Expert: Griff Ruby - 6/20/2010

Question
QUESTION: According to scripture Matthews 5:31-32 and 19:9 it will seem legitimate to divorce and be free to remarry based on adultery

Matthew 5:31-32 (New International Version)


31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I 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.

and

Matthew 19:9 (New International Version)

9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Which of the Catholics Canon supports the above. I believe any canon made by infalliable men is not to be followed UNLESS it follows the biblical reasoning.

I have a dear friend of mine who is catholic, whos husband did this and YET to the eyes of the church - she said she is not FREE. I know she is going thru her annulment but nevertheless the CHURCH is NOT GOD.. In GOD eyes ALONE already she is freed through her divorce decree and what happened..but nevertheless she is catholic and traditions are important to her but there has to be a Catholic canon law that supports the scripture above.

Which is this Catholic canon law?

ANSWER: Divorce followed with remarriage to another partner while the first partner is still living is virtually never to be permitted.  This is not merely some "canon" cooked up by churchmen but rather it is explicitly driven by Scripture itself.
It is true that the Church has codified both moral principles as well as organizational structuring into what it calls the Code of Canon Law, and it is also true that this Code contains much in the way of disciplinary matters that have been determined by churchmen and as such could be changed if some reason merited it, and has gone through some changes through the years.  But because some things in the Code are at least theoretically or potentially subject to change does not mean that everything therein can be changed willy-nilly, for there are other things in it that merely reiterate what Scripture teaches, and that is definitely the case here.  So there really is no point in trying to claim that she is not permitted to remarry merely to canon such-and-such, as though she had a copy of the Code on hand and used that instead of the Bible to direct her life.  The real issue here is the Scripture itself, particularly in what it says.
Your problem here is that you have misread it.  That isn't entirely your fault since many Protestant ministers also misread it, but their misreading of it is far more guilty than yours is since they really should know better.  This points up one of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, namely that in Protestantism absolute anarchy prevails as there is by its very nature no authoritative voice, no policeman, to step in and say to an erring cleric "No sir, you have taught wrong, and if you do not correct your teaching you shall be removed from your post and another appointed to take your place who will provide the correct teaching."  In Protestantism if no particular "church" agrees with all that you want a church to teach, then it is perfectly trivial to set up yet another "church" exactly to your liking, and so on to the tune of many tens of thousands of sects, denominations, and "isms" of various sorts.
So let's start with the two scriptures you have given here.  There are actually two steps to the whole thing here, one being the mere separation of the parties, and the second being the attempted "remarriage" of either or both of them to other(s).  The first can be permitted in cases where the partners cannot endure to live together, or else where one poses a threat to the other, but it is the second which cannot be permitted under any circumstances.  So (for example), if a woman has reason to believe that her husband is going to kill her, she is not obliged to remain in harm's way; she can leave him.  But this does not mean that having so left for such a perfectly valid reason she is free to marry another, or even that he, now deserted by her, is free to marry another.
However, the exception clause you see in the two scriptures you give here pertains to something different.  Part of the problem here seems to be the translation used.  When you think of the phrase "marital unfaithfulness," does that not seem to suggest the following scenario:  Mr. A marries Miss B, but then later on one of them commits adultery with C, someone who is neither A nor B but some outside interloper with no rights to the marriage of A and B.
Let's briefly explore this absurd interpretation.  If A cheated on B with C, who would be permitted the divorce?  Certainly, B is the offended party and innocent of any wrong, so would that not mean that B should therefore be the one who is free to remarry?  But divorce works two ways, such that if one could be so free then both are free to remarry and A now also would have the right to "marry" C or anyone else.  So all anyone has to do to "marry" another is cheat on their present spouse and then they are free to take another.  And so it goes, through another and another and another until whatever children as may be involved would have no idea who their true parents are, nor would it make any difference, as nobody has ever been specifically accountable for their upbringing.
So now let's look at what that "exception clause" is really talking about.  A marries B, or so he thought, for unbeknownst to A, B was already married to another and really is not free to marry A at all.  Once A should learn of this, then A is obliged to put away B, in fact release B to return to B's own true spouse (or to be alone) while A indeed is still free to marry.  What has happened here would be an example of what is presently called an annulment.  B was already married to another (call that person D), but in subsequently attempting marriage to A is merely making A a fellow participant in adultery.  B is truly married to D and A is not truly married to anyone, so the "marriage" of A and B is to be annulled merely to recognize the fact of B's true spouse D.
The second part of each of the quotes you give close this out:  "anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery," and again "...and marries another woman commits adultery."  For this part there is no exception given.  Whoever marries a divorced person [i. e. someone who is already married to another living spouse, despite whatever separation they may have subsequently come to] commits adultery.  In Mark (10:11-12) it is laid out even more clearly:  "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.  And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (quoted from your own New International Version)
It all comes down to "the two are one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together let man no separate."  Marriage is "for keeps" and that is all there really is to it.  In God's eyes, she is "one flesh" with the man she married, no matter how poorly things have worked out between them, and she understands that.  Basically, the only way out is if the thing never truly happened at all in the first place, because it couldn't have for whatever reason, and that is what annulments are all about.  It is true that in recent years the annulment process has commonly been abused to provide "easy divorces" to those wanting to move on from partner to partner, but the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself bad.  As to whether she can one day get her "annulment" or if it would even be valid before God even if she did is another question for another day.



