A pastoral letter by three high-level German bishops reopened the debate on pastoral care for those who have been divorced and then remarried. The status of these people conflicts with the principles of pastoral care since they are considered adulterers or at least living in sin and the current papal doctrine gives them only inadequate options based on the assumption that if the Church failed to support the indissolubility of marriage then people would not seek it. The pastoral letter suggests that pastoral care decisions would be better made on the local level as opposed to by Rome. The letter stated that a pastoral dialogue was needed to determine whether the “generally valid” prohibition against the remarried receiving the Eucharist “applies also in a given situation.” The presumption behind these pastoral options was that those whose marriages were invalid due to the existence of a prior bond of marriage were living in a sinful situation, an adulterous union. Their lives together placed them in the proximate occasion of serious sin, thus endangering their salvation. Moreover, it was intolerable because it could be a source of scandal to the faithful. The Church’s marriage tribunals functioned ponderously and declarations of nullity were slow and very few. The tribunals could respond to only a tiny fraction of the pastoral need. Often couples could not separate, since their obligations to their children, their dependence on one another, or their economic condition simply did not permit it. Living together as brother and sister was an arrangement “full of dangers” and to be suggested only in the rarest of cases.
The work of the NCCB Committee came to naught; no guidelines were ever issued. Pastoral practice regarding access to the sacraments by the divorced and remarried continued to be and still remains diverse in the U.S. During the 1980 International Synod on the Family there was concern expressed to improve pastoral care toward the divorced and remarried. At the time there was criticism of the synod’s final text for failing to catch the nuances of the discussion, i.e. not consistently distinguishing between conflict and hardship cases, and within the hardship category ignoring the difference between those who were abandoned and people in other situations. Overall, the tone of the synod discussions and the declared desire to provide a positive program of pastoral care was a big step forward in the Church’s ministry to those in irregular unions. In 1981, John Paul II issued his apostolic exhortation provided his thoughts on the synod topic. In paragraph 84 he addressed the situation of the divorced and remarried. There he made distinctions not found in the synod statement. The distinctions, however, did not make any practical difference in pastoral care – all divorced and remarried are to be extended pastoral care and all are to be excluded from the Eucharist. While gracious in tone and strong in his affirmation of the place of the divorced and remarried within the Catholic community, the pope repeated the synod’s reasons for Eucharistic exclusion – namely, a contradiction between the objective state of those in irregular unions and the unity which the Eucharist signifies.
They note that with regard to pastoral care “the church is not simply free,” for the standard of the Church must be “the word, will and example of Jesus” their conclusion makes two points. “The church cannot assume the right to disregard the word of Jesus regarding the permanence of marriage; but equally it cannot shut its eyes to the failure of many marriages. For wherever people fall short of the reality of redemption Jesus meets them in mercy with understanding for their situation.” Emphasizing that the Church “cannot serve human needs without first serving the truth about the human person,” Stafford stated that the Church’s position on divorce and remarriage is not of its own making but “comes directly from the words of Christ.” To violate that teaching is to rupture a sacramental covenant. Since the “Eucharist is the defining act, the central celebration of Christian unity and community,” those who participate must not be living a life which violates the sacramental unity. One cannot simply exalt the individual’s conscience over the Church’s teaching, especially on a matter so central to the Church’s life as marriage. The divorced remarried person is excluded from the Eucharist since adultery is a sin. (3) Adultery “exists exclusively in sexual communion. Thus, nothing stands in the way of admission to the sacraments if the partners of the new marriage reject sexual union, even if they live together in personal community.”
