Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage and the Church (Part II): The Patristic Problem

In my first article, I dealt with the appeal to the so-called Matthew Exception regarding Divorce and Remarriage, showing that to claim that it allowed the victim of adultery to remarry is to read the Scriptures selectively. Now I turn to the appeal to the Patristic authors. Some who hold to “The Bible Alone” may find this article irrelevant but for those who recognize the authority of Sacred Tradition, the issue of how the Scriptures were interpreted by the early Christians can demonstrate whether an interpretation is authentic or not.

Why This is Important

The reason this is important to consider the writings of the early Christians is that it bears witness to their practices and beliefs. If we find no mention of a practice, or indeed see the opposite asserted, by the Church Fathers then it demonstrates that the alleged practice was a later change. So in terms of the “adultery exception” permitting remarriage, to claim that the Catholic teaching goes against the ancient practice, we would need to look and see how they handled the concept of divorce and remarriage.

Distinguishing Between Doctrine and Discipline

We also need to be aware of the difference between the moral teachings Christ demanded we follow and the disciplines the Church has decreed for the good of the faithful. For example, the Church will never abandon the belief that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. It may at times decree reception on the tongue or in the hand, and may decree reception of both kinds is permissible or denied depending on the needs of the people and whether any errors of understanding need to be combated.

Sometimes Disciplines are mistakenly viewed as Doctrines by some individuals, and when the Church changes a discipline, she stands accused of changing a doctrinal matter. Because of this, the Church recognizes it is the magisterium which has the power to bind and to loose and can interpret how the beliefs of the Church are to be understood.

The Perspective of the Patristics on Divorce and Remarriage

One interesting thing about the view of the Patristics was over the concern that the one who divorced his or her unfaithful spouse over adultery was guilty of causing her or him to commit adultery regardless of whether the innocent spouse remarried. We forget this today, because the Church has decreed what is and is not allowed. Unfortunately this view tends to be forgotten in the reading of the texts, and a reading of the texts tends to be given modern applications inserted instead of the original intent.

Also we need to recognize that the patristic writings are acting on the assumption a marriage is valid.  An invalid marriage does not exist in fact though it may be assumed in law.

Did Divorce force the guilty spouse to be an adulterer/adulteress?

For the Patristics, there was a question as to whether the separation of spouses itself was a sin which made the other spouse an adulterer/adulteress. Generally the recognition was that at some times a unfaithful spouse may behave in such a way that made it necessary for the innocent spouse to separate for his or her spiritual good. However, in no case did they recognize that this allowed remarriage on the part of the innocent spouse. They strongly take the position of St. Paul as laid out in the first article: If they separate, they must either remain single or reconcile. Here are a few samples of what some of the Patristics have written. This is hardly an exhaustive list and many more examples exist that are not cited.

St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) for example wrote in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians:

Now what is that which “to the married the Lord commanded? That the wife depart not from her husband: (v. 11.) but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband.” Here, seeing that both on the score of continence and other pretexts, and because of infirmities of temper, (μικροψυκιας.) it fell out that separations took place: it were better, he says, that such things should not be at all; but however if they take place, let the wife remain with her husband, if not to cohabit with him, yet so as not to introduce any other to be her husband.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XII. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. (106).

I figured I would start with him, because he is sometimes wrongly cited as a justification for remarriage after adultery. We see here that he is not permitting remarriage, but pointing out that Christ has forbidden it.

Another interesting work is St. Augustine’s (AD 354-430) On the Good of Marriage, where he writes as follows:

3. This we now say, that, according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compact; whereof divide Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III. St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises. (400).

Note here that the sole case where remarriage is recognized by Augustine is the death of one spouse.

Lest someone accuse us of only focusing on the fourth and fifth centuries (claiming earlier writers would allow for it), we can also look back to the work known as The Shepherd of Hermas (sometimes just known as The Shepherd) was written sometime between AD 88 and AD 157, and has this to say about divorce and adultery:

And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? [Arnobius’ note. “Vicious” in this case refers to the practice of vice, not cruelty] ”And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (21).

Marrying another would of course preclude taking back the repenting spouse.  So remarriage after divorce for infidelity seems to be excluded as a valid interpretation of Matthew 5 or Matthew 19.

So here is the problem with the claim that the Catholic view is a later view: While the Patristics authors do acknowledge that one might have a need to separate from their spouse, but not a single one of them sanctions remarriage while the sinning spouse still lives. Those who discuss the issue say it is forbidden.

So the question is when [Not A] becomes [A] and who had the authority to make such a decree?  If the Patristics rejected it, one either has to argue the Patristics were wrong, bringing up the question "On whose authority can we judge this?" or else admit such a view is an innovation.

What about St. Basil the Great?

I’ve noticed certain groups [I don’t intend to say all groups] of Eastern Orthodox try to invoke St. Basil the Great to justify their position (they permit a second and third marriage, but no more, with a brief period of excommunication in between). These groups cite St. Basil the Great claiming he “referred not to a rule but to usage” and through him claim that a person wronged by infidelity may remarry. The claim invokes The Second Canonical Letter to Amphilocius though it seems they mean the First letter, where it says:

IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.

But it doesn’t work. Restoration requires repentance,and repentance is to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse."  To feel regret or remorse indicates a wrongful action which one wishes to make amends for.

Indeed the Orthodox toleration of a third marriage, even if their interpretation of St. Basil were correct (which I do not concede), runs afoul of St. Basil who calls a third marriage "limited fornication."  If it is fornication, and "no longer described as marriage at all" it cannot be sanctioned.

As a matter of fact, reading the first letter brings us to section IX, where it says:

Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman's husband to come over to her.

Note it says absolutely nothing about the wronged spouse remarrying. It only says he is not to blame for his wife’s infidelity. In other words this is an explanation of Matthew, stating that the man who puts his wife away for sexual immorality does not make her an adulteress. It does not justify remarriage.

When it comes to sanctioning remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery, we can see St. Basil did not intend what is attributed to him. Note what he says in his second letter:

XLVIII. The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, "If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery;" thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?

Such a statement makes it seem very unlikely that St. Basil sanctioned remarriage for the innocent spouse. He says exactly the opposite… that she would be an adulteress if she did remarry.

Understanding "Digamy"

In response to the claim that St. Basil proposed certain tolerations of Digamy as meaning he permitted remarriage after divorce for infidelity, we need to first look at what Digamy was for the early Christian.  We need to realize that among some early Christians, there was a belief held by a few that the widow or widower ought not to remarry at all. Those who did were accused of digamy (remarrying after the death of a spouse) by those who held this belief. (The Catholic Church holds this to be a misinterpretation of Paul).

However, there is an interpretation which is consistent with the Catholic teaching, which holds that while a married man might enter the priesthood [The Latin Rite practice of ordaining only celibate men to the priesthood is a discipline and not a doctrine], a man ordained to the priesthood may not marry.  Hence Patristic writings against clergy who committed digamy.

The reason the distinction of widows was made is due to Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 5:

^9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,

^10 with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work.

^11 But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry

^12 and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.

Digamy is not divorce and remarriage (that is a modern interpretation. The Church called divorce and remarriage serial polygamy). Digamy is remarriage after the death of a spouse. In ancient times, if the woman was enrolled in an order of widows or if the man had entered the monastic life after the death of a spouse, a remarriage was digamy. This is what St. Basil was referring to this in his Second Letter when he wrote:

XXIV. A widow whose name is in the list of widows, that is, who is supported by the Church, is ordered by the Apostle to be supported no longer when she marries.

There is no special rule for a widower. The punishment appointed for digamy may suffice. If a widow who is sixty years of age chooses again to live with a husband, she shall be held unworthy of the communion of the good gift until she be moved no longer by her impure desire. If we reckon her before sixty years, the blame rests with us, and not with the woman.

