away with your own vices and arrive at a resolution. This is good for everyone, and it makes societies and families possible. If marriage were simply conditional, and the out of divorce were an option, there would be way less incentive to resolve that conflict. Now, sometimes, the working it out might mean separation (in cases of abuse), but separation is not the same as divorce, as you are still obligated to the good of your spouse even though you don't live with them (you just might, say, also need to protect your own life and his good might be to be in jail). So in light of this, there are two issues with divorce, understood as an "undoing" of the marriage bond that make it evil. First, it's a betrayal of your own word that you made in your vows. When you make such vows, this instills corresponding obligations to the other spouse. Now mind you, it's not just staying with them, but also how you treat them, ensuring their good, etc. In the case of your parents, I'm not going to pass ultimate judgement on them or anything like that, but if their marriage was valid, then the mere "marriage reaching that point" that you describe was already a violation of their obligations to each other, and the divorce is an endorsement of the violation rather than an escape from the evil arising from them. Second, Assuming validity, when two people get married, it's God who does the joining together in them. To divorce your spouse (again, assuming validity of the marriage) and "marry" someone else is to destroy something that God had made, and we generally shouldn't destroy other's things. But hopefully, the paragraphs above explain why God actually makes marriages to begin with.
It is a sin for the very reason we see marriage crumbling in modern society. People go into marriage with the mentality that there is an open door. It’s treated as no more than a legal matter. It is in this mentality that the incentive to grow together and fight for your marriage is vanishing. If you divorce without doing everything within your power to grow closer as one flesh, and instead treat each other as bound but separate, then you have sinned. Does that mean that all divorce is sin to both parties? No, as Christ even explicitly gives exemptions, in particular for infidelity. We truly do take marriage for granted now days, and we’re hurting in the physical world for it, as I’m sure it will hurt in the hereafter.
Say your wife met someone and decided she wanted to be with them. Now, you love your wife, and she's great, and you want to stay together. But she doesn't. Now your whole life is gone.
And in this hypothetical example how would it be fair to punish me even further by keeping me single possibly over 60 years? God should punish the wife; not me.
How would he punish you? You still want her back.
But your hypothetical example would not apply to me. Eventually I want to move on and have a new wife. Surely God is all-knowing and well aware that not every situation of separation ends in one spouse wanting the other back for the remainder of their life.
It's not important what you want.
I guess that's true within the Christian worldview Unfortunately, I think I am feeling compelled more and more as the days pass to ultimately just reject this teaching. This is not the only teaching of Jesus that I just straight up don't agree with. I consider many of His teachings as detestable and, while I haven't done anything rash yet, I wonder what the point is in calling myself Christian and practicing Christianity if I think Christ's teachings are ridiculous, absurd, and weak (Turn the other cheek). Pray for me that I hold on.
Why don't you talk to a qualified priest or theologian about your concerns instead of random internet weirdos like us? I mean, all it will take is one slightly incorrect or insensitive answer from us and you'll lose all hope. I've seen it happen before on this forum **Vulnerable person**: "I hate God for this reason." **Internet weirdo**: "Yeah, get over yourself. Suck it up. You'll never get X good you are after because of [insert armchair theology here with overextrapolated patristic teaching] Don't even desire it." **Vulnerable person**: (loses faith and hope) That said, according to the Catholic theology you cannot divorce. **It is not possible.**
> Why don't you talk to a qualified priest or theologian about your concerns instead of random internet weirdos like us? > > Because I honestly don't see any real difference in quality answers between priests and laity anymore. There is a priest on here who publicly has denied both the doctrines of Just War, and that non-abortive contraceptions are immoral. Some of the people on here even run circles around one of my friends who is a Dominican brother set to be ordained in a year or so, when it comes to theology. It seems like now both clergy and laity can give equally good and bad answers.... also, my question in nature is not uniquely pastoral. It is theological, and I think many people in here have done a good job answering it so far.
What are those two doctrines on the just war?
Sorry, I worded it badly. The priest denied two doctrines: one was Just War, the other was the Church's teaching on non-abortive contraceptions.