The issue of sin arises not only in regard to adultery. Kaiser makes the point that “not only the remarriage, but the divorce is an offense against God’s command.” Whether this offense is a sin must be judged not only by the objective situation but by personal culpability, for the present pope has “expressly acknowledged that not every divorced spouse lives in mortal sin.” Each case must be examined. Some may not be sinfully culpable for their divorce, e.g. the abandoned. Yet other spouses may well have “destroyed the personal living and loving community of a marriage in a mortally sinful way.” Such persons must earnestly undergo an examination of their actions and in “true repentance turn from sin” through the sacrament of penance. Such individuals are not excluded from the Eucharist, even if the divorce remains in effect, since reestablishment of the loving communion of the first marriage may no longer be possible. Divorced persons in this situation are free to receive the sacraments, although they were culpable in a serious way for the break-up of the marriage and their divorced state is not altered. Divorce, objectively violates God’s will for married life. In many cases sinful culpability is present when a marriage dies. Just as the divorced person may repent yet persist in the “objectively wrong” status of being divorced, so the remarried may honestly pursue a path of repentance and sacramental forgiveness yet remain in a canonically invalid second union. The Church acknowledges this to be so since it encourages a couple to live up to the obligations, both human and Christian, that derives from the new marriage.
The Church cannot tell a couple that their present state in life is their duty while at the same time tells them that their present state of life entails persisting in sin. True, the official teaching presently maintains that the couple meets their obligations while living as brother and sister. But since, as has already been argued, no rights of former spouses are violated by the sexual sharing present in the new marriage, because no such right exists, the full intimacy of marriage at all levels can and should occur in the second marriage. Thus, provided the divorced and remarried honestly seek to build a life of personal self-giving and loving communion, their participation in the Eucharist should be permitted when they approach the table, irrespective of the canonical status of their marriage. The early Church in developing its Eucharistic discipline appealed to both the Matthean text, “do not give to dogs what is holy” ( ) and the Pauline warning to the Corinthians not to receive the body and blood of the Lord unworthily ( ). Paul called upon believers to examine themselves “and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” This attitude has fostered the presumption that if persons present themselves to the minister, the Eucharist should not be refused.
The Church does not believe there must be no original sin before baptism, nor no mortal sin before penance. Rather, these sacraments bring about what they celebrate, the forgiveness of sin. Must the sacrament of the Eucharist presume unity in order to celebrate it? Or may it be the means whereby unity is effectively created? Because the present church discipline does not give sufficient weight to the concern expressed in the second question we do not appear to have a balanced view of sacramental effectiveness. One can argue that because such a sacramental marriage should witness to Christ’s love it needs to embody a faithful and permanent bond of love which does not end. That is to draw a reasonable implication, namely, that if marriage is to be sign of Christ’s love, then a couple should imitate the qualities of Christ’s love. But to conclude that because Christ’s love for the Church cannot end, then this couple’s love for each other cannot end, is doing something more. In the first case we are drawing out moral implications, in the second we are making an ontological claim.() To state that indissolubility is a moral ideal, an ethical obligation, is a justifiable conclusion from the prior claim that sacramental marriage is meant to be sign of Christ’s love.
For one thing, quite apart from the Church’s teaching, people earnestly desire their marriages to be permanent and faithful. In reports from those regularly engaged in premarital-preparation programs there is little reason to conclude that couples enter into marriage indifferent to the ideals of permanence and fidelity. Every couple wants its marriage to be a success. Even as they admit that marriages often do not succeed, they want theirs to succeed. That is why divorce is a tragedy and many people who know nothing of Catholicism see it exactly that way. The actual legal decree of divorce may not be experienced by all as a tragedy since for some it is a relief, an end to wrangling, fear, and anger. But the existential process of the breakdown of a marriage leading to the legal judgment is deeply painful for all.
Pastoral Care/Pastoral Solutions
One of the positive developments within the Church in recent decades has been the growing sensitivity to divorced and remarried Catholics. No longer is the language of bigamy or excommunication found in formal teaching. The Church has now reached out in a wide variety of ways to those who have suffered the break-up of a marriage, e.g. better tribunal practice, parish-based support groups, weekend retreat programs, welcoming attitudes among parish staff and congregations. The official teaching of the Church has encouraged such developments agree that many things can be done to support those who are divorced, whether single or remarried.
