Page Updated 09/19/2006
|
||
|
The Melkite Church at the Council Discourses and Memoranda of Patriarch Maximos IV and of the Hierarchs of His Church at the Second Vatican Council - - - Introduction by Archimandrite Robert F. Taft |
Chapter
15 ― Marriage and the Family
Indissolubility
of Marriage
There
is a problem even more agonizing than that of birth control: it is the problem
of the innocent spouse who, in the prime of life and through no fault of his or
her own, is left alone through the other spouse’s fault.
Shortly
after entering into a marriage that seems to be happy, one of the spouses,
through weakness or with premeditation, abandons the family and contracts a new
union. The innocent spouse comes to his or her pastor or bishop and receives
only one answer, “I can do nothing for you. Pray and be resigned to live alone
and to practice continence for the rest of your life!” This solution
presupposes heroic virtue, a rare faith, and an exceptional temperament. It is
not, therefore, a solution that everyone can accept.
The
young man or woman who had married because he or she did not feel called to
perpetual continence is thus very often driven, in order not to become a bundle
of nerves, to contract a new and illegitimate union outside the Church. Although
up to then a practicing Catholic, he or she is henceforth doomed to be tortured
in conscience. Only one choice is offered: either become an exceptional soul
overnight or... perish!
We
know on this subject that this solution of perpetual continence is not one for
the ordinary Christian. In other words, we know that we leave these young
victims without an answer. We ask them to depend on faith that works miracles;
but faith that works miracles is not given to everyone. Many among us, bishops
of the Church, still have to struggle hard and pray in order to obtain it.
Therefore,
the question that these anguished souls are asking the council today is this:
has the Church the right to answer an innocent faithful, whatever the nature of
the problem that is torturing him or her, “Make the best of it; I have no
solution for your case!” Or can the Church in this case offer only an
exceptional solution that it knows is meant only for exceptional persons?
The
Church has certainly received from Christ sufficient authority to offer all its
children the means of salvation proportionate to their strength, and, of course,
with the help of divine grace. Heroism, the state of perfection, has never been
demanded by Christ under pain of damnation. Christ says, “If you wish to be
perfect” ... if you wish it!
The
Church therefore cannot lack sufficient authority to protect the innocent spouse
against the consequences of sins of the other spouse. It does not seem normal
that perpetual continence, which belongs to the state of perfection, can be
imposed, like a punishment, on the innocent spouse because the other spouse has
been unfaithful.
The
Eastern Churches have always been aware of having this authority, and they have
always exercised it in favor of the innocent spouse.
The
bond of matrimony has certainly been made indissoluble by the positive law of
Christ, but, as the Gospel of Saint Matthew indicates (5:32, 19:9) “except on
the grounds of adultery.” It is up to the Church to judge the meaning of this
clause; even though the Church of Rome has always interpreted it in a
restrictive sense, the same has not been true in the East, where the Church
interpreted it, from the earliest times, in favor of the possible remarriage of
an innocent spouse.
It
is true that the Council of Trent in its 24th Session (Canon 7 of De
Matrimonio) sanctioned the restrictive Roman interpretation. However, it is
widely known that the formula adopted at that holy council in that canon has
been revised intentionally so as not to exclude the Eastern tradition that
followed a practice contrary to that of the Church of Rome. Credit for this is
due to the Venetian orators who were well acquainted with the Greek tradition
based on the interpretation of the Greek Fathers, and even of certain Western
Fathers such as St. Ambrose of
We
know how much the Fathers of the Eastern Church tried to dissuade widowers and
widows from a second marriage, thus following the Apostle’s advice, but they
have never wished to deprive the innocent spouse who has been unjustly abandoned
of the right to remarry. This tradition, preserved in the East, and which was
never reproved during the ten centuries of union, could be accepted again and
adopted by Catholics. Progress in patristic studies has indeed brought to the
fore the doctrine of the Eastern Fathers who were no less qualified exegetes or
moralists than the Western ones.
