Skip to comments.Dennis Prager Divorcing
Posted on 12/30/2005 10:21:26 AM PST by onedoug
Deenis Prager on now discussing his own impending divorce....
If you are speaking from a Catholic perspective, then there are two problems with what you're saying. First of all, Prager is not Catholic, so he was never "in-communicated" in the first place.
Secondly, simply keeping your marriage together doesn't make one "good". "No one is righteous; no not one." So your interpretation of HitmanNY's comment is devoid of practical meaning. Dennis Prager is "good" in the same sense that any other person is "good" apart from Christ; that is, not at all.
And yet, even so, we make judgements all the time, and I think we should, about how "good" someone is in the sense of the relative value of the deeds they do. And in that sense, I'd say Dennis Prager is on the positive side; even though again, he is in no less need of God's intervention than I.
Read up on Jewish law and divorce.
I never said Jewish. I said only Church and was refering to the Christian Church (Catholic especially), but to be honest, I did not know he was Jewish until I read a few posts later AFTER I had already posted this one.
I know - Prager is Jewish, though, and speaks usually using the Judeo-Christian tradition as a basis.
I think the old Jewish law, in the broadest sense, makes a lot of sense when it comes to divorce. And by that I only mean recognizing the wisdom in no-fault divorce as the best, thought not perfect, practical approach to handling marriages that go sour.
Prager considers divorce a tragedy, but not a catastrophe. I'm inclinded to agree with that. It's an unfortunate fact of life that some people will be saddled with people who either are or develop into poor spouses.
Only a genuinely sick individual sees some sort of social value in forcing two people who can't stand each other to remain together. It makes no sense. Indeed, I have no idea why this idea is considered 'conservative' in any way, since there is nothing conservative about it.
And by the way, I wasn't being flippant. Please do read the jewish rules and law when it comes to divorce. I think it's basic framework presents a sensible approach to a problem that will always be with us.
In my case, it was not implicit; it was explicit ("Til death.") Besides, Catholics have classes to take beforehand which are supposed to explain what the vows are about in the context of married love. Our classes weren't much, in my opinion, but at least they conveyed a couple of key concepts like "exclusive," "faithful," "open to life," and "permanent."
You wrote: "I think as a practical matter, one spouse saying 'Get lost' is all it takes (and that does not necessaily have anything to do with the As you mention). How can a person be expected to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be with them, and at worse, wants to be with someone else?"
I would not live with such a person. However, even if separated, I would still in reality be married to him. That is to say, the bond created by the vow would still be there; I would not be free to marry anyone else. I would have to hope and pray for his repentance, and the restoration of our marriage.
That's what "vow" means. That's what my mother and father meant, when they married each other. I just checked it out with my husband a half an hour ago: that's what he meant, too.
The vow of 'till death do us part' is broken by the other person when they tell you to get lost. There's no moral obligation to honor that after that point (reciprocal promises and obligations and all that).
I guess we disagree on the practical aspect of all this.
It's hard to imagine God wanting one of his children to needlessly remain alone and miserable while their rotten spouse behaves as if the marriage didn't exist anymore. What makes you think he would want that? What social value does that advance?
Makes no sense.
Prager stated that, "God hates divorce", as if it were from Torah, which I don't think it is.
Torah however, does specifically endorse marriage - and "monogamous" marriage, by which I believe that many of those contemporaneous with Moses and after were in error by polygamy.....
But I diverge.
That God does specifically endorse marriage, would seem to suggest His unhappiness at marriage breaking apart. Though if it should, were that it were done, with the best interests of all parties - and particularly young children - at heart.
To answer the rabbinical Jesus' paraphrase, being a sinner I couldn't cast the first stone.
Thus I must take Prager at least at his initial word.
God's grace on one who's philosophy has likwise added so much to my own.
I think Jewish law considers divorce a tragedy, but not necessarily a disaster and not necessarily immoral.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: Straight
First time I've ever seen that in an ID but probably won't be the last.
It's unseemly business and a sad situation in almost every case.
It happens though and a culture should have a mechanism to address it.
As I have said many times, I have no idea why so many folks place such a high premium on forcing two people who can't stand each other to remain together. It's whacked.
Oh man. Prayers for Dennis and his family. His show is fantastic. I wish them all well.
God in the Old Testement specifically conveyed rules and procedures for divorce.
I hate to break the news to you.
The Pragers are far too long in the tooth for such foolishness.
Medved sounded embarrassed for them when someone just mentioned it on his show.
And what a downer to dump this on all of us going into celebrating New Year's.
You have a very practical perspective. There are times when meeting half way is not an option. The compromise, in your case for instance, is to say that you value the relationship over your dream of having four kids.
The emotional trick/self-discipline is not holding that against her later if things go through a rocky period. To give it up completely without any residual resentment. What it all comes down to is that a good marriage is a series of small, but important "little choices."
I come to it as a Christian and I agree with you to a huge extent. In my own life, I must decide daily that I value my relationship with my husband more than "getting my way" every time, or a million other little things. He does the same for me. That is the compromise.
In any case, good job, you've nailed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.