Note here, we see that a widow (one whose husband is dead) is considered guilty of digamy if she remarries.  See the section on Digamy below.  St. Basil is speaking, in the case of women under 60, that a woman under 60 ought not to be enrolled in an order of widows according to the teaching of St. Paul.

Because the context of what digamy is is different than how later interpretations applied it, it cannot be said such texts can justify remarriage after divorce.

Conclusion: Where is the Evidence to Justify Remarriage after Divorce?

To justify remarriage after divorce on Christian grounds requires an authoritative source and an authoritative interpretation. The Catholic Church rejects the idea that a valid, sacramental marriage can be broken at all so long as both spouses live.  Only if the marriage is invalid may the partners marry someone else.

Those who seek to justify divorce after remarriage through the Patristics must necessarily choose the a limited and isolated selection of passages, which seems to require ignoring contrary claims.  Does it really seem credible to claim that outright condemnation of divorce and remarriage is merely a non-binding opinion, but the interpretation of St. Basil, which he did not himself say, is doctrinal?

In the first article I have demonstrated that the citation of Matthew as an exception for adultery has no basis either in the Scriptures themselves. In this second I have shown the weakness of the appeals to the Patristic writings commonly cited on the subject.

A claim that divorce and remarriage after infidelity was accepted as valid by the Christian Church requires proof.  Therefore any challenge to the Catholic teaching by appealing to the Eastern Orthodox claim requires us to ask for the evidence.

Since neither the Scripture nor tradition can be used to prove this, any challenge must say that the whole of Christian belief was wrong and only now can we understand what our Lord really meant.

This is a view which cannot be justified.

Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage and the Church (Part II): The Patristic Problem

In my first article, I dealt with the appeal to the so-called Matthew Exception regarding Divorce and Remarriage, showing that to claim that it allowed the victim of adultery to remarry is to read the Scriptures selectively. Now I turn to the appeal to the Patristic authors. Some who hold to “The Bible Alone” may find this article irrelevant but for those who recognize the authority of Sacred Tradition, the issue of how the Scriptures were interpreted by the early Christians can demonstrate whether an interpretation is authentic or not.

Why This is Important

The reason this is important to consider the writings of the early Christians is that it bears witness to their practices and beliefs. If we find no mention of a practice, or indeed see the opposite asserted, by the Church Fathers then it demonstrates that the alleged practice was a later change. So in terms of the “adultery exception” permitting remarriage, to claim that the Catholic teaching goes against the ancient practice, we would need to look and see how they handled the concept of divorce and remarriage.

Distinguishing Between Doctrine and Discipline

We also need to be aware of the difference between the moral teachings Christ demanded we follow and the disciplines the Church has decreed for the good of the faithful. For example, the Church will never abandon the belief that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. It may at times decree reception on the tongue or in the hand, and may decree reception of both kinds is permissible or denied depending on the needs of the people and whether any errors of understanding need to be combated.

Sometimes Disciplines are mistakenly viewed as Doctrines by some individuals, and when the Church changes a discipline, she stands accused of changing a doctrinal matter. Because of this, the Church recognizes it is the magisterium which has the power to bind and to loose and can interpret how the beliefs of the Church are to be understood.

The Perspective of the Patristics on Divorce and Remarriage

One interesting thing about the view of the Patristics was over the concern that the one who divorced his or her unfaithful spouse over adultery was guilty of causing her or him to commit adultery regardless of whether the innocent spouse remarried. We forget this today, because the Church has decreed what is and is not allowed. Unfortunately this view tends to be forgotten in the reading of the texts, and a reading of the texts tends to be given modern applications inserted instead of the original intent.

Also we need to recognize that the patristic writings are acting on the assumption a marriage is valid.  An invalid marriage does not exist in fact though it may be assumed in law.

Did Divorce force the guilty spouse to be an adulterer/adulteress?

For the Patristics, there was a question as to whether the separation of spouses itself was a sin which made the other spouse an adulterer/adulteress. Generally the recognition was that at some times a unfaithful spouse may behave in such a way that made it necessary for the innocent spouse to separate for his or her spiritual good. However, in no case did they recognize that this allowed remarriage on the part of the innocent spouse. They strongly take the position of St. Paul as laid out in the first article: If they separate, they must either remain single or reconcile. Here are a few samples of what some of the Patristics have written. This is hardly an exhaustive list and many more examples exist that are not cited.

St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) for example wrote in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians:

Now what is that which “to the married the Lord commanded? That the wife depart not from her husband: (v. 11.) but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband.” Here, seeing that both on the score of continence and other pretexts, and because of infirmities of temper, (μικροψυκιας.) it fell out that separations took place: it were better, he says, that such things should not be at all; but however if they take place, let the wife remain with her husband, if not to cohabit with him, yet so as not to introduce any other to be her husband.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XII. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. (106).

I figured I would start with him, because he is sometimes wrongly cited as a justification for remarriage after adultery. We see here that he is not permitting remarriage, but pointing out that Christ has forbidden it.

Another interesting work is St. Augustine’s (AD 354-430) On the Good of Marriage, where he writes as follows:

3. This we now say, that, according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compact; whereof divide Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III. St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises. (400).

Note here that the sole case where remarriage is recognized by Augustine is the death of one spouse.

Lest someone accuse us of only focusing on the fourth and fifth centuries (claiming earlier writers would allow for it), we can also look back to the work known as The Shepherd of Hermas (sometimes just known as The Shepherd) was written sometime between AD 88 and AD 157, and has this to say about divorce and adultery:

And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? [Arnobius’ note. “Vicious” in this case refers to the practice of vice, not cruelty] ”And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (21).

Marrying another would of course preclude taking back the repenting spouse.  So remarriage after divorce for infidelity seems to be excluded as a valid interpretation of Matthew 5 or Matthew 19.

So here is the problem with the claim that the Catholic view is a later view: While the Patristics authors do acknowledge that one might have a need to separate from their spouse, but not a single one of them sanctions remarriage while the sinning spouse still lives. Those who discuss the issue say it is forbidden.

So the question is when [Not A] becomes [A] and who had the authority to make such a decree?  If the Patristics rejected it, one either has to argue the Patristics were wrong, bringing up the question "On whose authority can we judge this?" or else admit such a view is an innovation.

What about St. Basil the Great?

I’ve noticed certain groups [I don’t intend to say all groups] of Eastern Orthodox try to invoke St. Basil the Great to justify their position (they permit a second and third marriage, but no more, with a brief period of excommunication in between). These groups cite St. Basil the Great claiming he “referred not to a rule but to usage” and through him claim that a person wronged by infidelity may remarry. The claim invokes The Second Canonical Letter to Amphilocius though it seems they mean the First letter, where it says:

IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.

But it doesn’t work. Restoration requires repentance,and repentance is to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse."  To feel regret or remorse indicates a wrongful action which one wishes to make amends for.

Indeed the Orthodox toleration of a third marriage, even if their interpretation of St. Basil were correct (which I do not concede), runs afoul of St. Basil who calls a third marriage "limited fornication."  If it is fornication, and "no longer described as marriage at all" it cannot be sanctioned.

As a matter of fact, reading the first letter brings us to section IX, where it says:

Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman's husband to come over to her.

Note it says absolutely nothing about the wronged spouse remarrying. It only says he is not to blame for his wife’s infidelity. In other words this is an explanation of Matthew, stating that the man who puts his wife away for sexual immorality does not make her an adulteress. It does not justify remarriage.

When it comes to sanctioning remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery, we can see St. Basil did not intend what is attributed to him. Note what he says in his second letter:

XLVIII. The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, "If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery;" thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?

Such a statement makes it seem very unlikely that St. Basil sanctioned remarriage for the innocent spouse. He says exactly the opposite… that she would be an adulteress if she did remarry.