People whose marriages have failed are still members of the Church and are entitled to pastoral care appropriate to their situation. In providing such care ministers ought not make the mistake of equating it only with the celebration of the sacraments. Even without admission to the Eucharist, much can and should be done for the divorced and remarried by pastoral leaders. The language of pastoral care can obscure the true nature of what is involved. For example, describing the outcome of a discernment process as a “good faith” solution is, in our opinion, unsatisfactory. There is a tendency to link “good faith” with invincible ignorance and the pastoral practice of dissimulation. However, many couples are fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding indissolubility and marriage. In any number of instances people simply do not see why the ban on Eucharistic participation must be absolute when it comes to those in canonically irregular marriages.
When this moral framework is employed and the couple maintains that the new marriage exists, then three pastoral options are possible: (1) convalidate their present marriage after seeking annulment or dissolution of the first marriage; (2) leave the couple in good faith, dissimulate; (3) admit them to penance and Eucharist, without any formal judgment about the first union. Separation is most often impossible, economically and morally, and may be inadvisable. As we have already suggested, the brother/sister arrangement should not be proposed. In following this approach a priest’s intervention does not seem to be essential. It is an exercise of moral discernment, and a morally sensitive third party is advisable to assist in the honest formation of conscience.
Families teach the first lessons of relationships among persons, some of which are essential not only to private life but to public life as well. Within the family, one learns to act upon others and to be acted upon. It is in the family that we learn to identify ourselves with others or fail to learn to love. It is in the family that we learn to give and take with others – or fail to learn to be reciprocal. It is in the family that we learn to trust others as we depend on them or learn to distrust them. We learn to form expectations of the others and to hold them accountable. We also learn to hold ourselves accountable. These lessons of reciprocity, trust, discipline and self-restraint are important to the forming of relationships in public life. This family is not an isolated unit but very much a social institution, nested in a wider context that either helps to sustain parental commitment and accomplishment or puts negative pressure on fathers and mothers. That pressure obviously takes many forms, and I have mentioned just a few. Being a parent isn’t just another “lifestyle choice.” It is an ethical vocation. Communities, including churches, should lighten the burden and smooth the path for parents so that the complex joys of family life might rise to the surface and the undeniable burdens of family responsibility might be more openheartedly borne. Children lost to society in increasing numbers may be a growing phenomenon, and it is one that we must call what it is: a loss, a crying shame. Protecting, preserving, and strengthening family autonomy and the well-being of mothers and fathers is a way of affirming our commitment to the individual and to that democratic society that best speaks to the aspirations of individuals. The rights of persons are fundamentally social. What is at stake in the family debate and our response to it is nothing less than our capacity for human sociality. If kids are involved, so the saying goes, there is no such thing as divorce. Sure, you can get a piece of paper saying your marriage is over, but don’t expect to be able to make a clean break. As long as you’re co-parenting children, especially young children, you will need to be in continual contact, and you’ll inevitably hear a great deal about what’s happening in your ex-partner’s life, whether you want to or not.
The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife? They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, what did Moses command you? They replied, Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her. But Jesus told them; because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another will commit adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery and people were bringing children to Him that He might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.
When Jesus saw this He became indignant and said to them, let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. Then He embraced them and blessed them, placing His hands on them. Most people would agree that divorce is always a tragedy. When a marriage breaks down, at least one of the spouses will need years to recover from the trauma. After having invested years in a relationship, one can hardly throw in the towel without a wrenching sense of failure. There is the fact that Jesus condemns divorce absolutely and unequivocally. In His words there are no ifs and buts. ( and ). Such a commitment will inspire the couple to communicate deeply, to face their difficulties as they emerge, to do the maintenance work required for the preservation of any relationship. Such a marriage will not end in divorce, because ultimately it is built on an act of faith in Christ’s vision of marriage as being the only healthy one. True, in extreme cases the apostle Paul accepts the idea of separation (), but even then no divorce is contemplated, and the separated spouses must remain single. There exists no evidence that suggests Jesus ever discussed same-sex anything, publicly or privately, during his ministry. However, Christ, the
bedrock of modern-day Christianity, did publicly condemn religious leaders of his age for granting bills of divorcement. But wading through all the hype in the media these days one might just conclude the opposite.
