It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce. But in other places, divorce is allowed. How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this? Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture? I'm seeking the exegesis of [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical). If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.

I read in the *Wikipedia* article on the [Indissolubility of Marriage in the Catholic church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Catholic_Church#Indissolubility) that: > a natural marriage, **even if consummated, can be dissolved** by the Church when to do so **favours the maintenance of the faith on the part of a Christian**, cases of what has been called [Pauline privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege) and [Petrine privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_privilege) . In these cases, which require intervention by the [Holy See](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See) , the Church admits real divorce, the actual dissolution of a valid marriage, as distinct from the granting by merely human power of a divorce that, according to Catholic theology, does not really dissolve the marriage bond. Reading the linked articles on Pauline and Petrine privilege, a big condition is whether either party was correctly baptized at the time the marriage was validly contracted. But what if one spouse became so opposed to the other's practice of the Catholic faith, let's say due to acting on some fundamentalistic Protestant tenet that calls a Catholic to be a non-Christian? How about when one spouse renounced his/her Christian faith altogether and became a hindrance to the Catholic spouse's practice of Catholicism? **Are there any conditions where a consumated marriage between two validly baptized Christians (one of them Catholic) can be dissolved?** For the sake of this question, the marriage was registered in the parish of the Catholic party as a sacramental marriage.

My sister was married by a Justice of the Peace; but, is now divorced. I would like her to be my daughter's Godmother when we have her Baptized in a few months. Is that allowed?

There are some who take Matthew 5:28 where Christ speaks of adultery of the heart as true physical adultery and thus grounds for divorce. I think this is a heart issue as noted in the context of the entire 5th chapter. Clearly lusting after a woman is a sin yet does it rise to the level of true physical adultery which may be grounds for New Testament divorce. I am looking for input on this issue. “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭28‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/mat.5.28.NIV

According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin? Does it make a difference if that person was the victim of marital infidelity? If there are significant differences between Pentecostal denominations, please give an overview of their different stances.

Which denominations interpret these verses as *not* permitting divorce in the case of adultery, for those in a valid marriage? >St. Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **excepting the cause of fornication (*porneia*)**, maketh her to commit adultery. And he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. >St. Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **but for fornication (*porneia*)**, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. For example, the Catholic Church calls these "exceptive clauses ." In other words: fornication does not make a marriage.
It also seems these exceptive clauses could refer to "diriment impediments ," which prevent there from ever being a marriage in the first place; examples of diriment impediments being incest, perpetual impotence, vow of chastity/celibacy, etc.). Note: I am not asking about the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, as this question here does , but which denomination(s) interpret those verses similarly to the way the Catholic Church does.

A prenuptial agreement typically outlines what happens in the event a marriage ends in divorce or some other dissolution of the marriage. This at first appears to be at odds with the idea of a Catholic marriage being two people vowing to be married "till death do us part" (i.e. they are still married even if they are civilly divorced). Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? I'm particularly wondering if a prenuptial agreement would be used as grounds for annulment, since it might suggest that they weren't serious about their marriage vows.

Does the imposition of legal sanctions by the Catholic Church on divorced individuals who have remarried carry actual spiritual consequences in the context of their relationship with God, or is it rather an expression of church discipline that can be questioned and circumvented without impacting the spiritual salvation of these individuals?

I have 3 questions to Jehovah's Witnesses about how they view marriage/divorce: 1. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow a person to divorce and marry someone else? 2. If it is allowed only in some cases, what cases are those? 3. Will a congregation member get excommunicated if they divorce and marry someone else, or are there other consequences?

My father dodged the Vietnam War and we later found his whereabouts to be in New Zealand. My mother tried to get an annulment but was denied. She divorced for abandonment and said she was excommunicated. She must have told me this 50 times as it hurt her tremendously. She "secretly" attended and remained personally devout. Her second marriage was to a Protestant so I don't know if that played a part. My sister-in-law doesn't believe what my mom told me and thinks you can only get excommunicated if you committed a horrendous crime in a sane mind. Back in 1967, I think the Church was more cut & dry / strict, when it came to divorce. I know my mom had 'shopped' many other religions to appease her spiritually and for the need of community, to no avail. She was Catholic and there was nothing else! Please clarify this for me.