Understanding "Digamy"

In response to the claim that St. Basil proposed certain tolerations of Digamy as meaning he permitted remarriage after divorce for infidelity, we need to first look at what Digamy was for the early Christian.  We need to realize that among some early Christians, there was a belief held by a few that the widow or widower ought not to remarry at all. Those who did were accused of digamy (remarrying after the death of a spouse) by those who held this belief. (The Catholic Church holds this to be a misinterpretation of Paul).

However, there is an interpretation which is consistent with the Catholic teaching, which holds that while a married man might enter the priesthood [The Latin Rite practice of ordaining only celibate men to the priesthood is a discipline and not a doctrine], a man ordained to the priesthood may not marry.  Hence Patristic writings against clergy who committed digamy.

The reason the distinction of widows was made is due to Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 5:

^9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,

^10 with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work.

^11 But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry

^12 and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.

Digamy is not divorce and remarriage (that is a modern interpretation. The Church called divorce and remarriage serial polygamy). Digamy is remarriage after the death of a spouse. In ancient times, if the woman was enrolled in an order of widows or if the man had entered the monastic life after the death of a spouse, a remarriage was digamy. This is what St. Basil was referring to this in his Second Letter when he wrote:

XXIV. A widow whose name is in the list of widows, that is, who is supported by the Church, is ordered by the Apostle to be supported no longer when she marries.

There is no special rule for a widower. The punishment appointed for digamy may suffice. If a widow who is sixty years of age chooses again to live with a husband, she shall be held unworthy of the communion of the good gift until she be moved no longer by her impure desire. If we reckon her before sixty years, the blame rests with us, and not with the woman.

Note here, we see that a widow (one whose husband is dead) is considered guilty of digamy if she remarries.  See the section on Digamy below.  St. Basil is speaking, in the case of women under 60, that a woman under 60 ought not to be enrolled in an order of widows according to the teaching of St. Paul.

Because the context of what digamy is is different than how later interpretations applied it, it cannot be said such texts can justify remarriage after divorce.

Conclusion: Where is the Evidence to Justify Remarriage after Divorce?

To justify remarriage after divorce on Christian grounds requires an authoritative source and an authoritative interpretation. The Catholic Church rejects the idea that a valid, sacramental marriage can be broken at all so long as both spouses live.  Only if the marriage is invalid may the partners marry someone else.

Those who seek to justify divorce after remarriage through the Patristics must necessarily choose the a limited and isolated selection of passages, which seems to require ignoring contrary claims.  Does it really seem credible to claim that outright condemnation of divorce and remarriage is merely a non-binding opinion, but the interpretation of St. Basil, which he did not himself say, is doctrinal?

In the first article I have demonstrated that the citation of Matthew as an exception for adultery has no basis either in the Scriptures themselves. In this second I have shown the weakness of the appeals to the Patristic writings commonly cited on the subject.

A claim that divorce and remarriage after infidelity was accepted as valid by the Christian Church requires proof.  Therefore any challenge to the Catholic teaching by appealing to the Eastern Orthodox claim requires us to ask for the evidence.

Since neither the Scripture nor tradition can be used to prove this, any challenge must say that the whole of Christian belief was wrong and only now can we understand what our Lord really meant.

This is a view which cannot be justified.

Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage and the Church (Part I): Did Matthew Make an Exception?

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is on the subject of seeking to end a valid marriage on the grounds of adultery by way of rejecting the authority of the Church.  It is not a commentary on annulments.  Nor is it a judgment on those who seek them. 

I do not claim the authority to make judgments on whether the Church should or should not grant  an annulment in any individual case.  A person wondering if they have grounds for annulment should contact their parish or diocese for information.

My only intent for this article is to explain why certain attacks against the Church on this subject are in error.

Introduction: Appeal to Emotion to challenge the Church

While the recent abuse stories are the most headline grabbing attacks on the Church, there are always the tried-and-true attacks on the Church from within and without, which essentially seeks to portray the Church as “heartless” because she believes she cannot compromise on certain issues. Whether it is an issue like contraception, or divorce, or abortion or so-called “gay marriage” (it is interesting to note that all these objections tend to focus on the area of sexual ethics) the position is presented that the Church is a heartless bureaucratic institution which clings to “rules” which Christ would not approve of.

Usually such a position is demonstrated with either the appeal to fear fallacy or the appeal to pity fallacy. An example is given (such as a family with “too many children” or the “abandoned spouse” or the woman with a “health condition” or two people “who truly love each other”) to whom we are supposed to have sympathy for. Because they are in a situation where the Church must say “No,” the argument is the Church is “cruel” in doing so.

Fallacies don’t prove anything

The problem is, this doesn’t prove the Church is wrong. Indeed, the attack against the Church is based on the unwarranted assumption that God is primarily interested in our material well-being, and that the concern for our spiritual well-being is unimportant.

The objection tends to run along the lines of:

1. The situation I am in is harmful because it makes me unhappy

2. God does not want to harm us

3. Therefore this situation which makes me unhappy is against God's will.

In certain areas of Church moral teaching, we see this sort of appeal.  "God knows we can't afford to have more children right now.  The Church condemns contraception.  Therefore the Church teaching is against God's will."  Or "God doesn't want me to be alone and my spouse abandoned me.  The Church forbids remarriage after divorce.  Therefore the Church is wrong."

Denying Happiness? Why this argument is missing the point

The problem with these arguments is that it frames the issue in the wrong way.

Because the dissent against the Church on the issue of Remarriage is so common, one needs to look at the issues and why the attacks against the Church fundamentally miss the point and negate that which is binding about marriage.

The problem of the objection against Church teaching is that it confuses the cause of the situation with the Church teaching on the situation.  For example, if a person in a valid marriage is divorced, the Church teaching is that so long as both partners live, they must reconcile or remain single.

Now in this society which dismisses marriage as unimportant and divorce as even less important, the complaint may be raised that the spouse who was treated unjustly is doomed to suffer because of the Church teaching, which means they can never remarry.  "How can the Church deny a person their happiness?"

The Church didn't deny the person their happiness.  The unfaithful spouse did that.  The Church can only say, "Christ has forbidden remarriage if the marriage is valid.  If your marriage was valid, we cannot remarry you while your spouse lives."

Remember that the Sacramental Marriage is a vow made before God to remain faithful to each other for life.  One may be unfaithful in this lifelong vow, but that person's sin does not change the fact that Christ decreed the valid marriage to be unbreakable.

In marriage, there are no longer two people, but “one flesh” (Gen 2:24). A bond is formed which endures as long as both the husband and wife live.

If He did not give us permission to break a marriage, how can we, on our own, to declare such a marriage ended and expect God, who says “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16), to accept it?

This is why the "how can the Church deny a person their happiness?" argument is not only wrong, but is actually an appeal to fear (that it might happen to you) and pity, which ignores the actual question: IS the marriage valid?

Appeals to Reject the Church Authority

Because the actual question is a stumbling block, many try to get around it by appealing to another authority against the Church.  They invoke Scripture or Tradition, and ignores the question: Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition?

In this article I would like to look at the invocation of the Gospel of Matthew and the so-called exceptions to the norm.

A Look at the So-called “Matthew Exception”

Some people who object to the Catholic position try to cite Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 to argue that a spouse who is victimized by an adulterous spouse may remarry. The Eastern Orthodox churches tend to hold this position, and some stricter Protestant denominations do as well. Matthew 5 reads:

^{31 }“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’

^32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19 reads:

^3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, ^saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

^4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’

^5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

^6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

^7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”

^8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

^9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

^10 (His) disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

^11 He answered, “Not all can accept (this) word, but only those to whom that is granted.

^12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage ^for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The argument put forward by those who favor the so-called Matthew Exception is that Christ permitted divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery.

A Look at the problems of the Adultery Assumption: Porneia and Moichaō

The passages of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are sometimes translated as "except for fornication" (KJV, ASV), sometimes technically correct but misleading “except for unchastity” (as in the RSV) and is sometimes mistranslated as "except for unfaithfulness" or the like in some of the modern semi-paraphrased versions. 

