ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
[T]hat one female, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both a Mother and a virgin. And a Mother indeed in the Spirit, not of our head, which is the Savior himself, of whom rather she was born after the Spirit: for as much as all who have believed in him, among whom is herself also, are rightly called “children of the bridegroom,” but clearly the Mother of his members, which are we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones should be born in the Church, who are members of that head: but in the flesh, the Mother of the head himself [Holy Virginity 6 (A.D. 401)].
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin [1 Jn 3:5]. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? [Nature and Grace 36:42 (A.D. 415)].
47. The Permanence of Marriage
Jesus taught: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Lk 16:18; see also Mk 10:11–12).
St. Paul was equally firm: “Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive” (Rom 7:2–3).
These were difficult sayings to hear, particularly in Greco-Roman culture, which allowed for easy divorce and remarriage. Nevertheless, the early Church Fathers proclaimed Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
Today the Catholic Church does the same in our modern, secular, easy-divorce culture (see CCC 1614–15).
The Church acknowledges that there are situations in which spouses can no longer live together, but separation or civil divorce does not mean that they are no longer married in the eyes of God.
This is particularly so among people who are baptized, for between two baptized persons matrimony has the status of a sacrament, and once the sacrament of matrimony has been consummated, it cannot be dissolved by anything but death.
However, if a couple did not have a valid marriage in the first place, then they are not bound to each other and would be free to marry again. To deal with this kind of situation, the Church has established the annulment process to investigate the validity of marriages. (For more information on this process, see booklet Annulments: What You Need to Know, published by Catholic Answers).
If, however, a couple has a valid, consummated, sacramental marriage, then, even though in some cases there may be good reasons for them to live apart and even to obtain a legal separation or civil divorce, in God’s eyes they are not free to remarry (CCC 1649).
This is not a commandment of men, but one that comes directly from Jesus Christ. As Paul said, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10).
Fortunately, God will ensure that the sacramentally married have the grace necessary to live out their marriage vows and either stay married or live continently. Whenever we face a trial, God makes sure that we will have the grace we need to overcome it. As Paul says, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor 10:13).
As the following quotations from the early Church Fathers illustrate, they recognized the seriousness of Christ’s teaching regarding the indissolubility of marriage.
HERMAS OF ROME
What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery [The Shepherd 2:4:1 (c. A.D. 80)].
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
Concerning chastity, [Jesus] uttered such sentiments as these: “Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart before God.” And, “If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire.” And, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband commits adultery.” And, “There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying” [Mt 19:12]. So that all who, by human law, are twice married, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her, are in the eye of our master sinners. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God [First Apology 15 (c. A.D. 151)].
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
That the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the Law, “You shall not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication”; and it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. “He that takes a woman that has been put away,” it is said, “commits adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,” that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband [Miscellanies 2:23 (c. A.D. 207)].
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
And even he who withholds himself from his wife often makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away—for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Savior [Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 (c. A.D. 249)].
COUNCIL OF ELVIRA
Likewise, let the faithful woman, who has left an adulterous husband and attracts another faithful one, be forbidden to marry; if she should marry, let her not receive Communion unless he whom she has left has previously departed this world; unless by chance the exigency of illness should compel the giving [of Communion as Viaticum] [Canon 9 (c. A.D. 300)].
ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA
That he who, having another man’s wife or spouse taken away from him, marries another is guilty of adultery with the first, not with the second [Letters 199:37 (A.D. 375)].
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
You dismiss your wife as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: “What God has joined together let no man put asunder” [Commentary on Luke 8:5 (c. A.D. 389)].
ST. JEROME
Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another [Letters 55:3 (c. A.D. 393)].
Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication, a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed, a second may not be taken while the first lives [Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 (A.D. 398)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: “Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,” we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt that both are adulterers. We pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery [Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 (c. A.D. 419)].
A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication [ibid., 2:4:4].
It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which is offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage that is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is enjoined by the apostle: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church” [Eph 5:25]. Of this bond the substance is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live; and that it should be unlawful for one consort to be parted from the other, except for the cause of fornication [Mt 5:32]. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church; so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation for ever [Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 (c. A.D. 419)].
In matrimony, however, let these nuptial blessings be the objects of our love—offspring, fidelity, the sacramental bond. Offspring, not that it be born only, but born again; for it is born to punishment unless it be born again to life. Fidelity, not such as even unbelievers observe one towards the other, in their ardent love of the flesh. For what husband, however impious himself, likes an adulterous wife? Or what wife, however impious she be, likes an adulterous husband? This is indeed a natural good in marriage, though a carnal one. But a member of Christ ought to be afraid of adultery, not on account of himself, but of his spouse; and ought to hope to receive from Christ the reward of that fidelity that he shows to his spouse. The sacramental bond, again, which is lost neither by divorce nor by adultery, should be guarded by husband and wife with concord and chastity [ibid., 1:17:19].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
You [Manicheans] make your hearers adulterers of their wives when they take care that the women with whom they copulate do not conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony, by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. Why, then, that you do not prohibit marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tm 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps [Reply to Faustus the Manichean 15:7–10 (c. A.D. 400)].
For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God, Creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race [ibid., 22:30].
For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But what goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield to the partner unless by fornication the other spouse sins damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into what is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, while that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; what is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man wishes to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than in the case of another woman [Good of Marriage 11–12 (A.D. 401)].
I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning, they come together [are] not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife [Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (c. A.D. 419)].
No comments:
Post a Comment