Pastoral
concern for sorely tried spouses has been manifested among the Western canonists
in another way. By means of a subtle casuistry that sometimes borders on
acrobatics, they have applied themselves to detecting all possible impediments
that could vitiate the marriage contract. They have certainly done this out of
pastoral concern, but the result sometimes been detrimental to souls. For
instance, if it happens that after ten or twenty years of marriage a previously
unsuspected impediment of affinity is discovered, it is permitted to resolve
everything as if by magic. The jurists find this quite normal and natural, but
we pastors must admit that it sometimes amazes and scandalizes our faithful.
Is
not the tradition of the Eastern Fathers, cited above, more appropriate than
these impediments to marriage for granting divine mercy to Christian spouses?
Abuses
are always possible, but abuse of authority does not eliminate authority.
In
this age of ecumenism and dialogue, may the Catholic Church recognize the
immemorial tradition of the Eastern Church, and may theologians apply themselves
to the study of this problem, in order to bring a remedy to the anguish of
innocent spouses permanently abandoned by their spouses, and in order to deliver
them from the danger that seriously threatens their souls.
On
October 2, 1965, Patriarch Maximos gave some “clarifications” to La
Croix on the delicate subject of the indissolubility of marriage. When he was
consulted in regard to the intervention of Archbishop Elias Zoghby, his Vicar
General in
Archbishop
Zoghby, like all Fathers of the council, enjoys full freedom to say what he
thinks. And although he is our vicar in
As
for me, I knew about this intervention only at the time I heard it at the
session of the council.
With
respect to the heart of the problem, the Church must hold fast to the
indissolubility of marriage, for, even though in certain cases the innocent
spouse is sorely tried because of this law, the whole of family life would be
shaken and ruined without this law. Moreover, if divorce in the strict sense
were to be allowed on the grounds of adultery, nothing would be easier for less
conscientious spouses than to create this cause.
The
contrary practice of the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be supported by a few
texts by certain Fathers. But these texts are contradicted by others and do not
in every case constitute a sufficiently constant and universal tradition to
induce the Catholic Church to change its discipline on this point.
Nevertheless,
this question, with the proper nuances, could have been brought before the
council as a serious difficulty to be resolved in the dialogue with Orthodoxy.
Yet, presented as it is now, without the necessary precision, it can create
confusion in many minds.
On
October 4, 1965, in a new intervention at the council, Archbishop Zoghby made
his ideas more precise.
Since
certain publications have attached too much importance to my last intervention
at the council concerning the frequent and unfortunate particular case of the
innocent spouse abandoned by his or her spouse, and since they have broadcast
the text of this intervention throughout the world, I have asked to speak again
in the assembly, not to retract or change what I have said, but to call to mind
briefly the following:
1.
The purpose of my intervention was strictly pastoral, i.e., to discover a
solution to the problem of so many young spouses condemned to live alone, in
forced continence, through no fault of their part.
2.
I clearly affirmed in my intervention the immutable principle of the
indissolubility of marriage, and I intentionally avoided using the word
“divorce,” because in Catholic usage this word signifies an infraction of
the immutable principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
3.
This indissolubility of marriage is so deeply rooted in the tradition of Eastern
and
In
Orthodox theology, divorce is simply a dispensation granted to the innocent
spouse in very clearly defined cases and with a purely pastoral concern, by
virtue of what the Orthodox call the “principle of economy,” which signifies
“dispensation,” or better, “condescension.” This dispensation does not
exclude the principle of indissolubility of marriage. It is even placed at its
service, like the dispensation from valid and consummated marriages granted by
the Catholic Church by virtue of the Petrine privilege. We shall not speak about
the abuses, which are always possible but do not change the theological reality.
4.
It is therefore a “dispensation” in favor of the innocent spouse that I was
suggesting in my intervention. Referring to the traditional interpretation in
the East of Saint Matthew’s texts (Chapters 5 and 19), I envisioned the
possibility of adding to the grounds for a dispensation already accepted by the
Catholic Church those of fornication and of permanent abandonment of one spouse
by the other, to avert the peril of damnation that threatens the innocent
spouse. Such a dispensation would not have the effect of placing the validity of
the indissolubility of marriage in doubt any more than the other dispensations.