Why do I say it is a mistranslation?  Because the Greek word used in both Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 is πορνείᾳ (porneia) which is used in the sense of fornication, homosexual acts and immorality.  It is almost always used in the sense of sexual sins among the unmarried (see 1 Cor 7:2).  In contrast, the word for adultery is derived from μοιχάω (moichaō) which means to have sexual relations with another person's spouse.  Indeed, it is the word used in the above verses where Christ says the person who marries another, except in the case of πορνείᾳ, commits adultery (μοιχᾶται).

Porneia is not moichaō.  The words are specifically different in the Greek of the New Testament, and the person who wants to argue that Christ intended the “adultery exception” needs to explain why Christ did not say that: whoever divorces his wife, except for moichaō, commits moichatai.

This is especially relevant when we look at Matthew 15:19 where it says:

^19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.

In Greek, we see what is written as “adultery, unchastity” is μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι in the Greek (moicheiai, porneiai). Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew, makes a clear distinction between the two.

Another Problem with the Appeal to Matthew: Scriptural Disagreement?

There is another problem with the appeal to Matthew and the so-called exception.  That problem is that the other gospels which do not include this exception. Mark 10:11-12 reads:

^11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;

^12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16 reads:

^8 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

So here is the problem. If one wants to argue that Matthew permits exceptions to the command of no divorce; such a view needs to be reconciled with Mark and Luke, which makes no such exception, or else admit the Scriptures contradict.  Now, is Matthew more lenient than Mark and Luke?  Or are Mark and Luke harsher than Matthew?

Either way, one would have to decide whether Matthew erred or whether Mark and Luke (and Paul), and on what basis is this to be accepted?

There is only one view which protects inerrancy of Scripture and shows there to be no conflict.  That is the recognition that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who were aware of the Law and the forbidding of marriage between men and women in certain degrees of relationship. 

Indeed, we see such a case in Matthew 14:3-4:

^3 Now Herod had arrested John, bound (him), and put him in prison on account of Herodias, ^the wife of his brother Philip,

^4 for John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

^The relationship of Herod and his brother's wife was prohibited in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21.  In other words, it was a sinful act which God opposed. Regardless of Herod’s feelings for Herodias, their relationship was forbidden by the Law and could not be considered a valid marriage.  

The Catholic Church understands that the so-called “exception” of Matthew was not sanction of divorce and remarriage for cases of adultery, but for ending an invalid marriage and entering a real one.

This is why annulment is not a “Catholic Divorce” but rather an investigation into whether a marriage was valid to begin with. If it was not valid, then there was no marriage to begin with. If it is valid, then it quite simply exists regardless of what one or both spouses do.

The Problem of Paul for the “Matthew Exception”

1 Corinthians 7 also shows that those groups who argue for the “adultery clause” are in error. He writes:

^10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband

^11 —and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Paul does not include the notion that one may remarry if the other spouse is unfaithful. Now some may try to argue that “should” means that it is not approved but permissible. However, “should” appears only in some translations (NAB, NASB, NRSV, RSV) and not at all in the Greek.

Debunking the Fallacy of amphiboly in reading Paul

There is a fallacy of amphiboly to interpret “should” as permitting. Those who argue such tend to take the definition of “should” in the sense of one of the following:

• used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings.
• used in a clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose.
• (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance.
• (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

However, these are not the main definitions for “should.” The word “Should” is derived from shall (remember the Ten Commandments with “Thou shall not…”) and the primary definition is actually “Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.” (Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.”)

For Paul, Porneia and Moichaō are not the same thing

Another problem Paul poses for the “Matthew Exception” argument and the claim that porneia refers to adultery is the fact that Paul uses Porneia in 1 Cor. 7:1 when he says:

^1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”

^2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.

Immorality is πορνείας (porneias) in the Greek. If Adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their husband or wife” then it follows that marriage cannot prevent adultery, simply because adultery presupposes the existence of marriage. Indeed, Paul would be speaking nonsense.

Conclusion

I believe we have demonstrated here that the invocation of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 to justify remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery is one which must ignore the whole of Scripture and cite it selectively.

In my next article I will look at the appeal to the Early Christian Fathers (known as the Patristics) which some attempt.

Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage and the Church (Part I): Did Matthew Make an Exception?

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is on the subject of seeking to end a valid marriage on the grounds of adultery by way of rejecting the authority of the Church.  It is not a commentary on annulments.  Nor is it a judgment on those who seek them. 

I do not claim the authority to make judgments on whether the Church should or should not grant  an annulment in any individual case.  A person wondering if they have grounds for annulment should contact their parish or diocese for information.

My only intent for this article is to explain why certain attacks against the Church on this subject are in error.

Introduction: Appeal to Emotion to challenge the Church

While the recent abuse stories are the most headline grabbing attacks on the Church, there are always the tried-and-true attacks on the Church from within and without, which essentially seeks to portray the Church as “heartless” because she believes she cannot compromise on certain issues. Whether it is an issue like contraception, or divorce, or abortion or so-called “gay marriage” (it is interesting to note that all these objections tend to focus on the area of sexual ethics) the position is presented that the Church is a heartless bureaucratic institution which clings to “rules” which Christ would not approve of.

Usually such a position is demonstrated with either the appeal to fear fallacy or the appeal to pity fallacy. An example is given (such as a family with “too many children” or the “abandoned spouse” or the woman with a “health condition” or two people “who truly love each other”) to whom we are supposed to have sympathy for. Because they are in a situation where the Church must say “No,” the argument is the Church is “cruel” in doing so.

Fallacies don’t prove anything

The problem is, this doesn’t prove the Church is wrong. Indeed, the attack against the Church is based on the unwarranted assumption that God is primarily interested in our material well-being, and that the concern for our spiritual well-being is unimportant.

The objection tends to run along the lines of:

1. The situation I am in is harmful because it makes me unhappy

2. God does not want to harm us

3. Therefore this situation which makes me unhappy is against God's will.

In certain areas of Church moral teaching, we see this sort of appeal.  "God knows we can't afford to have more children right now.  The Church condemns contraception.  Therefore the Church teaching is against God's will."  Or "God doesn't want me to be alone and my spouse abandoned me.  The Church forbids remarriage after divorce.  Therefore the Church is wrong."

Denying Happiness? Why this argument is missing the point

The problem with these arguments is that it frames the issue in the wrong way.

Because the dissent against the Church on the issue of Remarriage is so common, one needs to look at the issues and why the attacks against the Church fundamentally miss the point and negate that which is binding about marriage.

The problem of the objection against Church teaching is that it confuses the cause of the situation with the Church teaching on the situation.  For example, if a person in a valid marriage is divorced, the Church teaching is that so long as both partners live, they must reconcile or remain single.

Now in this society which dismisses marriage as unimportant and divorce as even less important, the complaint may be raised that the spouse who was treated unjustly is doomed to suffer because of the Church teaching, which means they can never remarry.  "How can the Church deny a person their happiness?"

The Church didn't deny the person their happiness.  The unfaithful spouse did that.  The Church can only say, "Christ has forbidden remarriage if the marriage is valid.  If your marriage was valid, we cannot remarry you while your spouse lives."

Remember that the Sacramental Marriage is a vow made before God to remain faithful to each other for life.  One may be unfaithful in this lifelong vow, but that person's sin does not change the fact that Christ decreed the valid marriage to be unbreakable.

In marriage, there are no longer two people, but “one flesh” (Gen 2:24). A bond is formed which endures as long as both the husband and wife live.

If He did not give us permission to break a marriage, how can we, on our own, to declare such a marriage ended and expect God, who says “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16), to accept it?

