by Al Janssen
If God really got married, the logical question is, “When?” Did I miss the wedding ceremony somewhere? The answer emerged when I learned about an ancient ceremony used between two nomadic tribes to make a peace treaty or to promise a boy and girl in marriage. The fathers would slaughter a goat or other animal, cut the carcass in half, and then at sundown walk barefoot through the blood path. The slaughtered animals symbolized what would happen to either party if they violated the terms of the agreement.
This was the ceremony God chose to use when he entered into a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. God asked Abram to take a heifer, a goat and a ram, plus a dove and a young pigeon, and slaughter them. But there was an unusual twist in this ceremony. While Abraham and his descendants were committed to this covenant with God, only God walked the blood path, thereby signifying that if Israel violated the agreement, God would pay the price with His own blood.
Technically, Abram and his descendants weren't married to God in the same sense that we understand a wedding ceremony today. It would be more accurate to say they were betrothed, which means that they were promised to each other. It is the same for Christ and His bride, the church. The wedding feast celebrating this marriage remains in the future at the wedding supper of the Lamb.
In our culture, couples are first engaged — they declare their intent to marry — but either party may back out before the wedding day, and there is no legal consequence for breaking an engagement. Such was not the case with betrothal. A betrothal was an ironclad contract that could be severed only by unfaithfulness or death. Though a couple might not celebrate and consummate their marriage for years, legally they were still considered married.
Such was the case with Joseph and Mary when she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. If a girl who was betrothed was found not to be a virgin before the wedding feast, when the marriage was consummated, she could be executed. This explains why Joseph, upon hearing that Mary was pregnant, decided not to make a public spectacle of his wife but to put her away privately — that is, until God spoke to him and revealed the identity of the child in her womb.
I wonder what the impact was on the children who witnessed a covenant sealed in blood by their fathers. Though they might hardly know each other, and indeed it might be years before they were ready to celebrate the wedding, they surely understood the commitment being made. There was only one way to escape from this marriage — by death.
Marriage Today
When a couple marries today, a lot of effort goes into the wedding. According to Bride's magazine, when the average couple adds up the costs of a wedding dress, tuxedos, dresses for the bridesmaids, rings, invitations, flowers, music, photographer, wedding cake and reception, they spend more than $19,000.
When we were married, Jo was a poor schoolteacher and I was a poor writer. We had less than $1,000 for our wedding. Jo brilliantly maximized the reach of our limited budget by making her own wedding dress and soliciting help from friends and family for such things as food preparation.
A major element of our planning was the ceremony itself. We'd both attended many weddings, and the norm of the late seventies was for each couple to custom-design their ceremony.
In that spirit, Jo and I sat down one Sunday afternoon to write out our commitment to each other. We discussed what we were doing in marriage: pledging to be faithful, to take care of each other, to support one another during good times and hard times. We scribbled several drafts, but none of them captured the right tone.
Finally, we settled on the following:
"I Al take thee, Jo, to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health 'til death do us part."
"I Jo take thee, Al, to be my lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health 'til death do us part."
Those words or a slight variation of them have served Christians for centuries, and we couldn't find anything that better expressed what we were committing to each other. They expressed the vows we were making — an irrevocable commitment to each other with God as our witness.
Covenant
Today most people don't understand what covenant means. Our culture is built on contracts, and everyone knows that a crackerjack lawyer can find a loophole if you really want out. So contracts get longer and longer as the parties try to close all possible loopholes, but litigation increases because people change their minds and want release from their agreements.
One contract that is increasing in usage is the prenuptial agreement. A covenant is not at all like a prenuptial agreement. For one thing, there is no escape clause. In ancient times, a covenant was a legal agreement, but with two major differences from contracts today. A covenant was made before deity. And the penalty for breaking it was death. People might negotiate out of contracts, but not out of a covenant.
The covenant between God and Abraham was more binding than a wedding certificate is today. God impressed on Abraham the importance of the covenant: “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you.” While Abraham didn’t walk the blood path, there was a symbol of his acceptance of the agreement. The proof of Abraham’s commitment was that he and every male descendant was circumcised (Genesis 17:9-14).
But in the covenant of blood, God traveled the blood path alone. By doing so, he said that if Abraham or any of his descendants violated this contract, God would pay the price with His own blood. There would come a day when God would heroically have to keep that promise.
For centuries in liturgical churches the service of holy matrimony has been clearly spelled out word for word. As I read several liturgies, I was struck by the similarities between the church service of holy matrimony and the biblical concept of covenant.
For example, the marriage service is conducted before God. Historically a covenant was always a religious ceremony, made before God or gods as witnesses. It was the one treaty between enemies that was enforceable, because neither party was willing to risk the wrath of their deity.
In the English Book of Common Prayer (1662), a wedding service begins with the minister addressing the congregation: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God…to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony." Again and again, the couple and witnesses are reminded that God is witness to this union.
Second, a covenant had witnesses. Likewise, the marriage vows are made before human witnesses. Why is that important? A pastor I know challenged a friend who had just announced he was leaving his wife of six years. "Oh no you're not!" said the pastor. "You made a vow to love your wife until death. I know. I was there and I heard you. Now you stay with her and work things out." The man was shocked, but he stayed, and today their marriage is much healthier. I wonder what would happen if, like this pastor, more witnesses challenged couples to fulfill their wedding vows.
Third, both a covenant and a traditional marriage ceremony declared the seriousness of the commitment. In The Book of Common Prayer, the minister utters these words in his opening exhortation to the congregation and the couple standing before him: "Holy Matrimony…is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be enterprised…unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God."
Recently, as I reflected on the vows Jo and I exchanged at our wedding, I was struck by the one-sidedness of our commitment. There were no qualifiers or disclaimers. I had promised to love Jo for better or worse until death, regardless of her actions or attitude. Likewise, Jo promised to have me for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, for as long as we both shall live, regardless of how well or poorly I behaved. No doubt we both assumed we would reciprocate in our love for each other. However, our vows said nothing about being loved back. By our words, each of us assumed 100 percent responsibility for the marriage. That's the nature of covenant. Each party makes an irrevocable vow.
Fourth, something of great value was exchanged. God wanted to give Abraham and his descendants a country, but He did it in the context of family. Did Abraham realize he was actually getting the best end of the deal? He was entering into a long-term relationship with the God of the universe. The land was very important, but it wasn't the most important thing — it was a symbol of the value of their relationship.
I am impressed again by the nature of the exchange in the traditional marriage service. It particularly struck me when I read the words uttered by the husband when he places the wedding ring on his wife's finger: "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.” In other words, the husband gave everything he had to his wife, including his body and his earthly possessions. No longer were there his or her possessions. Everything was theirs. Why is this important? Because in giving our all, we actually gain what we want.
Permanence of Marriage
Obviously millions of couples chafe under the idea of covenant, feeling that the permanence fences them in. But Jo and I feel secure within these boundaries. Without the possibility of divorce, Jo and I know that regardless of our problems, we will be there for each other. And when we disagree or fight, we had better figure out a way to resolve our differences, for we are going to be together for a very long time.
This article is excerpted from The Marriage Masterpiece, a Focus on the Family resource by Al Janssen, published by Tyndale House Publishers, copyright © 2001. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Monday, September 22, 2008
God's Design for Marriage
by Carol Heffernan
It's easy to think that only "other people" get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court?
Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise "until death do us part," can have it all fall apart.
As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage "Christian"?
According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?
Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them.
In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical "how to have a happier relationship" book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy and holy?
Viewing Marriage Realistically
"We have to stop asking of marriage what God never designed it to give — perfect happiness, conflict-free living, and idolatrous obsession," Thomas explains.
Instead, he says, we can appreciate what God designed marriage to provide: partnership, spiritual intimacy and the ability to pursue God — together. So, what does Thomas think is the most common misconception Christians have about marriage?
"Finding a 'soul mate' — someone who will complete us," he says. "The problem with looking to another human to complete us is that, spiritually speaking, it's idolatry. We are to find our fulfillment and purpose in God . . . and if we expect our spouse to be 'God' to us, he or she will fail every day. No person can live up to such expectations."
Everyone has bad days, yells at his or her spouse, or is downright selfish. Despite these imperfections, God created the husband and wife to steer each other in His direction.
Thomas offers an example: "When my wife forgives me . . . and accepts me, I learn to receive God's forgiveness and acceptance as well. In that moment, she is modeling God to me, revealing God's mercy to me, and helping me to see with my own eyes a very real spiritual reality."
While it's easy to see why God designed an other-centered union for a me-centered world, living that way is a challenge. So when bills pile up, communication breaks down and you're just plain irritated with your husband or wife, Thomas offers these reminders to help ease the tension:
* God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
* Marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family.
