My favourite comedy series of all time is that of Monty Python, and I am a huge fan of the movies. My personal favourite movie of all time is The Life of Brian. In The Meaning of Life, there is a scene that presents a very distorted (if very funny) understanding of Catholic sexual ethics:
Recently, Catholic apologist Trent Horn posted an informative (if somewhat PG-13 . . . ) episode of this Podcast, The Counsel of Trent which addresses Catholic sexual ethics. As this is a topic that Latter-day Saints, in my experience, tend to misinterpret when dialoguing with Catholics, I think some will find it informative:
On the related topic of divorce in Catholic tradition, the following from a recent book I read by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch was rather informative:
Since the dawn of creation, God designed marriage to be permanent, exclusive, and fruitful (Gen 1:28; 2:24; Mt 19:5). However, since man’s rebellion against God, the institution of marriage has suffered many distortions that tarnished its God-given beauty, Moses permitted divorce and remarriage as a concession to the sinfulness of Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 24:1-4). Even so, it was ultimately clear that divorce falls short of God’s will and plan for marriage couples (cf. Mal 2:16).
This leads to an important question: Does Jesus reaffirm the permission of divorce stipulated in Deut 24:1-4, or, rather, does he revoke this concession and announce the indissolubility of marriage for the New Covenant? The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage. The bond that unites a couple in the sacrament of matrimony is created by God (Mt 19:6) and can be dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses (cf. Rom 7:1-3). For men or women to remarry while their spouse is living is to commit adultery (Mt 19:9; Rom 7:3).
Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage is unfortunately a source of controversy among Christians. Much confusion swirls around his statement in Mt 19:9: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marriages another, commits adultery” (c. Mt 5:32). Does Jesus really make an “exception” to allow for divorce and remarriage? Since the rise of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, many non-Catholic groups have answered “yes”. They began to appeal to his “exception clause” to justify divorce and remarriage in extreme circumstances. However, this view fails to interpret Jesus’ statement in light of its immediate, biblical context. The disciples’ response to Jesus’ statement in divorce (“it is not expedient to marry” [19:11]) demonstrates that, in their understanding, Jesus was leaving no room at all for divorce and remarriage. In fact, they viewed celibacy as a preferable alternative to marriage precisely because Jesus’ teaching on this matter is so strict—far more so than that of any of his Jewish contemporaries. The disciples’ incredulous response to Jesus thus confirms the Catholic Church’s constant teaching on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.
The question, however, still remains: What did Jesus mean when he qualified his teaching on divorce with the phrase “except for unchastity” (19:9)? Three interpretive options have been offered in Catholic tradition to clarify the meaning of the “exception clause”. All of them reinforce the harmony between Jesus’ revolutionary teaching and the changing position of the Catholic Church:
1. Patristic View: Several Church Fathers suggest Jesus allowed for divorce in cases of serious sexual sin like adultery, but he never permitted remarriage. The spouses may separate in these circumstances by a legal arrangement of living apart, but they cannot break the marriage bond, and they are not to free to remarry. This view finds support by a consideration of the Greek word porneia, translated “unchastity”, in Mt 19:9. While the word has a broad range of meaning it can mean “adultery”, as in the Greek OT (also translated “harlotry”; Sir 23:23; Ezek 16;33; Hos 2;2). Thus, an adulterous situation may give cause for separation so long as the spouses do not embark upon a second marriage. This squares with St. Paul’s teaching that a separated couple has only two options: be reconciled to one another, or remain single (1 Cor 7:10-11).
2. Levitical Law View: This position interprets “unchastity” in Mt 19:9 as invalid marriages where the spouses are too closely related. Thus, “except for unchastity” (Mt 19:9) means “except where unlawful unions exist”. Such unions ought to be unlawful unions exist”. Such unions ought to be severed because of the impediment posed by near blood-relations. A divorce under these conditions does not sunder a true marriage bond because a valid marriage never existed. It is equivalent to an annulment. This view is supported by two NT instances where porneia refers to incest. In Acts 15:20, 29, the apostles charge Gentile Christians to abstain from blood and unchastity. The OT background for this decision in Lev 18:6-18 suggests unchastity refers to prohibited marriages between closely related kinsfolk. In1 Cor 5:1-2 (translated “immorality”), porneia clearly refers to an illicit union of a man and his father’s wife.
3. “No Comment” View: According to his position, Jesus sets aside Jewish debates over the grounds for divorce in the Old Covenant (Deut 24). Because Jesus is revoking the OT concession on divorce on divorce, be brackets the whole issue and sets it off to the side as irrelevant. Thus, “except for unchastity” (Mt 19:9) means “regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”. Jesus refuses even to comment on Deut 24:1. To do so would blunt the force of his own teaching, since he is not clarifying or reaffirming Moses’ permission, he is abolishing it.
Each of these views faithfully upholds Jesus’ prohibition against divorce and remarriage (cf. Mk 10:11, 12; Lk 16:18). He restores marriage to its original purity as a lifelong union of love and fidelity. Greater still, Jesus elevates marriage, transforming it into a New Covenant sacrament. Married couples are now called to be an image of Christ and his enduring love for the Church (Eph 5:21-33; cf. Rev 19:6-8). Through the sound principles of biblical interpretation and the guidance of tradition, the revolutionary standard of Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce is preserved intact in his Church. (Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew: With Introduction, Commentary, and Notes [2d ed.; The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000], 51)