This is why the "how can the Church deny a person their happiness?" argument is not only wrong, but is actually an appeal to fear (that it might happen to you) and pity, which ignores the actual question: IS the marriage valid?

Appeals to Reject the Church Authority

Because the actual question is a stumbling block, many try to get around it by appealing to another authority against the Church.  They invoke Scripture or Tradition, and ignores the question: Who has the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition?

In this article I would like to look at the invocation of the Gospel of Matthew and the so-called exceptions to the norm.

A Look at the So-called “Matthew Exception”

Some people who object to the Catholic position try to cite Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 to argue that a spouse who is victimized by an adulterous spouse may remarry. The Eastern Orthodox churches tend to hold this position, and some stricter Protestant denominations do as well. Matthew 5 reads:

^{31 }“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’

^32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19 reads:

^3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, ^saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

^4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’

^5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

^6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

^7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”

^8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

^9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

^10 (His) disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

^11 He answered, “Not all can accept (this) word, but only those to whom that is granted.

^12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage ^for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The argument put forward by those who favor the so-called Matthew Exception is that Christ permitted divorce and remarriage on grounds of adultery.

A Look at the problems of the Adultery Assumption: Porneia and Moichaō

The passages of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are sometimes translated as "except for fornication" (KJV, ASV), sometimes technically correct but misleading “except for unchastity” (as in the RSV) and is sometimes mistranslated as "except for unfaithfulness" or the like in some of the modern semi-paraphrased versions. 

Why do I say it is a mistranslation?  Because the Greek word used in both Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 is πορνείᾳ (porneia) which is used in the sense of fornication, homosexual acts and immorality.  It is almost always used in the sense of sexual sins among the unmarried (see 1 Cor 7:2).  In contrast, the word for adultery is derived from μοιχάω (moichaō) which means to have sexual relations with another person's spouse.  Indeed, it is the word used in the above verses where Christ says the person who marries another, except in the case of πορνείᾳ, commits adultery (μοιχᾶται).

Porneia is not moichaō.  The words are specifically different in the Greek of the New Testament, and the person who wants to argue that Christ intended the “adultery exception” needs to explain why Christ did not say that: whoever divorces his wife, except for moichaō, commits moichatai.

This is especially relevant when we look at Matthew 15:19 where it says:

^19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.

In Greek, we see what is written as “adultery, unchastity” is μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι in the Greek (moicheiai, porneiai). Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew, makes a clear distinction between the two.

Another Problem with the Appeal to Matthew: Scriptural Disagreement?

There is another problem with the appeal to Matthew and the so-called exception.  That problem is that the other gospels which do not include this exception. Mark 10:11-12 reads:

^11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;

^12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16 reads:

^8 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

So here is the problem. If one wants to argue that Matthew permits exceptions to the command of no divorce; such a view needs to be reconciled with Mark and Luke, which makes no such exception, or else admit the Scriptures contradict.  Now, is Matthew more lenient than Mark and Luke?  Or are Mark and Luke harsher than Matthew?

Either way, one would have to decide whether Matthew erred or whether Mark and Luke (and Paul), and on what basis is this to be accepted?

There is only one view which protects inerrancy of Scripture and shows there to be no conflict.  That is the recognition that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who were aware of the Law and the forbidding of marriage between men and women in certain degrees of relationship. 

Indeed, we see such a case in Matthew 14:3-4:

^3 Now Herod had arrested John, bound (him), and put him in prison on account of Herodias, ^the wife of his brother Philip,

^4 for John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”

^The relationship of Herod and his brother's wife was prohibited in Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21.  In other words, it was a sinful act which God opposed. Regardless of Herod’s feelings for Herodias, their relationship was forbidden by the Law and could not be considered a valid marriage.  

The Catholic Church understands that the so-called “exception” of Matthew was not sanction of divorce and remarriage for cases of adultery, but for ending an invalid marriage and entering a real one.

This is why annulment is not a “Catholic Divorce” but rather an investigation into whether a marriage was valid to begin with. If it was not valid, then there was no marriage to begin with. If it is valid, then it quite simply exists regardless of what one or both spouses do.

The Problem of Paul for the “Matthew Exception”

1 Corinthians 7 also shows that those groups who argue for the “adultery clause” are in error. He writes:

^10 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband

^11 —and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Paul does not include the notion that one may remarry if the other spouse is unfaithful. Now some may try to argue that “should” means that it is not approved but permissible. However, “should” appears only in some translations (NAB, NASB, NRSV, RSV) and not at all in the Greek.

Debunking the Fallacy of amphiboly in reading Paul

There is a fallacy of amphiboly to interpret “should” as permitting. Those who argue such tend to take the definition of “should” in the sense of one of the following:

• used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings.
• used in a clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose.
• (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance.
• (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

However, these are not the main definitions for “should.” The word “Should” is derived from shall (remember the Ten Commandments with “Thou shall not…”) and the primary definition is actually “Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.” (Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.”)

For Paul, Porneia and Moichaō are not the same thing

Another problem Paul poses for the “Matthew Exception” argument and the claim that porneia refers to adultery is the fact that Paul uses Porneia in 1 Cor. 7:1 when he says:

^1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,”

^2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.

Immorality is πορνείας (porneias) in the Greek. If Adultery is “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their husband or wife” then it follows that marriage cannot prevent adultery, simply because adultery presupposes the existence of marriage. Indeed, Paul would be speaking nonsense.

Conclusion

I believe we have demonstrated here that the invocation of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 to justify remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery is one which must ignore the whole of Scripture and cite it selectively.

In my next article I will look at the appeal to the Early Christian Fathers (known as the Patristics) which some attempt.

On Pain: When it seems to come from God or His Church

One of the problems when discussing doctrine of belief and morality is that people do have emotions and feelings and desires.  These things can be disordered of course.  These things can be brought about bad choices or being in situations through the fault of another person.  However, they are real feelings.  Sometimes, in dealing with a situation where the Church has no choice but to say "No," a person is caught on the wrong side of that decision.

Now from an objective perspective of course, if we believe the Church's authority is bestowed by Christ, then the person caught on the wrong side is on the wrong side.  However, it doesn't do them much good to say "$#!+ happens.  Deal with it."  Indeed, it might lead such a person to decide that the Church is acting with cold indifference.

On the other hand, each person in such a situation must "deal with it."  They must come to terms with the situation they are in or walk away while those who are not in this situation, while not being permitted to compromise on the truth, do need to be compassionate in how they deal with the situation.

Dealing With It: The Person In Pain

The person in a difficult situation needs to consider some things here.  Our emotions do tell us how we feel, but they should not be the master of what we do.  There is an old maxim of moral theology which states that no person should be their own judge of what is right and wrong.  Why is this?

This is because the possibility for self deception is high.  We all have a strong desire to avoid any suffering, or at least a perceived suffering.  Consider the person who endures a toothache because they consider the possibility of the dentist to be worse.  Sometimes we do have to experience discomfort in order to be healed of the situation we are now in.

The Issue of Faith

When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did not go to my mother-at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists; I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie; if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment. (CS Lewis.  Mere Christianity p201-202)

The question then is "Do we trust the dentist" to do the right thing even when a situation seems to be quite painful (drilling the tooth)?

Likewise, do we trust God to seek our ultimate good when what we see is painful?  Do we trust the Church when she acts in the motivation of doing what she believes Christ wants us to do?  If we do not trust, we will not see the possibility of pain being used to purify us from what is not good for us from the perspective of having an immortal soul.

I have alluded to this in the past in speaking of what the Catholic Church believes about herself.  The important questions the Catholic in pain must ask themselves are: Do I believe Jesus established the Church which established the norms I am at odds with?  Do I trust that Jesus has promised to protect the Church from teaching error?'

Do we recognize the possibility that we are clinging to a toothache in thinking that if it is not our way, it can't be God's way?  Are we thinking that if the Church does not grant our request, it must be doing wrong?

