Divorce and remarriage — Christianity

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 2, 2.6 (Christianity). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

An annulment is not a Catholic divorce, and getting that backwards inverts the doctrine. If a valid marriage genuinely cannot be ended, then the only question a church can ever ask is whether there was a valid marriage in the first place — which is why the process looks backwards at the wedding rather than forwards at the breakdown.

What it means

Three words have to be kept apart. Divorce is the legal ending of a valid marriage. Remarriage is marrying again afterwards. Annulment is a ruling that no valid marriage was ever formed, so there is nothing to dissolve — a tribunal examines consent, capacity and intention at the moment of the vows.

Indissolubility is the teaching that a valid, consummated marriage cannot be ended by human decision. Catholic teaching holds it, which is why the Catholic Church offers separation and annulment but not divorce, and why remarriage in church is not possible while the first spouse lives.

Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances and celebrates a second marriage with a penitential rite, under the principle of pastoral flexibility. Most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage, with practice varying by denomination and sometimes by minister.

What all of them share is worth stating first, because it stops the answer becoming a league table. Every tradition treats marriage as intended to be lifelong and divorce as a failure rather than a neutral option, and every tradition holds that somebody whose marriage has ended is not thereby excluded from the Church.

Why believers hold it

Everything follows from whether God is a party to the promise. If God joins the couple, the couple cannot unjoin themselves, and the bond survives the relationship's collapse — which is not cruelty but consistency. If the promise is a covenant they made, then they can break it, and that is a tragedy rather than an impossibility.

So annulment is not a loophole; it is what indissolubility requires. A church that genuinely cannot dissolve a valid marriage has only one question left available to it, and that question is about the past. Explaining why the process looks backwards is what shows understanding of the doctrine rather than of the procedure.

The textual disagreement is real too. The prohibition is read without exception in one gospel, and another records an exception for unchastity — so the traditions are not choosing between scripture and compassion but between two passages, and each has an account of the other.

The honest evaluation concedes on both sides. The strict position is coherent and its costs fall on the most vulnerable, particularly on somebody trapped in a marriage that is destroying them. The permissive position is kinder and it does weaken the promise, because a commitment that can be exited is a different commitment. Neither of those is a knock-down point.

Where it comes from

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 10:9 (and Mark 10:11) (translated)

  What God has joined together, let no one separate.

  Marriage as a union made by God, which grounds the Catholic position that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

  What it is doing here: Is the text the indissolubilist reading rests on, and reading it without exception is precisely what produces the annulment process.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  What it is doing here: Is what the pastoral traditions argue from when they hold that a rule costing somebody their community has stopped serving the person it was for.

Where it bites

It decides whether a divorced person can marry in a particular church and whether they may receive communion — practical consequences that fall on real people, and the reason the annulment tribunal exists at all.

It also shapes pastoral practice in a way that is worth noticing. The traditions with the strictest rules have often developed the most careful pastoral care, precisely because the rule bites and somebody has to help people living under it.

What people get wrong

People think: An annulment is a Catholic divorce.

Actually: It is the opposite. Divorce ends a valid marriage; an annulment finds that no valid marriage was formed. Calling it Catholic divorce inverts the doctrine, and examiner reports record candidates losing marks on exactly this ground.

People think: Christians believe divorce is always wrong.

Actually: That describes a minority. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances and most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage. Writing this misdescribes the majority of Christians and is named in reports as a recurring error.

People think: The traditions disagree because some take marriage more seriously than others.