5.
This is not a frivolous proposal. It is based on the incontestable authority of
the holy Fathers and of the holy Doctors of the Eastern Churches, who cannot
without rashness be accused of having yielded to political or human
considerations when they interpreted the Lord’s words in the way they did.
6.
It is in this perspective, in the East as in the West, of universal fidelity to
the principle of the indissolubility of marriage, that the Roman Church, during
the long centuries of union as well as after the separation, has not contested
the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline favorable to the remarriage of the
innocent spouse.
That
is the meaning, the tenor of my last intervention at the council. It involves an
exegetical, canonical, and pastoral problem that must not be disregarded. As to
the opportuneness of accepting new grounds for a dispensation, analogous to
those already introduced by virtue of the Petrine privilege, it is up to the
Church to decide.
After
studying the entire file of the question reopened by the intervention of
Archbishop Zoghby, Patriarch Maximos IV wrote the following memorandum in Paris
during the month of November 1966, which he requested be inserted in this
anthology. “The important thing,” he declared, “is that the door on
further research should not be closed.”
The
interventions made at the conciliar assembly on the subject of the dissolution
of a marriage when one of the two spouses is abandoned by the other have had
worldwide reverberations and stirred up reaction among people and in the press.
Yet they had no practical effect on the council or even held its attention, for
we find no trace of them in the explanations of the amendments or in those of
the modi. Moreover, it seems that they have hardened the contrary
position, when it might have been possible, by revealing this difficulty with
the required prudence and discretion, to open the door to a study or even to an
ecumenical dialogue that could have thrown more light on it.
It
seems that this difficulty could have been set forth to the council in the
following way, in the hope of holding its attention:
1.
The indissolubility of marriage has been solemnly defined by the Council of
Trent. It is an object of faith for every Catholic and closes the door to all
discussion. Period.
2.
In the Catholic Church, as well as in the world, there are cases, which
civilization and the love of well-being make increasingly frequent, cases of
truly revolting injustice that forces human beings, whose vocation is to live in
a normal state of marriage according to the laws of nature created by God, and
who are unjustly prevented from doing so through no fault of their own, to
endure this abnormal state for the remainder of their lives, although they are
not able to do so, humanly speaking. Generally speaking, the world has found a
way out of this impasse either by divorce or by other means that the Church does
not accept. As for Catholics who find themselves in this situation, they turn
their anxious eyes toward the Church, their mother, because they wish to be able
to live honorably in the world according to their consciences.
3.
Concerning laws that govern the Church spiritually and temporally, there have
been created over the centuries and according to specific and varied modes what
we might call safety valves for protecting the normal life of the Church and the
life of its children. In the East, which is mystical by nature and inclined in
its spirituality to consider everything within the mystery of the Church, this
safety valve is called oikonomia (economy). This alters, or rather
elevates, the difficulties that seem inextricable to it, and centers them on
Christ, who is the fullness of the Church. In the
4.
This being the case, we do not ask that the general teaching of the Church be
disregarded or that we be given an immediate reply or even one in the near
future. What we are asking is simply whether it would not be opportune on the
occasion of the Second Vatican Council, which desires the union of the Churches
and the peace of mind of souls, to seek to settle, or at least to clarify to a
greater extent, this great question by creating a commission composed, if
possible, of eminent members of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, in order
to conduct a study in the light of faith, in a spirit of openness and charity,
taking into account Holy Scripture, theology, Tradition, the Fathers, and the
conduct of the Church through the centuries, by having recourse to either the oikonomia
of the Eastern Church or to the “privilege” of the Western Church, in order
to alleviate the unjust suffering of such a large number of souls.
We
also believe that as long as the Church does not resolve, through its leaders,
to do absolutely everything in its power to find a way out of this impasse, it
is not entitled to enjoy a peaceful conscience; and its conscience cannot be
liberated before God and man unless, after this conscientious work, it turns out
to be true that the status quo is indispensable.