Belief vs. Faith

^28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

^29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

^30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”

^31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”  (Mt 14:28-31).

There is a story about the 19th century Tightrope walker called Blondin (Jean Fracois Gravelet) who would walk across Niagara Falls.  He would do some amazing stunts like riding a bicycle, walking it blindfolded.  The story goes that one time he asked the crowd who believed he could cross it blindfolded while pushing a wheelbarrow.  Of course the crowd cheered him on.  Blondin then replied with "Who will get into the wheelbarrow while I push it across?"

The crowd was silent.  Not one person was willing to get into the wheelbarrow while he took it blindfolded across Niagara Falls.  They believed he could do it, but not one of them was willing to put their faith in him.

Those who are suffering some affliction, and believe Christ or His Church is the cause of it are in the situation of the Crowd at Niagara Falls.  Christ, like Blondin, is asking "Who will get into the wheelbarrow?"

Peter may have sank when his faith wavered, but he at least had faith enough in Christ to get out of the boat, and he had faith in Christ to save him when he sank.

Will we trust Christ enough to get out of the boat of the situation we are in and follow Him?

"God is Good" does not mean Our Life will be Pain Free

In the book Rome Sweet Home, Kimberly Hahn discusses a story of how she was wrestling with the pain and bitterness over her husband's conversion to the Catholic Church.  She recognized that she either would have to join him or remain in a divided family.  She was struggling with why God would  allow her to go through such pain.  She then relates how her daughter had to be taken to the hospital because of dehydration.  She had an extremely high temperature (peaking at 105.2 degrees) and she had to assist the nurses in putting ice cold cloths on her child's body to help bring the temperature down, even though it was very painful to the child.  She says of the experience:

As soon as her hot little body heated up the towel, we took it off and put on another cold one.  it was imperative that we get her fever down.  Hannah was lying there with one arm bound by an IV tube and the other stretched toward me as far as she could reach, her body shaking so hard.  She was screaming "Mommy!  Mommy!"

Hannah could not understand what I was doing.  I was supposed to protect her from harm, yet here I was helping to put the cloths on that were causing her much pain and discomfort.  I could not explain it to her, but I knew I was doing the most loving thing for her.

In the midst of this I felt the Lord put his hand on my shoulder and say, "Kimberly, do you see what a good mother you are?  You love your daughter, so you are causing her pain to heal her.  Do you see how much I have loved you, my daughter?  I have caused you pain, to heal you, to draw you to myself." (Rome Sweet Home pages 150-151)

I think this is important to remember, when we are asking ourselves "Why is God making me suffer like this?"  Like the dentist of CS Lewis' account.  Like the actions Kimberly Hahn had to do in helping the nurses keep the temperature down on her seriously ill daughter, sometimes God must act in a way which causes us pain in order to make us well.  Sometimes the Church must act in a certain way and refuse to make an exception, even though it causes us pain, because she must be faithful to Christ.

In such a case God is doing us no wrong.  Nor is the Church doing us wrong.

Parenthesis: On Unjust Stewards

Let me be clear I am not speaking of an individual in the Church who is unyielding in a way which does not do God's justice.  There are sinners in the Church of course.  If there is an unjust member of the clergy or the laity in a Church position who behaves unjustly, we need to have faith in God and trust He will do His will, while praying for deliverance.

However, our view must be that of Christ in Matthew 26:39, which says:

He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

The solution God might have to deliver us from injustice in such cases might not be what we want.  It might even be that the Lord permits the action of the unjust steward to bring about good we do not see.  However, if we are certain that an affliction is due to an individual in the Church behaving unjustly, we need to respond in faith, and not in anger.  God is not thwarted by those who act against Him.  If He wills a thing, nothing can stand against him.

So is it Cruel to say "Deal With it?"  Reflections for the Person Interacting with the one suffering

So is it cruel for the person who is interacting with the suffering person to just say "$#!+ happens, deal with it?"  I think it would be cruel to say it in this way of course.  However, if the Church does a thing because to do otherwise would be to contradict what she believes, then we do the person no favors in agreeing with the lashing out against the Church which they do in their pain.

On the other hand, we do not do God's work if our response is cold.  Sometimes we must say "No" and take part in "tough love."  But that doesn't mean we can just brush off their pain.  We need to offer them our ear to hear and our support to help them with their heavy burden without indulging in any self pity which may be present.

We cannot abandon the truth ever.  But how we present the truth can make a difference as to whether we help a person with their burden or whether we make it seem more oppressive.

For the times I have chosen the latter approach, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

On Pain: When it seems to come from God or His Church

One of the problems when discussing doctrine of belief and morality is that people do have emotions and feelings and desires.  These things can be disordered of course.  These things can be brought about bad choices or being in situations through the fault of another person.  However, they are real feelings.  Sometimes, in dealing with a situation where the Church has no choice but to say "No," a person is caught on the wrong side of that decision.

Now from an objective perspective of course, if we believe the Church's authority is bestowed by Christ, then the person caught on the wrong side is on the wrong side.  However, it doesn't do them much good to say "$#!+ happens.  Deal with it."  Indeed, it might lead such a person to decide that the Church is acting with cold indifference.

On the other hand, each person in such a situation must "deal with it."  They must come to terms with the situation they are in or walk away while those who are not in this situation, while not being permitted to compromise on the truth, do need to be compassionate in how they deal with the situation.

Dealing With It: The Person In Pain

The person in a difficult situation needs to consider some things here.  Our emotions do tell us how we feel, but they should not be the master of what we do.  There is an old maxim of moral theology which states that no person should be their own judge of what is right and wrong.  Why is this?

This is because the possibility for self deception is high.  We all have a strong desire to avoid any suffering, or at least a perceived suffering.  Consider the person who endures a toothache because they consider the possibility of the dentist to be worse.  Sometimes we do have to experience discomfort in order to be healed of the situation we are now in.

The Issue of Faith

When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did not go to my mother-at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists; I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie; if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment. (CS Lewis.  Mere Christianity p201-202)

The question then is "Do we trust the dentist" to do the right thing even when a situation seems to be quite painful (drilling the tooth)?

Likewise, do we trust God to seek our ultimate good when what we see is painful?  Do we trust the Church when she acts in the motivation of doing what she believes Christ wants us to do?  If we do not trust, we will not see the possibility of pain being used to purify us from what is not good for us from the perspective of having an immortal soul.

I have alluded to this in the past in speaking of what the Catholic Church believes about herself.  The important questions the Catholic in pain must ask themselves are: Do I believe Jesus established the Church which established the norms I am at odds with?  Do I trust that Jesus has promised to protect the Church from teaching error?'

Do we recognize the possibility that we are clinging to a toothache in thinking that if it is not our way, it can't be God's way?  Are we thinking that if the Church does not grant our request, it must be doing wrong?

Belief vs. Faith

^28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

^29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

^30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”

^31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”  (Mt 14:28-31).

There is a story about the 19th century Tightrope walker called Blondin (Jean Fracois Gravelet) who would walk across Niagara Falls.  He would do some amazing stunts like riding a bicycle, walking it blindfolded.  The story goes that one time he asked the crowd who believed he could cross it blindfolded while pushing a wheelbarrow.  Of course the crowd cheered him on.  Blondin then replied with "Who will get into the wheelbarrow while I push it across?"

The crowd was silent.  Not one person was willing to get into the wheelbarrow while he took it blindfolded across Niagara Falls.  They believed he could do it, but not one of them was willing to put their faith in him.

Those who are suffering some affliction, and believe Christ or His Church is the cause of it are in the situation of the Crowd at Niagara Falls.  Christ, like Blondin, is asking "Who will get into the wheelbarrow?"

Peter may have sank when his faith wavered, but he at least had faith enough in Christ to get out of the boat, and he had faith in Christ to save him when he sank.

