Posted March 29, 2006
Recently the Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth under the
executive director, Richard McCord has been working on a new document for
marriage. Below is one of the working papers for this project. For more on
this topic visit our web site at www.usccb.org/npim
“Promoting and Sustaining Marriage
as a Community of Life and Love”
A Colloquium of Social Scientists and Theologians
October 24-25, 2005
Marriage as a Unitive and Procreative Partnership
John S. Grabowski, Ph.D.
The Catholic University of America
Marriage as an institution has fallen upon hard times of late. News articles
and scholarly
studies alike call our attention to the high rate of failure among
marriages, the widespread
practice of cohabitation, and the growing number of persons who (for a
variety of reasons)
choose to never marry.1 These developments have led to the rise of an
industry designed to cater
to the needs of this new “generation ex” and the expansion of media and
products aimed at
playing on the uncertainties of a growing number of 20 and 30 some things
about the married
state.2 The dispirited conclusion which some draw from these developments is
that marriage is
somehow defunct or reaching the end of its tenure in western civilization.
Yet there are reasons to believe that rumors of marriage’s untimely demise
are, in fact,
greatly exaggerated. The Judeo-Christian tradition has rich biblical and
theological resources
which can serve to ground marriage both a conceptualization and praxis of
marriage even in the
face of such unprecedented challenges. Specifically, this paper will contend
that understanding
marriage as unitive, as procreative, and as a partnership can serve to
ground a compelling vision
and a vibrant spirituality of marriage in our present context.3
The paper will proceed by considering each of these concepts in turn. It
will first
examine marriage as a covenant of love which draws persons together in unity
and communion.
It will then treat the life-giving character of marriage and the blessing of
children. The final
section will consider marriage as a partnership and the crucial role of
mutuality in the
relationship of husband and wife. In each case an effort will be made to
locate the biblical basis
and some contemporary theological elucidation of these affirmations as well
as their implications
for the praxis of marriage.
Marriage as Unitive
The term “unitive” as a description of the ends to which marriage is ordered
is a
relatively recent entry to rich vocabulary of the Church’s tradition,
appearing for the first time in
Paul VI’s watershed encyclical Humane Vitae in 1968. This prompted some of
those critical of
its reaffirmation of the prohibition of artificial contraception to complain
about the novel status
of the document’s terminology in the tradition.4 However, it is fairly clear
that this new
language is really just a shorthand for what the previous tradition called
the “secondary ends” of
marriage-- refracted through the personalist lens of 20th century Catholic
thought and the
teaching of Second Vatican Council.5 Close examination of this concept
reveals that it also has
biblical foundation as well.
The foundation of a couple’s interpersonal union in biblical thought is the
covenant that
binds them together. Their mutual promise of unconditional fidelity made
before God binds
them into a new entity–“one flesh.”6 Their allegiance to their family of
origin is now superseded
by their unconditional promise to one another–a promise whose surety is
their very lives.7 This
oath is then sealed in the couple’s bodily gift of self to one another in
sexual union. In this act of
sexual union they truly are “one flesh” and they engage in a bodily
enactment and recollection of
their covenant promise to one another.8 Thus the unitive end of marriage is
disclosed to us as the
meaning and expression of a couple’s covenant with each other.
It is for this reason that the Second Vatican Council in its Pastoral
Constitution on the
Church Gaudium et spes, in recovering the biblical category of covenant,
juxtaposed it with the
personalist concept of self-donation:
The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by
the Creator and
qualified by His laws. It is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable
personal
consent. Hence, by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept
each
other, a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society
too is a lasting one
A couple swearing faith to one another in the covenant of marriage is
engaged in an act of self donation, giving themselves and accepting the gift
of the other as a person.10 This act of
bestowal and acceptance forms the foundation for the couple’s ongoing
communion of love.
Subsequent acts of self-donation are a recollection of and participation in
this original
unconditional pledge. This is most evident in the case of the bodily gift of
self in sexual
intercourse, but it also true of all the acts of generosity and affection
which form the fabric of a
couple’s relationship woven over a lifetime together.
