Christ was put to death by His enemies because he pointed out their pride and hypocrisy and warned them that they would come to a bad end if they didn't repent. And not only the Pharisees received a stern talking to -- consider this requirement: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11, DRV).
There's a quaint habit of dismissing Christ as a man of His times that amounts to dismissing Him as irrelevant for our times. The passage above from St. Mark, however, was no easier for first century Palestinians than it is for people today. It shocked people then; it shocks them now. Whatever Christ was, He was never "a man of the times."
Marriage unites a man and a woman in a permanent and exclusive union; after the two of them are joined in matrimony, no power on earth can sever that union. Sure they can go their separate ways, but they remain husband and wife: the bond of marriage endures for life, no matter the distance or circumstance. To leave one spouse and take up with another while the first spouse is still living is a big no-no. It's a simple teaching to grasp, though a difficult one to live up to.
I've been told more than once that this view of marriage being indissoluble until death is crazy. But what's really crazy is promising one's beloved to be faithful for life, then leaving that spouse and making the same exact promise to someone else later on. The point about the permanency of marriage is a difficult thing, but the alternative is certifiably insane. Christ does us the courtesy of taking us at our word when we say "For as long as we both shall live."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
An anonymous chap whose comment I rejected for this post appealed to a paper on Erasmus as a remedy to the indissoluble marriage doctrine.
That Erasmus was a brilliant scholar I readily recognize: among other accomplishments he brought the study of Greek to Oxford, and his name was justifiably famous for generations after his death. He was also a great friend of my own hero, St. Thomas More.
Erasmus was also a rationalist, and was weak in his grasp of many theological fundamentals; he also had an appetite for sneering at religious institutions and disciplines that helps explain his alternative interpretation of the Scriptures on marriage.
Regardless, the proper approach to interpreting Scriptures must account for the constant teaching and practice of the Christians from the first days of the Church -- and in this case, that overwhelmingly supports the point I raised in the original post: a validly contracted marriage cannot be dissolved (another time I'll touch on the Pauline Privilege).
Excellent post, Sean. Just a note to add that, contrary to the belief of some, an annulment is not tantamount to "Catholic divorce", since such thing is an impossibility. Rather, it is the declaration that no true marriage ever existed; and yes, this situation is not only possible according to Church law but, I think, even more likely now than in earlier times. Several causes are responsible for this situation, in my opinion, among them a lack of understanding of the teachings of the Faith and insufficient preparation for the reception of the sacrament. That an annulment can and is properly granted by the Church in particular cases in no way diminishes the teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage, but points out the seriousness with which this life-long union should be approached.
Many thanks. The presumption is and should be in favor of validity; some probable cause must be present to allow for doubt.
Post a Comment