[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—In your article " the
Attitude of the Clergy to Divorce," it is stated, "the genuineness of this one text on'which in- dissolubility is based is open to doubt."
If I may say so you have the pig by the wrong ear. The indissolubility of marriage is based on two texts from the Gospel (St. Luke xvi. 1; St. Mark x. 2) also the three texts Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 10; and liph. v. 31, support this. This is strong evidence. On the other hand there are two texts, St. Matt. v. 31 and xix. 3, which speak of an exception; it is these two texts which are in doubt, possibly also 1 Cor. vii. 15, for two interpretations are possible : (1) Allows divorce in one instance, (2) allows separation but no more. The latter interpretation squares better with the other texts (given above) so bringing all into line.
What the Scriptures do not say is "a man having put away his wife for fornication is free to marry again." In this doubtful passage some say it is implied, others say no, because it conflicts with St. Luke xvi. 18. In countries _where morati are lax the Church has allowed the former interpretation to stand giving the benefit of the doubt, but it is nothing
Previous page
