questions answered

by wm. b. smith

The ends of marriage

Answer: There is hardly a more nuanced and intricate question in sacramental theology than the central question of the "ends of marriage."

In response to the question of "changed" definition, I would answer in terms of a positive "development of doctrine" rooted in the teaching of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. "Change" for some people connotes a contradiction. The authentic teaching of the present Code of Canon Law (1983) and the present Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) offer no contradiction to traditional Catholic teaching but rather a positive development of that Catholic teaching.

The question of the "ends of marriage" has been the object of study and controversy at least since the publication of Casti Connubii (1930) up to and through Vatican Council II (1962-65). A reliable summary of that development and contributors is provided by R. J. Levis in the New Catholic Encyclopedia v.9 (1967) pp. 267-270.

However, it is the post-Conciliar, especially the post Gaudium et Spes (1965) nn. 47-52, post Humanae Vitae (1968) and after and throughout the voluminous teaching of Pope John Paul II, well reflected in the revised Code (1983) cn.1055 #1 and the Catechism (1992) #1601, that has generated some truly amazing charges, i.e., that from the omission of some 1917 canonical language of primary and secondary ends has been the occasion, if not the cause, of the rise in marriage annulments.

To answer this misguided charge and to explain competently a correct version of the Church's teaching on the "ends of marriage," I heartily recommend as required reading a recent article: C. Burke, "Marriage, Annulment, and the Quest for Lasting Commitment," in Catholic World Report v. 6, #1 (January 1996) pp. 54-61. Msgr. Cormac Burke is a renowned canonist (a Judge of the Roman Rota) and a very fine theologian as well. (I apologize to readers for singling out a periodical publication six months late, but this column of mine is written almost that many months prior to publication.)

Msgr. Burke correctly points out that both the Code and the Catechism state clearly the two ends of marriage which "is by its very nature ordered to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" (cn. 1055, #1 and CCC #1601 quoting the same canon verbatim).

Some see this as the abandonment of the terminology of the "hierarchy of ends" with their numerical specification of the "primary" and "secondary" ends. Rather than departure, Burke is correct in his description of the development in the Church's teaching on the ends of marriage; i.e., the Church defines marriage with two equal (co-essential, if you will) but interrelated primary ends: the good of the spouses and the transmission of life. Rather than a hierarchy between them, "it is their mutual interdependence and inseparability which are now emphasized" (p. 55). This is an "ordered relationship" insisted upon by Pope Pius XII and the interdependence and inseparability so much insisted upon by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (1968) n. 12 and John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (1981) n. 32.

The "good of the spouses" (bonum coniugum) cited in both the Code and the Catechism should not be confused with the classic Augustinian "goods of marriage." The bona matrimonii of Augustine are positive and essential features of matrimony that give it dignity. As Burke notes here "Augustine is speaking of the values or essential properties of marriage, not of its ends or finalities." The "good of the spouses" involves something that is good for them; it denotes not a property of marriage but something marriage should cause or lead to-again, not in the line of a property, but in the line of finality or end (p. 56).

For a correct canonical and pastoral application, Burke spells out the rich Christian anthropology of Gaudium et Spes and the extensive magisterium of John Paul II expounding that anthropology. The real enemy of lasting marital commitment (or any Christian commitment) is not a few words present or missing in or from cn. 1055, #1; the real enemy is selfishness (". . . selfishness, the enemy of true love" Humanae Vitae n. 21), the same radical, autonomous selfish individualism so thoroughly repudiated by Veritatis Splendor (8/6/93) nn. 36-41.

Burke is correct, the essence of true "personalism," the genuine papal and conciliar anthropology is the now signature citation so often invoked by John Paul II: "man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself" (GS, n. 24 [cf. Luke 17:33]).

Again, Burke is correct. This is the key to marriage preparation, marriage ceremonies, and all the support mechanisms in place or to be developed that support and sustain stable marriage and family life. For priest readers especially, I strongly recommend reading the Burke CWR (January 1996) article line by line and to incorporate its insights into any marriage or marriage preparation work.

Religious junk mail

Answer: I feel that I am on the same mailing lists you are because sometimes I get two or three appeals in one day. Honestly, I don't even open all of them.

I am sure there is no correct and universal answer to your question. We are all bound by justice and charity but to fulfill those positively we must do so from within our actual circumstances.

Under the "Precepts of the Church" the Catechism (1992) says in part: "The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities" (CCC #2043). That single sentence cites canon 222 of the Code.

Canon 222 #1 says: "Christ's faithful have the obligation to provide for the needs of the Church, so that the Church has available to it those things which are necessary for divine worship, for works of the apostolate and of charity and for the worthy support of its ministers."

Cn.222 #2: "They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the Lord's precept, to help the poor from their own resources." Clearly, in that canon #1 pertains strictly to the faithful, while #2 is not exclusive to the faithful.

What follows is purely personal, make of it what you wish. My understanding of the above precept is first to support my own proper parish and diocese. In this, I feel, I am supporting basic worship and Catholic education. All things, of course, have exceptions. If every time you get a new pastor he comes with a rabid architectural disease to "renew" the architecture of the church which was just "renewed" by the departing pastor, I find something else to support for a while. When some arbitrary redecorations cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think you are into a social justice question from a different point of view.

I believe that we have an obligation to support the Missionary activity of the Church. Thus, I support the Propagation of the Faith and/or some Missionary order. Personally, I draw the line at Liberation Theology, if it is to flourish it will not be with my support. Investing in those who rely on Marxist analysis is a very poor investment.

I try to support two pro-life activities: one a local pregnancy care group and the other the National Right to Life Committee. For the second I have to save up for some time and if someone is troubled by political dimensions, you can contribute to their Educational Trust Fund. Almost all the national pro-life groups have a purely educational arm. As the Holy Father noted in Evangelium Vitae (3/25/95) n. 4: "Just a century ago it was the working classes which were oppressed in their fundamental rights . . ., so now, when another category of persons is being oppressed in the fundamental right to life, the Church feels in duty bound to speak out with the same courage on behalf of those who have no voice." This, then, is an issue of both charity and justice.

Beyond those basics, I pick my spots and causes. Usually, the larger the bureaucracy, the less likely I give. I have never felt comfortable reading that 65 cents of a charitable dollar is used to administer the other 35 cents. Some might think this lacks bureaucratic compassion. I understand "compassion" to mean suffer with not siphon off.

As a priest, I try to contribute to some group that helps priests in trouble (addiction, for example) and some retired sisters who have worked their whole life for the Church. There are certainly many individual causes worthy of individual support. It seems to me that prudence requires one to investigate what really is worthy of individual support.

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704.