I’ve never witnessed a broadcast describing someone being dragged out into the middle of nowhere, hog-tied to a fence, and then beaten to a bloody pulp just because he or she once divorced and then remarried. Nor have I ever read an article in which America’s religious community demanded a legislative amendment to the United States Constitution to halt divorced people from having the right to ever remarry. Nor have I heard of any type of social reprisal aimed at halting their equal access to benefits already afforded married couples with no reason to locate a divorce attorney. Granted, in many Christian churches today divorce is heavily frowned upon. Yet, its leadership instructs that heterosexual individuals that do divorce and then remarry can receive unconditional forgiveness, grace, mercy, love and acceptance from God and also from their congregations. Moreover, most divorced believers are permitted to take on active pastoral
and other leadership roles in mainstream Christian churches. Relaxed, attractive atmospheres are even created that foster new, Christ-centered relationships between divorced individuals and other church members, not being the divorced person’s initial spouse. They bless and spiritually consecrate these new unions in the eyes of God although one or both of the newlyweds’ former spouses still live, and are at times active members in the same congregation. But this is categorically contrary to the teachings of Christ. In the New Testament, Jesus was quoted as teaching, “It has been said and anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But Jesus tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
Furthermore, the penalty connected to the act of adultery is synonymous with the penalty attached to the supposed sin of homosexuality. The Old Testament reads, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbor – both the adulterer and the adulteress [like those who commit same-sex acts] must be put to death.” Could it be that since so many spirit-filled pastors and other Christian leaders are themselves the continual perpetrators of repetitious unions, this blatant infraction of God s law and Christ’s teachings is so ardently disregarded nowadays? Or could it be that many of today s clergy have manipulated God’s law to make it conform to their social traditions, and in effect, nullifying God’s law by changing it? Does this sound familiar? Any well-versed Christian will confess that Jesus, himself, accused the ancient
church of similar acts of aggression against God’s established predicts. One writer of the New Testament, Apostle Paul, commented on similar types of gatekeepers of religious law on this wise: “Now you if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark — you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? as it is written: God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
The infamous apostle should have also prophesied that on the account of the
Christians alive in the year 2004, God’s name will be held in contempt
among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and others who
have not come to know God as God. Finally, is it considered an act of unconditional grace to say that the immeasurable, unmerited grace available from God stops only at the sin of adultery? Does God’s amazing grace cover only those sins of Old Testament
law that are socially comfortable by today’s standards? Let me put it
another way: Is divorce (absent of unfaithfulness) a sin? Many Christians
might respond, yes, of course, and there’s plenty of scripture to back that
up. Then will God consider the bed of that remarried person defiled? Most would
probably respond, No, absolutely not, because of the New Testament law of
grace, and there’s plenty of scripture to support this. Then, should not the same amazing grace, religious acceptance and social approval available to divorced people who remain remarried be extended to gays and lesbians who remain gay and lesbian? These are but a few of the more puzzling questions that remain avoided in arrogant-laced pulpits, as mainstream Christian leadership continues its one-sided, seemingly hypocritical onslaught against the social and spiritual validity of same-gender-attracted humanity.