* God designed sexual expression to help married couples build intimacy.
* Marriage mirrors God's covenant relationship with His people.
We see this last parallel throughout the Bible. For instance, Jesus refers to Himself as the "bridegroom" and to the kingdom of heaven as a "wedding banquet."
These points demonstrate that God's purposes for marriage extend far beyond personal happiness. Thomas is quick to clarify that God isn't against happiness per se, but that marriage promotes even higher values.
"God did not create marriage just to give us a pleasant means of repopulating the world and providing a steady societal institution to raise children. He planted marriage among humans as yet another signpost pointing to His own eternal, spiritual existence."
Serving Our Spouse
He spends the entire evening at the office — again. She spends money without entering it in the checkbook. He goes golfing instead of spending time with the kids. From irritating habits to weighty issues that seem impossible to resolve, loving one's spouse through the tough times isn't easy. But the same struggles that drive us apart also shed light on what we value in marriage.
"If happiness is our primary goal, we'll get a divorce as soon as happiness seems to wane," Thomas says. "If receiving love is our primary goal, we'll dump our spouse as soon as they seem to be less attentive. But if we marry for the glory of God, to model His love and commitment to our children, and to reveal His witness to the world, divorce makes no sense."
Couples who've survived a potentially marriage-ending situation, such as infidelity or a life-threatening disease, may continue to battle years of built-up resentment, anger or bitterness. So, what are some ways to strengthen a floundering relationship — or even encourage a healthy one? Thomas offers these practical tips:
* Focus on your spouse's strengths rather than their weaknesses.
* Encourage rather than criticize.
* Pray for your spouse instead of gossiping about them.
* Learn and live what Christ teaches about relating to and loving others.
Young couples in particular can benefit from this advice. After all, many newlyweds aren't adequately prepared to make the transition from seeing one another several times a week to suddenly sharing everything. Odds are, annoying habits and less-than-appealing behaviors will surface. Yet as Christians, we are called to respect everyone — including our spouse.
Thomas adds, "The image I use in Sacred Marriage is that we need to learn how to 'fall forward.' That is, when we are frustrated or angry, instead of pulling back, we must still pursue our partner under God's mercy and grace."
Lastly, Thomas suggests praying this helpful prayer: Lord, how can I love my spouse today like (s)he's never been loved and never will be loved?
"I can't tell you how many times God has given me very practical advice — from taking over some driving trips to doing a few loads of laundry," Thomas says. "It's one prayer that I find gets answered just about every time."
While other marriage books may leave us feeling overwhelmed, spotlighting our shortcomings and providing pages of "relationship homework," Sacred Marriage makes it clear that any couple can have a successful, happy and holy marriage.
With a Christ-centered relationship, an other-centered attitude and an unwavering commitment to making it work, your marriage can flourish — just as God designed.
Gary L. Thomas is a writer and the founder and director of the Center for Evangelical Spirituality, a writing and speaking ministry that integrates Scripture, church history, and the Christian classics.
Carol Heffernan is the online editor for broadcast programming at Focus on the Family.
It's easy to think that only "other people" get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court?
Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise "until death do us part," can have it all fall apart.
As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage "Christian"?
According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?
Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them.
In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical "how to have a happier relationship" book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy and holy?
Viewing Marriage Realistically
"We have to stop asking of marriage what God never designed it to give — perfect happiness, conflict-free living, and idolatrous obsession," Thomas explains.
Instead, he says, we can appreciate what God designed marriage to provide: partnership, spiritual intimacy and the ability to pursue God — together. So, what does Thomas think is the most common misconception Christians have about marriage?
"Finding a 'soul mate' — someone who will complete us," he says. "The problem with looking to another human to complete us is that, spiritually speaking, it's idolatry. We are to find our fulfillment and purpose in God . . . and if we expect our spouse to be 'God' to us, he or she will fail every day. No person can live up to such expectations."
Everyone has bad days, yells at his or her spouse, or is downright selfish. Despite these imperfections, God created the husband and wife to steer each other in His direction.
Thomas offers an example: "When my wife forgives me . . . and accepts me, I learn to receive God's forgiveness and acceptance as well. In that moment, she is modeling God to me, revealing God's mercy to me, and helping me to see with my own eyes a very real spiritual reality."
While it's easy to see why God designed an other-centered union for a me-centered world, living that way is a challenge. So when bills pile up, communication breaks down and you're just plain irritated with your husband or wife, Thomas offers these reminders to help ease the tension:
* God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
* Marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family.
* God designed sexual expression to help married couples build intimacy.
* Marriage mirrors God's covenant relationship with His people.
We see this last parallel throughout the Bible. For instance, Jesus refers to Himself as the "bridegroom" and to the kingdom of heaven as a "wedding banquet."
These points demonstrate that God's purposes for marriage extend far beyond personal happiness. Thomas is quick to clarify that God isn't against happiness per se, but that marriage promotes even higher values.
"God did not create marriage just to give us a pleasant means of repopulating the world and providing a steady societal institution to raise children. He planted marriage among humans as yet another signpost pointing to His own eternal, spiritual existence."
Serving Our Spouse
He spends the entire evening at the office — again. She spends money without entering it in the checkbook. He goes golfing instead of spending time with the kids. From irritating habits to weighty issues that seem impossible to resolve, loving one's spouse through the tough times isn't easy. But the same struggles that drive us apart also shed light on what we value in marriage.
"If happiness is our primary goal, we'll get a divorce as soon as happiness seems to wane," Thomas says. "If receiving love is our primary goal, we'll dump our spouse as soon as they seem to be less attentive. But if we marry for the glory of God, to model His love and commitment to our children, and to reveal His witness to the world, divorce makes no sense."
Couples who've survived a potentially marriage-ending situation, such as infidelity or a life-threatening disease, may continue to battle years of built-up resentment, anger or bitterness. So, what are some ways to strengthen a floundering relationship — or even encourage a healthy one? Thomas offers these practical tips:
* Focus on your spouse's strengths rather than their weaknesses.
* Encourage rather than criticize.
* Pray for your spouse instead of gossiping about them.
* Learn and live what Christ teaches about relating to and loving others.
Young couples in particular can benefit from this advice. After all, many newlyweds aren't adequately prepared to make the transition from seeing one another several times a week to suddenly sharing everything. Odds are, annoying habits and less-than-appealing behaviors will surface. Yet as Christians, we are called to respect everyone — including our spouse.
Thomas adds, "The image I use in Sacred Marriage is that we need to learn how to 'fall forward.' That is, when we are frustrated or angry, instead of pulling back, we must still pursue our partner under God's mercy and grace."
Lastly, Thomas suggests praying this helpful prayer: Lord, how can I love my spouse today like (s)he's never been loved and never will be loved?
"I can't tell you how many times God has given me very practical advice — from taking over some driving trips to doing a few loads of laundry," Thomas says. "It's one prayer that I find gets answered just about every time."
While other marriage books may leave us feeling overwhelmed, spotlighting our shortcomings and providing pages of "relationship homework," Sacred Marriage makes it clear that any couple can have a successful, happy and holy marriage.
With a Christ-centered relationship, an other-centered attitude and an unwavering commitment to making it work, your marriage can flourish — just as God designed.
Gary L. Thomas is a writer and the founder and director of the Center for Evangelical Spirituality, a writing and speaking ministry that integrates Scripture, church history, and the Christian classics.
Carol Heffernan is the online editor for broadcast programming at Focus on the Family.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
What I Wish I'd Known Before I Got Divorced
By Georgia Shaffer
Five friends and I were having breakfast one morning when our conversation turned to our friend Cindy.* She was convinced divorce was the answer to her problems.
"I wish Cindy would listen to us," I said.
"She made it clear she doesn't want to hear anything from us divorcées," said Betsy. "She's made up her mind, and she's not changing it."
That morning, in utter frustration, my friends and I compiled a list: what we wish we'd known before we got divorced—the things we wanted Cindy to know before she made her final decision. Each of us had experienced the upheaval of divorce and watched 12 of our close friends' second marriages end.
We all knew Cindy wasn't casually deciding to end her marriage—few people do. Divorce is one of the most agonizing choices a couple makes. We understood the anger, panic, abandonment, and feelings of being trapped that lead many people to divorce. But we'd also experienced the "other side" of being single again. We'd seen the lives of our children changed forever. Years later, we continue to live with the ongoing pain and complications of a destroyed marriage.
