Divorce?

I was recently placed in the rather uncomfortable position of having to defend some of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church.  I’m afraid I didn’t do a very good job of it.  I am not, and never have been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but I have some understanding of their doctrine; sometimes I think I understand the doctrine better than most Romans I know.  There are many things in their doctrine that I don’t agree with; don’t misunderstand me, I know that there are many good people in the Roman Catholic Church, but I have doctrinal issues with that denomination.

One of my co-workers was griping that a Roman Catholic priest advised her to get a divorce.  Don’t misunderstand, she wanted the divorce; she just felt that the advice was contrary to the doctrine that this priest was supposed to be upholding.  I asked her if she was Catholic; she is.  I asked if her husband was Catholic; he was not.  Well, now I understand the priest’s position.  I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand.  I tried to explain that little “loophole,” and, in retrospect, I realize that I shouldn’t have used the term loophole.  I should have just asked her if she would have taken offense if the priest had advised her to “stop living in sin.”  I feel reasonably certain that her response would have been something to the effect that she wasn’t living in sin, and I would have agreed with her on that point.  I was able to successfully point out to her that “The Church” did not recognize her marriage, since her husband did not share her faith. 

I can understand religions teaching that inter-faith relationships are wrong, or at the very least, a very bad idea.  If nothing else, think of the children; the offspring from a Catholic-Baptist coupling are going to have a hard time finding acceptance in either church (the fact that the children should not be blamed for their parents’ decision notwithstanding); children from a Jewish-Hindu marriage even more so.  It can also lead to a great deal of confusion and emotional turmoil in the children’s upbringing; what is a child to do when daddy’s church teaches that mommy’s church is wrong, and mommy’s church teaches that anyone who attends daddy’s church is a vile sinner (and don’t try to tell me that it doesn’t happen)?

So, the upshot of all of this is, that, since the Catholic Church did not recognize her marriage, as far as that priest was concerned, her marriage was, in effect, “living in sin.”  So her “divorce” was nothing of the kind; it was an act of penance.  In the eyes of our government, she was married, and she got divorced.  In the eyes of her church, she was living in sin, but she repented, and went through the necessary formalities so that the state would no longer recognize the marriage that “The Church” never acknowledged.

Now, to my mind, the proper religious viewpoint should have been to attempt to proselytize the unbelieving husband, which may have been impossible, but, failing that, to continue the relationship, unless the husband decided that he wanted to end it, or he became abusive or unfaithful to her.  In 1 Corinthians 7, Apostle Paul talks at some length about the faithful wife (or husband) sanctifying the unbelieving spouse, and also that if the unbelieving spouse chooses to end the relationship, the believer is not bound to that person.  I understand that there are sometimes circumstances that require a separation.  I don’t think Paul was advocating that a wife stay in a relationship where her physical well-being was being threatened, whether by violence or by sexually-transmitted diseases that her husband could potentially be bringing home, but, for the most part, if you find yourself in a marriage with someone who doesn’t share your faith, you should expend every effort to try to make that marriage work.