**My previous questions were kind of wrong**: - [Why is it harder for Filipino Catholics to get a church annulment?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66154/why-is-it-harder-for-filipino-catholics-to-get-a-church-annulment) - [Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di) - [Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64089/why-is-it-not-that-a-state-divorce-is-actually-an-argument-against-a-church-annu) **Why they were kind of wrong**: - I supposed that in both cases, namely the case for Filipino Catholics and the case for German Catholics, where both church marriages were of course invalid, that both of the state marriages were invalid as well, and then I asked about the financial aspect of state annulments which supposedly cost more than state divorces. - I believe I should have been asking about what would happen if while both church marriages were invalid, both state were marriages were valid. **Let me start over**: --- Case 1: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, and my state marriage is invalid too. - Then I could get a state annulment or state divorce and then, if successful in either, I could start church annulment proceedings. Case 2: Suppose I am Catholic, my church marriage is invalid, but my state marriage is valid, a common occurrence by this . - By this , it seems I would have to first get a state divorce before I start a church annulment. (*) Case 2.1: (*) is wrong to think that I would have to first get a state divorce because a state separation is an alternative requirement to a state divorce. - Therefore, in countries that have no state divorce (THERE'S ONLY ONE: THE PHILIPPINES), there's no issue because those countries (THE PHILIPPINES) have state separation. Case 2.2: (*) is right, so a state separation does not satisfy the necessary requirement to begin a church annulment in the way that a state divorce or state annulment does. - Before, I ask the question, let me recap to say that there is no issue in Case 1 and Case 2.1. Then, the following question is on Case 2.2. Of course, if Case 2.2 is wrong and Case 2.1 is right, then please just say so and cite a source. > **Now the Question**: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid? **Let me be concrete with examples**: Let Jack and Jill be a Catholic couple married in the Philippines, and let Romeo and Juliet be a Catholic couple married in Germany. Suppose both couples have *valid* state marriages but *invalid* church marriages. Then neither can get a state annulment to start a church annulment petition. - Romeo and Juliet don't care because they can get a state divorce and then start a church annulment petition. - However, this is a nightmare for Jack and Jill, both of whom hope to remarry (well, actually 'marry' because they were never validly 'married' in the first place) outside the Philippines and both of whom are already living separately outside the Philippines. From the church's point of view, it's okay for Jack and Jill to remarry, but bound by the Philippine state's laws, Jack and Jill cannot begin a Philippine Catholic Church annulment petition. And yet 1. This is supposedly a very common occurrence easily remedies by the possibility of state divorce. 2. The impossibility of state divorce is one that the Catholic Church is in favour of throughout the world, in particular, the Philippines. 3. By the 2 statements above, if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment, then it seems the Catholic Church is self-contradictory: The Catholic Church's desire to not have state divorce in the world, in particular, the Philippines, is hindering the invalidly church married Filipino Catholics from getting an annulment, effectively penalising Filipino Catholics because the Philippines is doing what the Church wants. I believe ecclesiastical judicial economy does not apply because these kinds of situations, namely when a church marriage is invalid while a state marriage is valid is common (If it's common around the world, I don't see how it's less common in the Philippines). - **Let me clarify**: 1. The Church wants the Philippines to continue to not have state divorce. 2. The Church would want its invalidly church married Filipino Catholics Jack and Jill to have annulments, even if Jack and Jill have valid state marriages. 3. The above statements seem to contradict if state separation does not substitute for the requirement of state divorce or state annulment. How they do not contradict is the answer to the question. # **The following is how I imagine things**: The Church: 'Wow, the situation you described is indeed a church invalid marriage that you beyond reasonable doubt and not merely beyond balance of probabilities . Fine, just get a state divorce and then we can start a church annulment.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, we live in the Philippines.' The Church: 'Oh, that country's great! Predominantly Roman Catholic, has no divorce, has great beaches and food, etc. Cool people. Cool country. It's more fun in the Philippines . Anyway, just get a state annulment then.' Jack and Jill: 'Um, our state marriage is valid.' The Church: 'Wait, your state marriage is valid, but your church marriage is invalid ?' Jack and Jill: 'Well yeah, based on the situation we just described to you.' The Church: 'Hmmm...I don't know. Can you prove it beyond reasonable doubt?' Jack and Jill: 'You just said we did.' The Church: 'Oh right. Then get a state separation.' Jack and Jill: 'Oh, a state separation substitutes for a state annulment or state divorce and is not "an abomination of the moral order "?' The Church: '_ _ [so what's the answer?] _ _'

For convenience, assume that this also applies with the male/female roles reversed: > But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. — [Matthew 5:32](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/mat/5/32/s_934032) How would those denominations that forbid remarriage under these circumstances consider the following situation: - A chaste (sex only within marriage) couple divorces. - The one that forced the divorce marries someone else (thereby committing adultery). - Later, the other wants to marry someone. Would the second person's re-marriage be allowed, as technically the divorced spouse *has* committed adultery.

