Skip to main content
Tim asks a good question about divorce in the comments to a previous post. The relevant sections of the CCC (let the reader understand) are 2382-2386. But some of the New Testament texts seem to permit divorce, at least in the theoretical, in the case of adultery. But Bryan's article on this is maniacally thorough. [We're used to this by now, aren't we?--ed.] It still shocks me, like the pungent incense at Easter, or the fact that the Cardinals won the World Series, or that Firefly was ever cancelled. [Yeah, that show is great.--ed.] I know, right?

Comments

Timothy R. Butler said…
When I have time, I'll have to read Bryan's article. Bryan needs to write abridged versions for folks that only have short times for "reading for pleasure." :-) Otherwise right now I'm immersed in medieval church matters, etc. In any case: I'd be a pretty hard sell on saying the Bible only "seems" to permit divorce though. It is explicit within specific guidelines.

I'd feel better about the Catholic prohibition if I didn't know that people just spend money, deal with canon law, etc., to "prove" that the marriage should be annulled and do the same thing, only at considerably greater difficulty. I know someone going through that right now.

I certainly agree we are too permissive on divorce. But, if Jesus gave reasons for divorce, I can't really argue with him. :-)
10:44 PM
Jason said…
Yes, you ought to read it, as it shows the novel nature of the Reformers' interpretation.
12:17 AM
Jason said…
Again, this is why arguments from Scripture either end in subjectivity (rejected by most) or an appeal to an ecclesial authority. In the second case, this is why continuity is of vital importance.
12:21 AM
Jason said…
The so-called fornication clause (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ), which in a somewhat different form is found in Mt. 5:32, also (παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας), but which does not appear in the parallel passages Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18, does not, according to the context, imply an exception to the law of indissolubility: for it was Jesus’ intention to restore the original order, which did not know divorce, and to set up His new commandment in conscious antithesis to the lax Law of Moses (cf. Mt. 5:31 et seq.). Unless one wishes to destroy the antithesis and create a contradiction between St. Matthew on the one side and SS. Mark and Luke (such as 1 Cor. 7:10 et seq.) on the other side, one must either understand the clause in the traditional excluding sense, according to which it indeed permits, by way of exception, the putting away of the woman, but not subsequent re-marrying, that is, the so-called separation from bed and board, or in the including sense, according to which an exception from the prohibition of divorce is not laid down, but that the ground for divorce provided for in Deut. 24:1 (‘erwath dabar == something infamous) is drawn into the prohibition of divorce. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 463-464.)

Do you endorse reading the Scriptures "in vacuo" on this point, or do you admit the historical witness? If you admit it, only one conclusion can be drawn.
2:16 PM
Post a Comment