In today’s gospel, Jesus puts into perspective Moses’ decision to allow divorce: “Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment” (). Then He proceeds to remind them of God’s original intent when He created man and woman and blessed their union (; ). Jesus thus curtails the excessive privileges of man and genuinely protects the woman. A husband cannot throw his wife out of the house for a flimsy reason. No more. Marriage is an indissoluble union that places husband and wife on equal footing. Either of them could be charged with adultery. By saying that a divorced person commits adultery by marrying another, Jesus hinders remarriage and leaves them door open for reconciliation between the estranged couple. In this respect, Jesus goes beyond Jewish and pagan conceptions, giving marriage a position of highest dignity. Divorce is a delicate and sensitive issue. Moses compromised in view of human weakness. But Jesus reinstates the original order of creation. No one says it is easy to make a marriage work. Clashing personalities and temperaments can indeed be a deterrent to harmony. For married couples, the challenge of discipleship is to help each other grow and mature and to be faithful to one another, till death do them part, as they have sworn before God and the community of believers.
Matthew 19:3-12
Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and tested Him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to Him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. His disciples said to Him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” After upholding the ideal of marital fidelity, Jesus offers another ideal on the occasion of the disciple’s naive judgment that the single state is to be preferred over an indissoluble marriage. The unmarried state can be preferable, but only for some. Some people have lived without marrying not out of choice but because of physical defects. But for some who have received a special gift from God, celibacy can be a matter of choice and personal commitment. In the same way that the profound meaning of marriage is to be understood from the original plan of the Creator, so must the real meaning of celibacy be understood in view of God’s plan: the future kingdom, which we begin to experience in the here and now?
Throughout Jewish history the Torah has been hailed as Israel’s supreme and most precious gift, given by God as His own special benefaction to His people. In the Midrash the Torah is said to have been created before the creation of the world, God using the Torah as the architect uses his blueprint. When God wished to give the Torah to Israel, the Midrash observes, the angels objected, wishing to retain the Torah for them. Moses managed to convince the angels that the Torah, containing as it does such teachings as ‘Thou shalt not steal’; ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’; ‘Thou shalt not kill’, could only have meaning for creatures of flesh and blood who are sorely tempted by envy, lust, and hatred. In this vein, the Talmudic Rabbis declare that the Torah does not make too heavy demands on humans since ‘The Torah was not given to the ministering angels’. In many a psalm the praises of the Torah are sung. The first Psalm praises the man who avoids the counsel of the wicked for whom the Torah is his delight. In Psalm 19 () the Torah of the Lord is said to be perfect, renewing life. The whole of Psalm 119, the Pharisaic Psalm, as this has been called by Christian scholars, utilizes each letter of the alphabet eight times in praise of the Torah: ‘Oh, how I love Thy Torah! All day long it is my study’ ()
God alone is to be worshipped, the Torah being the means of coming to God. The usual expression in Jewish piety is ‘love of the Torah and the fear of Heaven’. The term ‘fear’, denoting worship, is never applied to the Torah. Some authorities even object to bowing to the Torah since this might suggest that the Torah is being worshipped. The custom, however, is to bow to the Torah just as one bows to a person one wishes to honor without the slightest suggestion that he is being worshipped. This implies that this Torah of Moses will not be abrogated and that no other Torah will come from before God. Nothing is to be added to it nor taken away from it, neither in the Written Torah nor in the Oral Torah, as it is said: “Thou shalt not add to it nor diminish from it” []. The first is that God who gave the Torah does not change and it should follow that the Torah which stems from God does not change. Secondly, the Torah was given to the whole people of Israel and, unlike an individual, a people does not change. Thirdly, since the Torah is truth it cannot suffer change, for truth is eternal. If it is true, for instance, that there is only One God it is inconceivable that there should come a time when this will no longer be true and there will be many gods. Moreover there are examples in the Torah itself of a divine law being changed. Adam was only permitted vegetable food (), Noah was permitted animal food (). Abraham was given the additional precept of circumcision and many new precepts were revealed to Moses.
