Posted on 04/13/2017 7:25:35 AM PDT by ebb tide
The instructions laid out two months ago by the general of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, on “what Jesus really said” regarding marriage and divorce have not fallen on deaf ears.
On the contrary, some among the Jesuits have been the first to apply them in full. To conclude that “once a marriage is dead” Jesus too would allow divorce today.
The Jesuit who has drawn this conclusion from the premises set up by his superior general is not a nobody. He is Fr. Thomas Reese, former editor of the magazine of the New York Jesuits, “America,” and a prominent writer for the “National Catholic Reporter.”
He has done so in this commentary published April 6 on NCR:
> "What God has joined together …"
But before presenting his argumentation, it is helpful to reread what Fr. Sosa said in the interview with the blog Rossoporpora last February 18, as well pondered as it was explosive, published only after he had reviewed it word by word.
In order to know “what Jesus really said,” the general of the Jesuits stated in that interview, it has to be kept in mind that “at that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.”
Therefore - he continued - in order to understand what Jesus meant by his saying: “no human being must separate what God has joined together,” it is not enough to stop at the letter, but one needs to “bring [it] into discernment,” as Pope Francis does, without becoming rigid over what in the Church has become doctrine, “because doctrine does not replace discernment.”
*
So then, Fr. Reese begins by citing the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce:
“Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. Whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” (Mt 19:6,9).
“In the minds of the critics of Pope Francis” – he says – these words “are clear and definitive and end the discussion.”
Immediately afterward he writes that, however, “there are at least three reasons that these words from Jesus do not prove that Pope Francis is wrong in opening up the possibility of some divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion.”
- The first reason is that “Jesus said a lot of things that we do not observe literally without exception.”
And he gives numerous examples, such as never to swear by anything in heaven or on earth. And then he wonders:
“Why do we insist on enforcing the words of Jesus on divorce literally without any exception, when we find all sorts of wiggle room in many of his other sayings?”
The second reason is that “Jesus does not list any punishment for divorce and remarriage. He does not say such persons will be consigned to hellfire. He does not say they should be excluded from the Christian community. He does not even say they cannot go to Communion. He does not say they cannot be forgiven.”
While instead “he does list punishment for other sins,” in particular for those who do not give food to the hungry, do not give drink to the thirsty, etcetera. A sign that for him these sins are much worse than divorce, in spite of the fact that the Church sees it the other way around. And in any case, it is not a given that even the threat of hell should be taken “literally.”
- The third reason is “the historical context” of the words of Jesus. “Where Jesus lived and taught, divorce was only available to men,” so much so that in the Gospel of Matthew he speaks only of repudiation of the wife by the husband. And if he prohibits this, it is in order to no longer expose women to the ostracism that punished all the repudiated.
"It was not until the 19th Century,” Fr. Reese continues, “that divorced women began to get some protection from the civil law. As a result, divorce was clearly a devastating injustice to women for most of human history. Jesus quite rightly condemned it since practically all divorces were done by powerful men to powerless women.”
In parentheses, Fr. Reese points out that “Mark, whose gospel was used in Rome made the teaching of Jesus gender neutral,” having him pronounce also a condemnation of repudiation of the husband by the wife, and of her remarriage. And the evangelist did this “because in Rome upper-class wives could divorce their husbands.”
This observation should be enough to demolish his entire argument. But Fr. Reese drops it and arrives at this peremptory conclusion:
“Today we live in a different world. How can we be so certain that Jesus would respond in the same way to divorce today? True, most divorces involve sin, moral failure and great pain. True, in most divorces women get the short end of the stick. Divorce is not something to be shrugged off, but once it has happened and a marriage is dead, can there be a possibility for healing and life in the future? Francis thinks so. So do I.”
*
Not just communion for the divorced and remarried. Fr. Reese goes much further. In the name of Jesus, he liberalizes divorce and also has it liberalized by the pope.
Who, in effect, the only time he has commented on Jesus’ words on marriage and divorce in a homily of his, at Santa Marta last February 24, did not take them literally at all, but even went so far as to say that “Jesus does not respond whether [repudiation] is licit or not licit.”
If this is the “discernment” that the superior general of the Jesuits has said must be exercised over the words attributed to Jesus by the Gospels, it must be noted that not only Fr. Reese but also the Jesuit who has risen to the see of Peter have abided by it. With the conclusions that are plain to see.
To no use, evidently, have been the numerous criticisms (most recently by Cardinal Raymond L. Burke) of Fr. Sosa’s interview, including the in-depth “Memorandum” sent to the pope and to the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which Settimo Cielo covered at the end of March.
Fr. Sosa replied to these criticisms on April 9, in an appearance on TgCom24, reiterating “in toto” all of his ideas:
“No one has a written or recorded register of the words that Jesus said. The Christian communities wrote the Gospels to hand down his words, but a long time afterward and through different communities of reference. Moreover, the words of Jesus must be understood in their context, and the Church, understood in the broad sense, interprets. Doctrine emerges somewhat from this interpretation that the Church makes. When one interprets, it is in order to understand better what Jesus said directly. If we understand better what Jesus said, then we understand better how we should behave in order to be like him.”
But if, as Fr. Sosa says, it is the Church "understood in the broad sense" that “interprets” the words of Jesus, are a couple of Jesuits really enough - together with a confrere pope - to overturn what has been said for two millennia by the Fathers of the Church, the popes, the councils, and, before them, by the Gospels on the indissolubility of marriage?