It is worth recalling, however, the interpersonal communion which the
covenant of
marriage effects is not a purely human reality. It is ultimately a divine
work. This is why the
Church has understood marriage as not merely a covenant but also a
sacrament–an efficacious
sign of grace which serves as a living icon of the bond of love which unites
Christ to the
Church.11 In their day to day acts of kindness, service, mutual love,
service, and forgiveness a
couple manifest and share in the love demonstrated on the cross which itself
is an outpouring and
revelation of the eternal communion of love within the Trinity.
Love, however, is a paradoxical reality in that it can only be received
insofar as it is given
away. Gaudium et spes teaches that human beings are fulfilled in the
development of their
capacity for self-gift: “man, who is the only creature on earth which God
willed for itself, cannot
fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”12 To put this
in philosophical terms,
persons discover themselves as selves–as an “I” precisely in giving
themselves to a “Thou” in
the dialogue of friendship and love.13 Yet this interpersonal dialogue of
love is only fully
expressed when it stands in relation to a third term who can be addressed by
the couple as a
“we.” The unitive nature of a couple’s love has an intrinsic connection to
fruitfulness insofar as
the couple’s communion is ordered to the community of children.14 This
community of I–
Thou–We reflects the eternal communion of love within the Godhead where the
Holy Spirit is
breathed forth as the fruit of the eternal dialogue of love between the
Father and Son. For this
reason both the family and the Trinity may be called a communio personarum
(a “communion of
persons”).15
This understanding of the unitive nature of marriage has some important
implications
which can be touched upon briefly here. Recalling its foundation in the
covenant of marriage
and its demand for unconditional and life-long commitment confronts us with
a fidelity foreign
to our own conception of interpersonal relationships. It was on this basis
of this teaching that
Jesus condemned the practice of divorce and its basis in the Torah (cf. Dt.
24:1-4) as a
concession to the hard-heartedness induced by sin and proclaimed that it
violated God’s original
creative intention for the covenant of marriage (cf. Mk. 10:2-11 and
par.).16 This insistence on
the indissolubility of marriage offers a critique of and challenge to our
current culture of divorce
which has devastated countless children and spouses who have been abandoned
by individuals
searching for “personal fulfillment” outside the bonds of these
commitments.17 The fulfillment
offered in marital union is found precisely in responding to its invitation
to lifelong fidelity and
generosity rather than in a flight from these bonds.18 “The sincere gift of
self” is lived out in
myriad struggles and joys of a couple’s daily life.19
Furthermore, grounding the unitive nature of marriage in the marriage
covenant serves as
a check to any kind of romantization of the language of “self-donation” or
“communion” in
understanding the unitive nature of marriage. Some commentators have
complained the
personalist turn of 20th century Catholic theology and teaching falls prey
to just such
romanticism.20 In fact, it unwittingly reinforces the privitization of
marriage and the reduction of
romance to a commodity aggressively marketed by contemporary American
consumer culture.21
Spouses are thereby expected to fulfill all of their partner’s emotional and
relational needs and
failing to do so should not be surprised when they are set aside for a newer
model who can
deliver greater novelty and excitement. It must be recalled, however, that
biblical conception of
marriage as a covenant was anything but privitized–it was always located in
a larger social
matrix, whether that of Ancient Israel (in the Old Testament) or the broader
Christian community
(in the New Testament). This location within God’s covenant people was the
necessary support
and context for the couple’s covenantal commitment and communion of love
with each other.
Among followers of Jesus, marriage was never a private enclave in a hostile
world but the
smallest and most basic form of Christian community–“the domestic Church.”22
Since spouses
cannot provide for all of each other’s emotional and relational needs, it is
vital that the couple
have other friendships to sustain them and the support of the larger
Christian community. This
reality of immersion into the Christian community is one of the key elements
missing from many
programs of marriage preparation and support.
