Reformers and Divorce

[arapahoepark]

I recently found out that some of the reformers allowed divorce for more than two grounds, many of which sound eerily like today's irreconcilable differences. Among them were Bucer and Bullinger.
How did the reformers ans their heirs work and sift through all of this? Do you think that some of them overracted to Rome?
What do you think of this quote: " The Strasbourg Reformer, Martin Bucer, declared that no proper marriage exists where affection is not regularly shared and where all conversation has ceased"?

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Trent,

To my knowledge, I haven't seen a full translation of De Regno Christi, to which I'll assume the above author is referring. Milton's work has often been taken at face value, but there are certainly reasons to research this further. I've studied more Reformation history than Bucer, but he might better be understand as formulating a view more practical than the extremes of clerical celibacy. Hopefully someone more studied on the matter responds.

When I have some time in 2 or 3 weeks, I will try to find a full translation of his work. My initial reaction would be that I would not use that quote to suggest that Bucer supported divorce, but rather recognized that the marriage was working improperly or not as it should, in those conditions. Assuming the author is paraphrasing a primary source somewhere toward the end of the quote, the most important part would be what follows that sentence.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

For clarity, the "I've studied more Reformation history than Bucer" is not suggesting that I know more about the reformation than Bucer did, but that I have only dealt with Bucer's writings and context a few times in my own research.

 

[arapahoepark]

For clarity, the "I've studied more Reformation history than Bucer" is not suggesting that I know more about the reformation than Bucer did, but that I have only dealt with Bucer's writings and context a few times in my own research.

I understood what you meant. Hahaha.

 

[py3ak]

I would imagine that Herman Selderhuis' work would prove illuminating:

https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Divorce-Thought-Sixteenth-Century/dp/094354968X

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

From Barbara Pitkin's review of Selderhuis:

"Hence, in theory, Bucer is willing to permit divorce (and remarriage) in almost any instance in which spousal companionship has been undermined: not just for adultery, impotence, and abandonment but also when one partner is chronically insane, ill with a life-threatening or incurable contagious disease (such as leprosy), imprisoned, banished for heresy, or is overly abusive. In such cases, divorce frees the "innocent" party to form a new union that aims toward mutual love and service, although in the case of illness the healthy partner is still responsible for the care of his or her former spouse. Bucer thus has high standards for the marital relationship as a bond of love, fellowship, and, above all, service. Far from recommending divorce for frivolous reasons, he insists that each case of marital difficulty be considered individually and that whenever possible divorce be avoided. But in situations in which God in principle has broken up a marriage by, for example, allowing one partner to become chronically ill, it is essential for the magistrates to dissolve the union."

Bucer is clearly responding to canon law and clerical celibacy. I've ordered it to assess any nuances in his position.

 

[arapahoepark]

From Barbara Pitkin's review of Selderhuis:

"Hence, in theory, Bucer is willing to permit divorce (and remarriage) in almost any instance in which spousal companionship has been undermined: not just for adultery, impotence, and abandonment but also when one partner is chronically insane, ill with a life-threatening or incurable contagious disease (such as leprosy), imprisoned, banished for heresy, or is overly abusive. In such cases, divorce frees the "innocent" party to form a new union that aims toward mutual love and service, although in the case of illness the healthy partner is still responsible for the care of his or her former spouse. Bucer thus has high standards for the marital relationship as a bond of love, fellowship, and, above all, service. Far from recommending divorce for frivolous reasons, he insists that each case of marital difficulty be considered individually and that whenever possible divorce be avoided. But in situations in which God in principle has broken up a marriage by, for example, allowing one partner to become chronically ill, it is essential for the magistrates to dissolve the union."

Bucer is clearly responding to canon law and clerical celibacy. I've ordered it too assess any nuances in his position.

That paragraph seems frought with difficulties as to how some of the ideas for divorce are not 'frivolous' if it is supposed to be above all about service.

Would you say he and some of the other reformers got on wrong on this count? Reading the relevant passages on divorce I just cannot help but conclude that those 5-6 grounds of divorce are not Biblical (adultery and desertion aside).

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Great question, Trent. Those were odd times. Different regions responded to a variety of issues. Authority, clerical reform, liturgical issues, sacraments, and others occupied the attention different reformers. Bucer seems to have dealt with the marriage/divorce question for personal and public reasons. It is possible that many of the unbiblical ones were expressions of desertions/abandonment for Bucer.