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you so much on this interpretation. The issue here is the PORNEA on how it may be interpreted. Adultery is certainly a correct word to use but does it actually mean what many of think it means. I do notice that in Matthew 5:31-32 that THE MAN is ONLY guilty, IF, he remarrys, that SHE becomes an adulterer, but what about the MAN? this also becomes what I called a spiritual twin in Mark 10:11-12. I know that Jewish law with fornication is a DEATH PENALTY (correct?)- although we are NOT jewish we are gentiles, so Mosaic Laws dont apply to us I believe - and Jesus FULFILLED the law - so its done away (correct?)

Also - lets go the spiritual side of things.. Lets look at Jehovah and he had his THEN wife called ISRAEL, Israel then commits spiritual ADULTERY towards him..Thus he lets her go and goes to REMARRY a new wife made up of gentiles and jews..Is this not the case? Sorry if I am confused and I thoroughly enjoyed your explanation above to the fullest.

I do believe that what GOD sows together should stay together..I do believe that easy divorces are there - i see even on the train you can divorce for $99.00 - how easy they make it..Nevertheless, I believe it may be possible to interpret Matthew 9:19 as such adultery - in its literal form.


Matthew 9:19 - I used actually the NASB which is a Catholic bible (my favorite)

Matthew 19:9 (New American Standard Bible)

9"And I say to you, (A)whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

inmorality = its such a vague term that would include adultery.

Thanks so much for this explanation..It does clear what Catholics believe..

Answer
If you look at the passages in Mark more carefully you will see that they are careful to point out the symmetry between man and woman, such that if either marries a "divorced" person they commit adultery.  It is not one way, with one set of rules for men and another for women.  In any adultery, both parties are adulterers, not only the one married to someone else, but also the one not married to someone else (if either is, for of course it is also possible for both to be married to other partners, and obviously again in such a scenario both commit the crime and sin of adultery).
As to the more technical question as to the transition from the Nation of Israel to the Church, basically one is a continuation of the other, even as the Nation under the Kings was a continuation of the nation under the Judges, or for that matter the Nation founded by Moses a continuation of the Family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  That will have to do for now.
NASB or NAB?  The first is the "New American Standard Bible, and the second is the "New American Bible."  The NASB is produced by Protestants.
The vague term of immorality is used because, though the commandment against adultery only mentions adultery itself, it is understood and taught by the Church that it also extends to all other forms of disordered sexual expression.  The Commandment only mentions the chief crime.  The same occurs with the Commandment against "bearing false witness," also known as the sin of calumny (telling lies about a person to destroy their reputation) which is the chief crime against truth, but of course the Commandment is also extended by the Church to refer to all lies and also even truths if they detract unnecessarily (sin of "detraction").
Hope this helps, sorry for the delay!