Although there existed a complete interpretation of the Torah and its commands there is no generation in which something new is not added and which is without its own legal problems. Do not contradict me by pointing to the Rabbinic saying that God showed Moses the minutiae of the Torah and the minutiae of the Scribes and the innovations that would be introduced by the Scribes, for I say that this was not handed down by Moses to anyone else. A careful examination of the Rabbinic saying shows that they spoke of God “showing” Moses, not “teaching” or “handing down” … By using the word “showing” they meant that these teachings were revealed to Moses but not “given” to him, like a man who “shows” his friend an object but does not give it to him.’ The problem of Jewish divorce has proven to be extremely difficult in the modern world, especially in Israel where all Jewish divorces are in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate and its rabbinical courts. The protests led by Orthodox and haredi women have reached such proportions that their plight cannot be ignored. The core of the difficulty lies in the Torah’s definition of marriage as a state in which “a man acquires a wife” and divorce as “he writes her a bill of divorcement” (). Even if this “acquiring” requires the consent of the woman, once the marriage has taken place, she is, in a sense, his “possession” and only he can free her from that position. Needless to say, this does not mean that he can abuse her. On the contrary, the Torah envisions a loving and respectful marital relationship.
Matthew 27-32
JESUS said to His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.” “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Jesus here deepens the understanding of the commandment forbidding adultery. He begins by declaring that His disciples know the law. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery”’ (). In Jewish patriarchal society, the law states that a married woman is guilty of committing adultery if she were unfaithful to her husband. In contrast, a man, whether married or not, is guilty of adultery only if his partner is another man’s wife. If she were, he is said to have violated that man’s property rights. Here, Jesus teaches that it is not enough to refrain from committing adultery, for one must not even look lustfully at a woman (). It is lust that causes one to treat another as a mere object rather than as a living person who is precious in God’s eyes. Lust degrades more the offender than his object.
Speaking against divorce, a concession under the Law of Moses, Jesus points out that marriage should be a permanent commitment of the spouses, not a mere temporary contract. His radical words stress the seriousness with which marriage should be undertaken and maintained. In general, His stance checks the propensity of men to degrade themselves or others and raises the lower (property) status of women. In His eyes, men and women are equal partners, both deserving respect.
Mark 10:1-12
JESUS set out from Capernaum and went into the district of Judea [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around Him and, as was His custom, He again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Having completed His ministry in Galilee (), Jesus enters Judea on His way to Jerusalem. He continues to preach His demanding and radical message. Here, He speaks on marriage and divorce, a common topic in rabbinical debates. To test Jesus, the Pharisees ask whether it is lawful for a husband to divorce his wife. Claiming Moses’ permission, Jewish teachers have allowed men to put their wives aside for a number of supposedly valid reasons, as a result of which male divorce of women was easy and prevalent. Jesus reminds the Jews that Moses tolerated divorce only because of the people’s hardness of heart. Going beyond the Mosaic concession, Jesus appeals to the beginnings, the original ideal state designed by God Himself. Jesus cites the book of Genesis (well within the authoritative Torah) and insists on the basic principle that “what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” God wills that man and woman be united in an indestructible union of love for the duration of their life. The disciples of Jesus are thus surprised at this hard teaching and question Him for clarification. Jesus reiterates that marriage is indissoluble. If a man and a woman have been validly married, they cannot divorce and remarry without committing adultery. In God’s sight, the indissolubility of marriage is nonnegotiable and should never be compromised.
According to the , marriage is a state instituted by God because ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (). Although various biblical figures (such as Jacob, Saul, David, etc.) had more than one wife, monogamy seems to have been the general rule, and the prophets used marriage as an illustration of God’s relationship with Israel. Certain marriages, particularly between close relatives, were forbidden, and marriage between Jew and idolater was strongly condemned. Although a continuing marriage was much to be desired, divorce was permitted (). Although divorce is a matter of great regret, it is possible. According to , if both husband and wife agree, a husband may give a get (‘bill of divorce’) to his wife. Both husband and wife can demand a divorce if the spouse has a physical defect, or because of unsatisfactory conduct. It is, however, in a post ghetto society notoriously difficult for the community to compel a husband to give a divorce, and if he refuses, the wife is tied; she cannot marry again, and any subsequent children.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment