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

Popular posts from this blog

My Thoughts On The Harrison Butker Commencement Speech

Update: I read the whole thing. I’m sorry, but what a weirdo. I thought you [Tom Darrow, of Denver, CO] made a trenchant case for why lockdowns are bad, and I definitely appreciated it. But a graduation speech is *not* the place for that. Secondly, this is an august event. It always is. I would never address the President of the United States in this manner. Never. Even the previous president, though he deserves it, if anyone does. Thirdly, the affirmations of Catholic identity should be more general. He has no authority to propound with specificity on all matters of great consequence. It has all the hallmarks of a culture war broadside, and again, a layman shouldn’t speak like this. The respect and reverence due the clergy is *always due,* even if they are weak, and outright wrong. We just don’t brush them aside like corrupt Mafia dons, to make a point. Fourthly, I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that the TLM is how God demands to be worshipped. The Church doesn’t teach that. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more