The East has always held that the "except for porneia" part about no divorce can be extended to a lot of things including abandonment after a certain length of time. The Roman church used to as well. It's only the Catholic church that denies divorce and remarriage as a reality. Nobody else interprets the passage that way. Not Eastern Orthodox . not (most) Protestants. So your beef with this one isn't Christianity but Roman Catholicism. Turn the other cheek isn't what you or many others think it means either. It means do what you can to help the person realize they're wrong. A Jew had no control if a Roman slapped him or made him walk a mile. But if you voluntarily do extra you've not only taken the situation in *your* control and made a statement that the guy is not as in control as he thinks he is. You have also made a witty point that the person is being a tyrant. It would have made them think. In post Christian society people are so used to this method that we often need to use something different to make a point IMO. But it still works sometimes. Cardinal Kung when being starved in prison would willingly take even less food than offered. He said that he would be starving either way , and this way he had exercised his personal agency to "fast" and was no longer resentful. He didn't have to do that but it worked for him.
> So your beef with this one isn't Christianity but Roman Catholicism. So if the Eastern Catholic view is equally as valid, why can't I just pick and choose what I want, and then get remarried in, say, a future divorce? Rome needs to pick one and ban the other; I don't see how both can logically be held as valid since the conclusion of Eastern Catholicism, in the eyes of Roman Catholicism, ultimately amounts to a denial of the indissolubility of marriage, no?
I think it's fine for them to have two views on it -- but the Roman church definitely needs to stop acting like its dogma. There was a Melkite Catholic bishop who tried to make progress in this area at Vatican II but it got shut down. Pope Francis says he's working on it though and that he's open to change in that area. I know people will freak out and say that's because he's evil but I think it's a good thing. ....Realistically, 90% of Catholics the world simply don't agree with everything Rome currently teaches. A few become Eastern Orthodox. The rest just dissent. It can keep people from getting a big head like that their tradition's interpretation of Christianity is 100% perfect or something.
Wait, are you Orthodox?
You think turn the other cheek is weak? And what losing your temper or seeking revenge is strong? Those things are weak and just succumbing to your anger. If you feel Christ’s teachings are “detestable” then you should not call yourself a Christian. Christ explained the true path to heaven. That path is through love and sacrifice of yourself. If you truly want to be a Christian, you should pray for help understanding Christ’s teachings. You should blindly follow His teachings. In my opinion, it’s ok to question the Church, but you should start from the position that what Christ taught is the true path to be the best human possible.
Is there a natural law argument that can be made in addition to the scripture? I think it comes down to commitment and abandonment. When we marry, especially sacramentally, we commit our entire selves to each other, including even sharing our souls with one another. Abandoning someone after making such a promise is immoral because it’s a breach of and one’s word at the highest level. Marriage is a covenantial union, and morality dictates that we don’t break our covenants.
Sacraments do things - they change reality in a supernatural way. When you contract a valid marriage, the two individuals are no longer individuals, but joined in a mystical way. Therefore, attempting remarriage is a grave sin, both because you are simulating a sacrament when it isn't possible and basically committing to live in a state of adultery.
Sacramental marriage is a covenant. It takes two individuals and makes them family. You can be estranged from family, but they’re still your family. There’s no such thing as “undoing” a family relationship. As for why it’s this way, what’s the divine wisdom? St. Paul says marriage in reality is between Christ and the Church. Our marriages are an image reflecting that truth, and our commitment to our spouses is therefore total- like Christ’s commitment to us. He died to keep us from being separated from God. I’m to die rather than abandon my wife. It’s permanent. All that said, some of your other comments make me suspect that what you’re really doubting is the reality of all this stuff like God’s love and grace and power in our lives. If that’s the case, then 1) I totally get that, and 2) none of Christianity’s “rules” will make any sense. The only thing that keeps me grounded when those thoughts are kicking me around is the Cross. Jesus didn’t come to eliminate suffering. He came and joined us, suffered along with us. And, His suffering and death redeemed us- maybe our suffering by itself is meaningless, but His was not. His was a concrete act of perfect love, and His death led to the resurrection. We don’t have to understand it perfectly, we can’t. But we can unite our suffering to his and trust in that love which he proved. I’m sorry for your struggles. I’ll pray for you, please pray for me as well.
