"DIVORCE IN ST. MATTHEW'S"

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the case of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
It poured rain that February evening in Mede and I was staying at the Locanda Italia. During the afternoon I wandered aimlessly around Mede and I bought a clock for the creative competition organised by the school; a clock, awarded as first prize by the City Council which sponsored the event and that by the way was never paid for.
"Try applying to the mayor…", "Come over and we'll discuss it, come to my office at 10 o'clock Monday". Discuss what? These are people who administer public assets, handling budgets of billions of lire, and won't pay for a clock purchased by the teacher who organises a creativity competition in favour of UNICEF. This also is Italy today.
But let's get back to my rainy afternoon. After returning to the hotel and a long, relaxing shower, I lay down on the bed in my tiny room and turned on the TV; there was nothing interesting on. I picked up my briefcase and had a look at what was inside: this and that, but also something that I never leave at home, the Gospel. I know of no other book that you can read and reread forever without ever getting tired of it.
It was a small blue book published by the Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, by the Compagnia San Paolo, with a preface by Cardinal Schuster, printed in 1926. I had found it in the drawer of an old commode in my house in Pieve Porto Morone. I was like thunderstruck, in particular by that phrase: "saving for the case of fornication". Adultery is committed by anyone who divorces his wife and marries another. But if someone asks for a divorce from the spouse that betrayed them and marries again, adultery is not committed! So why doesn't the Church allow divorce in this case?
A heap of thoughts began to pile up in my mind. I decided to read up some more and to take it carefully. I discussed it with a colleague who taught religion, Prof. Sturla, who brought me a Gospel with a different translation, instead of saying "wife" it said "woman", and instead of "saving for the case of fornication" it said "saving for the case of concubinage". In this way the only exception concerning the possibility of dissolving the bond of marriage was eliminated, because dissolution of a relationship based on concubinage does not necessarily involve divorce. I still wasn't convinced by the translation, however. To translate the Latin fornicationem or the Greek porneia with concubinage and Latin uxorem with woman seemed to force the meaning of the text: it was obviously translated intentionally that way, thus not respecting the original text. I decided in any case to let the matter settle, as I realised the delicacy of the problem. I discussed it with Don Pietro, the parish priest of Casoni di Pieve Porto Morone, who gave me some texts to consult, including "The Life of Jesus Christ" by Giuseppe Ricciotti. Ricciotti, when discussing this controversial point, states "Matthew, with his particular difficulty, seems to have best preserved the meaning of Jesus' words" (Par. 480, page 570 ), then later continues, "Note that the Pharisees asked Jesus - If it is fair to send away one's wife for whatever reason - referring without a doubt to Hebrew divorce; Jesus replied by declaring that such sending away was fair only in the case of fornication (adultery) by the woman". Further down he however adds, "Jesus therefore has accepted not divorce, but separation. But did the Jews distinguish between divorce and separation?". Sure, I say, Mr. Ricciotti gets out of trouble by inserting this subtle distinction between divorce and separation, a complete invention.
Jesus said that if a man leaves his wife and takes another, he commits adultery, saving the case of fornication. That's the way it's written. Jesus showed the way by following the logic of justice and love, but it is up to us to understand his meaning. Because love, the love that unites man and woman until they become one flesh can also end when another enters that flesh. This is not purely a material question, of just bodies.
I believe that one is a saint in one's own body before the soul. A holy body does not commit sin because it does not feel its desire, or rather it does not send the mind signals and stimuli that can upset it. I believe that the soul is inextricably linked to the complete being of man, which included mind and body, senses and intellect. Is there someone out there preparing a stake to burn me against? Man should not keep together what God has divided. In this case I refer not to adultery, which is certainly not inspired by God, but to its victim. That the Lord, according to the words of Jesus, dissolves the bond with the companion who has betrayed, and leaves the other free to remarry. And the other one, the traitor, the adulterer? Jesus said: go and sin no more. Even the adulterer, he or she, can find the road to inner peace and real love again. Often people who are alone, betrayed, without any prospect of living a new period of happiness and love end up the prey of crows, living relations of non-love, sordid physical bonds, if not even ones of clear interest. And the offspring? Anyone who loves sincerely a man or a woman cannot but love also their offspring. This message is addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and is a heart-felt appeal to reconsider the position of those who have divorced or have separated because of adultery by the spouse and live this dramatic situation without being able to recreate a family. I do not ask for reforms or innovation, just respect for what the Gospel itself states. In the poverty of affection, the extreme discomfort of the lonely and outcast there is a poverty that is often greater than that caused by the lack of material goods. It is the lack of love, a void that can at times make life even inhuman.

[back] [music] [arts] [poems] [writings] [home] [profile] [contact]