Actually: They disagree about whether God is a party to the promise or a witness to it, and each reasons consistently from its own premise. All of them treat divorce as a failure, so the difference is about what can be done afterwards rather than about how much marriage matters.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Keep annulment, divorce and remarriage as three distinct things; conflating the first two inverts the doctrine and is specifically named in reports.
• Never write that Christians do not allow divorce, because that misdescribes Orthodox and most Protestant Christianity.
• Give the correct belief for the correct tradition; reports name incorrect attributions on this point directly as a cause of lost marks.
• For a statement that divorce is never acceptable, notice it is true of one tradition and false of most Christians, and say so — that IS the evaluation.
• The top-band move is explaining why the annulment process looks backwards rather than forwards, which shows the doctrine rather than the procedure.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

The specification names annulment, divorce and remarriage together, and the order matters: annulment is not Catholic divorce. Catholic teaching holds that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved, so an annulment is a finding that no valid marriage was ever formed. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances; most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage with regret. This is the sharpest denominational division on the specification and the one candidates most often get wrong.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Annulment

A ruling that a marriage was never validly formed — so there is nothing to dissolve. NOT Catholic divorce.

Divorce

The legal ending of a valid marriage.

Remarriage

Marrying again after a divorce — permitted by some traditions and not others.

Indissolubility

The teaching that a valid, consummated marriage cannot be ended by human decision.

Oikonomia

The Orthodox principle of pastoral flexibility, which permits a second marriage after a penitential rite.

What Christianity teaches

• shared — Marriage is intended to be lifelong, and divorce is always a failure rather than a neutral option.
• shared — A person whose marriage has ended is not thereby excluded from the Church, and pastoral care is owed to them.
• divided — Whether a valid marriage can be dissolved at all.
  • Roman Catholic — No. A valid consummated marriage is indissoluble; the Church may annul where no valid marriage was formed, and a civil divorce does not free either party to remarry in church.
  • Orthodox — Divorce is permitted in limited circumstances, and a second marriage is possible with a penitential rite — the principle of oikonomia.
  • Protestant — Divorce and remarriage are generally permitted, with regret; Matthew 19:9's exception clause is often cited.

Why it teaches this

Everything follows from whether God is a party to the promise. If God joins the couple, the parties cannot unjoin themselves and the bond survives the relationship's collapse — which is why Catholic teaching offers separation and annulment but not divorce. If the promise is a covenant the couple made, then they can break it, which is a tragedy rather than an impossibility. The traditions are reasoning consistently from different premises, not disagreeing about how serious marriage is.

Sources of authority

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 10:9 (and Mark 10:11) (translated)

  What God has joined together, let no one separate.

  Marriage as a union made by God, which grounds the Catholic position that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved.

  How to use it: The verse explains WHY the Catholic Church annuls rather than divorces: an annulment finds that the union was never validly formed, which is not the same as ending one that was.

  What it does not settle: Matthew 19:9 records an exception clause, which is part of why Protestant and Orthodox traditions permit divorce. One verse does not give you the Christian position.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  How to use it: It converts a belief into an obligation towards a specific person, which is why it can be used on almost any ethical topic — but the work is in saying WHO the neighbour is in this case and what love requires of them here.

  What it does not settle: It does not tell you what love requires. It has been used to argue for and against euthanasia, for and against same-sex relationships, and for and against pacifism.

Different interpretations

• Indissolubilist: Mark 10:9 read without exception; the marriage bond is objective and outlasts the relationship.
• Exception-clause: Matthew 19:9 records Jesus permitting divorce for unchastity, so the prohibition was never absolute.
• Pastoral: the ideal stands and human failure is real, so the Church's task is to receive people where they are rather than to enforce a rule that costs them their community.

Differences within Christianity

This is the clearest denominational division on the specification. An answer that writes 'Christians believe divorce is wrong' has misdescribed the majority of Christians.

• Roman Catholic — No divorce; annulment where the marriage was never valid; remarriage in church not possible while the first spouse lives.
• Orthodox — Divorce permitted in limited circumstances; a second marriage celebrated with a penitential rite.
• Protestant — Divorce and remarriage generally permitted, with practice varying by denomination and by minister.

Application to the issue

It decides whether a divorced person can marry in a particular church, whether they may receive communion, and what the annulment process actually involves — which is a tribunal examining whether the original consent was valid, not a request for permission to end a marriage. It also shapes how a congregation treats someone whose marriage has failed, and the traditions with the strictest rules have often developed the most careful pastoral practice precisely because the rule bites.