Equally important for marriage preparation in light of its covenantal and
sacramental
nature is attention to the faith of the spouses. That which unites spouses
in the sacrament is
precisely the faith, hope, and love that also unite them to God in a life of
discipleship. What
happens when an individual or a couple has little or no faith?23 It is worth
recalling, of course,
that in classical sacramental theology faith is not necessary for sacraments
to validly conferred
(i.e., an unbeliever can baptize) but it is necessary for them to be
fruitfully received. The
standard western view is that the couple is both the ministers and the
recipients of the sacrament–
they confer the sacrament on one another in view of their baptismal
priesthood.24 Hence one
possible theological solution to this dilemma is hold that the couple can be
valid ministers of the
sacrament apart from conscious faith yet they cannot fruitfully receive the
grace conferred by it
until the obstacle posed by this lack of faith is removed.25 Pastorally,
this problem points to the
need for effective evangelization within the context of marriage preparation
so that a couple can
draw upon the grace of the sacrament from the beginning of their union.
Finally, to understand the interpersonal union and communion of marriage as
ordered to
children, family, and community also resists some of the most destructive
assumptions of our
culture. Mutual love is not merely ordered to the interpersonal happiness of
the lovers but
toward the building up of society and community. The “inseparable
connection” between the
unitive and procreative meanings of sexuality invoked by Humanae vitae is
not the result of
ecclesial voluntarism as some of its critics supposed.26 It is based on very
profound
anthropological and biblical insights into the nature of love.
Marriage as Procreative
For most of its history the Jewish and Christian insistence on the link
between marriage
and procreation was an uncontroversial one. After all, the link between sex
and child-bearing
was obvious and in pre-industrial societies children were a tangible
economic and political
blessing, adding to the economic power and overall security of their
families by their mere
presence. This led biblical authors to view children as a blessing from God
(cf. Gen. 24:60; Ps.
127:3-5; Ps. 128:3-4) and sterility as a curse (cf. 29:31; 30:1-2; 1 Sam.
1:5-6). With concerns
about increasing global population and limited resources, and with the
growing expense of
raising and educating children in an industrial and now informational
society such as our own it
is not wholly unsurprising that our own culture’s attitudes toward children
are much more conflicted.27 Compounding this new socio-economic context is the fact that
increased scientific
knowledge and the application of technology has made it much easier for many
to break the
connection between sex and procreation (in a variety of ways) that our
predecessors took for
granted.
The first creation story of Genesis (1:1-2:4a) describes humanity’s creation
in “the image
of God.”28 This image is comprised on the one hand of the exercise of
dominion over the rest of
creation (cf. Gen. 1:26, 28). However, this dominion is not the same as the
untrammeled license
of domination but rather must be understood as the exercise of royal
representation and
stewardship.29 Human beings represent the power and authority of a Creator
who sustains rather
than dominates His creation. They are placed in it to “cultivate and to care
for it” it (cf. Gen.
2:15c).30 On the other hand, humanity’s creation in the imago dei involves a
second, equally
fundamental, signification–that of relationality.31 It is “male and female”
together that comprise
the divine image (cf. Gen. 1:27c) and this fundamental relation is in turn
dependent upon the
relation between the Creator and humankind fully realized in the worship of
the Sabbath (cf. Gen
2:1-4a). Creation finds its completion in the worship of the One from whose
hand it came. Men
and women, as the priest- stewards of this creation not only represent God
to their fellow
creatures but have the awesome privilege of declaring the gratitude and
praise of all of creation
to its Maker.
But these two dimensions of our creation in the image of God–dominion and
relation–are
not unrelated. The text of the first creation account draws them together by
noting that one way
in which men and women exercise the dominion with which they are entrusted
over the visible
world is to “be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen.
1:28b). It is precisely
(though not exclusively) in the joining of their shared fertility that this
exercise of priestly
dominion is realized. The term used here for the “blessing” which
accompanies procreation
(barak) is significant in the Hebrew of the Old Testament as it almost
always signifies God’s
action of giving life to His creation.32
This is one important reason why the scriptures can parallel sex and worship
since both
are activities which ratify a covenant.33 Awareness of this parallel can be
found in the nuptial
imagery for the covenant between Yahweh and Israel in the Old Testament.34
It is also the
backdrop for the “great mystery” found in the Christian couple’s
participation in the union
between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-33). Thus while the scriptures
resist the deification
of sex or its projection onto the divine found in Ancient Near Eastern and
some Greco-Roman
religions, this does not stop them from seeing the sexual relationship of
spouses as something
that involves God and his holiness.
