"This Saturday is out," said Bob as we were looking for a time to work on a joint project; "I will be best man at my friend Gregory's wedding."
"Gregory?" I asked, "Not John and Samantha's dad!"
"That Gregory," Bob replied and explained, "His wife left him for another man about three years ago."
"I did not know; I am very sorry to hear that," I commented.
Bob continued, "His divorce became final about a year later. I can assure you that he had tried his best to make his marriage work even after he had discovered his wife's infidelity, but to no avail. When he became close to Liz, their parish priest was rather reserved about remarriage. I introduced them to my minister, who convinced them to become Baptists. This Saturday, they will tie the knot. I know that your church would disapprove. At times, though, a marriage just does not work out; then, it is best for the spouses to go their separate ways. My denomination recognizes that."
I said, "Living separately is one thing; remarriage is quite another."
He answered, "Your church's total opposition to remarriage following a divorce goes too far."
"What if that stand corresponds to Scripture?" I asked and added, "It may be fashionable today to ignore Jesus' so-called 'hard sayings'; they are not to be set aside, though, just because they are difficult to follow."
"Amen," said Bob; "but my minister demonstrated that the Catholic Church's extreme stand on divorce does not agree with Jesus' teachings. Gregory's condition fits the situation in which a second marriage is allowed."
"Let's look at the source," I suggested, opening my Bible to Mark's Gospel. "Recall that the Pharisees asked Jesus whether a husband was allowed to divorce his wife. Jesus concludes his response with the words, 'Therefore, let no one separate what God has joined.' (Mk 10.9) This does not sound like a ringing endorsement of divorce, does it?" I asked.
"Of course not," he replied. "Divorce is not to be taken lightly; but totally forbidding it is unrealistic."
I pointed out, "That's how Jesus' disciples seem to have felt. After they had returned with him to the house in which they were staying, they questioned him about the matter. He said, 'Whoever dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she dismisses her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.' (Mk 10.11-12) It is hard to see how Jesus could have been any clearer."
Greg responded, "My minister showed us a Scripture passage permitting divorce if one's spouse is unfaithful. Moreover, I recall him explaining that other offenses at least as serious as infidelity also justify divorce even though Jesus does not specifically mention them."
While I was opening my Bible to the passage Bob's minister likely had used, I asked, "Doesn't Mark's Gospel set two conditions for adultery to occur?"
"Yes," he agreed, "dismissal and remarriage."
"Dismissal by itself is not adultery yet," I emphasized. Then, I surmised, "Your minister probably read from Matthew's account of Jesus' exchange with the Pharisees, using a translation similar to this one: 'Whoever dismisses his wife except for infidelity and marries another commits adultery.' (Mt 19.9)"
"There you have it," Bob exclaimed, "That's exactly Gregory's situation. Jesus' very own words justify what he is going to do this Saturday."
"Not so fast," I replied, "The passage is difficult to translate. Even in the English version I just used, an ambiguity remains. Might not the clause, 'except for infidelity,' apply only to the dismissal of one's spouse, but not to remarriage?"
"That's not how it sounds to me," he gave back, repeating, "'Whoever dismisses his wife except for infidelity and marries another commits adultery.' To my ears, this permits remarriage if one's spouse is unfaithful."
I proposed, "Suppose that an army officer says, 'Whoever leaves the barracks after curfew except for those on guard duty and gets drunk in the bar across the street will be punished.' This authorizes the guards to stand outside the barracks after curfew; would it not be rather farfetched, though, if they would consider themselves free to hang out in the bar while guarding the camp? Similarly, it might be argued that Jesus only allows dismissing an unfaithful spouse, but not remarriage."
Bob insisted, "This stand is far too harsh."
"The crucial question is, 'What did Jesus say,'" I retorted. "Moreover, while the Matthew passage your minister used is ambiguous, there is no ambiguity in the parallel passage from Mark's Gospel. Are we to interpret a clear passage in the light of an ambiguous one or the other way around?"
"The other way around, of course; but might one not also say that if in doubt, one should give people the benefit of the doubt and go with the less strict interpretation?"
"This is a valid point," I conceded, "but let's see whether it carries the day. What if it can be shown that Christianity accepted from the very beginning what you call the extreme stand on divorce and remarriage?"
"You know that so-called Tradition carries no weight with me," he remarked.
"I am not referring to Tradition. Scripture suffices in this matter." I opened my Bible to Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, underlined several words, and handed the book to Bob. He read, "'To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband. If she does separate, she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband.' (1 Cor 7.10-11)"
I asked, "Does this not state precisely the position of the Catholic Church? Does it not very reluctantly allow separation without authorizing remarriage?"
He handed the book back to me and asked, "What would you tell Liz and Greg?"
"I know that nothing I could say would change their plans for this Saturday," I stated; "for myself, though, I am wondering: Did Greg examine with sufficient care whether there might not be grounds to have his first marriage annulled?"
"Rest assured that we spoke about annulment," said Bob, "but he thinks it's a cop-out. Why not be honest and go the divorce route?"
I replied, "I disagree with this assessment of annulment; but the difference between divorce and annulment would be the subject of a different colu . . .I mean, 'conversation.'"
Fritz Wenisch is a professor of philosophy at the University of Rhode Island, Kingston, and a parishioner at St. Thomas More Parish, Narragansett.