Arguments supporting

• A valid marriage cannot be dissolved by human decision. — 'What God has joined together, let no one separate.' (catholic)
  Answered by: Matthew records an exception clause, and Orthodox Christianity — reading the same tradition — permits divorce in limited cases.
• Permitting exit weakens every marriage, not only the one that ends. — A promise everyone knows can be revoked is a weaker promise. (catholic)
  Answered by: It asks the people in the worst marriages to bear the cost of strengthening everyone else's.

Arguments challenging

• Compassion outweighs the rule when a marriage is destroying someone. — Love of neighbour applies inside a marriage as much as outside it. (protestant)
  Answered by: The Catholic answer is separation without remarriage, which meets the danger without dissolving the bond.
• Most Christian traditions already permit it. — Orthodox and most Protestant churches provide for divorce and remarriage. (protestant)
  Answered by: Providing for it regretfully is not endorsement, and the traditions that do it still call it a failure.

Secular / non-religious perspective

A marriage that has failed should be ended, with obligations to children and to the weaker party honoured. Keeping people in destructive marriages serves an institution at the expense of the people inside it, and the availability of divorce is a protection rather than a permission. Humanists also note that the strictest rules have historically fallen hardest on women.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether the marriage bond survives the relationship's collapse. Answer that and the whole topic follows; every other disagreement here is downstream.

Defensible conclusions

• 'Never' is defensible only on the Catholic understanding of marriage as indissoluble, so the statement is true of one tradition and false of most Christians — and naming that IS the evaluation.
• Every tradition treats divorce as a failure and most provide for it, so the real disagreement is about whether a failure may be formally recognised rather than about how serious marriage is.
• The strict position is coherent and its costs fall on the most vulnerable, which is a strong reason to prefer the permissive one without pretending it loses nothing.

Not defensible

• Calling annulment 'Catholic divorce' — the 2025 report records candidates losing marks on exactly this territory, and it inverts the doctrine.
• Writing that Christians do not allow divorce, which misdescribes Orthodox and most Protestant Christianity.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three attitudes to divorce or remarriage, or three possible consequences of divorce. Keep the positions distinct.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two attitudes, developed, and NAME the traditions. 'Catholics do not accept divorce (1) because marriage is a sacrament God has made and cannot be undone by the couple (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain differing attitudes to remarriage. The 2025 report describes the full-mark shape: Catholic indissolubility with 'till death do us part', then other Christians accepting it where the marriage was causing suffering.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — Set the traditions against each other rather than reaching for another religion. The internal Christian division here is stronger evidence than any comparison.

Common mistakes

• Treating annulment as divorce by another name — this inverts the doctrine.
• Writing 'Christians believe divorce is wrong', which describes a minority.
• Giving incorrect beliefs for particular traditions, which the 2025 report names directly as a cause of lost marks on this point.

“Christians believe divorce is always wrong.” — That is the Catholic position. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances, and most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage.

Write instead: Name the tradition. 'Catholic teaching holds marriage indissoluble, so the Church annuls rather than divorces' is accurate and scores; 'Christians believe' on a divided question is not. Do not over-correct. Many claims genuinely ARE shared — the Trinity, the resurrection, the authority of the Bible — and hedging those makes an answer weaker, not more careful. (Named in the 2025 examiner report for Paper 1.)

Grade 9 insight

Annulment is not a loophole; it is what indissolubility requires. If a valid marriage genuinely cannot be dissolved, the only question the Church can ever ask is whether there was a valid marriage in the first place — so the tribunal examines consent, capacity and intention at the moment of the vows. A learner who explains WHY the annulment process looks backwards rather than forwards has shown they understand the doctrine rather than the procedure, and that is precisely the difference between Level 3 and Level 4 here.

Carry on through Christianity

• Previous unit: 2.5 · Marriage and partnership
• Next unit: 2.7 · Family structures and responsibilities
• Divorce and remarriage in the other religions: Buddhism · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Christianity · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification