As John and Justinio note in their comments, the issues must be considered in the context of the time of history and the culture. Only women could be guilty of adultery and only men could divorce. A woman did not have that right. It is believed that the most common reason for divorce in ancient Israel was "barrenness" in the woman, but men could divorce their wives on pretty generic pretexts. Men were also allowed to have multiple wives if they chose - think Abraham and many others (women could not, of course). If a man divorced his wife, she normally would return to the home of her father. She had no rights to her children (which were the "social security" of the era for the elderly). Boys always stayed with their fathers; the law permitted the fathers to keep their daughters also, but it was their choice, not the wife's choice. If she had no family home, she could end up destitute. The only "job" she would have been permitted was "gleaning" - one writer called this "one step up from begging".

Divorce was very cruel to women, and could leave her without any support. Jesus was compassionate. It is unlikely that Jesus meant to condemn people who would live 2000 years later to decades of unhappy or harmful marriages.

Marriages lasted far less time in that era because lifespans were considerably shorter. Women were more likely to die even sooner than their husbands (as long as there was no war going on) because of pregnancy and childbirth. I once read (but can't verify now) that the average duration of marriage for most of history for most people (those who were not rich) was 11 years.

As Justin pointed out also -

"Obviously these words did not come from the mouth of Jesus but from the reflection a new Christian community, now separated from the Synagogue (and actually being persecuted by it), who put into the mouth of Jesus the phrase (un-imaginable for Jews) of “a women who repudiates her husband” which is an obvious reference to then current Roman Law. No woman could divorce her husband under Jewish law.

You are so on target. Certainly if a woman was "barren" the lack of knowledge in that day would never have imagined that the man was the one not capable of reproduction. . Wasn't that the problem with Henry VIII? He beheaded wife after wife for not bearing him an offspring. Did it not dawn on anyone that he was at fault...... though "at fault" is a poor choice of words. I could write a book about being a woman in a world that sees us as " less than." I know what it is like to be a woman who divorced an abusive husband an found it very difficult to raise my children alone. The salaries of women were not equal to those of men. It wad difficult to get s loan for a car or a house. Women were forced to depend on men financially so they were often trapped in bad marriages.

"Did it not dawn on anyone that he was at fault ..."
Well, of course not! At that time, he was simply being normal -- or should I have said, complying with natural law? :-)

Please, chech your facts before rushing into print.
Henry VIII beheaded only two wives, not wife after wife. Catherine of Aragon whom he divorced, had several children who were stillborn or died in infancy and one daighter who lived, Mary I. His second wife, Anne Boleyn had already borne him a daughter, Elizabeth I before he had her beheaded. Jane Seymour bore him a son Edward VI and died in childbirth. A later wife, Catherine Howard, he had beheaded on account of her adultery.
He had one illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, whom he acknowledged and is suspected of having at least six others. It does not seem then that Henry VIII had problems begetting children.

There is recent research at Southern Methodist University--in 2011 I believe--that indicates Henry VIII likely did have a blood anomaly that led to his wives' child bearing problems as well as to Henry's physical and mental deterioration in late mid-life. (His weight gain and unsteadiness after a vigorous athletic youth; his increasingly aggressive responses when challenged.) The anomaly is called "Kell positive" blood and an associated condition called "McLeod syndrome." It's too detailed to explain in an NCR posting, but if you Google Henry VIII and Kell positive you'll find the SMU research and later discussions of it.

It may not sound reasonable that a husband's blood type can affect the wives' ability to carry a child, once conceived, to term and healthy delivery. The SMU research explains it, including why it doesn't usually affect the first child arising from any set of parents.

It doesn't have to be Kell positive either. An RH+ve baby by an RH-ve mother can also have problems if it is the second baby. The mother may have produced RH antibodies from the first pregnancy which then deem the second baby to be a foreign invader and attack it.
It wouldn't be a surprise at all if RH problems weren't prevalent in Jesus' time, causing apparent "infertility".
BTW Tridentinus, Henry VIII's problem was getting a healthy male heir, and guess who determines the child's sex? Yes, him! Of course they didn't have the knowledge of genetics we now have.
That's why he was succeeded by a sickly king (Edward VI) and two healthy queens (Mary, and Elizabeth I)..

Henry was a notorious womaniser with the ladies at Court; apart from
Henry Fitzroy (15 June 1519 – 23 July 1536), the son of his mistress
Bessie Blount, upon whom he conferred the dukedom, of Richmond and Somerset and lived only 17 years
Others suspected of being his include:
Catherine Carey, daughter of his mistress Mary Boleyn, the sister of his second wife, Anne Boleyn, and wife of William Carey. Ancestress of Diana, Princess of Wales (Princess Diana).

Henry Carey (4 March 1526 – 23 July 1596), brother of Catherine

John Perrot (November 1528 – 3 November 1592), his mother being Mary Berkeley the wife of Sir Thomas Perrot

Thomas Stucley (c. 1520 – 4 August 1578), his mother being Jane Pollard the wife of Sir Hugh Stukeley

Richard Edwardes (1523? - 1566), born to Mrs. Agnes Edwardes

Ethelreda Malte (born c. 1527), born to Joan Dingley, alias Dobson. Paternity was claimed by John Malte.

