There is no doubt but that Jesus opposed divorce in his own day. He was critical of the Mosaic Law which permitted a man to divorce his wife on the most flimsy of pretexts. For example a man could divorce his wife if she over-cooked his meal. In other words, the woman could be legally abandoned at the whim of her husband, according to the Mosaic Law. Jesus vehemently opposed this practice and he lost no opportunity to condemn it.
Jesus strongly advocated the ideal of monogamy, one man, one wife. This is clearly a religious or theological position. Whether that position should be enshrined in the law of the land in another matter entirely and of course is was debated hotly in this country at the time of the Divorce Referendum. It is over simplistic to say that, because Jesus said that that divorce was against the law of God, therefore it should be against the law of the land also. If we were to follow this to its logical conclusion, it should also be against the law of the land to call our brother a fool. Jesus condemned this practice every bit as vehemently as he condemned divorce.
Having said that, there is a lot of confusion in people's minds about marriage today, or indeed about any calling in life which we at one time called 'vocation'. Over the last thirty years there has been a massive change in our approach to relationships, to sexuality, and of course to marriage itself. The whole notion of commitment is viewed with scepticism. Obviously, it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of divorce without reference to those closely related areas. Few young people, who have been brought up in traditional believing and practicing Catholic homes, are no longer observing approved religious practice or sexual behaviour. I know it is a frequent source of puzzlement and stress to parents of my own generation for example. Where have we gone wrong, parents ask? We seem to have severed the unbroken chain of faith and religious practice handed down by successive generations.
And it is not that the young are less moral than we were. But they have a very different understanding of morality, and they see the world very differently. In some areas they are far more conscientious than we were. Admittedly, in matters sexual, they have a far more relaxed approach. Pre-marital sex and living together for engaged couples is seen as perfectly normal and sensible. In fact the alternative would be regarded as risky. The main debate among couples who cohabit is not about the morality of the situation, but about tax, custody and inheritance implications. The moral theologian Maurice Reidy has made the following comment:"What we are witnessing today is something like a massive revolution in our understanding of human sexuality, that is where a whole perspective which has been taken for granted for centuries suddenly collapses and a new angle is revealed."This Christian teaching on faithfulness is an optimistic and elevating one. It is based on the belief that men and women are capable of being faithful to each other, of standing steadfastly by each other for life. In an age when everything we have is expendable and disposable, the Christian gospel points to one constant: the human being is never disposable or expendable. The human being is capable of cherishing, and being cherished forever.
Yet experience teaches us that things can go terribly wrong for couples, even those with the best will in the world. People make mistakes; infidelities do happen. Hurt does appear on the agenda. Couples do become victims and oppressors. Endless silences do happen. Marriages do collapse. There are legions of casualties to prove this, the walking wounded of broken marriages. It is becoming more common. Nevertheless, the Church must submit to the vision of Jesus, and that vision must remain the norm for her members. Because we believe that marriage is a sacrament, we refuse to reduce it to a casual experiment between two adventurous people. Nevertheless, we must recognise that the ideal will prove elusive for a lot of people. And they too are part of God's plan.
Home