text: "Jesus clearly disfavored adultery," Kaveny concluded. "It's clear that he rejects divorce and remarriage as contrary to the original will of God. But nothing in Jesus' words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance."
  
  "To impose such a requirement in every case is not merciful," she said. "And mercy is the ultimate touchstone for the divine lawgiver."
  
  "We do not need to disturb Jesus' teaching in order to refine and develop it in these ways, in ways that moral theologians and canon lawyers have always done," she said.
  
  That doesn't even make sense. How could she possibly get the outcome she wants without "disturbing Jesus's teachings"? Is she seriously suggesting that he meant you could confess divorce and remarriage and after that the marriage wouldn't be a sin?