As noted above, the marriage covenant involves the total gift of oneself to
one’s spouse
and this unconditional gift is sealed in the bodily union of sexual
self-donation. Intercourse is
therefore a form of communication between the couple. It is, to use John
Paul II’s phrase, “a
language of the body” in which the couple somatically proclaims both
unconditional fidelity and
unreserved self-gift.35 Part of this gift is precisely the gift of one’s
fertility. This is both because
fertility is an integral part of the person as male or female and because
the sharing of this gift is
an expression and realization of the couple’s creation in the image of God.
When a couple’s gift
of fertility results in the creation of a new human life the couple become
co-creators with God–it
is a “renewal of the mystery of creation.”36 To deliberately withhold this
dimension of oneself is
to undercut the language of total self-gift and therefore deny the dignity
of one’s spouse created
in the image of God.37 It also is an affront to the Creator who is the
author of both love and
life.38
This understanding of the procreative nature of marriage also has some
important
implications. First, it serves as a point of resistance to current cultural
attitudes which see
children primarily as a threat and an impoverishment to the life of couple
and the global
community rather than first and foremost as a blessing. It likewise
challenges the dominant view
of much western society and medicine that human fertility is a disease to be
suppressed through
medication or surgery.39 That is, it resolutely opposes what some have
described as the
“contraceptive mentality” or what John Paul II labeled “the culture of
death.”40
The recognition that marriage is ordered to the procreation and care of
children and that the
shared fertility of a couple is a gift challenges the couple to see their
relationship in a broader and
more truthful perspective. This insight helps them see that they are not
merely trying to live
“happily ever after” as an isolated couple. It serves as a reminder that sex
is not just about
pleasure and interpersonal fulfillment but also about concrete relations of
blood, family, and
kinship whether in or outside of the Christian community.41 Rather it
encourages them to build a
small Christian community in their household in the way they relate to each
other, their children,
and their society. This requires attention to the varieties of practices
that make up and structure
their common life–whether in regard to prayer, mutual communication, social
relationships,
interaction or isolation in their parish and neighborhood, or patterns of
work and consumption.42
It also challenges couples to search for and implement practices that
habituate them to respect for
the gift of their sexuality and the integral place of fertility within it
such as the use of Natural
Family Planning to space or achieve pregnancy.43
But if the procreative end of marriage reminds couples of their broader
social
responsibilities, it also reminds the Church of its responsibility to care
for couples and families.44
Families are the basic cell not only of society but of the Church as a
whole.45 Therefore the
Church has a responsibility to integrate couples and families into the
fabric of its life.
Unfortunately, frequently this attempt is only made in the context of
sacramental preparation–in
the preparation of a couple for marriage or their children for the
sacraments of initiation. Once
this catechesis is complete, the effort to support and catechize families on
the part of parishes or
dioceses often appears to cease. If families are about giving and receiving
life this cannot be the
case. Families must be challenged to both receive and give life to the
broader Christian and
human community. The Church’s sexual ethic has to be intrinsically social in
its aim. One key
part of this social orientation lies in inculcating mutuality in couples and
families.