Three of the males lived to old age which rather disproves the Kell theory.

Although these last six offspring cannot be verified as Henry's, it does I admit leave some doubt. However, if in the sixteenth century, Henry VIII had fathered a child by your wife then would you dare complain? I doubt it. The husbands would without doubt have accepted paternity.

Let us also have regard to the fact that still-births, spontaneous abortions and infant death were quite common in the sixteenth century not only among the common people but also among the aristocracy and royalty.

This at the present time is pure speculation and no doubt it is to rehabilitate Henry VIII's outrageously despotic behaviour to physical ailment rather than self-interest or evil intent; let us look at his DNA and we will tell you he had no choice but to act as he did.

Yes, I agree. The Kell hypothesis is too weak.
And Henry VIII whitewashed by history? Absolutely!
Ironically he was bestowed the title "Defender of the Faith (fidei defensor) by Pope Leo X, and English monarchs still have that title today.
Mind you, he was bested in his womanising by his descendant Edward VII. Eddie had an entire gallery of their photographs mounted in one of the palaces, and it's still there!

I stand corrected. I know very little about Henry III. I will do some homework.

Sally: See my reply to Tridentinus above for recent research on Henry VIII's health. I'm tagging this on your comment so you will be notified of it. I'd also recommend Hilary Mantel's two Booker Prize winning books about Henry, his wives and times. "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies." They are historical fiction but much more historical than fictional. And great reads.

Thank you Ulricii. I never miss the opportunity to learn.

Now Tridentinus, Do you recognize the difference between a typo and a factual error? (An example: check vs. chech; daughter vs, daighter)
I do, however I try not to make an issue out of it. We are all imperfect beings.

Yikes, I stand corrected, hoist by mine own petard. :-(
I knew yours was only a typo, that will teach me.

Well now, we are friends, warts and all. Peace!

Thank you, it was Henry VIII not Henry III. :-)

WELL DONE ANNIE!!!!! You have explained so mant points that are relevant to the time of the Gospel and also noted that the quotes of Jesus' words might be close to what he taught but not necessarily the exact words.
The context of scripture and its place in history is an essential part of its interpretation.

Especially, since my days in a Catholic University the word "lawful" replaced the word "fornication" in Matthew 19:9.

Good heavens.....sex again!!!

Yeah, obviously Jesus could not have meant what he said. So much time has passed, so let's forget the whole thing.

Have you ripped out your eye yet? How's your count going on forgiving everyone 490 times? (I top out at about 3 apiece on a good day.) C'mon Fred, no one says "forget the whole thing" as a Christian.

Hyperbole. Exaggerated speech..... not meant to be taken literally.

Well, yeah, that's the point. Couldn't the divorce ban be somewhat hyperbolic, or at least be intended for not as strict an interpretation? Instead, the church finagles and filibusters its way to "Maybe we can prove that the marriage never really existed."

So many times, Jesus and his actions demonstrate the importance of the rules, but not their primacy. So I agree with you. Look for hyperbole and exaggeration, and subjugate them to love.

Don't you just hate it when you have to explain sarcasm

Yeah. Forgot to LOL I guess.

Matt, Somewhere in my study of the human Jesus, I believe He suggested that when the law becomes a burden (too difficult), the law must be abolished. If I am mistaken in this, please correct me. This I know to be true for me........ my understanding and my relationship with Jesus transcends the Church's interpretation. I must check the scriptures for this theory.

I'm not a scripture scholar, but I would lean away from abolishing laws. I would be very comfortable saying that laws perceived as burdensome require close examination. I get in trouble with the conservatives right after that, because they are comfortable only if I then conclude that I am sinful and wrong. Sometimes that is exactly what happens, but sometimes I see it differently. Now, I'm still the same faithful sinner, but what I've learned is not to lie to myself or to God. If I examine and disagree, I admit it.

However, those who are "faithful" then demand that they are "standing with God" and "right", where I say that I might be wrong and am called faithless. They want me out of the family, while I want them included. Can't figure that out at all.

I am an outcast in my family and community too....... but the Spirit has set me free. It isn't easy being green.

Matt, I suppose my comments were a bit strong. If I might use the example of a traffic law. It is against the law to drive through a red light, however in a medical emergency (life or death situation) I might have to drive through the red lights (after a full stop) in order to save a life and deal with the consequences (a traffic ticket /fine). I believe breaking the law her would serve a greater good, i.e. would be life giving. I would not feel any remorse about breaking the law in this instance.

Have you considered that Jesus did not say what you think he said?

We have no recourse of what Jesus meant or did not mean. All we have is what the writers without witnessing Jesus at all and from bits and pieces of hearsay attribute sayings to Jesus. In no sense can it be implied that Jesus did not mean what He said, we simply have no verifiable record of His quotes.

You write so much and say so little . . .

Good article. Many in this type of discussion of marriage and sexuality want to hide behind the concept of "natural law". What is natural law? It's whatever you want it to be. So it is used as if it is some divine code that is only correctly deciphered by celibate clerics. We can and must do better. When laws conflict with reason, then it's time to re-evaluate the situation

As I have said before, all too often, an invocation of "natural law" seems to say, "I don't have an actual argument, so I'll just say 'natural law' and hope no one notices that I'm just hand waving".

