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.)
IMHO-—I think the Jesuits have lost their way.
I think the Hollywood idea of divorce has become almost mainstream today. They just jump from one marriage to another when the slightest differences begin to set in. You’re supposed to work around the differences, not use them as an excuse to jump ship. Like all traditional institutions, liberals have trivialized it. Still, God allowed for divorce in the Bible, even though He said “I hate divorce”. He was referring to husbands “putting away” their wives when they got tired of them, and getting a new one. Most divorces today are by mutual agreement.
About 8 years ago, reacting to a leftist interim minister, I wrote a song “Jesus Thinks a Lot Like Me.”
One of the simplest statements Jesus ever said is:
Matthew 5:31-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
They did manage to find the Dark One quite easily.
Nonsense!
Stick to the Bible and the doctrine, as they are consistent and clear.
Give the Jesuits a few more years and they will be suggesting that Jesus, today, would be a pedophile.
I have wondered why fallible, mistake making humans are held to perfection in this one area of choosing a spouse.
I was as mistake prone there as most of my other endeavors primarily because of my ignorance.
Matthew 5:31-32 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
_________________________________________________________
There is much to comment on about this. I will not be able to do it justice but I will try to add some wisdom. It is Easter Season. I am a believer.
Now, those things being said I will continue. The statements made about the believers writing down the words of the Apostles after they were gone it likely true, that there are errors in what they said or important things they said that are not recorded is too possible, but, we have what we have. To now try to pick apart and decide what is truth and what is not is impossible unless we have someone authorized by Christ Himself to make those changes, I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful but I don't think the Pope is that.
I don't begin to promote myself as knowing more than others but, I do read the words of scripture and decide for myself what they mean. I'm not an idiot, I have changed what I think some things mean over time but I am for the most part unwilling to blindly accept what someone else says something means as Gospel just because they went to “Seminary”. Many of the ministers of various churches went to “Seminary” yet they teach different truths.
Now to get to the subject, divorce. I do not believe in the society of the United States that women get the short end of the stick in divorce. They get the short end of the stick when they have children with a man they are not married to and he leaves.
I am prejudiced. I have been divorced and I remarried a woman who has been divorced. I don't believe we are adulterers. My first wife went crazy. It may not have been anything she could help. After spending many tens of thousands of dollars on Dr's and Counselors we finally said enough is enough. Her father kept a secret family on the side and it ate her up, one Dr. said there was no way I could ever make the marriage work because of her past. I kept it together for 26 years. I felt I had God's blessing when I finally called it quits. My new wife was married to a man who suddenly decided he wanted to wear her clothes, he still dresses as a woman and has given himself a new woman's name. Paul is now Pauline. If you think Christ would judge her as unjustified in leaving Pauline then I think you are not being truthful.
If we sinned in our divorces, if we sinned in our remarriage then we like any other sinner can and hopefully should be forgiven.
Taking a sentence or two attributed to The Savior and then applying it to multitudes of situations does not always work.
On Sunday we celebrate Mary going to the tomb and finding it empty, then seeing the risen Lord. This is the most important, most wonderful thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.
Happy Easter!
Paul. No thanks.
Let's say a guy's wife wants to be rid of him.
Can she behave in an unchaste manner to provoke him into divorcing her, and then, since he has divorced her for an apparently legitimate reason, is she free to take up with another man and he with her?
Just because someone decides to alter what the Bible teaches doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about.
The arrogance of these people is incredible.
“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” 7:15
Your cases were dealing with spouses who did not take God seriously it seems.
_______________________________________________________
Perhaps, it is not my job to judge anyone as a believer or not, however, I guess we all do that all the time. Fortunately our judgment is not meaningful, only The Lord can have meaningful judgement. Thank goodness!
At the time of Christ there were specific things that were considered for a lawful marriage. We don't do those things today because we aren't married under the “Jewish” law. We suppose that we are married under “Christian” law but, I'm not sure where we get the authorization to make changes to “God's” law. Nearly every Christian church has their own traditions or doctrines concerning marriage and most abandon those traditions and doctrines in favor of state law concerning marriage. If marriage by state law is not recognized by Christ as marriage then a lot of people are living in sin. If only certain churches can legally marry in “Christian Law”, then which church constitutes a valid marriage? I throw these out with my tongue placed firmly in my cheek, I'm not really throwing rocks, just making a few points for thought.
Today most Christian ministers, at least those outside the Catholic faith whether it be Roman, Eastern or Coptic are minister because they feel compelled or called by the Holy Spirit to be ministers of faith. I have no desire to take anything from these good people but, who decides on earth they are really called? In the Catholic churches there is at least a leader who claims this authority even if it is not the same person in each division. I like a place where the buck stops and where the leader can say with authority “Thus Saith The Lord”.
It is at least a very interesting topic of discussion and perhaps one of great importance.
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.