Marriage as a Partnership
While the language of “partnership” does have distinctively modern
overtones, its import
is not foreign to concepts found in the biblical tradition. The preceding
analysis has already
highlighted the fact that the first account of creation in Genesis
underscores the creation of male
and female in the image of God (cf. 1:26-28)–an idea very different from
other creation myths
of the ancient world which often located humanity at the bottom of the
cosmic ladder and
assumed women to be the property of men.46 For Genesis, men and women both
represent God
to creation and have the capacity to relate directly to Him. Both are
acknowledged as the priest stewards of the created world, having a dignity
that comes directly from God rather than from
their social function or legal standing.47
The second creation story (Gen. 2:4b-3:24) also provides important insights
into the
equal dignity of the sexes. Following canonically upon the first story of
creation, the second
account sounds a jarring and discordant note to the careful reader– “It is
not good for the man to
be alone” (Gen. 2:18b).48 The solution to this problem is the creation of an
ezer–a term literally
rendered as “suitable helper” but perhaps more accurately rendered into
English as “suitable
partner.”49 This is because in current English usage “helper” has
connotations of secondary
status and subordination whereas “partner” does not. Biblical research has
shown that the term
ezer carries no such connotations in the original Hebrew. In fact, the term
often is applied to
Yahweh as the “helper” of Israel.50 Equally striking is the wordplay in the
man’s covenant
declaration to the woman in 2:23. He declares her to be ishah (‘woman’)
because she has been
taken out of ish (‘man’), using for the first time the gender specific terms
rather than the generic
’adam (‘mankind’). They are therefore described as being made from the same
substance and
thus sharing a common nature.51 Finally, it is crucial to notice the
reversal of Israelite law and
practice hinted at in 2:24: “a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves
to his wife” when in
the legislation of the OT it was she who left her family to become part of
the “house” of her
husband.52 The net effect of this language is to provide a strong challenge
to the assumption that
the subordination of women to men in the law of ancient Israel reflected God’s original intention
for the covenant of marriage.53
In the New Testament, Jesus’ repudiation of the Old Testament legislation
which allowed
men to divorce their wives (cf. Dt. 24:1-4) poses another challenge to the
socially presumed
control of women by men (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10-11; Mk. 10:1-12; Mt. 5:32, 19:1-12;
Lk. 16:18).
Commenting on these texts Walter Kasper has correctly observed in regard to
the position of a
woman:
She is no longer–as the Pharisees question presupposed–at the mercy of a man’s decision.
She has security in the decision of God and in his covenant. Jesus’ words
about the
indissolubility of marriage therefore form the basis of a new understanding
of marriage as
a partnership, in which neither partner is at the mercy of the other, but
both are at God’s
mercy in faith.54
When neither spouse has the sole power to end or a continue the marriage
relationship it must be
regarded as a partnership in some sense.
Reinforcing this insistence on mutuality in marriage is the New Testament’s
unambiguous repudiation of a double standard of sexual morality for men and
women. This can
be seen in Jesus’ prophetic deepening of the sixth commandment from a matter
of exterior
behavior to one of the heart in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt. 5:27-28).55
It can also be seen
in the Pauline insistence on the equality of husbands and wives in regard to
what the later
tradition would call the “debt of marriage.” In his First Letter to the
Corinthians Paul insists that
husbands and wives have authority over one another’s bodies (cf. 1 Cor. 7:
4) and should
therefore make decisions about sexual relations or abstinence together–“by
mutual consent” (1
Cor. 7: 5b). Given the assumptions of the Hellenistic culture of the first
century A.D. about male
sexual prerogatives, this teaching regarding marital reciprocity is nothing
short of revolutionary.
Yet in the face of this biblical trajectory of mutuality stretching from the
creation stories
of Genesis to the New Testament stand some significant obstacles. For not
only does much of
the legislation of ancient Israel subordinate women to men, but so do key
New Testament texts
often referred to as the household codes.56 Even though these texts enjoin
husbands to love their
wives and care for their children, they nonetheless unambiguously insist on
the subordination of
women to men in marriage. As such, they are often read as part of a literary
genre common
among Hellenistic authors both Greco-Roman and Jewish57 and as part of a
Christian
accommodation to the patriarchal Hellenistic family structure.58
However, recent historical and biblical scholarship and theological
reflection suggests
that there is reason to read these texts differently. There is solid
historical and exegetical
evidence to suggest that these NT texts are not an example of an existing
literary form or topos.59
This in turn suggests that they may not merely reflect a failure of nerve on
the part of an
originally egalitarian Christianity to the oppressive structures of the
male-dominated Hellensistic
family.60 In fact, these texts are better read as an attempt to transform
this family structure from
within by making the sacrificial servant-leadership of Christ the model for
male “headship” in
the family.61
In this vein it is important to note the reading of texts such as Ephesians
5:21-33 offered
by Pope John II. Considering both the literary and grammatical context of
“mutual submission
out of reverence for Christ” (5:21) as well as broader canonical and
theological considerations,
the pope taught that the directive of the text “is to be understood and
carried out in a new way: as
a mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ.”62 The pope was well aware
of the novelty of
this teaching as compared to previous official formulations but stated that
mutual character of the
marital authority was part of the “ethos of the Redemption” which, flowing
from the newness of
the gospel message, takes time to “gradually establish itself in hearts,
consciences, behavior, and
customs.”63 That is to say, he himself saw this as a development of the
Catholic doctrine of
marriage and proposed it as such.64
This remarkable development in the Church’s teaching makes it clear that
marriage must
be understood as a partnership in the fullest sense. Men and women in
marriage are not only
equal in dignity and in fundamental human rights, they are equal in their
exercise of authority.
