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.

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.

Yes, if one reads it "as written," one gets it wrong.  

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.

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.

Even if divorce occurs, if the marriage is valid a so-called second marriage means adultery regardless.

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.

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.

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

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.