Pope Francis says half of marriages today are invalid. He's wrong.

The Week ^ | 5/20/14 | Michael Brendan Dougherty

[babygene]

“Yours is the unspoken implication, which is that they will share a domicile continuously “until death do us part.” “

That, Mrs. Don-o, is a very weak argument. Of course physical abuse can not be tolerated in society. We have laws that kick in when it happens. Ever hear of a thing called a prison?

Your whole argument about abuse is a red herring. That’s such a tiny fraction of the causes of divorces that it’s almost not worth talking about. Of course it does happen, but even when it does it’s rarely one sided. As my late mother would say, “it takes two to tango”. It’s almost impossible to get into an argument with somebody who is not arguing back.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Babygene, I didn't start this discussion by saying, as you seem to think I did, that most divorces are caused by abuse. I said or implied nothing of the kind.

Vendome had asked, "So one should stay in a union where violence, domination, intimidation, covert hostility and complete lack of communication are daily grinds?" and I responded (see #22) "A husband or wife may have, not just the right, but the moral responsibility to separate from their spouse, esp.in cases of abuse. Even if the separation is accompanied by a civil divorce, no moral fault is incurred." Nor did I say, or imply, that in an abusive situation the violence or verbal abuse was one-sided.

You are refuting statements I did not make.

[EBH]

Actually, that is not quite right either ...

If you or your spouse hands you a bill of divorce...you cause the other person to live in adultery. This is a mortal sin to even get divorced.

Matthew 5:32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery.

It is of note that it is unfaithfulness that is moral grounds for divorce says Jesus, not abuse.

Pope Francis, may very well be right on target with this idea that 50% of marriages may be invalid. In our sexually charged world an unfaithful spouse invalidates the marriage contract/sacrament.

This past January I attended a Catholic retreat. I have been divorced and celibate since 1996. When the priest giving part of the lecture literally explained how a man is to love his wife....like Christ love the Church...and repeated that statement forcefully and pointing at the crucifix hanging on the back wall...it was a powerful image. It also affirmed for me that my marriage of 14 years was likely invalid. Because my husband sure didn’t love me ...like Christ loves the Church.

My husbands years of infidelity invalidated the marriage.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If you or your spouse hands you a bill of divorce...you cause the other person to live in adultery. This is a mortal sin to even get divorced."

You are the only person I have ever heard of who has this interpretation of Matthew 5:32. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. And it's certainly wrong that a person who remains abstinent after a civil divorce, could be thought guilty of adultery.

"In our sexually charged world an unfaithful spouse invalidates the marriage contract/sacrament."

This is not what Pope Francis said or meant; it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The bond is made by the vows of the two Baptized Christian believers who were eligible to marry each other. If the vow was made honestly, knowledgeably and willingly, and the marriage was valid from the git-go, the marriage bond endures til death.

[Mrs. Don-o]

By the way, what Matt. 5:32 says is "except in the case of porneia" --- it doesn't say infidelity.

"Porneia" is a rather vague, catch-all Greek term which can mean (in its broadest sense) any kind of sexual indecency whatever, including immodest or seductive dress and demeanor, foul language, sexual taunting, indecent jokes and conversation, flirting, inappropriate touching, fornication, prostitution, adulterous affairs,---

or (in its narrowest sense) an unlawful sexual union. This exception isn't even used in the parallel verses in Mark and Luke.

The Catholic Church, carefully comparing different Scriptural contexts of the word "porneia," interprets it in this case to strictly mean an unlawful union, i.e. an invalid marriage.

[babygene]

“If the vow was made honestly, knowledgeably and willingly, and the marriage was valid from the git-go, the marriage bond endures til death.”

Except that it almost NEVER is made honestly, knowledgeably and willingly...

Certainly the “knowledgeably” part. People in there twenties “think” they know everything. Later in life we realize we knew nothing... And that goes for knowledge in general, not just about this subject.

“Fools rush in, where wise men fear to tread” There’s an awful lot of truth in that line.

[Vendome]

I’m actually not trying to argue with nor be divisive.

My comments impute nothing to you nor infer something implied nor explicit.

I am just talking.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’m sorry. I apologize because I think I was not writing clearly enough. Ia was not offended, and did not mean to give offense.

[sitetest]

Dear babygene,

“Except that it almost NEVER is made honestly, knowledgeably and willingly...

“Certainly the ‘knowledgeably’ part. People in there twenties ‘think’ they know everything. Later in life we realize we knew nothing...”

Your reasoning seems to make the case that nearly every marriage between young folks is invalid.

My wife and I were dummies when we got married at ages 22 and 23, respectively. Some would argue, we still are, LOL. But we knew that we wanted to marry each other and be married to each other for the rest of our lives. And we also knew, and said explicitly, that the most important party in our marriage was God.

