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

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more