Birth
Control
Text
of the patriarch’s intervention pronounced on October 29, 1964, concerning No.
21 of the schema on “The Church in the Modern World.”
Today
I should like to draw the attention of your venerable assembly to a special
point of morals, birth control.
The
fundamental virtue that is required of us, pastors assembled in a council that
intends to be pastoral, is the courage to come face-to-face with the problems of
the hour, in the love of Christ and of souls. Now, among the agonizing and
painful problems that disturb the multitudes today, the problem of birth control
stands out. It is an urgent problem if there ever was one, for it is at the root
of a serious crisis of Catholic conscience. There is a situation of a variance
between the official doctrine of the Church and the contrary practice of the
immense majority of Christian families. The authority of the Church is called
into question on a broad scale. The faithful find themselves driven to live in a
state of rupture with the law of the Church, without the sacraments, in constant
anxiety, for lack of finding a viable solution between two contradictory
imperatives: conscience and normal conjugal life.
Besides,
on the social level, demographic pressure in certain countries, especially those
with teeming populations, militates under present circumstances against any rise
in the standard of living and condemns hundreds of millions of human beings to a
shameful and hopeless poverty.
The
council must bring a valid solution to this situation. That is its pastoral
duty. It must declare whether God really desires this impasse that is depressing
and against nature.
Venerable
Fathers, since we are aware, in the Lord who died and rose again for the
salvation of men, of the painful crisis of conscience which our faithful are now
suffering, let us have the courage to grapple with it without any bias.
Frankly,
should not the official positions of the Church on this matter be revised in the
light of modern science, theological as well as medical, psychological, and
sociological?
In
marriage, the development of the human being and his or her integration into the
creative plan of God form a single whole. The finality of marriage must not be
dissected into a primary finality and a secondary finality. This consideration
opens up the horizon to new perspectives concerning the morality of conjugal
behavior considered as a whole.
Besides,
are we not correct in asking ourselves if certain official positions are not
tributary to outworn concepts, and perhaps also, to a psychosis of celibates who
are strangers to this sector of life? Are we not, without wishing to be, under
the influence of that Manichean concept of man and the world, for which sexual
intercourse is corrupt in itself and therefore tolerated only for having a
child?
Is
the external biological rectitude of acts the only criterion here of morality,
independently of family life, of its conjugal and familial moral climate, and of
the serious imperatives of prudence, the fundamental rule of all our human
activity?
Furthermore,
does not present-day exegesis urge us to greater prudence in the interpretation
of two passages in Genesis—“Be fruitful and multiply,” and that of Onan,
which have been used so long as classical scriptural proofs of the basic
condemnation of birth control?
How
relieved was the Christian conscience when His Holiness Pope Paul VI announced
to the world that the problem of birth control and of family morality “is
under study, a study as broad and deep as possible, that is to say, as serious
and honest as the great importance of this subject requires. The Church will
have to proclaim this law of God in the light of scientific, social, and
psychological truths that, during these recent times, have been the object of
studies and documentation” (Doc. Cath. July 5, 1964).
In
addition, given the extent and gravity of this problem that concerns the entire
world, we ask that this projected study be carried out by theologians,
physicians, psychologists, and sociologists, with the viewpoint of finding the
normal solution that is needed. The collaboration of exemplary married
Christians also seems necessary. Besides, is it not in harmony with the
ecumenical path of the council to enter into a dialogue on this subject with
other
Far
be it from me to minimize the delicacy and gravity of the subject, as well as
possible future abuses. But here as elsewhere, is it not the duty of the Church
to educate the moral sense of its children, to train them in personal and
community moral responsibility that is profoundly matured in Christ, rather than
to envelop them in a network of regulations and commandments, and to ask them
purely and simply to conform to them with closed eyes? As for us, let us open
our eyes and be practical. Let us see things as they are and not as we would
wish them to be. Otherwise we would risk talking in a desert. This involves the
future of the mission of the Church in the world.
And
so let us loyally and effectively put into practice the declaration of Pope Paul
VI at the opening of the second session of the council, “Let the world know:
the Church looks out on it with profound understanding, with sincere admiration,
sincerely disposed not to subjugate it, but to serve it; not to depreciate it,
but to give it greater value; not to condemn it, but to give it support and to
save it.”
At
the fourth session of the council, a public discussion of the problem was
avoided. In the appropriate commission, at the last minute, the accent was
placed on fertility and its primacy in marriage, calling to mind exclusively the
doctrine of the encyclical of Pius XI “Casti connubii” and the discourse of
Pius XII to Italian midwives. There was therefore a danger of closing the path
to any possibility of evolution in the discipline of the Church on this point.
The patriarch decided to write directly to the pope [letter of November 29,
1965] to entreat him not to close the door to a possible evolution.
Mixed
Marriages
In
its “Observations on the Schemas of the Council” [1963], the Holy Synod said
what it thought about a plan for the regulation of mixed marriages, valid
especially for the Latin Church, since the Eastern Commission likewise dealt
with this question concerning mixed marriages between Eastern Catholics and
Orthodox Christians.
We
begin by asking the question: Does this chapter “on mixed marriages” apply
to Easterners as well? In fact, the subject is dealt with again, in what
concerns them, in the schema “On the Eastern Churches.” In this case, one of
the two chapters or paragraphs is a duplicate and should be eliminated. If, on
the contrary, this chapter is limited to the Latin Church alone, it must be
clearly stated.
However,
even if this chapter were to apply only to the Latin Church, we think that it is
drafted in a tone that is needlessly severe and often offensive to our
non-Catholic brethren. Needlessly severe, since the percentage of mixed
marriages is continuing to grow in every country, and harsh words can do nothing
to prevent this. Often offensive, since it considers the non-Catholic party as
necessarily being a danger, whatever his or her personal behavior may otherwise
be.
At
a time when Christian Churches are opening themselves to ecumenical dialogue, it
is not fitting, it seems to us, for the council to speak so superficially of a
very serious problem that touches the life of the faithful and of the Church
itself. It is a chapter that must be reworked completely from beginning to end,
in a perspective that is at once more realistic and more ecumenical.
1.
We must start from the principle that mixed marriages are inevitable. Let us
think above all of countries where Catholics are in a minority, or even equal in
number to other Christian confessions. It is normal for love to blossom among
young persons belonging to different religious faiths.
2.
Mixed marriages are not necessarily bad. Everything depends on the attitudes of
the contracting parties. Neither Scripture nor the Fathers absolutely forbids
them.
3.
Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians must not be grouped in
the same classification as marriages between Catholics and non-Christians. For a
young Catholic girl, there is a great difference between marrying an Orthodox
Christian and marrying a Muslim. Canon Law must take this into account not only
theoretically but also in a practical way, by not requiring the same conditions
for the one case as for the other.
4.
The Church must never countenance hypocrisy. Mixed marriages are often, from the
religious point of view, a conflict between two sincerities. The Catholic spouse
rightly thinks that he or she must contract the marriage in the Catholic Church,
baptize the children in the Catholic Church, and then educate them in the
Catholic faith. The non-Catholic spouse makes the commitment to respect the
religious convictions of his or her Catholic spouse. And yet, in conscience, he
or she cannot renounce his or her own religious convictions. And so he or she
will also wish to baptize the children and have them educated in his or her own
faith. What is to be done? Current Catholic canon law requires that the
non-Catholic spouse commit himself or herself in conscience to do things against
his or her conscience. Is that moral? What actually happens? If the non-Catholic
spouse is an unbeliever or indifferent, he or she promises everything that is
asked. And so the marriage is authorized, and on the Catholic side this mixed
marriage is considered a success, when it is really based on irreligion and
hypocrisy. But if, on the other hand, the non-Catholic spouse, conscious of his
or her obligations, claims his or her rights, which are subjectively not less
than that of the other spouse, namely, to baptize and educate the children in
his or her faith, the authorization is refused. At the very least, this is an
abnormal attitude.
5.
Besides, might we not succeed, with a little good will on both sides, in seeing
in mixed marriages not necessarily a danger but an opportunity for bringing
Christians together, an apostolate, the pursuit of ecumenism? Where our Eastern
countries are concerned, we frankly declare that our Christians, both Orthodox
and Catholic, are shocked by the rigidity that Catholic discipline demonstrates
in the authorization of mixed marriages. What scandalizes the faithful is not
the fact that Christians belonging to different confessions marry one another,
but the fact that they have so many difficulties getting married.
6.
Finally, the concept of the cautiones (“guarantees”) required by
current canon law must be completely re-examined. It is normal to require that
the Catholic party make a commitment to do what he or she can on behalf of his
or her faith. But it is not normal to require a commitment to do what does not
depend on him or her, or that he or she make the commitment to bring the
non-Catholic spouse to do what his or her conscience forbids him or her to do.
This
chapter on mixed marriages must be studied by the council on entirely different
bases from those of the present schema, which still holds to the hypothesis of a
Catholicism lived in isolation and bitterly regretting any contact with the
outsider, whether he be an infidel or a non-Catholic. Fortunately, we have
gotten far beyond that. If the council is to achieve a work of aggiornamento,
it is certainly to be in this domain. It is necessary to see realities as they
are, and to bring to them Christ’s response. Harshness arising from an
imaginary situation only serves to aggravate the trouble.
Now
here are a few detailed remarks:
1.
Why the adverb “rashly” in the expression “de matrimonio mixto temere
non contrahendo” (on not contacting a mixed marriage rashly), and other
similar terms? It would be better to say: “de matrimonio mixto imprudenter
non contrahendo” (on not contracting a mixed marriage imprudently). The
word “temere” is offensive.
2.
The drafters of the schema set out to explain the reasons why the number of
mixed marriages has increased, but they do it in such a simplistic way that the
council risks being held up to derision if their text is adopted.
The
first reason, it is claimed, is the migration of peoples which has brought
Catholic populations in contact with non-Catholic populations, and this is seen
as regrettable. This may be true of certain regions of
The
second reason, it is said, is “that it is often not possible to prevent
Catholics from entering into social contacts with non-Catholics, and that these
friendly relations lead to marriages.” Could it be otherwise?
Finally,
the third reason, it is said, is “the decline of piety.” Therefore, mixed
marriages are an evil, and a Catholic who wishes to be devout must abstain for
that very reason from contracting marriage with a non-Catholic, and that
independently of any personal attitude of the non-Catholic party. On the
contrary, we think that mixed marriages are the expression of more extensive
relations among Christians belonging to different confessions than in the past.
It is a sign of the times.
3.
As a necessary condition for authorizing a mixed marriage, it is required
“that the Catholic party sincerely guarantee that he or she will fulfill his
or her duty to baptize the children and to educate them in the Catholic
religion.” How can the Catholic party make a commitment to something whose
fulfillment does not depend solely on him or her? The Catholic party must not be
asked to commit himself or herself to more than he or she can do.
Rationally
speaking, we must be content to ask the Catholic party to make the commitment to
do everything that he or she can, sincerely and honestly, so that the children
belong to his or her Church and share his or her faith. He or she cannot promise
more than that.
4.
The non-Catholic is required “se non repugnaturum ut proles catholice
baptizetur eiusque catholicae educationi provideatur” (that he or she will
not resist having the children baptized as Catholics, and that there will be
provision for their Catholic education). How can a non-Catholic Christian, if he
or she is sincere and deeply committed to his or her faith, make such a promise?
Only
an unbeliever, an indifferent person, or a liar will do that. Thus, vices have
been encouraged, in order to satisfy canon law. That is not normal.
5.
Then there is the intent to show ill humor to the very end. Since mixed
marriages cannot be prevented, an effort is made to show that they are
authorized only reluctantly. As a result, provision is made for a diminished,
private, humiliating rite. Why all that? If the mixed marriage has been
authorized, it is because all the requisite conditions have been fulfilled.
There is need only to bless this marriage like all others.