Will we trust Christ enough to get out of the boat of the situation we are in and follow Him?

"God is Good" does not mean Our Life will be Pain Free

In the book Rome Sweet Home, Kimberly Hahn discusses a story of how she was wrestling with the pain and bitterness over her husband's conversion to the Catholic Church.  She recognized that she either would have to join him or remain in a divided family.  She was struggling with why God would  allow her to go through such pain.  She then relates how her daughter had to be taken to the hospital because of dehydration.  She had an extremely high temperature (peaking at 105.2 degrees) and she had to assist the nurses in putting ice cold cloths on her child's body to help bring the temperature down, even though it was very painful to the child.  She says of the experience:

As soon as her hot little body heated up the towel, we took it off and put on another cold one.  it was imperative that we get her fever down.  Hannah was lying there with one arm bound by an IV tube and the other stretched toward me as far as she could reach, her body shaking so hard.  She was screaming "Mommy!  Mommy!"

Hannah could not understand what I was doing.  I was supposed to protect her from harm, yet here I was helping to put the cloths on that were causing her much pain and discomfort.  I could not explain it to her, but I knew I was doing the most loving thing for her.

In the midst of this I felt the Lord put his hand on my shoulder and say, "Kimberly, do you see what a good mother you are?  You love your daughter, so you are causing her pain to heal her.  Do you see how much I have loved you, my daughter?  I have caused you pain, to heal you, to draw you to myself." (Rome Sweet Home pages 150-151)

I think this is important to remember, when we are asking ourselves "Why is God making me suffer like this?"  Like the dentist of CS Lewis' account.  Like the actions Kimberly Hahn had to do in helping the nurses keep the temperature down on her seriously ill daughter, sometimes God must act in a way which causes us pain in order to make us well.  Sometimes the Church must act in a certain way and refuse to make an exception, even though it causes us pain, because she must be faithful to Christ.

In such a case God is doing us no wrong.  Nor is the Church doing us wrong.

Parenthesis: On Unjust Stewards

Let me be clear I am not speaking of an individual in the Church who is unyielding in a way which does not do God's justice.  There are sinners in the Church of course.  If there is an unjust member of the clergy or the laity in a Church position who behaves unjustly, we need to have faith in God and trust He will do His will, while praying for deliverance.

However, our view must be that of Christ in Matthew 26:39, which says:

He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

The solution God might have to deliver us from injustice in such cases might not be what we want.  It might even be that the Lord permits the action of the unjust steward to bring about good we do not see.  However, if we are certain that an affliction is due to an individual in the Church behaving unjustly, we need to respond in faith, and not in anger.  God is not thwarted by those who act against Him.  If He wills a thing, nothing can stand against him.

So is it Cruel to say "Deal With it?"  Reflections for the Person Interacting with the one suffering

So is it cruel for the person who is interacting with the suffering person to just say "$#!+ happens, deal with it?"  I think it would be cruel to say it in this way of course.  However, if the Church does a thing because to do otherwise would be to contradict what she believes, then we do the person no favors in agreeing with the lashing out against the Church which they do in their pain.

On the other hand, we do not do God's work if our response is cold.  Sometimes we must say "No" and take part in "tough love."  But that doesn't mean we can just brush off their pain.  We need to offer them our ear to hear and our support to help them with their heavy burden without indulging in any self pity which may be present.

We cannot abandon the truth ever.  But how we present the truth can make a difference as to whether we help a person with their burden or whether we make it seem more oppressive.

For the times I have chosen the latter approach, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Deus Vult! (Therefore the Church MUST be wrong): Reflections on Cafeteria Catholicism

Introduction

[Preliminary Note: In this article I am dealing with the attacks on the official teachings of the Church and not the actions of an individual who is in a Church office who does wrong in the application of what the Church teaches.]

In a past article I dealt with the issue of authority in the Catholic Church, and how the belief that the Church was established with the authority to bind and loose.  I asked then, why a person would want to belong to a Church which claimed this if they did not believe it, because if it was not true, it is a pretty monstrous claim.

Yet we do have a phenomenon within the Church which we know as "Cafeteria Catholicism."  The principle is a person accepts only those parts of the faith they believe in, and reject those issues (normally of morality, but sometimes on doctrine too) they disagree with.

In all of these cases, we see that the Church is claimed to be in the wrong when it disagrees with person X on their behavior.

Thus we see things like the Pope is called "cruel" for not allowing condoms to prevent AIDS.  We see the Church called cruel for requiring Catholics to behave morally, for opposing “gay marriage” and so on.  We see the Church position on contraception and abortion called "cruel" because it "forces" a woman to die in childbirth or have too many children.  We see the Church position on divorce and remarriage "cruel" because they insist that Christ forbids divorce if the marriage is valid.

In all of these cases, we see people claim “God must want me to do X "because I would be unhappy if I did not get my way.”   The enthymeme (unspoken assumption) of this argument being, "God wants me to be materially happy."  Thus we see people say in effect Deus vult! (“God Wills It!”) If the Church disagrees, then the Church must be wrong.

There is a problem in all of these cases, but the problem is not with the Church.

Anger  is Directed at the Church for doing what she believes she must do

Many of the stances the Church holds, she holds simply because she believes she must do so if she is to be faithful to Christ. She rejects certain positions set forth by the world, such as not accepting the use of condoms to “stop” the spread of AIDS; such as refusing to sanction the marriage between two individuals of the same sex; such as refusing to sanction remarriage if the first marriage was valid and both spouses are alive.

Now I have no doubt that many people think an “exception” should be made or the Church “policy” [a loaded term to make it seem like a merely human rule], and in many cases the emotion they feel is quite real.

All the sad stories about AIDS sufferers, Lesbians in Love [ever notice how it’s always two women who are used as an example… never two men?], divorced persons wanting to remarry have the same refrain: “The Church won’t let us do X!”

The problem with this tired old refrain is the Church believes she cannot change what she says because to do so would be unfaithful to God. Therefore, the demand for the Church to change is in fact a demand that the Church be unfaithful to what she believes God requires.

This is, in a word, selfishness.

A person may disagree with what the Church believes of course, but they can’t claim their view is “more Catholic” in doing so. Let’s go back to the premise of how Catholicism differs from other religions. We believe that the Catholic Church is the Church directly established by Christ with a visible head with the authority to bind and loose. This does not mean that the Church can go and abolish one of the Ten Commandments tomorrow. The Church believes her authority to bind and loose can only be used in service to God, and not independently of God.

The Misinterpretation of “God is Love" (and therefore He wouldn’t stop me from doing what I want)

One of the most annoying counterarguments against the Church is the taking out of context of “God is Love.” (from 1 John 4:16). Taken from the concept of we must love our brother, “God is Love” is turned into saying “God is Nice.” God, in this view, is non-threatening, He makes no demands. He only wants us to be happy here on Earth and is willing to bend His rules even though His silly Church won’t.

Excuse me, but this is not the God of the Bible at all. This is the God of Hallmark sentiments. It is actually a blasphemous view of God which negates what Christ did on the Cross for us.  It ignores the possibility of our being sinners.

God does indeed love us. When Adam and Eve broke away from God, God was under no obligation to bring salvation to us. Yet He did send His Son to save us. However, the message of Christ was not “An’ ye harm none, do what you will” (a popular Wiccan saying). It was “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). God loves us unconditionally to be sure. When one of us falls away, He desires to bring us back (see Luke 15:4). However the imagery God uses is that He goes out and brings back. We who sin are in the wrong place, and He goes to bring us back to the right place.

Love is not sentimentalism. Love seeks the greatest good for the beloved. Sometimes, it must be “tough love.” Love cannot sacrifice truth because no falsehood can be good, and no good thing can be false. So when the beloved wants something harmful, the lover must at times say “Because I love you, I cannot do X.”

The Church Has Other Motivations Than “Being Mean.”