Yet this equality does not necessarily mean that men and women are
identical. In this vein Pope
John Paul II spoke of the irreducible originality of women and men--not just
in their
embodiment but in the whole of their personal existence.65 It is worth
noting that contemporary
theologians such as Lisa Sowle Cahill helpfully point to the distinction
between sex specific
qualities and men’s and women’s roles, enabling us to perceive the stability
of the former and the
flexibility of the latter.66 This is crucial for the success of marriages
where women choose to (or
because of economic necessity are forced to) work outside the home because
in these cases there
must be a redistribution of traditional household roles so that women are
not trapped in “the
murderous dual role” of assuming primary responsibility for their families
while also pursuing a
career.67
This understanding of mutual authority/submission within the marital
partnership has a
host of theological and practical implications only some of which can be
considered here. To
hold that men and women exercise equal authority in the marriage
relationship requires very
careful attention to the communication skills and patterns of
decision-making on the part of
couples. In order for couples to live this kind of mutuality they must
honestly share their views
and learn to make decisions together on a host of issues ranging from
finances, to scheduling
their time, to investing in their spiritual lives, to raising their
children. It may well be that
because of temperament or personal gifts one spouse may choose to cede an
area of
responsibility such as managing the household schedule or finances to his or
her mate. However,
there are also matters of such importance that they cannot be delegated in
this way such as
raising children who need both a mother and a father.68 Nonetheless, this
understanding
challenges couples to learn to make decisions together on an array of issues
affecting their
common life. When disagreements arise, they require deeper communication and
mutual
discernment on the part of the couple. Occasionally, when couples are
deadlocked on an issue
confronting them, one spouse may have to defer to the other. If there is
genuinely mutual love
and good communication between them, it can be presumed that it will not
always be the same
spouse who gives way.69
Obviously, challenging couples to embrace and grow toward this mutual
exercise of
authority is not an easy task–especially when individuals come from familial
or cultural
backgrounds with very different assumptions. Effective preparation for
marriage in this regard
must begin as early as possible in a person’s life. Ideally, this
preparation should occur both in
and outside of a person’s family of origin. This requires, among other
things, instruction in
effective communication skills, an understanding of the psychological
differences between men
and women as these impact communication, habituation to respect for the
dignity of others as
persons, an understanding of the importance of conflict resolution and how
to achieve it, the
cultivation of a life of prayer, and training in methods of discernment.
Preparation for the
partnership of marriage thus involves effective catechesis of the whole
person and is a task of all
69 In this I disagree with William E. May who argues that in times of crisis
in particular
families need a single decision-maker or principle of authority and that men
are better suited for
this position. See Marriage: The Rock on which the Family is Built (San
Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 1995), 63-64. Such a position cannot be reconciled with the teaching
of Mulieris
dignitatem or a trinitarian understanding of authority which will be
outlined briefly below.
of the members of the Christian community.70
Yet mutual submission does not erase the fundamental personal differences
between men
and women. Rather, it must presuppose them. The case of a couple using some
version of
Natural Family Planning can be instructive in this regard. Successful use of
the method requires
the couple to communicate about the size of their family and about their
sexual relationship. It
also rules out any univocal decisions in this regard–couples must make
decisions together or the
method is impracticable. But these decisions presuppose all of the
differences between them as
men and women–physiological, psychological, and sexual. If the initiative
for considering sex
frequently comes from the male because of his psycho-sexual make-up, it is
then submitted to his
wife and her fertility, state of mind, and their consensus as to whether
they are trying to achieve
or avoid the conception of a child at a given point of their relationship.