As a licensed psychologist, I've heard many people consider the possibility of ending their marriage. They look at divorce as a solution to their marital woes, a viable answer to their pain and frustration. Ultimately, however, it creates only different problems. In a recent study by the Institute for American Values chaired by sociologist Linda Waite of the University of Chicago, researchers asked, "Does divorce make people happy?" They found that those who ended their troubled marriage in divorce weren't any happier than those who remained married. In fact, two-thirds of those who stayed married reported happy marriages five years later.
Here's the list we compiled for Cindy.
1. Life will change more than you realize
"I thought I'd enjoy being alone," says Lori, who has never remarried. "But I'm lonely. Whenever my friends complain about how needy their husbands or children are, I say, 'Try living without that.'"
Andy, like Lori, hasn't remarried. "I didn't expect to miss odd things like the towels folded neatly, shopping for groceries together, or the Saturday routine we'd established," he says. After his divorce, Andy realized how much the familiar, everyday things of married life meant to him.
Add children to the equation, and the result is even stickier. Instead of two people parenting your children, if you have custody, you're left to do it all—alone. You become the sole breadwinner, spiritual adviser, disciplinarian, housekeeper. The stress levels of this responsibility can become staggering.
Then there are the scheduling dilemmas. Recently, my friend Betsy and I were discussing how complicated it can be to see our sons during a short college break. Although we both cooperate with our ex-husbands, we still ache as we watch our innocent children bear the heavy responsibility of carefully doling out their time between the families in an effort not to alienate either parent.
Although the everyday occurrences can create plenty of challenges after divorce, the special occasions are worse. Every birthday, holiday, wedding, or funeral is a potential nightmare. Allison told me, "At my future daughter-in-law's wedding, she's planning to walk down the aisle by herself because she has multiple fathers and is torn between her allegiances. My heart breaks for her." These problems don't end when the children grow up and marry. The hassles continue with the grandchildren.
Even if you remarry, the consequences of your divorce continue to impact your life. Jan Coleman, author of After the Locusts, was single-again for 12 years before marrying Carl. As good as her present marriage is, she doesn't hesitate to say what a dramatic change it made in her life.
"Yes, you can love and trust again," she says. "But the first marriage is God's best, his design. We weren't meant to give up on it, but to work through all the struggles to God's glory and our best. The tearing of the flesh may heal, but the scars are always there. Remarriage can be great in many ways if you marry for the right reasons, but it's still not the same."
2. Your life won't be more carefree
As a self-confident, independent woman with a fast-moving career and no children, Stephanie couldn't wait to be free of the pain of her dying marriage.
"I would no longer have to put with up his problems," she says. "I'd be able to do what I wanted when I wanted. But after the divorce, it was my career and my home that began to hold me hostage. I was imprisoned by all the things I thought made me look good."
Divorce never brought the carefree lifestyle Stephanie had expected.
There are those seemingly hidden emotional wounds that can pop open when we least expect or which we learn to expect on special anniversaries. Jan Coleman says, "Every Christmas, I become depressed. After 20 years it still hits me suddenly, without warning. I was first married in December, and my childhood sweetheart left me for another woman 15 Decembers later. Every year I have a weepy week."
Jan's second husband understands and gives her the space "to grieve again for the loss of that ideal family I spent my life imagining. There are times when it hits him too. You're never free from the effects of that broken first marriage."
I know this truth from personal experience. Recently, I began dating someone who's divorced. Because of our pasts, we have several barriers in our current relationship—one of which is the fear of trusting and loving again.
3. You trade one set of problems for another
Even the most amiable break-ups bring deep wounds. There are always consequences to divorce.
"What I didn't anticipate," says Brad, who hasn't remarried, "was the way my friends perceived me. All of a sudden I became damaged goods. One couple, who'd been my close friends for 20 years, became cool toward me after the divorce."
There's a ripple effect. Your divorce doesn't just affect you and your spouse. It affects everyone around you. Friends often feel as if they must pick sides, so they keep their distance. Relationships with those who do remain loyal change abruptly. Church friends may stay away, feeling uncomfortable. And family members who've grown to love and care for the ex feel forced to "divorce" as well.
Then there are the financial ramifications. Dividing the assets isn't always done equitably. Vern was left with only 31 percent of his retirement account even though his ex-wife worked and they had no children together. At the age of 49, this circumstance was a blow to his retirement plans.
If there's a remarriage, blending children from previous marriages brings problems that can range from emotional chaos to stoic tolerance. A recently remarried friend said, "My life is more complicated than ever. I've put all this effort into a new marriage, but we're struggling. My new stepson ignores me. His attitude is, 'I'm here to be with my dad and that's it.' I feel horrible—like a second class citizen in my own home."
4. Feelings can be deceiving
Kathy, who was in her twenties and newly married, learned that following her feelings can have tragic consequences.
"My husband was away a lot, and most evenings I was home alone. I felt lonely and empty. Many nights I cried myself to sleep and wondered why I ever got married.
"When I met a man who made me feel alive and passionate about life, I concluded these feelings of excitement confirmed I was no longer in love with my husband.
"Rather than praying and giving my concerns to God, I took the situation in my own hands and moved out. I was convinced I'd made a mistake in getting married."
Still single five years later, Kathy wishes some wise woman would have come alongside her, prayed with her, and gently reminded her that love is a choice and a commitment, not an emotion.
When my son was six years old, he'd complain about being disciplined for disobeying what he called my "stupid rules." Over and over I'd repeat, "Kyle, I'm being short-term mean, but long-term nice."
Like children, we sometimes allow our desire for momentary pleasure to pull us from God's best. Rather than doing the hard work it takes to invest daily in our marriage, we make seemingly innocent decisions thinking they'll do no harm.
Our friend Cindy didn't listen to us. She opted for the divorce. Sadly she wasn't willing to persevere and uncover the lost treasures that first drew her and her husband together. With God's help, her current pain or discontentment could have been transformed into long-term joy and abundant blessings. Like my son learned many years ago, short-term pain can indeed lead to long-term gain.
Georgia Shaffer, author of A Gift of Mourning Glories: Restoring Your Life After Loss (Vine Brooks), is a speaker and licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania. Visit Georgia at www.GeorgiaShaffer.com.
Five friends and I were having breakfast one morning when our conversation turned to our friend Cindy.* She was convinced divorce was the answer to her problems.
"I wish Cindy would listen to us," I said.
"She made it clear she doesn't want to hear anything from us divorcées," said Betsy. "She's made up her mind, and she's not changing it."
That morning, in utter frustration, my friends and I compiled a list: what we wish we'd known before we got divorced—the things we wanted Cindy to know before she made her final decision. Each of us had experienced the upheaval of divorce and watched 12 of our close friends' second marriages end.
We all knew Cindy wasn't casually deciding to end her marriage—few people do. Divorce is one of the most agonizing choices a couple makes. We understood the anger, panic, abandonment, and feelings of being trapped that lead many people to divorce. But we'd also experienced the "other side" of being single again. We'd seen the lives of our children changed forever. Years later, we continue to live with the ongoing pain and complications of a destroyed marriage.
As a licensed psychologist, I've heard many people consider the possibility of ending their marriage. They look at divorce as a solution to their marital woes, a viable answer to their pain and frustration. Ultimately, however, it creates only different problems. In a recent study by the Institute for American Values chaired by sociologist Linda Waite of the University of Chicago, researchers asked, "Does divorce make people happy?" They found that those who ended their troubled marriage in divorce weren't any happier than those who remained married. In fact, two-thirds of those who stayed married reported happy marriages five years later.
Here's the list we compiled for Cindy.
1. Life will change more than you realize
"I thought I'd enjoy being alone," says Lori, who has never remarried. "But I'm lonely. Whenever my friends complain about how needy their husbands or children are, I say, 'Try living without that.'"
Andy, like Lori, hasn't remarried. "I didn't expect to miss odd things like the towels folded neatly, shopping for groceries together, or the Saturday routine we'd established," he says. After his divorce, Andy realized how much the familiar, everyday things of married life meant to him.
Add children to the equation, and the result is even stickier. Instead of two people parenting your children, if you have custody, you're left to do it all—alone. You become the sole breadwinner, spiritual adviser, disciplinarian, housekeeper. The stress levels of this responsibility can become staggering.
Then there are the scheduling dilemmas. Recently, my friend Betsy and I were discussing how complicated it can be to see our sons during a short college break. Although we both cooperate with our ex-husbands, we still ache as we watch our innocent children bear the heavy responsibility of carefully doling out their time between the families in an effort not to alienate either parent.
