Divorce under the Papacy: Departing from Sacred Tradition.

Section II from Chapter V "Marriage" in The Errors of the Latins: Volume 1 (pp. 162-165)

See a detailed Table of Contents in UMP's preview file.

Roman Catholics affirm marriage to be absolutely indissoluble while the parties remain alive, and do not permit divorce for any reason, including adultery, but this was not the universal consent of the early Church.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Divorce states:

The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimony of the Fathers and of the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon a new marriage in case death intervenes.[1]

Canon 7 on Matrimony of the Council of Trent (Session 24):

If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another, let him be anathema.[2]

The Catholic Encyclopedia comments on this canon:

The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage.[3]

The Tridentine decree goes too far and contrasts with the words of Christ:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matt. 19:9; cf. Matt. 5:32.)

From these words it is plain that sexual immorality is a permissible cause for separation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia attempts to contradict the force of Christ’s words, and Roman Catholics admit that they have no clear explanation to this “difficulty”:

It must also be remarked that even for Matthew 19:9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has ‘maketh her to commit adultery’ instead of the expression ‘comitteth adultery’. This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, ‘Comment, in Matt.’, II, 144). Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, ‘except it be for fornication’ and ‘excepting for the cause of fornication’, has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, “De matrim. Christ.”, 178 sqq.; Sasse, ‘De sacramentis’, II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have ‘committeth adultery’. (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, ‘Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.’, 191, 409.)[4]

It is clear that Christ allowed an exception to the general indissolubility of marriage, which the Orthodox Church continues to allow.

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that marriages can be dissolved by bad actions, commenting on Matthew 5:31–32,

It hath been said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. A man’s wise wife gives him another opportunity to let go of the marriage, as the bond has not yet been dissolved. For it is not the papers of divorce that dissolves marriage before God, but evil behavior.[5]

Pope Gregory II (715–731) seems to allow for divorce and remarriage. In his letter to St. Boniface he says, “The husband, if his wife be taken with any infirmity, so that she cannot perform her due unto him, may marry another.”[6]

Gratian comments, “This (decision) of Gregory is to be considered entirely opposed to the sacred canons, and even to the teaching of the Gospel and the apostles.”[7] The Gallican Roman Catholic historian Louis Ellies du Pin (or Dupin, 1657–1719) says, in his synopsis of this pope’s letters, “he permits an Husband, whose Wife is unable to perform Conjugal Duties, to Marry another.”[8] Also see Bellarmine’s comments.[9]

This statement by Pope Gregory II has attracted lots of attention by later Roman Catholic writers and commentators. A Jesuit scholar of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1975 wrote a 300-page doctoral dissertation on this letter and the views of Pope Gregory on this matter, which makes the distinction that Pope Gregory did not intend to break up a consummated marriage.[10]

The early Church allowed divorce in cases of adultery or fornication, as an Anglican controversialist has shown.[11] John Meyendorff’s short chapter on the subject makes the following important remarks:

But at the same time, the Church never considered the Gospel as a system of legal prescriptions which human society could adopt overnight. The Gospel was to be accepted as a commitment, as a pledge of the Kingdom to come; it presupposed constant personal struggle against sin and evil, but it never could be reduced to a system of legal “obligations” or “duties.” Thus, the Christian empire continued to admit divorce and remarriage as a regular social institution. The laws of the Christian emperors, especially Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, defined the various legal grounds and conditions on which divorce and remarriage were permissible. It is impossible for us here to enumerate them all. It will be sufficient to say that they were relatively lenient. Divorce by simple mutual consent was tolerated until a law issued by emperor Theodosius II in 449, which forbade it; but it was again authorized by Justin II in 566. The law of Justin II was repealed only in the eighth century. Throughout all that period, divorce, with right of remarriage, was granted not only on the grounds of adultery, but also on such grounds as political treason, planning of murder, disappearance for five years or more, unjustified accusation of adultery and, finally, monastic vows of one of the partners. [Meyendorff’s footnote: See especially the Novella 22 of Justinian.] No Father of the Church ever denounced these imperial laws as contrary to Christianity. There was an evident consensus of opinion that considered them as inevitable. Emperors like Justinian I sincerely tried to issue legislation inspired by Christianity and, when formulating it, used competent advice of bishops and theologians. Among the latter, many opposed imperial will when it infringed upon Christian orthodoxy; but none opposed their legislation on divorce. [12]

Much more could be said about marriage and divorce, but this chapter will not enter in-depth on this subject.[13]

However, even with all their apparent strictness in theory, Roman Catholics have in practice often allowed divorce in effect, but under the name of “annulment,” claiming that a marriage was never sacramentally valid in the first place.[14] They have also separated married priests from their wives, which was forcibly done at the time of Gregory VII’s reforms, as well as in other periods, although this separation is not technically a divorce, and many Latin priests had not been lawfully married. These examples still challenge Roman Catholic claims of strictly adhering to the sanctity of marriage and appear to go against Christ’s command, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:6; cf. Mark 10:9.)

ENDNOTES:

[1] Francis J. Schaefer, “Divorce,” in CE 5:56.

[2] Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of Trent, 181–82 (Latin on 453).

[3] Schaefer, “Divorce,” in CE 5:58.

[4] Schaefer, “Divorce,” in CE 5:56.

[5] “Dictum est: Quicunque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. Sapientem uxorem dimittens copiam ei dat alii nubendi, quod est moechationis genus, quasi nondum dissoluto vinculo. Non enim repudii libellus apud Deum matrimonium solvit, set mala agendi ratio.” Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Matthæum, 5.31. PG 72:380D.

[6] “Virum uxore infirmitate correpta, et non valente ei debitum reddere, aliam ducere.” Andrew Willet, Synopsis Papismi, ed. John Cumming, vol. 2 (London: British Society for Promoting the Religious Principles of the Reformation, 1852), 192.

[7] Victor J. Pospishil, Divorce and Remarriage: Towards a New Catholic Teaching ([New York, NY:] Herder and Herder, 1967), 176–77.

[8] Lewis Ellies du Pin, A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, trans. William Wotton, vol. 6 (London: H. Clark, 1693), 96.

[9] Edward Bouverie Pusey, Eirenicon, pt. 3 (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1870), 200–01.

[10] William Kelly, Pope Gregory II on Divorce and Remarriage: A Canonical-Historical Investigation of the Letter Desiderabilem Mihi, with Special Reference to the Response Quod Proposuisti (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1976).

[11] Willet, Synopsis Papismi, vol. 6, 246–71.

[12] John Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, 3rd ed. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 54–58 (also see the notes throughout the book).

[13] Also see a patristic florilegium that compiles many sources on this topic (Ubi Petrus, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church Fathers and Patristic Era Writers (Florilegium),” January 5, 2020, ubipetrusibiecclesia.com/2020/01/05/church-fathers-and-patristic-era-writers-on-the-topic-of-divorce-and-remarriage-a-florilegium).

[14] The issue of Roman Catholic marriage annulments is another large topic, which is not discussed here. See David L. d’Avray, Dissolving Royal Marriages: A Documentary History, 860–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) and David L. d’Avray, Papacy, Monarchy and Marriage, 860–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). For some improprieties and abuses that occurred in the West, see the pamphlet David Hay Fleming, The Church of Rome and Marriage, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: The Knox Club, 1911).