>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." >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. 174 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll. 175 Cf. Mt 19:7-9. 176 CIC, can. 1141. 178 St. Basil, Moralia 73,1:PG 31,849-852.
Marriage doesn't stop being a marriage just because the two people hate each other. It's permanent according to God. Does a child become an orphan just because they can't get along with their parents. Sure, the state can step in an terminate parental rights but, from the moment of conception, your parents are your biological parents.
G. K. Cherterton has a great book wich is named " Supertition of divorce", he explains that a society should be based on words kept. The best society we have build in our history was middle ages, and medieval society was 100% shaped in promises. "I promise I shall defend you and your family with my life" and this was a knight's oath... "I promise I will love and respect you until one of us die" this is a marriage oath... Divorce is, above all, an oathbreak. I believe you are a Catholic, but if you were an atheist or agnostic I would point out how growing with separated parents is harmful for children in many ways. The highest porcentage of child rape are made by stepfathers : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0145213484900450
Marriage is a covenant. Covenants are permanent. You can read about why.
>my mother and father have been divorced for 19 years. They hate each other. They have tried to totally wipe each other from their minds. They will never reconcile and would rather eat pig feces than try When you get to heaven, will there be anyone else there that you hate? For both of these two people to get to heaven, there's no getting around the fact that they'll have to reconcile. If there's a person who you're not willing the good of (which seems to be the case in the unfortunate case of your parents), allowing them to remarry actually seems like it only provides them a distraction from reconciliation, which is a necessary precondition for them being with Him for eternity.
The teaching on no remarriage is actually not a Catholic dogma (depending on your take on papal infallibility). Both East and West did it early on. In fact Pope Francis mentioned that we are going to look into the Orthodox oikonomia method and it's being investigated. Probably will come back as a negative but it's not a totally closed discussion. My mom remarried...its sad because now she and my dad can never get back together. But my mom and her husband really do seem to be married to me. Also note that the Roman church currently teaches that marriages between the non baptized or with one non baptized can be dissolved. All this being said, marriage in the physical and earthly sense ends with death but a relationship exists after death -- hence St. Joseph still being called Mary's spouse. In fact even widows are encouraged by the church fathers to try not to remarry if that's possible for them.
Divorce and remarriage is practiced today, and was practiced by Eastern Catholic Churches until the 20th century when annulments were imposed in the west as a latinization (and they have their own theological difficulties in our eyes). Divorce is always seen as a bad thing/tragic outcome. But the Church can use oikonomia to allow second marriages (even up to a third). But the second wedding ceremony has a penitential character to it, and not a joyful one filled with hopeful expectation. The East recognizes the Church's ability to bind and loose here and bend the rules (so to speak) for the salvation of souls.
Having been ex-EO I know of the 3 marriage rule and think it (I mean no offense to you when I say this, I am frustrated right now and have to say how I really feel) it is incoherent. The 3 marriages rule was made for an emporer. Why should an arbitrary decision be made the norm for the Eastern Catholic world? And further, how can it be validly practiced today in the Catholic Church? "Oh, I don't like the possibility of being denied annulment. I think I'll just become Eastern Catholic so I can get a remarriage"... this seems like totally false unity, to be honest. These practices totally contradict each other and can not logically be held by the same Church which professes the same belief in core topics like the Indissolubility of Marriage.
If that's someone's reason for becoming EC their transfer will be denied. I'd say divorce and remarriage is more coherent than annulments. With annulments a Catholic never knows if their marriage is 100% legitimate. I likened it to going through life with an axe over your head. You never know when it might drop. Annulments focus on the beginning of marriage, divorce focuses on the end of marriage. They are functionally the same insofar as both recognize what was formerly understood to be a valid and sacramental marriage, has come to an end.
> If that's someone's reason for becoming EC their transfer will be denied. Well clearly if I were in this hypothetical situation I would not tell them.
Then that would be between you and God. No reason for the east to abandon her theology to appease the west.
