Search
…FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE…
-
I have officiated at a large number of weddings in my time, as you can imagine. And nothing breaks my heart in the way that those marriages sometimes crumble apart and end in divorce. Worse, folks cannot wait for (or stomach) the process of annulment, even when there is justifiable cause—it takes too long, and the last thing some spouses want (or need) is for their ex to be contacted. Will he find out where I am and violate his restraining order? Will he block my efforts at another life out of spite? These are not fanciful difficulties.
So is Jesus saying, “Suck it up; deal with and accept a physically or sexually or emotionally abusive spouse/parent, and God will reward you”? No. Let me say that word again: NO. After all, there were other things that God intended “from the beginning” in Eden, and they were all lost in the Fall and the Flood. Rules changed…
What was divorce in the times of Jesus? The Gospel gives us a hint. There was a debate between the two major rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai. The latter said that adultery alone could justify divorce; the latter said a wife could be dismissed if she ruined supper! It was based on interpreting the statement of Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus’ response is that this, either one, isn’t what God originally intended. That seems to answer the question, doesn’t it? Except that it doesn’t.
Jesus’ final statement is about a woman who divorces her husband—a thing impossible in Jewish law, but permitted in Roman law. Guess who followed Roman law to divorce her husband and marry another? Herodias! This is why I’m personally convinced that Jesus’ statement was aimed at her and Herod.
I’m also personally convinced that Jesus understood the precarious social position of a divorced woman (let’s ignore John 4 for the time being). Though marriage then was a contract (the man “bought” the woman from the father in exchange for fiscal considerations; she became the man’s property—re-read Exodus 20:17 carefully). She had some economic protections if divorced, but she had no legal protections, nor did any children.
It seems more reasonable to suggest that Jesus’ statement, as it should be applied today, might be better read as “If anyone divorces his wife in order to marry another…’. Now we’re talking about premeditated adultery! But what should be the fate of the “victim”? I put the word in quotes because no one knows what was going on in the course of the courtship and marriage, including the Tribunal…
Can there be a pastoral approach to someone divorced and re-married (particularly, though not only, if the person was divorced and didn’t divorce)? I think there ought to be. I think Amoris Laetitia tried to point the way. And I suggested as much in last week’s homily when I said that some folks’ situation in life and with regard to the Church was as much as for the Church to tell them, “Heal yourself, and then we’ll talk about your being able to receive the medicine of healing.”
What’s the answer to divorce? Hint: it’s not stronger pre-marriage preparation on the part of priests. It’s a more solid engagement (pun intended) of the couple before marriage—learning who each other is, and not just in (not even primarily) bed. Get to know each other spiritually, intellectually, emotionally—then figure out if marriage is right/reasonable for you both. Then you won’t have to worry about divorce—at least, not so much.