Now, agree with the Church or disagree, at least accept that when the Church draws a line in the sand, it is not for the sake of being “cruel.” Rather it is because she believes that this is the right place as decreed by God.

Disagreement with the Church is therefore a rejection (whether intended or not) of the Church values and a demand she behave differently because what the Church believes is “not important” in relation to what the individual wants.  Thus the argument that the Church should permit condoms is a claim that continence is unimportant because we can’t help acting like crazed weasels in heat. The claim that the Church should permit remarriage if a spouse has been unfaithful is a rejection of the Church belief that if a marriage is valid, the Church cannot remarry a person already married. If the Church refuses to sanction homosexual “marriage” it is because she believes God has forbade homosexual acts.  If she condemns abortion as evil, it is not because she wants to control women.  It is because she believes the unborn child is a living human person.

All the appeals to emotion one wants to dredge up are irrelevant.  If God has commanded certain things are intrinsically evil (always wrong) then the Church may not make changes with them.

In all of these cases, we see the insistence that the Church act in defiance to what she believes God commands. This is not calling on the Church to become “more like Christ.” It is (willed or not) the non servium of the Devil saying “I reject the value you insist on!”

“But… God wants me to be happy!”

This is another argument which is thrown around, which makes God into a fuzzy Santa Claus. God desires us to be happy yes. However He knows that not all things we desire will make us happy in the light of the fact we possess an immortal soul. We were made for eternity with God. We were also made with free will. Because of this, we have the ability, but not the right, to behave in a way contrary to what He decrees.

Temporary happiness which will lead to separation from God for eternity is not something God wants for us.  God is good, and there is no evil or imperfection in Him. We, on the other hand, are imperfect and sometimes desire worthless or harmful things with the thinking it is a good thing. The wicked things will not bring us closer to God, regardless of whether it “feels” right or not. How many times have we seen children want what is harmful for them? They think the parent is “mean” because he or she will not indulge the child. However, sometimes the parent must refuse the child something which will not be good for the child.

Sometimes God must command we do not do a certain thing, much as we might want to. The Church, believing what Christ says about “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” must be faithful to what she believes God commands.

Misunderstanding what the Church Teaches

Not all dissent is born of defiance. Some is born out of ignorance. There are many times when a person does not understand why the Church holds a thing and thus claims what the Church does must be wrong. While the motive might be less willful, it does not excuse the person for rejecting what the Church holds.

GK Chesterton once wrote, in the article "The Drift from Domesticity" found in the book Brave New Family (Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53):

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This is an excellent point. “Reform for the sake of reform” is foolish. Before one can make a change, one must remember that one needs to understand the intent of the original position. Otherwise the result is “unintended consequences” and the like.

This is the difference between Vatican II and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” In Vatican II, the Church understood that there were some important beliefs of the Church being smothered in an attitude of clericalism (“let the priests do it”) and laity wrongly elevating certain customs to the level of dogma. In the “Spirit of Vatican II” we had some clergy and laity say, “I don’t see the sense of this… let’s get rid of it.”

However, before putting oneself in opposition to a Church teaching, one is obligated to find out what the Church teaches and why.

If one has a problem, one has to see why such a rule was made, rather than employing the "argument from silence" fallacy and assuming that because one does not know the reason for a rule it must be arbitrary.

By all means ask for help in seeking understanding.  But recognize the possibility of error in your own a priori assumptions as well.  If the Church is given the authority to bind and to loose and the Church is protected from teaching error (Look up Humani Generis #21: This is not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements), then the person who disagrees with the Church needs to ask whether the disagreement stems from the Church being fundamentally wrong or whether it stems from the individual being fundamentally wrong.

A Personal Example of Not Knowing Why

Here's a personal example.  Back in the late 1990s I was doing a paper on Charles Curran.  One of his arguments against the Church position on contraception was that because the Church position on money lending had changed, the position on contraception could be changed as well.  I couldn't find an answer to this question, though it sounded wrong.  For about seven years I could not find an answer to this quandary.

In the end I did find the answer.  Curran was making a fallacy of false analogy and misrepresenting what the Church had done.  The Church always condemned usury.  However, in the Middle Ages where wages were set by law, it was essentially impossible for a person to get out of debt.  Later when the structure of economics shifted from feudalism, it became possible for a person to improve their social standing and become wealthier.

Usury was condemned in both cases.  However, in Feudalism, any money lending was usury because it was impossible to pay back any interest.  Later, it was possible to pay back reasonable amounts of interest.  So there was not a change in doctrine.  Just a change in what was possible to pay back.

If I had relied on my own beliefs as being infallible, I might have felt I had to leave the Church.  Instead, I trusted the Church and, in time, learned why she did as she did.

The Fork In the Road: WHAT Do You Believe about the Church?

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.  (Joshua 24:15).

I don’t want people to misinterpret these next sections. I am not saying “Love it or leave it!” (Indeed I am praying the reader in this situation will not leave her). Rather I am appealing to all Catholics to recall what they are called to believe about the authority Christ gave His Church.

However, for all people who dissent from what the Church believes on certain moral issues, they must go back to the underlying fundamental principle:

We believe that the authority which the Church possesses comes from Christ Himself and cannot be used in defiance of what He wills. We believe that the obedience of the Church is required by God (see Matthew 18:17)

Aut verus Ecclesia aut diabolical (Either the true Church or Diabolical)

[Yes I did this through machine translation. Latin purists may have a better way to translate this. Feel free to suggest a correction].

So here is the fork in the road. So here is what the dissenter must ask: Do you believe the Catholic Church, under the headship of the Pope, has the authority to teach in God’s name and is protected from error in doing so?

Do you believe this or do you not?

If the answer is yes, then logically one must consider the possibility of being in error himself. If the answer is no, then the question is Why remain in a body you think is false?  To borrow from Joshua 24:15 above, if you will not accept the notion that the Catholic Church teaches through the authority of Christ, it is time to ask who does.

Anti-Catholics are, in this respect closer to the truth than the Cafeteria Catholic. Does this statement shock you?  They at least recognize that if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be then she is making a diabolical claim, even though they err in their conclusion.

However, if you believe the Catholic Church is wrong (or, in the case of Cafeteria Catholics, wrong in "some parts") then YOU must be prepared to justify the authority YOU invoke. I’m not a fan of ipse dixit.

The Problem of appealing to personal Mysticism over the Church: It starts in “Mist,” centers on “I” and ends in “schism.”

Ultimately most acts of dissent against the Church, most acts of refusing to accept the authority on an area is based on a form of focusing on the self. If I want it, it means God wants it. So if I want to marry another man, if I want to contracept or abort, if I want to divorce and remarry… then obviously God must want it too!

Such a view ignores the fact that we are tainted with original sin. As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:15, “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” We can, at times, do what is wrong and we can, at times, delude ourselves into thinking that we want is right. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has wrote:

It is strange that some theologians have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience. (On Conscience, 3)

If we have a weak and relativistic view of morality (the "mist") which centers on the self (the "I") the end result is usually a de facto schism even if one insists they are a perfectly good Catholic "where it matters."

Thus even if it "feels right" it does not mean it is right.

Conscience Must Be Formed

Conscience is not an infallible guide.  It must be trained.  A person living in a place which has never known Christ, might have a deformed conscience.  Vatican II has spoken on this, saying, in Gaudium et spes:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. (9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. (Emphasis added)

If we do not even look for what is right, we cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgment.  Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between invincible and vincible ignorance:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

Conclusion

So we are back at the crossroads.  Either the Church is what she claims to be or she is not.  If what she claims is true, then obviously, to do the work of God, one must do so in obedience to what the Church binds and looses.  If she is not, then it is senseless to demand the Church "change" when her teachings are based on an authority which one rejects as false.

However, one should remember the words of Christ as well in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

^8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

^9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

^These are not the words of a fuzzy, lax God.

^