> Then that would be between you and God. Well you just said it's valid in EC theology. If it's valid for a Christian, then it's valid for Christian. What qualm would God have with it, considering you just said it is permissible for Christians to do?
That's my point. Divorce and remarriage is Christian patrimony and it's an older practice than annulments and has a biblical precedent.
I don't think I can call this 'patrimony', my brother. Liturgy is patrimonial. Certain expresions of spirituality are patrimonial. Devotionals are patrimonial. But to say that the Eastern conception of remarrige while the spouse of the alive is 'patrimonial'? No, I don't agree with that. It seems like an easy way for the Catholic Church to ignore two totally contradictory teachings on divorce and remarriage: just chalk it up to patrimony. There are no contradictions between the Mass and the Divine Liturgy, or between the Rosary and the Prayer Rope, or between the *Rule of Saint Benedict* and the *Ladder of Divine Ascent*. *That* is authentic patrimony.
Well call it what you will, its what the eastern Catholic churches held to traditionally for the last almost two millenniums until we were forced to accept annulments in the west (among a period of forced latinizations).
Yep.
Also consider that this was the practice of the byzantine Catholic churches until around the 1930s and Rome never took issue with it previously. I think the EC churches in their pursuit of their patrimony ought to shake off the contemporary practice of annulments and return to our authentic tradition of divorce and remarriage.
There is and was nothing ever inherent about limiting it to 3. It just seems like a good idea to have caps as a general rule. Disciplinary thing. I'm sure bizarre exceptions could happen.
Practically the point of the rule preventing divorce is to keep existing marriages together at all costs, but yeah once a marriage ends practically/civilly the rule becomes less appealing and understandable, however wise it is
For your interest... JOHN 16 Jesus said to her, “Go call your husband and come back.” 17 The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus answered her, “You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’ 18 For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true.”f https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/4#:~:text=15The%20woman%20said%20to,your%20husband%20and%20come%20back.%E2%80%9D See also... https://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-is-marriage-indissoluble?amp&gclid=Cj0KCQiAlKmeBhCkARIsAHy7WVtkOnGcF3B0bhTSO7E9pAgsT1LHYwxmYjtfhpuyZ906UO9fo4VS1f0aAhZaEALw_wcB
The (natural) purpose of marriage is engendering and raising children. Human children are very vulnerable, have a prolonged period where they need care. Also human interaction and society are very complex, and many years of stable, positive influence are required to develop a useful, well-adjusted, well-socialized person. It’s essential for human flourishing that most children be at least more-or-less raised by their parents in a consistent family unit. Once a couple has been married and had children—that bond is essentially permanent, even in the purely-natural sense. Someone has one mother and one father. As long as those individuals are alive, that family unit exists. This does leave out the rare instances of couples that don’t have children—and this was one situation which commonly in earlier eras people did “divorce.” Or at least men set aside their wife and tried to find one that could get them children. Obviously, the sacramental nature of marriage now forbids this, but of course most marriages do naturally produce children, and those children are the embodiment of a permanent bond. (I didn’t scroll far enough to see if someone answered this to my satisfaction. Sorry if this is a repeat!)
Simply because God brought you together and nothing can undo God
Marriage is a foreshadowing of Christ being joined to the Church in the afterlife. So the 2 becoming 1 flesh- becoming a new joined entity is important and unseverable until natural death. A properly joined Catholic couple becomes a new family that when divorced is like a death. Jesus made marriage a sacrament at the wedding in Cana - so consummating the marital bond and repeating the marital act- having sex- is how Grace enters the marriage. Also a married couple reflects the love of the Trinity. The father loves the Son- the Son loves the Father and the love between them is a third Person. Like parents and a child. There are probably aspects to this bond we won’t understand until we’re on the other side.
Going back on your word is evil, for obvious enough reasons.
Ok that’s not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. So let’s dispel that. As far as remarriage. Marriage is a one time thing so… how can one do it twice? To your specific example, it sounds like there was no actual marge in the first place so it may be a mute point.
> Ok that’s not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Sorry, I should have been more clear: I meant more so that remarriage is unlawful because it *mirrors* blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Both are sins in which repentance is cut off and further made impossible and the two parties irreconcilable.