| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered by wm. b. smith
Question: My niece plans to marry soon. She and her fiance emphatically inform me that they will never have children, they want only a “child-free” marriage. Is this a valid marriage? Answer: Sometimes, couples will state doubts, hesitations or temporary conditions—“not right away,” “not till we’re settled,” “not till we are ready or can afford it.” All of these can and do raise questions, but none is as emphatic as the case you send. In the case you propose, both parties are emphatic about their intention to have “a child-free marriage.” That, of course, is a positive act of the will on their part and if it is as certain and as specific as you describe there is no marriage—it is null and void. In effect, this couple wants something which the Church does not offer, and, by a positive act of the will, rejects what the Church does offer. Canon 1101, #2 of the Code of Canon Law speaks, in part, of a positive act of the will to exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage (cn. 1101, #2). This is precisely the problem here. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant which of its nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and raising of children (cn. 1055, #1). Sexual acts, the most intimate expression of conjugal love, are according to Humanae Vitae (7/25/68) n. 9, not exhausted only in a communion of the spouses but destined to perpetuate themselves by cooperating in the work of creation. As Vatican Council II taught—God is the Author of Matrimony: “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws . . . . By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children and find in them their ultimate crown” (GS, n. 48). This is the received and certain Christian teaching reflected in universal law (cn. 1055, #1) and in universal teaching (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1601; #1652). This couple may intend “togetherness,” “companionship,” or “living together,” but they do not intend marriage of God’s design—established by the Creator and qualified by his laws. Rather, they intend their own institution, of their own design, qualified by their own limits. Quite literally, they are on their own—this is no sacrament and no sacramental grace. If they are as frank and emphatic with some priest (as witness) as they have been with you, they put that priest in an impossible situation. They ask him to witness what he cannot witness, for this is not a “marriage”; it is a sacramental nullity and void by ecclesiastical and natural law.
Question: What do the letters P.E.P. mean after someone’s name. I was told they were an ecclesiastical designation. Answer: I believe it is unusual to use these letters after someone’s name in this country because technically it is not an order but an award. The Cross for the Church and Pontiff, or Cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (P.E.P.), is not a pontifical order but rather a papal award or honor. It was established by Pope Leo XIII, in 1888, to mark his fiftieth priestly jubilee. At present, the award is bestowed on people, both lay persons and clergy, who have given service to the Church. Originally, the medal had an effigy of the reigning pope, but Pope Paul VI replaced that with a gold Greek Cross in the center of which are the images of the Apostles Peter and Paul. At the base is the name of the reigning Pope (cf. J.C. Noonan, The Church Visible [1996] p. 114). In our country, this award usually involves long service to some Church institution, at least twenty-five years. Gluten revisited Question: You once had a column on Eucharistic bread from which “gluten” was removed saying it was invalid. What of hosts in which gluten is reduced but not removed? Answer: You are correct, there was a column (HPR, October 1993) on “de-glutenized” bread based on Canon 924, #2 and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF - 10/29/82). More recently, the same Congregation (CDF) sent a letter to all bishops (6/19/95) communicating a decision of that Congregation (P.N. #89/78) resolved on June 22, 1994. The response concerned both low-gluten altar breads and mustum as matter for the Eucharist. Concerning permission to use low-gluten altar breads: I-A This may be granted by Ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate. I-B Conditions for the validity of the matter; I-B-1 “Special hosts quibus glutinum ablatum est are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist”; I-B-2 “Low-gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread, that there is no addition of foreign materials, and that the procedure for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread.” Thus, hosts from which gluten is removed (ablatum est) are invalid (I-1); but hosts in which gluten is lessened or lowered but not wholly removed are valid (I-B-2). For those with extreme sensitivity due to celiac disease, this second solution may not be a solution for them which could return us to the form of wine alone solution mentioned in October 1993. The CDF response of 6/19/95 also lays down some “Common Norms” (III), one of which (III-D) says: “Given the centrality of the celebration of the Eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to Holy Orders.” Also, (III-E) “Since the doctrinal questions in this area have now been decided, disciplinary competence is entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.” The CDF response is signed by the Prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The Response was sent to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences but to my knowledge has not appeared in the AAS.
I do not use this column for book reviews, however I sometimes use it to recommend books of some importance to moral theology. One recent publication that will be of great interest and use to priests and interested laypersons is B. M. Ashley, O.P., Living the Truth in Love (A Biblical Introduction to Moral Theology) (NY: Alba House, 1996) 558 pp., $24.95 paper. This book is really a pearl and a reliable response at long last to the call of the Council: “Special attention needs to be given to the development of moral theology. Its scientific exposition should be more thoroughly nourished by scriptural teaching. It should show the nobility of the Christian vocation of the faith, and their obligation to bring forth fruit in charity for the life of the world” (Vat. II, OT, n. 16). Convinced of the unity of faith and morality as indicated in the Catechism (1992) and the encyclical, Veritatis Splendor (1993), Fr. Ashley has attempted and succeeded in presenting a complete work of moral theology. Unlike the familiar framework of the Commandments only, true to his Dominican tradition, all of morality is presented within the framework of the virtues—theological and moral. Fr. Ashley does this with conscious reliance on the new Catechism (mostly in the footnotes) and massive reliance on Holy Scripture (throughout the text proper). Because it is so biblical, this text and reference can be very helpful for preaching on moral topics. My only caution is the sub-title that says it is an “introduction”—it is that for sure, but much, much more than that. It is a complete and reliable work of moral theology.
|