I was married in the Catholic Church but I am divorced now. I did not get a annulment. The priest said I could not be a godmother, but I have my doubts. Am I able to be a godmother at the baptism of my niece that I have custody of?

Matthew 1:19 > Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not > want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to **divorce her > quietly**. In these modern days, in my country, something about "secret/quiet" in a marriage - for example like this : - A. A couple already engaged. Because of something, the man ---after considering--- finally decided to cancel the marriage. But in order not to expose the woman to public disgrace, the man still do the marriage ceremony, living together in a same house, but the "husband" don't do sex at all with his "wife". It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are married couple as the normal husband and wife. - B. A married couple. Because of something, the husband ---after considering--- finally decided to divorce his wife. But in order not to expose the wife to public disgrace, they still live together in the same house, but the husband don't do sex anymore with his wife. It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are still a married couple. The "considering" from the man then indirectly is also about to have sex with the woman or not to have sex with the woman. So, in general ... a "secret/quite divorce" in my country is also about there is no sex between the couple besides other things. But still to public, the couple is a husband and wife. Since I don't know the custom in Israel let alone during Joseph & Mary times, that's why I wonder what kind of a situation is a "secret/quite divorce" in those days ?

The Anglican Church (AKA The Church of England) was founded in 1543, and still remains the primary denomination in England, and has made many important contributions, such as the King James Version of the Bible. However, the circumstances of its founding appear questionable. King Henry VIII wished to divorce Catherine of Aragon due to her "inability" to produce a son (even though the gender is primarily determined by the male). Upon the Catholic Church denying the divorce, he kicked out the Church and created a similar one with him as the head. Under these circumstances, how can the COE defend themselves as legitimate, when their founder only created the denomination for purposes of marital infidelity and divorce?

In the catholic doctrine, is it allowed to leave a marriage and become a monk or nun? Are there any magisterial documents that treat this topic? Edit: Are there any options e.g. for a specific application of the Pauline privilege? What about the cases like Nicholas of Flüe ?

[Matthew 19:9 (NIV)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A9&version=NIV) > I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual > immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. On a simple examination, it seems to imply that sexual immorality, for example, adultery, constitutes grounds for divorce. Yet this is not the Catholic interpretation. What is the Catholic explanation of this verse?

I was civilly married and then got divorced 2 years later. I am now civilly married again and would like to get married properly in church. The Dean of my diocese has asked me and my current wife to meet him next week to discuss my previous marriage which he says ''needs to be investigated''. If anyone has gone through this process, can you please tell me what all is included in this process and how long does it normally takes? He has called us with my previous civil marriage certificate and my divorce decree. I have informed him that the divorce happened before we could get married in church. Please can someone advice me. Thank you

Can a man who has divorced a couple of times get married again in a Catholic Church in accordance with the conventions and teachings of the church? I desire to ask primarily about the Catholic Church. PS: *This question refers to an ordinary man, not someone like a prime minister!*

**Note**: This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66164/how-do-filipino-catholics-get-a-church-annulment-when-their-state-marriage-is-va --- Apparently, state divorce is a necessary condition to begin a church annulment process. Why isn't a state divorce actually an argument **against** rather than a necessary condition for a church annulment petition? I mean, there are **reasons to get an annulment instead of divorce despite divorce being cheaper **. So, if your church marriage is invalid, as you want to petition, then why did you get a state divorce instead of a state annulment for your state marriage, **which I guess** was also invalid? Of course, answers may include: 1. Your state marriage is invalid, but the financial reasons for getting a state annulment instead of a state divorce weren't applicable to you. Hence, even though your state marriage is invalid, you chose the cheaper route of getting a state divorce instead of a state annulment. 2. Your state marriage is valid though your church marriage is still invalid. ---- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/63820/marriage-invalid-would-a-church-annulment-require-a-state-annulment-or-state-di **Update**: Would a state separation suffice in the place of a state annulment or state divorce? Case 1: The country has divorce. Case 2: The country is the Philippines.