Although the everyday occurrences can create plenty of challenges after divorce, the special occasions are worse. Every birthday, holiday, wedding, or funeral is a potential nightmare. Allison told me, "At my future daughter-in-law's wedding, she's planning to walk down the aisle by herself because she has multiple fathers and is torn between her allegiances. My heart breaks for her." These problems don't end when the children grow up and marry. The hassles continue with the grandchildren.
Even if you remarry, the consequences of your divorce continue to impact your life. Jan Coleman, author of After the Locusts, was single-again for 12 years before marrying Carl. As good as her present marriage is, she doesn't hesitate to say what a dramatic change it made in her life.
"Yes, you can love and trust again," she says. "But the first marriage is God's best, his design. We weren't meant to give up on it, but to work through all the struggles to God's glory and our best. The tearing of the flesh may heal, but the scars are always there. Remarriage can be great in many ways if you marry for the right reasons, but it's still not the same."
2. Your life won't be more carefree
As a self-confident, independent woman with a fast-moving career and no children, Stephanie couldn't wait to be free of the pain of her dying marriage.
"I would no longer have to put with up his problems," she says. "I'd be able to do what I wanted when I wanted. But after the divorce, it was my career and my home that began to hold me hostage. I was imprisoned by all the things I thought made me look good."
Divorce never brought the carefree lifestyle Stephanie had expected.
There are those seemingly hidden emotional wounds that can pop open when we least expect or which we learn to expect on special anniversaries. Jan Coleman says, "Every Christmas, I become depressed. After 20 years it still hits me suddenly, without warning. I was first married in December, and my childhood sweetheart left me for another woman 15 Decembers later. Every year I have a weepy week."
Jan's second husband understands and gives her the space "to grieve again for the loss of that ideal family I spent my life imagining. There are times when it hits him too. You're never free from the effects of that broken first marriage."
I know this truth from personal experience. Recently, I began dating someone who's divorced. Because of our pasts, we have several barriers in our current relationship—one of which is the fear of trusting and loving again.
3. You trade one set of problems for another
Even the most amiable break-ups bring deep wounds. There are always consequences to divorce.
"What I didn't anticipate," says Brad, who hasn't remarried, "was the way my friends perceived me. All of a sudden I became damaged goods. One couple, who'd been my close friends for 20 years, became cool toward me after the divorce."
There's a ripple effect. Your divorce doesn't just affect you and your spouse. It affects everyone around you. Friends often feel as if they must pick sides, so they keep their distance. Relationships with those who do remain loyal change abruptly. Church friends may stay away, feeling uncomfortable. And family members who've grown to love and care for the ex feel forced to "divorce" as well.
Then there are the financial ramifications. Dividing the assets isn't always done equitably. Vern was left with only 31 percent of his retirement account even though his ex-wife worked and they had no children together. At the age of 49, this circumstance was a blow to his retirement plans.
If there's a remarriage, blending children from previous marriages brings problems that can range from emotional chaos to stoic tolerance. A recently remarried friend said, "My life is more complicated than ever. I've put all this effort into a new marriage, but we're struggling. My new stepson ignores me. His attitude is, 'I'm here to be with my dad and that's it.' I feel horrible—like a second class citizen in my own home."
4. Feelings can be deceiving
Kathy, who was in her twenties and newly married, learned that following her feelings can have tragic consequences.
"My husband was away a lot, and most evenings I was home alone. I felt lonely and empty. Many nights I cried myself to sleep and wondered why I ever got married.
"When I met a man who made me feel alive and passionate about life, I concluded these feelings of excitement confirmed I was no longer in love with my husband.
"Rather than praying and giving my concerns to God, I took the situation in my own hands and moved out. I was convinced I'd made a mistake in getting married."
Still single five years later, Kathy wishes some wise woman would have come alongside her, prayed with her, and gently reminded her that love is a choice and a commitment, not an emotion.
When my son was six years old, he'd complain about being disciplined for disobeying what he called my "stupid rules." Over and over I'd repeat, "Kyle, I'm being short-term mean, but long-term nice."
Like children, we sometimes allow our desire for momentary pleasure to pull us from God's best. Rather than doing the hard work it takes to invest daily in our marriage, we make seemingly innocent decisions thinking they'll do no harm.
Our friend Cindy didn't listen to us. She opted for the divorce. Sadly she wasn't willing to persevere and uncover the lost treasures that first drew her and her husband together. With God's help, her current pain or discontentment could have been transformed into long-term joy and abundant blessings. Like my son learned many years ago, short-term pain can indeed lead to long-term gain.
Georgia Shaffer, author of A Gift of Mourning Glories: Restoring Your Life After Loss (Vine Brooks), is a speaker and licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania. Visit Georgia at www.GeorgiaShaffer.com.
Annulment, Divorce and Remarriage: Catholic Views
Church Tradition:
Unlike Protestants and the Anglican Communion, who base their beliefs almost exclusively on the Bible, Catholics also value the cumulative tradition of the Church.
The Church Fathers in the early church movement, the Church Councils in later years, and various popes to the present time have consistently held that after a valid marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble until the death of one spouse. Some examples:
bullet The Shepherd of Hermas (a.k.a. The Pastor of Hermas) describes a conversation between a Christian leader and a follower. 4 There is no consensus on the date of its composition; estimates range from 50 to 160 CE. or even later. One source says that the most likely date is "between c.AD 139-155; proposals for a first-century date of composition are largely dismissed today." 5 Some attribute the authorship to the Apostolic Fathers; others to the Hermas mentioned by Paul; still others say the work is anonymous. "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and [initially] Tertullian treated it as divinely inspired, on par with what was later to become New Testament Scripture." 5 Some unsuccessfully argued that it be included as a canonical work in the Bible. Section 35.1, "Mandate the Fourth" deals with marriage. Verses 35:16-18 discuss a case in which a wife commits adultery, and the husband detects it:
bullet 35:16 "What then, Sir", say I, "shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case"?
bullet 35:17 "Let him divorce her", said he, "and let the husband abide alone:"
bullet 35:18 "but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise commits adultery".
bullet Justin Martyr (circa 107-176 CE) wrote: "He that marrys her that has been put away by another man commits adultery. " 6
bullet Athenagoras (134 - 190 CE) wrote "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery." 7
bullet Tertullian (160-230 CE) wrote: "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away." 8
bullet Clement of Alexandria (150-circa 220 CE) was very specific when he wrote: "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." 9
bullet New Advent.org lists similar writings by Basil of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Their web site mentions that some ancient authors "treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed." 3
bullet Synod of Elvira (300 CE) issued Canon 9: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity." 3
bullet The Synod of Arles (314 CE) instructs those young men who had dismissed their wives on grounds of adultery to not remarry. 3
bullet The Second Council of Mileve (416), the Council of Hereford (673), and the Council of Friuli (791 CE) made similar statements. 3
bullet Pope Innocent I wrote: "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." 10
bullet Pope Zacharias wrote: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion." 11
bullet The Council of Trent issued two canons during their 24th session:
bullet Canon 5: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of willful desertion; let him be anathema."
bullet Canon 7: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema."
Annulments - in theory:
The proper term for an annulment is "An Ecclesiastical Declaration of Nullity." 12 Such declarations can be issued by a church tribunal to cover marriage and other sacraments.
Divorces are not permitted within the Roman Catholic Church, because valid marriages are considered to be indissoluble. Church canon law 1055 states that any marriage that takes place is legally presumed to be a valid sacrament, and is thus permanent. However, if sufficient convincing evidence can be shown which indicates that it was not a valid marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity may be given. This is, in effect, saying that the marriage never existed; it was not an ecclesial reality. Only after an annulment is granted may the couple be free to marry other people. This requirement is not restricted just to Catholics. A Protestant may marry another Protestant, and later divorce. If one of them wants to marry a Catholic, they must first receive an annulment from the Church for their first marriage.
Even though an annulment implies that no valid marriage occurred, children of that marriage are considered legitimate. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1138 & 1139). An "annulment can't affect children's status retroactively." 13
Church canon law 1057 states that a marriage is brought about by:
1.
The consent of the parties (the bride and groom),
2.
legitimately manifested,
3.
by those qualified according to the law (again, the bride and the groom).
An annulment may be obtained on a number of grounds. Some are listed below:
bullet It may be granted if it can be proven that there was "a defect of consent on the part of one or both ministers [i.e. the bride or groom]. Or, the consent was not legitimately manifested. Or, one or both of the parties may have been incapable according to law to exchange consent." 12
Consent of the parties requires that the bride and groom, at the time of marriage:
bullet
Understand the nature of marriage: that it is permanent, that they are to remain monogamous, that they are open to having children, etc.
bullet
Not having placed conditions on their marriage, like marrying only if they would live in a certain city, or would have no more than two children.
bullet
Be free of mental illnesses -- including latent illnesses that have not been diagnosed -- that might restrict their ability to give consent.
bullet
Be free of fraud and deceit.
bullet
Be "free of coercion or grave external fear." (CCC, 1628)
bullet
An annulment may also be granted "by reason of a defect of form" if it is determined that the officiating priest lacked the proper authority. Alternatively, if two baptized Catholics decide to get married in a civil service by a Justice of the Peace, their marriage is not recognized as valid by the church.
bullet
The bride and groom must have met certain requirements at the time that they married. Some are:
bullet
They must be old enough (16 years for the groom; 14 for the bride).
bullet
The groom or bride must not be a member of a Catholic religious order.
bullet
Neither has lied about the existence of a previous marriage.
bullet
The bride and groom are not too closely related, either by direct blood relationship, or adoption, or marriage.
bullet
They must have been baptized as Catholics, or have obtained special permission to marry.
bullet
The pope may dissolve a marriage that was not consummated.
horizontal rule
Annulments - in practice:
The Archdiocese of Boston, reports that a typical annulment takes about one year to complete. It costs about $900 of which the petitioner is expected to pay about half. Contrary to common rumors, the Church loses millions of dollars a year in the granting of annulments. "The process is involved. The Petitioner is asked to submit detailed testimony. The tribunal contacts the former spouse. Witnesses are required. An expert in the field of psychology may be required for an assessment. It is not an easy process. However, it is not impossible either." 12
Most individual Roman Catholics appear to ignore the Church's teachings about remarriage. After divorcing, they often remarry without first having received an annulment. David Willey of the British Broadcasting Corp. stated that the Holy Roman Rota (the Vatican court that handles some annulments) processes about 200 marriage annulments per year, while civil courts in Italy process over 100,000.
Twenty one percent of adult American Catholics have experienced a divorce. 15 This is equal to the rate experienced by Lutherans, Atheists and Agnostics. It is lower than mainline Protestants at 25%, much lower than Baptists at 29%, and a great deal lower than non-denominational Protestants at 34%.
The Archdiocese of Boston estimates that fewer than 20% of the couples that can apply for an annulment do so. Since over 80% of divorced individuals remarry, it is obvious that many Catholics remarry outside the church, and that their new marriages are not recognized by the church.
horizontal rule
The trap that some Catholics find themselves:
Couples that obtain a civil divorce and remarry without first obtaining an annulment are denied access to the Sacraments of Penance (a.k.a. Confession) and Holy Eucharist. (Catechism 1650).
They are caught between a rock and a hard place:
bullet
If they continue in the new marriage, then they cannot repent of and confess their sins through the Sacraments of Penance, and return to Communion. Meanwhile, their sins are accumulating. Because the church does not recognize their new marriage, it considers every sexual act within the marriage to be a new act of adultery -- a mortal sin. According to the church's teachings, this means that they will not attain Heaven when they die. They will end up being eternally tormented in Hell. 20 There are only two ways of avoiding this state:
bullet
To be fortunate enough to not die suddenly (e.g. to not die instantly in a car accident or from a massive heart attack). This way, they might be able to receive the Last Anointing by which their mortal sins are forgiven. Needless to say, this is a risky route to take.
bullet
To make an "act of perfect contrition" instead of Confession. But this requires the individual to repent of what the Church considers their sins of adultery, and sincerely intend to never engage in "adultery" in the future.
bullet
If they separate from their new spouse, and live alone, and sincerely intend to remain separated unless a annulment is granted, then they can resume their access the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist. But that would require them to violate their new marriage vows, and terminate their marital relationship. This option often seems profoundly immoral to the couple, particularly if there are children involved.
Judging from the overwhelming percentage of Roman Catholics who never apply for an annulment, it would seem that most have abandoned their idea of mortal sin leading them to Hell. For those Catholics who believe in the teachings of their church, it would seem expedient to apply for an annulment as soon as possible so that they would be free to enter into a new relationship when they wish.
horizontal rule
Statement by the Pope directed to Catholic divorce lawyers:
On 2002-JAN-29, Pope John Paul delivered his annual speech before the Holy Roman Rota, the Vatican court that hears marriage annulments. He said that divorce is an "evil" that is "spreading like a plague" through society. He said, in part: "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce." He repeated the Church's position that: "Marriage is indissoluble..." In an apparent rejection of the validity of secular divorce laws in various political jurisdiction, he said: "...it doesn't make any sense to talk about the 'imposition' of human law, because it should reflect and protect natural and divine law." 17 "The Pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said this was the first time the pontiff had explicitly discussed these ideas and described the remarks as 'an application of the general moral principle of not allowing us to cooperate with something that is evil'." 18
Reaction to the pope's statement was mostly negative:
bullet Denise Lester, a specialist in British family law commented that lawyers already work to promote reconciliation where it is possible. She said: "Lawyers should be free to work with the laws of the state. This is a multi-ethnic society where divorce is legal, and lawyers, as servants of the community, should be able to able to carry out their work....The Pope's comments could have an impact on freedom of choice for both lawyers and their clients."
bullet Cesare Rimini, an Italian divorce lawyer is reported as saying: "The laws of the state do not interfere in the laws of the Church, so it would be right if the Church did not interfere in the realm of judges and lawyers."
bullet Right-wing politician Alessandra Mussolini, grand-daughter of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, commented: "Divorce, at times, is a salvation because it interrupts a spiral of hate and terror even for children." 17
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Hart of Melbourne, Australia, said that the Pope's remarks did not mean Catholic lawyers and judges were forbidden to take part in divorce cases. Archbishop Hart said that the pope "...doesn't say that. What he is talking about is a change of attitude so that lawyers don't automatically assume that divorce is the answer." 19
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Pell of Sydney, said that: "The English translations are clumsy and somewhat misleading on the role of Catholic judges and lawyers in civil divorce proceedings. Catholics judges [and by inference, lawyers] can participate for the common good in divorce proceedings, for example to help ensure the legal rights of all participants, such as the care of children, the protection of inheritances and distribution of property." 19
horizontal rule
References:
1. J. Carl Laney, "The Divorce Myth," Bethany House, (1981). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
2. H.W. House, Ed., "Divorce and remarriage: Four Christian views," InterVarsity Press, (1990), Page 25. Read reviews or order this book
3.
"Divorce in Moral Theology," New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
4. J.B. Lightfoot, trans., "The Shepherd of Hermas," at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/hermas1.htm
5. "The Shepherd of Hermas," Monachos.net, at: http://www.monachos.net/patristics/hermas/index.shtml
6. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," xv, P.G., VI, 349
7. Athenagoras, "Defense for the Christians (Legatio pro Christ)," xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965)
8. Tertullian, "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991).
9. Clement of Alexandria, "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096).
10. Innocent 1,"Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500).
11. Zacharias, letter to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, 747.
12. Rev. Michael Foster, "Can a marriage be declared null?," Archdiocese of Boston, at: http://www.rcab.org/marriage.html
13. Jennifer M. Paquette, "Catholic Annulment," Beliefnet.com at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7562_1.html#cont
14.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
15.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
16.
Roman Catholic Divorce Issues, at: http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm This essay includes many links to essays on divorce, annulment and remarriage in the Catholic church on other web sites.
17. "Pope tells lawyers to boycott divorce," BBC News, 2002-JAN-29, at: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
18. Darrin Farrant, "Lawyers oppose Pope on divorce," at: http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa
19. "Divorce: Archbishops say Pope's advice mistranslated," Catholic News, at: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/
20. "Catechism of the Catholic Church: IV. The gravity of sin: Mortal and venial sin, #1856," at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html
horizontal rule
Copyright © 2002 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-APR-18
Latest update: 2006-FEB-08
Author: B.A. Robinson
Unlike Protestants and the Anglican Communion, who base their beliefs almost exclusively on the Bible, Catholics also value the cumulative tradition of the Church.