Here we are, 30+ years later, and she still hasn't thrown me over.

sitetest

[Mrs. Don-o]

Beautiful to hear this.

[babygene]

“Your reasoning seems to make the case that nearly every marriage between young folks is invalid.”

A large percentage yes, which is borne out by the high divorce rate rates...

(and it’s 45+ for me and my spouse, but that doesn’t alter the stats)

[Vendome]

;-)

[sitetest]

Dear babygene,

Although too many marriages end in divorce, 1) it's not as many as folks think, 2) the numbers are a little deceiving, and 3) not everyone who divorces is in an invalid marriage.

In my family and my wife's family, there are 11 marriages and five divorces. That's nearly 50%! Oh, my!

But there are nine children between the two families, and only two of those children have ever divorced. My brother divorced three times in his life, my wife's sister twice, and counting.

That means 22% of the members of our family have divorced at least once.

Recent research mirrors my own family's experience, suggesting that only about 25% of first marriages end in divorce, but that most folks who divorce once will divorce again, thus bringing the overall divorce rate to something around 40% or even greater.

Twenty-five percent hardly comprises nearly everyone, nor even a majority, or even near to a majority.

The overwhelming majority of people who marry for the first time stay married till death parts them.

So, I'm skeptical that 50% of Catholic marriages are invalid.

sitetest

[EBH]

Mrs. Don-o, sorry but can you explain the difference to me then between...

adulterous affairs and infidelity? cause I and the priest helping me through the tribunal sure don’t know what the heck we are doing then.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Did I say there was a difference between adulterous affairs and infidelity?

[EBH]

It sure reads that way to me in post 65...

By the way, what Matt. 5:32 says is "except in the case of porneia" --- it doesn't say infidelity.

and then you went on to state, "Porneia" is a rather vague, catch-all Greek term which can mean (in its broadest sense) any kind of sexual indecency whatever,... , adulterous affairs,---

So I am asking you why the interpretation of infidelity is invalid, if the word 'porneia' includes adulterous affairs?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ah. You have to go to the next paragraph at #65. There I explain,

" or in its narrowest sense[porneia is] simply an unlawful sexual union. This exception isn't even used in the parallel verses in Mark and Luke.

"The Catholic Church, carefully comparing different Scriptural contexts of the word "porneia," interprets it in this case to strictly mean an unlawful union, i.e. an invalid marriage."

In other words, what makes a marriage null is not adultery/infidelity --- it's that the first marriage itself was an unlawful union. In other words, the first marriage is found to have been invalid from the beginning, whether any infidelity/adultery subsequently took place or not.

Why could the "first marriage" not have been canonically binding at all? Usually because either one of the would-be spouses actually wasn't eligible for marriage (for instance, they were siblings or half-siblings or some other close blood kin; or one of them was already married to somebody else; or they were the same sex, man-man or woman-woman; or one of them was underage to marry.

Or it could be that one or both of the parties was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.

Or it could be that one or both parties was drunk, on drugs, or just plain crazy and did not understand what they were doing at the wedding. Or the one or both of them had some severe intellectual deficit or emotional defect which made it impossible to make a lifelong vow with due discretion or maturity. Or there was fraud: one party or both never intended a lifelong exclusive faithful union open to procreation --- but said they did.

In those cases, the "marriage" was not a marriage in the binding, canonical sense, even from the first. The first marriage was porneia, meaning, an invalid marriage.

[Dajjal]

In other words, Christians are too confused and ignorant to know what a marriage is. They do not understand or take seriously the vows they make. Poor things. This dire reading of the signs of the times allows the "solution" that reformers like Kasper have been demanding, a de facto abandonment of the church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. And it justifies this change — or at least, smooths its reception — by too eagerly embracing a conservative premise: The culture of marriage has gone to the dogs.
...
If the pope's view is that 50 percent of Catholic marriages are invalid, it is not just an insult to our natural human ability to marry, but also an insult to St. Paul, who said that the moral law is written on men's hearts. And it's an insult to God's grace to imagine that our own age is somehow different, that we cannot depend on God's help to live out the vocations He gives us.

Thanks for posting this article!

[Brooklyn Attitude]

The headline in misleading, the Pope did not say half of marriages are invalid. You cannot trust any headline where someone is reported to have said something outrageous. Most people just read the headline, assume its true and go on a rant. Read the article for the truth.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“Except that it almost NEVER is made honestly, knowledgeably and willingly...”

So if you are young and willingly enter a contract based on your feelings and sometime later your feelings change, the contract was never valid? Try that in a court of law.