Divorce and the Definition of "Sexual Immorality"

[Chris_]

But suppose someone said, "I consider myself a Christian but I support elective abortion and I think the church needs to accomodate my position."

Now, as I noted in my last post, the secular standard is to be devoid of standards and apparently this is good enough for the pious but can Christianity abide a pro-abortionist sect in the same manner it abides divorce in the name of sexual gratification?

The "who am I to judge" response doesn't seem to hold in this instance.

In total contravention of good sense Feminism struck deeply at church authority by fabricating no-fault divorce and abortion "rights", which were major elements of the free love sexual revolution.

I would assume the souls of aborted children gain succor in Heaven so that must mean abortion is a sin because of the weight it puts on the souls of the earth-bound. To say elective abortion foments a callous disregard for life is an understatement. If marriage can be picked up and set aside with all the fuss of buying a new car does the institution--presumably spiritual in form and function--become diluted? What do such things do to the souls of the earth-bound? Does easy divorce create a callous disregard for the institution and shouldn't that mean more to christians than it does for the secular?

DISCLAIMER: I'm very anti-elective abortion myself.

This attitude already "infects" certain elements of protestant Christianity.....in the infamous "Crisis" thread, I used the anecdotal example of the "Desciples of Christ"......which is considered mainstream.....one of their national policy positions is recognition of the whole "womans right to choose" thing, therefore endorsing abortion......I suspect if you looked long and hard at several others, the "United Methoditists" for example you would find the same thing.....it may not be openly discussed, but it is there nonetheless.....

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

gay preachers too

Marriage lost its meaning and with it the meaning it had between God and church.

[Chris_]

gay preachers too

Marriage lost its meaning and with it the meaning it had between God and church.

Yes....they "go through the motions".......but it has largely become more dogmatic rhetoric than "Sanctification".

 
doc

[Texacon]

I was listening to Christian radio late one night and the fellow on the radio said;

The literal interpretation about divorce is 'Marital Infidelity'.  His take was they didn't use adultry at that point because marital infidelity meant many things.  A husband being abusive, not providing for the family, hanging out with friends rather than being home with the family, etc ...  Same thing for the wife.

His take in short was there are many biblical reasons for divorce because of the way that passage of scripture was written.  I tend to agree but that is only my opinion.

I can't imagine God wanting any woman (man) to stay in an abusive relationship of any kind.

KC

[Hawkgirl]

So one person can impose a life of celibacy on another person who would have never chosen it for themself?

"in good times and in bad"  unfortunately for the spouse that's not getting it...it's the "bad".
but still not a reason for divorce, according to the catholic catechism.

[Hawkgirl]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce

 

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other until death. Sacramental marriage is the sign of the covenant of salvation, to which divorce does incredible injury. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery. If a husband, separated from his wife, becomes involved with another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.[2]

 

Furthermore, the Catechism states that divorce is immoral because “it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.”[3]

 

But do we really believe that? Do we believe instead that the Church is “out of touch” with relationships and needs to “get with it?” The mentality of civil society challenges the divinely revealed truth that a valid marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. The Church responds by saying: “The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, ‘a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.’”[4]


I don't agree with this entirely...but withholding sex is not a valid reason for divorce in the Bible.

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

7:1 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband. 3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that. ©NET
Read More.

Powered By: NETBibleTagger

1 Corinthians 7:1-7

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Defines Divorce

....


I don't agree with this entirely...but withholding sex is not a valid reason for divorce in the Bible.

But Jesus did make an exception for sexual immorality.

Toasted's citation seems to make a strong case that withholding sex is immoral.

[MrsSmith]

In my opinion, it would make a difference what the husband is doing.  If he has lost his desire for his wife...and with men, lost desire can definitely affect the ability to "perform,"...and therefore remains chaste himself, perhaps there is no Christian right for the wife to divorce him. 

However, if the husband has instead gotten into some other arena of sexual satisfaction (porn, masturbation, etc.) that does not include his wife...even if it includes no other actual person...he is committing adultery by the definition given by Jesus.  (Lust = adultery)  Therefore, the wife should definitely have the right to choose divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity.  Especially if she has not done anything she can control that would cause him to loose his desire...like gain 100 pounds, or act in an abusive manner...while he has made the deliberate choice to turn his desires away from his only "legal" relief.

[Hawkgirl]

also, what is the root cause of this lack of sexual desire?  Is there someone else?  Is there depression?maybe it's temporary.

[debk]

In my opinion, it would make a difference what the husband is doing.  If he has lost his desire for his wife...and with men, lost desire can definitely affect the ability to "perform,"...and therefore remains chaste himself, perhaps there is no Christian right for the wife to divorce him. 

However, if the husband has instead gotten into some other arena of sexual satisfaction (porn, masturbation, etc.) that does not include his wife...even if it includes no other actual person...he is committing adultery by the definition given by Jesus.  (Lust = adultery)  Therefore, the wife should definitely have the right to choose divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity.  Especially if she has not done anything she can control that would cause him to loose his desire...like gain 100 pounds, or act in an abusive manner...while he has made the deliberate choice to turn his desires away from his only "legal" relief.

I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.

Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons....

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

also, what is the root cause of this lack of sexual desire?  Is there someone else?  Is there depression?maybe it's temporary.

That assumes remediation and reconciliation are possible.

If there is someone else we are no longer talking about a loss of desire but adultery but the OP assumes no possibility of adultery for its scenario.

I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.

Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons....

Certainly but let's face facts: if someone looks like a watermelon they lose their sex-a-peel.

I knew a fellow once, very athletic, many women wanted him; who once had a gorgeous wife but she decided to become 400lbs. Sex was virtually physically impossible. I cannot imagine telling this person...or anyone similarly situated, "Welcome to the next 50 years of your life."

I wouldn't be able to do it.

Sad for her? Perhaps, but her obesity was her behavior, and multiplying the misery by telling him to remain trapped and forget he is human didn't seem to help either of them or strengthen society in any way.

[JohnnyReb]

A woman once told me, "It ain't cheating if you don't move."

I have no knowledge of wheather she moved or not.

[MrsSmith]

I don't think that someone gaining weight...regardless of how much it is...is justification for divorce.

Gaining weight and abusive behavior is like comparing grapes with watermelons....

Neither do I.  However, if she gains weight, and he therefore decides to get his "jollies" elsewhere, then SHE has the right to divorce HIM even if he doesn't have an actual affair.  It is worth mentioning because a person can only change themselves...and she might choose to live with him, or she might choose to loose weight to regain his interest.  In my opinion, though, he is the one straying so she is the one with options.  If he were to stray and then compound it by leaving, she should be able to sue for not only divorce, but also breach of contract.