The Church Fathers in the early church movement, the Church Councils in later years, and various popes to the present time have consistently held that after a valid marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble until the death of one spouse. Some examples:
bullet The Shepherd of Hermas (a.k.a. The Pastor of Hermas) describes a conversation between a Christian leader and a follower. 4 There is no consensus on the date of its composition; estimates range from 50 to 160 CE. or even later. One source says that the most likely date is "between c.AD 139-155; proposals for a first-century date of composition are largely dismissed today." 5 Some attribute the authorship to the Apostolic Fathers; others to the Hermas mentioned by Paul; still others say the work is anonymous. "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and [initially] Tertullian treated it as divinely inspired, on par with what was later to become New Testament Scripture." 5 Some unsuccessfully argued that it be included as a canonical work in the Bible. Section 35.1, "Mandate the Fourth" deals with marriage. Verses 35:16-18 discuss a case in which a wife commits adultery, and the husband detects it:
bullet 35:16 "What then, Sir", say I, "shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case"?
bullet 35:17 "Let him divorce her", said he, "and let the husband abide alone:"
bullet 35:18 "but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise commits adultery".
bullet Justin Martyr (circa 107-176 CE) wrote: "He that marrys her that has been put away by another man commits adultery. " 6
bullet Athenagoras (134 - 190 CE) wrote "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery." 7
bullet Tertullian (160-230 CE) wrote: "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away." 8
bullet Clement of Alexandria (150-circa 220 CE) was very specific when he wrote: "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." 9
bullet New Advent.org lists similar writings by Basil of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Their web site mentions that some ancient authors "treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed." 3
bullet Synod of Elvira (300 CE) issued Canon 9: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity." 3
bullet The Synod of Arles (314 CE) instructs those young men who had dismissed their wives on grounds of adultery to not remarry. 3
bullet The Second Council of Mileve (416), the Council of Hereford (673), and the Council of Friuli (791 CE) made similar statements. 3
bullet Pope Innocent I wrote: "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." 10
bullet Pope Zacharias wrote: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion." 11
bullet The Council of Trent issued two canons during their 24th session:
bullet Canon 5: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of heresy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of willful desertion; let him be anathema."
bullet Canon 7: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema."
Annulments - in theory:
The proper term for an annulment is "An Ecclesiastical Declaration of Nullity." 12 Such declarations can be issued by a church tribunal to cover marriage and other sacraments.
Divorces are not permitted within the Roman Catholic Church, because valid marriages are considered to be indissoluble. Church canon law 1055 states that any marriage that takes place is legally presumed to be a valid sacrament, and is thus permanent. However, if sufficient convincing evidence can be shown which indicates that it was not a valid marriage, then a Declaration of Nullity may be given. This is, in effect, saying that the marriage never existed; it was not an ecclesial reality. Only after an annulment is granted may the couple be free to marry other people. This requirement is not restricted just to Catholics. A Protestant may marry another Protestant, and later divorce. If one of them wants to marry a Catholic, they must first receive an annulment from the Church for their first marriage.
Even though an annulment implies that no valid marriage occurred, children of that marriage are considered legitimate. (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1138 & 1139). An "annulment can't affect children's status retroactively." 13
Church canon law 1057 states that a marriage is brought about by:
1.
The consent of the parties (the bride and groom),
2.
legitimately manifested,
3.
by those qualified according to the law (again, the bride and the groom).
An annulment may be obtained on a number of grounds. Some are listed below:
bullet It may be granted if it can be proven that there was "a defect of consent on the part of one or both ministers [i.e. the bride or groom]. Or, the consent was not legitimately manifested. Or, one or both of the parties may have been incapable according to law to exchange consent." 12
Consent of the parties requires that the bride and groom, at the time of marriage:
bullet
Understand the nature of marriage: that it is permanent, that they are to remain monogamous, that they are open to having children, etc.
bullet
Not having placed conditions on their marriage, like marrying only if they would live in a certain city, or would have no more than two children.
bullet
Be free of mental illnesses -- including latent illnesses that have not been diagnosed -- that might restrict their ability to give consent.
bullet
Be free of fraud and deceit.
bullet
Be "free of coercion or grave external fear." (CCC, 1628)
bullet
An annulment may also be granted "by reason of a defect of form" if it is determined that the officiating priest lacked the proper authority. Alternatively, if two baptized Catholics decide to get married in a civil service by a Justice of the Peace, their marriage is not recognized as valid by the church.
bullet
The bride and groom must have met certain requirements at the time that they married. Some are:
bullet
They must be old enough (16 years for the groom; 14 for the bride).
bullet
The groom or bride must not be a member of a Catholic religious order.
bullet
Neither has lied about the existence of a previous marriage.
bullet
The bride and groom are not too closely related, either by direct blood relationship, or adoption, or marriage.
bullet
They must have been baptized as Catholics, or have obtained special permission to marry.
bullet
The pope may dissolve a marriage that was not consummated.
horizontal rule
Annulments - in practice:
The Archdiocese of Boston, reports that a typical annulment takes about one year to complete. It costs about $900 of which the petitioner is expected to pay about half. Contrary to common rumors, the Church loses millions of dollars a year in the granting of annulments. "The process is involved. The Petitioner is asked to submit detailed testimony. The tribunal contacts the former spouse. Witnesses are required. An expert in the field of psychology may be required for an assessment. It is not an easy process. However, it is not impossible either." 12
Most individual Roman Catholics appear to ignore the Church's teachings about remarriage. After divorcing, they often remarry without first having received an annulment. David Willey of the British Broadcasting Corp. stated that the Holy Roman Rota (the Vatican court that handles some annulments) processes about 200 marriage annulments per year, while civil courts in Italy process over 100,000.
Twenty one percent of adult American Catholics have experienced a divorce. 15 This is equal to the rate experienced by Lutherans, Atheists and Agnostics. It is lower than mainline Protestants at 25%, much lower than Baptists at 29%, and a great deal lower than non-denominational Protestants at 34%.
The Archdiocese of Boston estimates that fewer than 20% of the couples that can apply for an annulment do so. Since over 80% of divorced individuals remarry, it is obvious that many Catholics remarry outside the church, and that their new marriages are not recognized by the church.
horizontal rule
The trap that some Catholics find themselves:
Couples that obtain a civil divorce and remarry without first obtaining an annulment are denied access to the Sacraments of Penance (a.k.a. Confession) and Holy Eucharist. (Catechism 1650).
They are caught between a rock and a hard place:
bullet
If they continue in the new marriage, then they cannot repent of and confess their sins through the Sacraments of Penance, and return to Communion. Meanwhile, their sins are accumulating. Because the church does not recognize their new marriage, it considers every sexual act within the marriage to be a new act of adultery -- a mortal sin. According to the church's teachings, this means that they will not attain Heaven when they die. They will end up being eternally tormented in Hell. 20 There are only two ways of avoiding this state:
bullet
To be fortunate enough to not die suddenly (e.g. to not die instantly in a car accident or from a massive heart attack). This way, they might be able to receive the Last Anointing by which their mortal sins are forgiven. Needless to say, this is a risky route to take.
bullet
To make an "act of perfect contrition" instead of Confession. But this requires the individual to repent of what the Church considers their sins of adultery, and sincerely intend to never engage in "adultery" in the future.
bullet
If they separate from their new spouse, and live alone, and sincerely intend to remain separated unless a annulment is granted, then they can resume their access the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist. But that would require them to violate their new marriage vows, and terminate their marital relationship. This option often seems profoundly immoral to the couple, particularly if there are children involved.
Judging from the overwhelming percentage of Roman Catholics who never apply for an annulment, it would seem that most have abandoned their idea of mortal sin leading them to Hell. For those Catholics who believe in the teachings of their church, it would seem expedient to apply for an annulment as soon as possible so that they would be free to enter into a new relationship when they wish.
horizontal rule
Statement by the Pope directed to Catholic divorce lawyers:
On 2002-JAN-29, Pope John Paul delivered his annual speech before the Holy Roman Rota, the Vatican court that hears marriage annulments. He said that divorce is an "evil" that is "spreading like a plague" through society. He said, in part: "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce." He repeated the Church's position that: "Marriage is indissoluble..." In an apparent rejection of the validity of secular divorce laws in various political jurisdiction, he said: "...it doesn't make any sense to talk about the 'imposition' of human law, because it should reflect and protect natural and divine law." 17 "The Pope's spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, said this was the first time the pontiff had explicitly discussed these ideas and described the remarks as 'an application of the general moral principle of not allowing us to cooperate with something that is evil'." 18
Reaction to the pope's statement was mostly negative:
bullet Denise Lester, a specialist in British family law commented that lawyers already work to promote reconciliation where it is possible. She said: "Lawyers should be free to work with the laws of the state. This is a multi-ethnic society where divorce is legal, and lawyers, as servants of the community, should be able to able to carry out their work....The Pope's comments could have an impact on freedom of choice for both lawyers and their clients."
bullet Cesare Rimini, an Italian divorce lawyer is reported as saying: "The laws of the state do not interfere in the laws of the Church, so it would be right if the Church did not interfere in the realm of judges and lawyers."
bullet Right-wing politician Alessandra Mussolini, grand-daughter of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, commented: "Divorce, at times, is a salvation because it interrupts a spiral of hate and terror even for children." 17
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Hart of Melbourne, Australia, said that the Pope's remarks did not mean Catholic lawyers and judges were forbidden to take part in divorce cases. Archbishop Hart said that the pope "...doesn't say that. What he is talking about is a change of attitude so that lawyers don't automatically assume that divorce is the answer." 19
bullet Roman Catholic Archbishop Pell of Sydney, said that: "The English translations are clumsy and somewhat misleading on the role of Catholic judges and lawyers in civil divorce proceedings. Catholics judges [and by inference, lawyers] can participate for the common good in divorce proceedings, for example to help ensure the legal rights of all participants, such as the care of children, the protection of inheritances and distribution of property." 19
horizontal rule
References:
1. J. Carl Laney, "The Divorce Myth," Bethany House, (1981). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
2. H.W. House, Ed., "Divorce and remarriage: Four Christian views," InterVarsity Press, (1990), Page 25. Read reviews or order this book
3.