Great point, John and reader. Invoking "natural law" is nothing more than hand waving.

John, I like that idea. From now on, when I don't want any more questions, I'll just invoke natural law!

I will inform my daughter of my plan. I'm sure she'll like it. I'm trying to slowly prepare her for when her 1-yr-old will be a teen. :-)) I figure she can't start preparing too soon! :-)

Shouldn't we really be asking what Jesus says about communion? Since when is access to communion some sort of prize to be granted or taken away? The discussion about marriage is certainly worth having, but I find it incredible that the context of the question seems to go unquestioned.

The interesting question is whether communion is really intended for for gross sinners. All Catholic teaching up to this time is that you had an obligation to purify yourself before receiving the Lord.The point is that it is good for YOU to heal yourself of those sins you had committed that were dragging you down. This is obvious if you read Paul's condemnation of those who take communion in an unworthy state. Now, with Francis' rather interesting take on things, the worse person you are, the more you deserve to take communion. And good people really don't need to take it at all. Doesn't this seem to be a misconception of what the Eucharist is? Is it really a medicine, or is it the body of Christ? The Pope may have come up with a neat little bumper sticker bit of theology, but does it really make sense?

This attempt to parse out what the Eucharist really is, seems to me to be turning it into an object, or a therapy, or a prize. At the most profound level, it is the primal encounter of the believer with The Lord, carried out with the support of a believing community, following Christ's clear instructions.

The Lord LIKED to meet with sinners, and to EAT with them. His effect on them was transformative, unless they were irretrievably hard of heart. He knew how to judge that. But even that hardness of heart did not keep Him from accepting invitations to supper from the most self-satisfied.

Any restriction by the Church or anyone else on what goes on between Christ and the person approaching the Eucharist after the "Non Sum Dignus", acknowledging one's unworthiness to share it, is a blasphemous intrusion into the encounter that Christ instituted on the night before He died, and which He clearly wishes to continue down the ages.

It is profoundly unChristian to put impediments between the Redeemer and those He invites to share the Eucharistic encounter.

Excellent response--perfect--thank you!!

There is no impediment, conversion and the Sacrament of Penance are available to all.

Friend Trid, some have lived through a long-distance annulment and an attendant permanent interdict against subsequent marriage--the latter divulged only after the records got unsealed against the objections of the issuing diocese.

Unknotting the attendant morass of clerical misinformation and willful misunderstanding occasioned a process spanning nine years and a greased clerical palm or two, and a final private acknowledgement that "mistakes might have been made."

This was in pursuit of a sanctioned wedding in the Church which was subsequently happily contracted, and which flourishes today.

Impediments? They were legion. Communion? The only recourse was the famous Interior Forum alluded to here quite often.

Wow! Those who have emerged from such a scenario must be very wise and savvy afterward.. Not to mention a champion in persistence.

I personally have met others who just plain old fashioned go to communion after divorce and civil remarriage because they do not believe in and will not submit to the annulment process and just plain old believe that the second marriage is as valid a marriage as one can get. My friend is quite at peace with it.

Anne, others are equally comfortable with the normal human common sense you espouse; it is, after all, the truest basis for Christian kindness.

Sometimes though, covert bureaucratic infamies deserve to be run down to their source and extirpated. The more gratuitous the decision to injure, the more obdurate the determination to wipe it out.

Voltaire serves here as in so many other instances of rampant clericalism: "Ecrasez l'infame!"

I agree whole-heartedly that things can go wrong and the consequences can be tragic for those involved. I am not insensitive to suffering as I have had plenty of it during my long life, who hasn't? My sufferings pale into insignificance compared to thos of a majority of my fellow men.
I have no disagreement with the Church but the administration is not under the ægis of the Holy Ghost.
I am glad it worked out in the end and of course, though, I am critic of the modern take upon the primacy of conscience, I do not deny that doctrine.
Pax tibi, amice.

Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges; idem est cum Codice Iuris Canonici.

;-) Et tibi quoque amice, pax Dei, quae excedit omne sensum, custodias cogitationes et affectus in Xto Jesu.

And what does that say? Latin is considered a dead language. Since most of the readers on this page are English speakers, Translation please!

Charles, it's considered dead by some; for others it's a pleasant connection with other times; not a problem on the translation though:

"Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges"; idem est cum Codice Iuris Canonici.
"The government with the most laws is the most corrupt"; it's the same with Canon Law.

;-) Et tibi quoque amice, pax Dei, quae excedit omne sensum, custodias cogitationes et affectus
in Xto Jesu.
;-) And to you as well, friend; And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard
your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phillippians 4:7)

Charles, that read okay?

Confession as we know it is a recent development. At one point only the bishop could dispense penance for serious public sin. Francis is quite within tradition to change the current practice for pastoral reasons.

Saint Ben Franklin, Ecclesiae Doctor et Confessor Sanitatis:
"We must all hang together . . ." ;-)

Neko and pl1224, thanks as well. In Xto.