Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on February 17, 2014, 08:10:27 PM
-
My aunt was concerned about the sermon she was told this Sunday.
The priest said that Christ says in Matthew 19-20 that we are allowed to divorce if the spouse commits fornication.
Is this correct?
I am confused now.
-
That is how a lot of protestants and even Orthodox understand that text. The Catholic Church has always taught that there can me no divorce and remarriage after a valid marriage as long as both parties are alive.
-
The above post was from Sigismund.
-
I presume you mean this verse in the Gospel according to St. Matthew:
19:9. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
The note clarifies this:
Except it be, etc. . .In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery,
the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry
another as long as the wife is living.
This priest was irresponsible in making such a statement in a sermon. It may be allowable in very narrow circuмstances for a man to divorce his wife, but neither party may re-marry while the spouse lives. Normally, in today's culture, when someone says that divorce is allowable, the implication that is generally understood is an unsaid, "with the right to remarry."
I cannot imagine why this issue would be taught in a Sunday sermon for this is something that a priest should only discuss with an individual or an individual couple so that very specific circuмstances may be discussed. There is no absolute and clear-cut rule that can necessarily be applied in all cases, which makes it inappropriate for a Sunday sermon.
-
I presume you mean this verse in the Gospel according to St. Matthew:
19:9. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
The note clarifies this:
Except it be, etc. . .In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery,
the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry
another as long as the wife is living.
This priest was irresponsible in making such a statement in a sermon. It may be allowable in very narrow circuмstances for a man to divorce his wife, but neither party may re-marry while the spouse lives. Normally, in today's culture, when someone says that divorce is allowable, the implication that is generally understood is an unsaid, "with the right to remarry."
I cannot imagine why this issue would be taught in a Sunday sermon for this is something that a priest should only discuss with an individual or an individual couple so that very specific circuмstances may be discussed. There is no absolute and clear-cut rule that can necessarily be applied in all cases, which makes it inappropriate for a Sunday sermon.
Yes, if one reads it "as written," one gets it wrong. :fryingpan:
That priest isn't trained to know the Church's own teaching on separation, civil divorce and the inability to remarry before the marriage bond is broken by death of one spouse. He may have mentioned it to try to sooth the minds of some of his parishioners who have accepted a phony Novus Ordo annulment.
-
From the OP'er ~ this was said by an SSPX priest who had as his server at Mass a NO deacon from the nearby Indult parish.
Why would he say that?
I do not wish to make rash judgement but this priest was a seminary teacher for a long time.
Shouldn't he know any better?
Is this what they teach at their seminaries?
-
If one's spouse commits adultery, the victim spouse has two choices
A) forgive
B) do not forgive, and separate
If the victim spouse is going to go with Plan B, it must be done right away. You can't act like you've forgiven him/her, and then next week decide to not forgive.
But regardless of choosing A) or B) both spouses are stuck with each other for life -- even if they choose to separate.
You should ask a priest for specifics.
I do know that "adultery" is one of the few reasons a spouse can refuse the marriage debt -- and in the case of adultery, it can be indefinite.
I think it's very wise for the Church to make this allowance for human nature. For one thing, it will make that wandering spouse stop and think. Who knows, maybe he'll start thinking with the head on top of his shoulders, at least enough to hold him back.
Adultery is really stupid to begin with -- risking a stable relationship you've established, a family you've started, the lives of your children -- and for what? Usually marrying that new person isn't an option (past, present or future).
Especially for a Catholic, whose church forbids re-marriage while a spouse is still living. And if you kill your spouse, that's an impediment for a future marriage -- one that can't be given a dispensation by the Church.
And the "experience" can't vary that much... Once I was on a non-Catholic website where a bunch of guys were talking about marriage and infidelity, and several guys pointed this out. They may have been non-Catholic, but they have a point.
Going through a family break-up, divorce proceedings, living alone, etc. because you wanted to drink a glass of water from your neighbor's kitchen sink instead of your own? How stupid is that? It's water, darn it.
-
She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
-
Even if divorce occurs, if the marriage is valid a so-called second marriage means adultery regardless.
-
My aunt was concerned about the sermon she was told this Sunday.
The priest said that Christ says in Matthew 19-20 that we are allowed to divorce if the spouse commits fornication.
Is this correct?
I am confused now.
No, that was in reference to people who were living in sin. A person who is not married who has relations with someone who is not married is commiting fornication. In those instances if there is a seperation, the parties are free to marriy shoever they want to who is free to marry.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
-
She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
Civil divorce is not recognize by the Church as an end to the marriage in the eyes of Church and God. The couple is still married.
In the USA if a spouse wants to separate it's often necessary to seek a civil divorce due to legal rights to protect finances or children. It doesn't leave either spouse free to marry a different person though.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.
Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.
Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.
Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
-
No, that was in reference to people who were living in sin. A person who is not married who has relations with someone who is not married is commiting fornication. In those instances if there is a seperation, the parties are free to marriy shoever they want to who is free to marry.
I have read this explanation as well and was inclined to write this explanation initially. However, I read this explanation back in my Novus Ordo days and it would have been from a Novus Ordo source. I no longer have those books on my shelves so I can't reference it, nor would I have referenced it even if I still had those books.
None of my pre-Vatican II catechisms discuss this very specific issue, which is why I believe this is not an issue that should be taught in a Sunday sermon. The only specific explanation I found was from the note in the Douay-Rheims bible I quoted.
From the OP'er ~ this was said by an SSPX priest who had as his server at Mass a NO deacon from the nearby Indult parish.
Now I am beginning to understand why this might have been brought up in such an inappropriate venue. Are the faithful being prepared so they won't be "scandalized" with the ordinary state of affairs (no pun intended) in the Novus Ordo and Indult parishes when the eventual reunion takes place?
-
And the "experience" can't vary that much... Once I was on a non-Catholic website where a bunch of guys were talking about marriage and infidelity, and several guys pointed this out. They may have been non-Catholic, but they have a point.
Remember it may not be for just the "experience" people cheat for, can be for psychological or emotional reasons, they may not even be attracted to the other party.
-
She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
Doesn't sound like the priest botched it but the poster was confused of why there is a distinction between separation and separation and being with another.
-
She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
It is possible that she either heard wrong or her emotions overflowed and clouded her memory.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.
Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.
Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
Is this Code of Canon Law the 1983 version?
-
I thought Catholics were allowed to separate from their spouse if the spouse commits adultery, but that they were not allowed to remarry. But I am no expert.
-
She clearly remembers him saying divorce is allowed in the case of fornication.
But will not allow to remarry because that would be adultery.
Why the distinction?
Why not just say divorce is allowed in cases of adultery, why specify and distinguish the two?
My understanding is divorce is absolutely NOT allowed under ANY circuмstance.
I am flabbergasted!
Could this possibly be a "concession"?
Something the NO guest deacon was supposed to hear?
:confused1: :confused1: :confused1:
Your understanding is incorrect.
Divorce is allowed. A divorce is a legal action by which the spouses are separated according to civil law. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're still married. They are still married (sacramentally). The law just does not recognize their marriage, so they may move away from one another and have the property divided and whatever other steps or actions that are necessary without suffering consequences from the civil law.
Divorced =/= "not married." That is a modern way of thinking.
There are other extraordinary instances which might justify divorce, such as one of the spouses being dangerous to the family. In such an instance it could be prudent to seek a divorce according to the civil law to protect the family from the deranged spouse.
-
Naturally, divorce or separation should only ever be taken as a last resort and even then, it is good to forgive. But it is the prerogative of the wronged spouse in the case of adultery to divorce the adulterer/ess.
-
Single people fornicate. Married people commit adultery.
I believe this is the annulment clause. If spouses are fornicating then it is not a valid sacramental marriage.
If one or both of the spouses were fornicating with others at the time of the marriage then it can be evidence of a non-sacramental union because it shows that they never intended to have unity within the marriage alone.
Would you share where this info came from? I've not heard of fornication making a marriage invalid.
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.
Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.
Is this Code of Canon Law the 1983 version?
That was the 1983. And here are the same statements from other sources:
1917 Code Canon 1013 - §2.
The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which acquire a special firmness in Christian marriage by reason of its sacramental character.
Council of Trent:
Definition of Matrimony
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
In order that the different parts of this definition may be better understood, it should be taught that, although a perfect marriage has all the following conditions, - namely, internal consent, external compact expressed by words, the obligation and tie which arise from the contract, and the marriage debt by which it is consummated; yet the obligation and tie expressed by the word union alone have the force and nature of marriage.
-
That doesn't mean fornication makes a marriage is invalid.
-
No it doesn't but if a dude has a harem of girlfriends and marries another lady and keeps the girlfriends that might imply lack of unity.