"Divorce in Moral Theology," New Advent, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
4. J.B. Lightfoot, trans., "The Shepherd of Hermas," at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/hermas1.htm
5. "The Shepherd of Hermas," Monachos.net, at: http://www.monachos.net/patristics/hermas/index.shtml
6. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," xv, P.G., VI, 349
7. Athenagoras, "Defense for the Christians (Legatio pro Christ)," xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965)
8. Tertullian, "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991).
9. Clement of Alexandria, "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096).
10. Innocent 1,"Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500).
11. Zacharias, letter to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, 747.
12. Rev. Michael Foster, "Can a marriage be declared null?," Archdiocese of Boston, at: http://www.rcab.org/marriage.html
13. Jennifer M. Paquette, "Catholic Annulment," Beliefnet.com at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7562_1.html#cont
14.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
15.
"Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians," Barna Research Ltd., at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease
16.
Roman Catholic Divorce Issues, at: http://www.divorceinfo.com/catholic.htm This essay includes many links to essays on divorce, annulment and remarriage in the Catholic church on other web sites.
17. "Pope tells lawyers to boycott divorce," BBC News, 2002-JAN-29, at: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
18. Darrin Farrant, "Lawyers oppose Pope on divorce," at: http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/cpa
19. "Divorce: Archbishops say Pope's advice mistranslated," Catholic News, at: http://www.cathtelecom.com/news/
20. "Catechism of the Catholic Church: IV. The gravity of sin: Mortal and venial sin, #1856," at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html
horizontal rule
Copyright © 2002 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-APR-18
Latest update: 2006-FEB-08
Author: B.A. Robinson
Biblical Basis of Divorce and Remarriage
Variety of Bible-based beliefs:
We are faced with a dilemma:
bullet Various Christian groups -- conservative Protestants, liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached different beliefs about when, if ever, the Bible permits divorce and remarriage.
bullet Each of the authors and webmasters who has written on these topics appear to believe that their belief alone is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
The main positions are:
1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed -- described below. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. Religious liberal and secular view.
This essay describes the fifth position: the Roman Catholic believes that the Bible does not allow divorce on any grounds. Valid marriages are indissoluble. However, if it can be proven that a valid marriage had never taken place, then an annulment is obtained. Remarriage is often allowed after an annulment.
horizontal rule
Overview:
The position of the Roman Catholic church on divorce and remarriage can be summed up in a few sentences:
bullet
Divorce was allowed in Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) times. But the permanence of marriage was restored by Jesus in the first century CE.
bullet
Marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble. Once a valid marriage has been consummated, It endures until one spouse dies.
bullet
The church does not issue divorces or recognize divorces issued by other institutions.
bullet
The church can issue an annulment. However, the couple must first prove to a church tribunal that the marriage was invalid.
Key passages from the Hebrew Scriptures:
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally allowed divorce, with a few notable exceptions. The following passages discussed to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Deuteronomy 22:13-19 Divorce prohibited if the a husband accuses the wife of not being a virgin: "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when she married him, and she is able to prove that she was a virgin, then he had to pay her father 100 shekels of silver, and was prohibited from ever divorcing her. The passage continues, by saying that if she cannot prove her virginity, that she was stoned to death. Interestingly enough, this passage allows a husband to arrange the murder of his wife in certain circumstances, and thus obtain a divorce through her death.
bullet Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Divorce not allowed for seducers of virgins: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." A man who engages in sexual intercourse with an unmarried virgin, and subsequently marries her, would never be permitted to divorce her.
bullet Deuteronomy 24:1-2 Permission to divorce, but only for ancient times: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." This passage allowed a man to divorce his wife (or wives). However, it did not allow a woman to divorce her husband. It is unclear what the term "uncleanness" means. Presumably it does not mean that she had committed adultery, because then she would have been executed by stoning.
The passage does not approve of divorce. It merely accepts it as a practice that had been imported by the ancient Hebrews from adjacent Pagan cultures, where it was a universal custom. Author J. Carl Laney speculates that if God had generally prohibited divorce, that the ancient Hebrews would not have honored the law. So, God "chose to progressively reveal his displeasure with divorce and direct his people back to his standard." 1,2
bullet Deuteronomy 24:3-4 Divorced & remarried woman cannot remarry her first husband: "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." This covers a case where a woman was divorced by her husband, remarries, and is subsequently either divorced again or widowed. She may not remarry her first husband. To do so was viewed as a gross sin that violated the land itself.
bullet Ezra 9:1-2: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass." Ezra was a scribe who had led a small group of Jews from exile in Babylon back to Jerusalem. He found that many Jews had entered into inter-faith marriages with women from nearby Pagan countries. He felt that the Jews would quickly lose their national identity and start to worship other Gods. The Mosaic Law prohibited such marriages. He decided that those Hebrews must "put away" their wives. The Hebrew text in this place uses the word "yasa" (to cause to go out) rather than the normal term "salah (to send away, to dismiss, to divorce). Similarly, in Ezra 10:11, he uses the word "badal" (to separate oneself from). It is probable that the scribe was recommending marital separation, not divorce. The end result is not clear. The separated individuals may have gone on to marry other spouses. Alternatively, they may have allowed their wives time to abandon the religion of their family of origin, adopt Judaism, and be reunited with their estranged husbands. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 allows such a practice for the case of foreign women who have been kidnapped and confined in captivity as a result of war.
bullet Malachi 2:10: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." Malachi is faced with the same problem as Ezra, described above. Jewish males were marrying foreign women who followed different religions. "Daughter of a strange god" refers to a foreign woman who worshiped a Pagan deity or deities in place of Yahweh. In Verse 12, he predicted that God would "cut off" (that is, murder) any man who remained in a mixed marriage. Again, these marriages may have been considered illicit. Also, the husbands may have simply separated from their wives, and not divorced them.
bullet Malachi 2:14: Divorce is treacherous behavior: "... the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." Malachi is condemning Hebrew men for abandoning their wives after many years of marriage and marrying a different woman. Here, marriage is referred to as a covenant between God, the husband and wife. One property of a covenant is that it is permanent. The contract between God and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai is one example of a covenant. See Numbers 30:2, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, and Psalm 15:4.
bullet Malachi 2:16: God hates divorce: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away..." God hates a man "putting away" his wife. The Hebrew word in this passage is "salah," a word that often refers to divorce.
horizontal rule
Key passages from the Christian Scriptures:
Although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), he allowed it in ancient times with few restrictions. Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce that had been in place before the Mosaic Law was delivered.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) includes the following important passages relating to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Matthew 5:31-32: No divorce, except for fornication: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." See Matthew 19:9 below.
bullet Matthew 19:4-9: No divorce allowed: "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
The Pharisees were challenging Jesus' beliefs about divorce. They asked him to interpret the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 which allowed a husband to divorce his wife if he "found some uncleanness in her." Here, Jesus states that at the time of the world's creation, divorce was not allowed. However, God permitted the Hebrews in Moses' time (and later) to divorce their wives, perhaps because they could not have accepted a prohibition on divorce at that time.
Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce with the statement: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
bullet Matthew 19:9: Separation, allowed, but not divorce: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. This verse has raised the question whether "the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery." 3 If this were an accurate interpretation of Verse 9, (or of Matthew 5:31-32) then these passages would be in contradiction with other statements by Paul, and by the authors of Mark and Luke. The consensus of Catholic theologians is that such an analysis would violate "the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture." 3 Thus, an alternative interpretation is required. The consensus is that this verse is referring to a marital separation, not a divorce. That is, the marriage bond remains in place. Although the husband and wife live separately, they are not free to remarry.
bullet Mark 10:2-12: No divorce allowed: "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This passage refers to the same incident as was described in Matthew 19. Jesus states that divorce is not permitted under any circumstances. In this passage, Jesus also condemns remarriage.
bullet Luke 16:18: No divorce, on any grounds: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." This appears to be a third version of the same incident with the Pharisees. Here, Jesus does not specifically condemn marital separation or divorce. But he forbids remarriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-12: No divorce, on any grounds: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. Paul wrote this passage in response to questions raised by the church at Corinth about divorce and remarriage. He says that God does not allow divorce. If a couple divorces against the will of God, then their only options are to remain single, or to reconcile and restore their marriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-15: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." This is a continuation of the above passage. It covers the situation where a believer is married to a non-Christian, and the non-Christian insists on a divorce. Some theologians interpret this as Paul exercising his "pastoral privilege" by changing the teachings of Jesus to allow divorce in this one case. However, it is unlikely that this is his intent because it would negate what Paul has just written in verses 10 to 12. It is more likely that Paul means that if the unbelieving spouse demands a divorce, that the Christian is not required to resort to legal means to preserve the marriage; he or she is to leave the unbeliever at peace, by not contesting the divorce. However, he is not free to remarry, since the original marriage is still binding.
We are faced with a dilemma:
bullet Various Christian groups -- conservative Protestants, liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached different beliefs about when, if ever, the Bible permits divorce and remarriage.
bullet Each of the authors and webmasters who has written on these topics appear to believe that their belief alone is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
The main positions are:
1. Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
2. Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
3. Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
4. Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
5. Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed -- described below. (Roman Catholic)
6. Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. Religious liberal and secular view.
This essay describes the fifth position: the Roman Catholic believes that the Bible does not allow divorce on any grounds. Valid marriages are indissoluble. However, if it can be proven that a valid marriage had never taken place, then an annulment is obtained. Remarriage is often allowed after an annulment.
horizontal rule
Overview:
The position of the Roman Catholic church on divorce and remarriage can be summed up in a few sentences:
bullet
Divorce was allowed in Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) times. But the permanence of marriage was restored by Jesus in the first century CE.
bullet
Marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble. Once a valid marriage has been consummated, It endures until one spouse dies.
bullet
The church does not issue divorces or recognize divorces issued by other institutions.
bullet
The church can issue an annulment. However, the couple must first prove to a church tribunal that the marriage was invalid.
Key passages from the Hebrew Scriptures:
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally allowed divorce, with a few notable exceptions. The following passages discussed to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Deuteronomy 22:13-19 Divorce prohibited if the a husband accuses the wife of not being a virgin: "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days." If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when she married him, and she is able to prove that she was a virgin, then he had to pay her father 100 shekels of silver, and was prohibited from ever divorcing her. The passage continues, by saying that if she cannot prove her virginity, that she was stoned to death. Interestingly enough, this passage allows a husband to arrange the murder of his wife in certain circumstances, and thus obtain a divorce through her death.
bullet Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Divorce not allowed for seducers of virgins: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." A man who engages in sexual intercourse with an unmarried virgin, and subsequently marries her, would never be permitted to divorce her.
bullet Deuteronomy 24:1-2 Permission to divorce, but only for ancient times: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." This passage allowed a man to divorce his wife (or wives). However, it did not allow a woman to divorce her husband. It is unclear what the term "uncleanness" means. Presumably it does not mean that she had committed adultery, because then she would have been executed by stoning.
The passage does not approve of divorce. It merely accepts it as a practice that had been imported by the ancient Hebrews from adjacent Pagan cultures, where it was a universal custom. Author J. Carl Laney speculates that if God had generally prohibited divorce, that the ancient Hebrews would not have honored the law. So, God "chose to progressively reveal his displeasure with divorce and direct his people back to his standard." 1,2
bullet Deuteronomy 24:3-4 Divorced & remarried woman cannot remarry her first husband: "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." This covers a case where a woman was divorced by her husband, remarries, and is subsequently either divorced again or widowed. She may not remarry her first husband. To do so was viewed as a gross sin that violated the land itself.
bullet Ezra 9:1-2: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass." Ezra was a scribe who had led a small group of Jews from exile in Babylon back to Jerusalem. He found that many Jews had entered into inter-faith marriages with women from nearby Pagan countries. He felt that the Jews would quickly lose their national identity and start to worship other Gods. The Mosaic Law prohibited such marriages. He decided that those Hebrews must "put away" their wives. The Hebrew text in this place uses the word "yasa" (to cause to go out) rather than the normal term "salah (to send away, to dismiss, to divorce). Similarly, in Ezra 10:11, he uses the word "badal" (to separate oneself from). It is probable that the scribe was recommending marital separation, not divorce. The end result is not clear. The separated individuals may have gone on to marry other spouses. Alternatively, they may have allowed their wives time to abandon the religion of their family of origin, adopt Judaism, and be reunited with their estranged husbands. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 allows such a practice for the case of foreign women who have been kidnapped and confined in captivity as a result of war.
bullet Malachi 2:10: Religious intolerance -- requiring couples in mixed-marriages to separate: "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god." Malachi is faced with the same problem as Ezra, described above. Jewish males were marrying foreign women who followed different religions. "Daughter of a strange god" refers to a foreign woman who worshiped a Pagan deity or deities in place of Yahweh. In Verse 12, he predicted that God would "cut off" (that is, murder) any man who remained in a mixed marriage. Again, these marriages may have been considered illicit. Also, the husbands may have simply separated from their wives, and not divorced them.
bullet Malachi 2:14: Divorce is treacherous behavior: "... the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." Malachi is condemning Hebrew men for abandoning their wives after many years of marriage and marrying a different woman. Here, marriage is referred to as a covenant between God, the husband and wife. One property of a covenant is that it is permanent. The contract between God and the ancient Hebrews at Sinai is one example of a covenant. See Numbers 30:2, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6, and Psalm 15:4.
bullet Malachi 2:16: God hates divorce: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away..." God hates a man "putting away" his wife. The Hebrew word in this passage is "salah," a word that often refers to divorce.
horizontal rule
Key passages from the Christian Scriptures:
Although God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), he allowed it in ancient times with few restrictions. Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce that had been in place before the Mosaic Law was delivered.
The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) includes the following important passages relating to divorce and remarriage:
bullet Matthew 5:31-32: No divorce, except for fornication: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." See Matthew 19:9 below.
bullet Matthew 19:4-9: No divorce allowed: "...Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
The Pharisees were challenging Jesus' beliefs about divorce. They asked him to interpret the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 which allowed a husband to divorce his wife if he "found some uncleanness in her." Here, Jesus states that at the time of the world's creation, divorce was not allowed. However, God permitted the Hebrews in Moses' time (and later) to divorce their wives, perhaps because they could not have accepted a prohibition on divorce at that time.
Jesus restored the prohibition against divorce with the statement: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
bullet Matthew 19:9: Separation, allowed, but not divorce: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. This verse has raised the question whether "the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery." 3 If this were an accurate interpretation of Verse 9, (or of Matthew 5:31-32) then these passages would be in contradiction with other statements by Paul, and by the authors of Mark and Luke. The consensus of Catholic theologians is that such an analysis would violate "the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture." 3 Thus, an alternative interpretation is required. The consensus is that this verse is referring to a marital separation, not a divorce. That is, the marriage bond remains in place. Although the husband and wife live separately, they are not free to remarry.
bullet Mark 10:2-12: No divorce allowed: "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This passage refers to the same incident as was described in Matthew 19. Jesus states that divorce is not permitted under any circumstances. In this passage, Jesus also condemns remarriage.
bullet Luke 16:18: No divorce, on any grounds: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." This appears to be a third version of the same incident with the Pharisees. Here, Jesus does not specifically condemn marital separation or divorce. But he forbids remarriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-12: No divorce, on any grounds: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. Paul wrote this passage in response to questions raised by the church at Corinth about divorce and remarriage. He says that God does not allow divorce. If a couple divorces against the will of God, then their only options are to remain single, or to reconcile and restore their marriage.
bullet 1 Corinthians 7:10-15: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." This is a continuation of the above passage. It covers the situation where a believer is married to a non-Christian, and the non-Christian insists on a divorce. Some theologians interpret this as Paul exercising his "pastoral privilege" by changing the teachings of Jesus to allow divorce in this one case. However, it is unlikely that this is his intent because it would negate what Paul has just written in verses 10 to 12. It is more likely that Paul means that if the unbelieving spouse demands a divorce, that the Christian is not required to resort to legal means to preserve the marriage; he or she is to leave the unbeliever at peace, by not contesting the divorce. However, he is not free to remarry, since the original marriage is still binding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)