(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)
I do not guess what Jesus would say. I live following His actual words and what Jesus did say! It is not for me to decide what He would say now. It is not for anyone else living today to decide for themselves either and tell other people what Jesus would have said. Jesus warns that any who add or take away from His words risk losing their salvation. Jesus did not discuss such things as interplanetary space flight, smart phones, nuclear weapons, abortion, plastic and cosmetic surgery. Jesus gave us a moral compass. Jesus fulfilled the laws already on the books as under the ten commandments which can be applied to all sins in one form or another. Adultery did not go away and God further doubled down by saying you should not even covet your neighbors wife let alone sleep with her. It is as simple as that and all that ignore His word and encourage sinful behavior even if clergy are equally guilty of that sin.
We are to stick with the contextual/explicit teachings and take heed that no one deceives or perverts these teachings; hence physical Churches that formed hierarchies and fundamental codes in order to protect the integrity/purpose of the teachings.
____________________________________________________
I have no qualm with this, but, who decides what the teachings are. Do you not think the Catholic seminary graduates as wise as the Methodist? Perhaps the Methodists as wise as the (you fill in the blank) church?
We all judge, which teaching is true and which one applies to me. The problem is that we all have a difference in what we believe to be correct but mind you, no matter what our belief is, what is correct is not changed, there is but one law regardless of what we or our priest/minister think about it.
I do not guess what Jesus would say. I live following His actual words and what Jesus did say!
__________________________________________________________
Wonderful and just where do you find His actual words? Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Where do you find his words?
I don’t want to be rude but what we have of the “words of Jesus” are actually the words of people who heard either the Apostles speak or heard people who heard people who heard the Apostles speak except for a few letters written by them. What we generally quote is from the Gospels which is basically what a variety of Christian reporters said they heard from people who knew or heard the Apostles. What we have of even THOSE word was translated from Aramaic into Greek and Latin and then maybe to the language you read in.
This is not a little point but a very large point. While I generally use Strong’s concordance to translate to the Greek I know of no book that goes back to the Aramaic. Very, very often using Strong’s I find that there are many translations of a particular word and they are rated in a percentage of probable veracity. Any of them could be right but the percentages are based on what most scholars believe is probably correct. I have never been a person with tons of respect for “most Scholars”. Scholars live in an isolated world and that isolation surely has an effect on how they translate.
We do not have the words of Christ but perhaps we do have the ideas as presented by Christ as translated a couple of times by people from a different time and understanding of us.
I get annoyed when people say the Holy Bible is their authority. I just think, “Yeah, right!”.
Don’t misunderstand me, I believe the Bible to be the word of God, especially The Old Testament since it still exist in the original Hebrew language. There is little or no Aramaic Biblical text that is 100% thought to be genuine. I call the Bible by the name of The Holy Bible because I believe it is Holy and contains words of Jesus Christ but I also understand the fallibility of translators. That there are contradictions in the Holy Bible does not make it less Holy, it just isn’t the perfect Word of God.
Do you not think the Catholic seminary graduates as wise as the Methodist?
Irrelevant, more like do their teachings reflect contextual, purposeful, and spiritual fundamentals of Christian morality? Does embracing homosexuality and watering down the marriage covenant reflect Christ’s teachings? Man’s ways to manipulate teachings in order to assimilate “to the times” is a dangerous road to go down into.
___________________________________________________
I would never go down this road but, my point is exactly as you express. Ministers using the same Holy Bible come up with these false doctrines of the marriage covenant and queer lifestyle and on and on. Who teaches these lies? Why it is the scholars in the Seminaries.
Semantics any way you look at it. Lawyers and Pharisees and so called professors. When I say the word of God you know that I mean scripture. I am not going to argue which translation because that is not the issue at hand. The Holy Spirit guided the early Church on which books to include and exclude. There is also the oral tradition and as others have said the Holy Roman Catholic Church in total since its founding under good Popes and Cardinals and bad has never allowed or condoned divorce as it should be and as our Lord commanded that what God had joined can not be separated. No further need to further discuss or argue, at least I will not.
Sure, and Jesus would say that God is often wrong.
Divorce was permitted for “fornication” if the husband found uncleaness in his betrothed (that is, “wife”, but before they had come together to consumate the marriage).
It was for this reason that Joseph considered putting Mary away, since she was pregnant and he knew that the child could not possibly be his, since their marriage night had not yet taken place.
After consumation of marriage, “fornication” is not the sin that takes place. The bible calls that sin “adultery”. Under these grounds the adulterous member can be put to death. Divorce is not necessary to dissolve the marriage.
After the death of the spouse, the surviving spouse is free to remarry without committing adultery.
See Romans 7:1-4.
Don't forget that thing about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Adultery was still a capital crime when Jesus addressed the woman caught in adultery. It would have been a misapplication of justice for him to have her stoned because the man was not also presented to him. The law, which was still in effect for such crimes (just as it was for murder and sexual deviancy), has stringent and exact requirements which requires BOTH of them to be brought forward.
I don't know how people can think that the law is somehow magically done away with. The law was never intended to save us, but to teach us about sin and make sin "exceedingly sinful" according to Paul. Paul frequently talks about sins "unto death." Adultery is one of them. Murder doesn't get a pass either, nor does sexual sin. The only parts of the law not in effect are those that deal with sacrifice and carnal ordinances which were fulfilled by Jesus. See Hebrews 9:8-10:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
"...until the time of the reformation", that is, until Christ has come.
Finally, constructions with "Let" require the subject in the objective case:
Let HIM, who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.
Jesus quite rightly condemned it since practically all divorces were done by powerful men to powerless women.”
The statistics also show that it is the woman that is most dissatisfied in marriage which would explain why the powerful men divorced their complaining wives, a poor man could not afford to.
I believe Jesus meant that marriage was a life long Commentment if possible, people use any excuse to divorce when the main purpose is to jump into bed with some one else or that sick disease called pride.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.