| OCR Text |
Show j f MARRIAGE INDISSOLUBLE j Christ's Teaching Question Propound- I j , ed by Pharisees Captious His An- 1 I swer Unequivocal He Quotes the Original Ordinance Pharisees Re- f tort Quote Moses Moses Did Not ! I "Command," but "Permitted" Putting . S Away Why He Did So "Except It Be i for Fornication" Applies to First I Member of Sentence. (Written for Intermouutain Catholic.) ' Aii l 1 say to you, that whosoever shall put tway hi wife, except it be for fornication, and shall ir.arry anoher, committeth adultery; and he that I shall marry her that is put away, committeth adul-lj adul-lj tei? -v ilatt. xix.. 9. TI:i reply of Christ to the captious questions of to Pharisees regarding divorce, which was warmly drbatC'l .it the time, is used as an argument against The indissolubility of marriage as taught by the Catholic church. From the context we learn that i ijr Lord was answering a question in which his en-j en-j I eniif'S expected to place him in a dilemma. "And I I there came to him the Pharisees tempting him. and j . saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (V. 3). If he said, yes, it would be contradicting what he had previously J taught (e. v. 32) and would incur the displeasure of women who were opposed to the law of divorce. If he answered, no, it would be contradicting the law of Moses. (Dent. xxiv.. 1). The disputed question ques-tion then, as now, was, could a separation for any cue he obtained according to the Mosaic law? I Instead of answering in the affirmative or negative nega-tive and to avoid the dilemma involved in the captious cap-tious question, he simply referred them to the law I rf Moses "Have you .not read (v. 4). This law, which they had perverted, he explained, showing its indissolubility according to the original legislation made by God in Paradise. They quote the law of Mofps. but he quotes a more ancient ordinance, by which Adam and Eve were joined together, with no pririlrpr. -,f separation (v. G). The Pharisees, finding themselves in a close cor-r;r: cor-r;r: and unable to reply to the Scriptural arguments ; adduced by Christ, again fell back on the authority of Moses and shielded themselves under his law. By way of retort they said to him. "If marriage be as you lay down the law, indissoluble, whv then did ' I Mew command to give a bill of divorce, and to put my." (V. 7). To this objection they supposed no rcjily pould be rriven. or if Christ did answer he fi;ild do so only by disparaging Moses, which would Itiks rJcwn upon him the indignation of the people. h the first place, the law of Moses did not com-und com-und ''to put away." It simply "permitted" put-:r.jr put-:r.jr away. The ''command'' extended to the grant-of grant-of a bill of divorce. Between a "'command' i'A "permission" there is a wide difference. In the f 5pd of St. Mark, x., 4, "permitted" is used. Here tiy substitute "ccrmmand" for "permit," to make l'ic:r objection to Christ's teaching, regarding the -h-nlubility of marriage, more forcible, but n.n-? rarcfully distinguished between a "com-ttar.a "com-ttar.a and "permission," which was all that Moses 5!"fr'r- or did Moses freely and voluntarily con-0 con-0 a'- s;u.i permission. It was to avoid greater evils iy reason of the hardness of their 1)f;rN. permitted them to put away their wives; l' frr!) ihe beginning it was not so." (V. 5). 'n;r iiOt nly vindicates his own teaching by ap-"iiM!.? ap-"iiM!.? to 1 ho original institution of marriage, but iif- two vindicates Moses, who. through prudence condescension to the obstinacy of the carnal-jn;ri(-,(. -impended, for grave reason, the law made 1;i Piir.:Jitr.. After this dialogue l-twocn Christ mid Vi" Pharisees comes verse 0. over which there jn-J . ;i much contention. "And I say to you." b '..( i u-rnal Son of the Father, the legislator of '"c- :,;-. law. wishing to restore marriage to its f vc and original perfection, and make it what I 'V ',:( r made it "from the beginning," declare, fThr:t v,j. soever pntteth awav his (except it be for "n,:c'.:;,,n)t and shall marry another." etc. The (j-jc-i-- ,.rr; ;s: J)oes the exceptional clause ap- !) 1 ' lirst member, ot the sentence or to the wik.;,. jf- r,nly to the first member, it simply jus-!''''; jus-!''''; man in sending away his wife for adultery. ' ' tl.o phrase, "except jt be for fornication," v A i. justine does (De Adulterinis Con jug., ib. "; fxeeptively, but negatively, it would Vnf-an that, whosoever shall put away his " h' ri -ho is not guilty of adultery, nothing be-'2 be-'2 r implied in the question which our Lord " -wi ring of putting away an adulterous wife, '! hidl marry another, comniiteth v adultery," ;v!iif'i proves that the marriage still subsists. The r"in::..ti3 jart of the text strengthens this argu-' argu-' "And he that shall marry her that is put r''"i: ' riimiteth adultery." Like Mark and Luke, 1,1 ' -' jition i? made here; on the contrary, the rn;i!. marrying her that, is put away, though free to '"firry. i jmilty of adultery of he should marry the 'u-hno( adultrcs, wlio. as far as the text of Serin-hirc Serin-hirc rr-t erred to is concerned, would be free. Com-nig Com-nig ni this point, a learned critic observed, j I '"' remarriages of those divorced for adulteries !. iiju '"'f,ii iunoernt; but Ihe remarriage;, of those f l" ';IV(' hem innocent have been adulteries." The l SH"P ' ritie by a parallel case shows how absurd it j. Vf,,'ll br f,n grammatical grounds to make the ex-",'u ex-",'u "'' 'lausr." except it be for fornication," to ap-' ap-' J, v 1,1 '1' second member of the sentence. Here is ;in b;ira!lrl: "Whosoever shall flog his son, ex-f'1 ex-f'1 !t be for disobedience, and put him to death, fhall be punishable by law." Xo interpreter would hold that because of the exception here made, that the father was justified in flogging his son to death. He might claim justification if the sentence sen-tence read, "Except it be for disobedience, whosoever whoso-ever shall fiog his son, and put him to death, shall be punishable by law." In that reading the exceptional excep-tional clause affects both members of the sentence. In the former, as well as in the text of Scripture, the exceptional clause could apply only to the first member. But those who press the objection say that if the clause he taken in a strictly exceptive sense, the permission to send away one's wife for adultery implies a permission to remarry. It does not follow, nay more, that would be contrary to the teaching of St. Paul (1 Cor., vii., 10-11). "But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, com-mandeth com-mandeth that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." In his epistle to the Romans (vii., 2-3), he says that "The woman that hath a husband, whilst her husband liveth, is bound to the law. and she shall be called an adulteress if idie be with another man." The three evan'gelistg leave no doubt or ambiguity as to the adultery, of which either party would be guilty bv remarriage. This was the doctrine which Christ proclaimed. Its observance meant the establishment of the family and the perpetuation of society. F. D. i |
