Page 10, 9th November 1990

9th November 1990
Page 10
Page 10, 9th November 1990 — More thoughts on marriage annulment
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags


Share


Related articles

Mother-in-law Drives Man To Annulment

Page 1 from 21st November 2008

Speed Up Annulments, Says Pope

Page 1 from 3rd February 2006

Divorce Italian Style

Page 2 from 30th May 1975

Vatican Overturns Annulment Given To Bobby Kennedy's...

Page 4 from 29th June 2007

Annulment Is Not A Substitute For Divorce, Says Rome

Page 5 from 18th February 2005

More thoughts on marriage annulment

SEVERAL months ago in this column, 1 wrote a certain defence for the Catholic practice of granting annulments for marriages that have failed. In that article I argued that an annulment is not just "Catholic divorce", that it doesn't deny that a real marriage had existed, and that it doesn't in any way jeopardise the legitimacy of the children of that union. To do this, I made a distinction between marriage as a purely social and legal reality and marriage as a sacramental bond.

I've received somewhat of a critical reaction. Essentially the criticisms can be reduced to two:

(i) The concept of sacramental marriage which I gave was seen as far too idealistic and, by its standard, nobody, it was argued. can really be said to have a sacramental marriage.

(ii) The distinction I made between a social/legal reality and a sacramental one was also seen by some as, ultimately, false and an annulment was understood by them not as an adjudication as to whether or not a certain reality had existed, but simply as the church's acceptance of the fact that a marriage has failed and the church now in compassion reaches out, wipes the slate clean, and offers the parties the possibility of a new beginning.

My need to respond to these criticisms stems not, I hope, from a need to defend a position, but from a need to clarify it.

In the original article I defined sacrament as "anything that visibly or tangibly gives expression to any aspect of God's revelation or saving grace ... anything that tangibly prolongs the saving action of Christ". To this (taken from Edward Schillebeeckx), I added a qualification taken from St

Augustine: ". and for something to be a sacrament there must be a certain likeness to the reality it signifies; otherwise you do not have a sacrament at all".

Applying this to marriage, I stated that marriage is a sacrament when the love between a man and a woman has a certain likeness to the way God loves the world and the way Christ loves the church. Given that definition of marriage. a marriage is only a sacrament when "it radiates freely chosen love. commitment, fidelity. deep care. profound respect, great tenderness, hospitality for others, and a willingness to die completely to self for the sake of that love."

Reading this, many asked, "how can human love approximate such an ideal?" These qualities, they argued, would only be present in a perfect marriage. According to those criteria, basically nobody would have a marriage.

It's this point that I address myself: what's key in Augustine's qualification is the phrase "a certain likeness".

The church presupposes, given the limits of human love, that no marriage in this world will ever meet this standard perfectly. No two persons in this life can ever love each other as freely, faithfully, respectfully, tenderly, and selflessly as God loved the world and Christ loves the church.

However, with that being admitted, it must also be admitted that for a relationship between a man and a woman to bring Christ into the world (since love, to be sacrament, must "be food for the life of the world" and not just mutual narcissism) it must have "a certain likeness'' to the free, faithful. respectful, tender, and selfless way that God and Christ love us.

A "certain likeness" does not mean it needs to do this perfectly, but it must do it in some way, however minimal.

This is not, I submit, an impossible ideal, since we, in fact, promise exactly those things in our marriage vows. What else are the marriage vows if they are not apromise to love freely, faithfully, respectfully, tenderly, and be willing to die for each other? When the church grants ain annulment it judges (perhaps wrongly in some cases) that this particular relationship. did not concretely in life radiate what it promised in its marriage lows.

The very fact that the relationship Sroke up is, already, by mist opinions a sufficient indication of this. As C S Lewis once put it, any love that dies h ad, at its very beginning, already some inherent flaw .. . and, by my application of the criteria, was then never truh a sacrament that symbolised God's love for the world (Ephecians 5). The question,of course, then arises: If the dimple fact of failure is sufficient grounds for annulment, thee why have the procedure?

The process el annulment is necessary, as theprevious article stated, for the freedom of conscience of hose who are undergoing it and for the clarity of their status within the rest of the Christian community. Moreover, it helps to bring about the type of closure that makes for t truly new beginning, personally and communally. I have seen man) instances where individuals, while being biter about the process while itwas going on, were extremely grateful for it after it was over That gratitude I submit. came about because they understood, after it was over, the benefit not just of an act of compassin, but 3f an act of adjudication.




blog comments powered by Disqus