And then there’s divorce

by Andrea Elizabeth

Let me jump ahead to the Catholic disbelief in divorce, or in other words their belief in the indissolubility of marriage. They acknowledge the unviability of some marriages, but they annul those saying that if one person wasn’t totally committed to it, it wasn’t a valid marriage to begin with. In some cases, this may be true. But cannot a person stop being committed who once was committed? They’re argument sounds like Once Saved Always Saved, and the belief if someone falls away they weren’t saved to begin with. I don’t think this is true. I think it’s more like the parable of the soil. The invalid marriage could be the ones who fell on the road, say maybe to Las Vegas, and ended during the hangover the next morning. Then it’s fornication.

But there’s the rocky soil that chokes out other marriages.

The question then is are all subsequent marriages adultery?

Let me back up first. It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not believe in once saved, always saved, because they believe in damnable mortal sins and excommunication. But they also hold out for repentance, maybe as late as purgatory, maybe only until death. Either way, the person’s spot isn’t replaced. But they don’t have a category for rocky marriages that die. They say even after 10 years, if the newer rocks can be blamed on the other person, then it still wasn’t a valid marriage, so the next wiser, graced marriage is the real one and only.

I can’t swallow that. I think maybe things can change, and that doesn’t always discount what happened before.

Now we’re back to adultery, which is based on the idea that a person can only be married once and for all, I guess for eternity. But Jesus didn’t exactly say that when asked about the woman who married successively 7 unfortunate brothers who died and then she died. He didn’t invalidate her marriages on earth, and made it sound like she wouldn’t be married to any of them in heaven.

The idea that marriage is the same as being united to Christ forever sounds kind of cultish to me. I understand it to be an analogy, but not elevated to the same thing.