Jesus made the ban on divorce an iron law.  He said that God only intended one man and one woman for life.  Commonsense says a new marriage is not adultery if the first marriage has irretrievably broken down.  If it is adultery it is a tolerable form.  But he slammed it as adultery in the sense of something grossly immoral.  Paul remarkably gave the same teaching.  But there is a small but. 

The Bible in Paul's 1 Corinthians 7 allows pagans who are married but who subsequently converted to Christianity to divorce their pagan spouse if both husband and wife consent. But remarriage is not mentioned so we don’t know if God allowed divorce for the sake of legally separating the couple or to end the marriage in his sight. It is commonly believed that Paul meant separation more than divorce. Because these rules were made by Paul, the Roman Church has created the Pauline Privilege.

In the Roman Church, the Pauline Privilege allows you to remarry somebody different if you became a Catholic after you contracted a marriage with a non-Christian and were a non-Christian yourself at the time and you could not live in peace together. So if a member of a Hindu married couple converts to Catholicism and wants a new wife or husband they can go and get one with the blessing of the Church. The rule was supposedly made by Paul in the Bible, the apostle of Jesus.
Paul wrote that marriage can’t be put asunder. Yet he tells the separating mixed couple to put theirs asunder if they wish. Does that mean that he considers it right and possible to terminate the marriage by divorce? He says that the believer is not under bondage, the bond of marriage. But still none of this proves that he considered the union dissoluble. He could have meant by "put asunder" the married couple parting but staying married. Under bondage could mean staying in the marriage to a person you don’t want. The Catholic Church allows remarriage in such cases and that makes a mockery of everything it says against divorce. The Bible shows its true regard for marriage by failing to caution that they can part but ONLY for serious pressing reasons!!
If divorce is allowable in the Roman Catholic Pauline Privilege scenario with mutual consent then divorce, if it is allowed under different conditions as well, must be forbidden if one partner forbids it.
The Petrine Privilege is similar to the Pauline except there is no Biblical support and except that it entitles you to a new marriage if you were already a Christian when you got married and if your husband is a Muslim or a pagan or a Jew or any kind of non-Christian and you feel you would live your faith better by getting out of the marriage. Such is the sectarianism of the Catholic Church that it holds that a sacramental marriage can only take place between two people baptised according to the requirements of the Church and a sacramental marriage can never be dissolved. The other marriages can for they are non-sacramental.

Jesus locked young underage girls into marriage by prohibiting divorce even for females.  This was a man who did not accept that a sacramental marriage was the unbreakable form.  All marriage was.  There was no sacrament then. And even if there were, by no sane standard, could you validate a marriage involving a child forced into an arranged union.  The Petrine and Pauline ideas are just based on hate for the unbaptised.


No Copyright