Use of NFP thus
demonstrates what the praxis of mutual submission looks like in the day to
day life of a couple.
The method also habituates a couple to this praxis in the whole of their
relationship.71
The ground for this understanding of mutuality in marriage like the ultimate
ground for
marriage itself is the eternal communion of the Trinity. The revelation of
the Trinity in the
economy of salvation provides us with the real meaning of “mutual
submission.” Numerous NT
traditions indicate that the Father’s purpose in creation was to establish a
people to glorify his
consubstantial Son (cf. Jn. 17:24; Eph. 1:9-10), a glorification most fully
effected in the cross
and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Lk. 24:26; Jn. 13:31b-32, 17:5; Acts 3:13; 1
Pet. 1:21). The Son, in
turn, most particularly in the Johannine corpus seeks not his own glory but
that of the Father who
sent him (cf. Jn. 8:50; 12:28). John also describes the joint work of the
Father and Son as one of
mutual glorification (Jn. 13:31b-23; 17:1, 22). In the NT the Holy Spirit is
sent to make present
the person and work of the Son and thus give him glory (cf. Jn 16:13-14; 2
Cor. 3:18). This
ceaseless work of mutual glorification by the Persons of the Trinity in the
economy of salvation
demonstrates the full meaning and import of mutual submission. Couples
united in Christ are
called to grow together toward the unity of will which exists in the Godhead
ad intra and is
displayed ad extra in the economy of salvation. The mutual love of the
couple, transformed by
grace, joins two free and distinct human subjectivities into a unity of
operation such that they no
longer make decisions on the basis of self-interest, but for the sake of
each other. Marriage as a
partnership is thus part of the core of its unitive nature.
If the idea that the authority of marriage is to be exercised as “mutual
submission” is
indeed a development of doctrine, the ecclesiological implications of this
teaching have yet to be
considered. Accepting recent magisterial teaching concerning the
non-ordination of women as
definitive merely tells us what mutual submission in the Church is not. It
does not tell us
positively how this new perception of the equal dignity of women and men is
to be positively
expressed in the Church’s life and ministry. An adequate articulation of the
ecclesial gifts and
ministries in of women relation to those of men remains to be undertaken.
Conclusion
Marriage is indeed facing new and unprecedented challenges in our society as
is
witnessed by increased rates of cohabitation, divorce, and avoidance of the
marital commitment
altogether on the part of many. Yet the biblical underpinnings of this
covenant and sacrament
and the Church’s theological tradition have the resources for an effective
theological and pastoral
response to this situation. Part of the problem is that marriage has been
coopted by a larger
consumer culture which emphasizes personal pleasure (sexual and otherwise)
and individual
autonomy and fulfillment, as the only hallmarks of relational success.
Personal relationships are
thus marked by their disposable nature and frequently by the struggle for
control within them.
The Church’s biblical and theological tradition offers a bracing and
full-blooded
alternative. For here marriage is understood as a covenant–an unconditional
promise of fidelity
in which one promises and gives one’s very self to another before God. Yet
this is commitment
is not merely based on human volition but on God’s gracious reconciliation
of the world to
himself in Jesus Christ and it is therefore a sign of and participation in
the union between Christ
and the Church. The oath of marriage is expressed in sexual union in which a
couple enacts and
subsequently recalls their covenant promise. An integral part of the bodily
gift of self on the part
of the couple is the gift of their shared fertility so that marriage is
ordered to fruitfulness in
children, in the Church, and in the broader society. Marital self-donation,
however, involves the
whole person and the whole of a couple’s history. Hence shared
decision-making and mutual
deference become vehicles of the couple’s continuing growth and union in
love.
This understanding of marriage as a unitive and procreative partnership
provides a vision
which can effectively critique and challenge shallow contemporary views of
marriage,
commitment, sex, and children. Still more it can point to an array of
concrete practices which
can enable members of the Christian community to begin to interiorize this
alternative which is
at one more bracing and beautiful. Marriage is not an institution waiting to
expire or in need of
some deadening accommodation to current cultural norms and practices; the
sacrament remains
an efficacious sign of God’s gracious covenant with us fully realized in
Jesus Christ.
|
