Denial of reality on the indisollubility of marriage

At the outset, I would like to thank Anton Gauci for inviting me to a public debate with him on the question of the indissolubility of marriage and related issues.

Unfortunately, my current medical condition does not permit me to accept his kind offer.

Mgr Gauci’s contributions on the issue demonstrate a persistent denial of reality, a rigid interpretation of moral imperatives and doctrine, and a modicum of pastoral insensitivity.

I am led to believe that, earlier on in his life, he blindly accepted the Church teachings he had been taught and, subsequently, dared not attempt a personal evaluation of their merits. He certainly can do with a fresh look at the historical development of the indissolubility of marriage.

Probably, the simplest and most primitive of all ego defence mechanisms is denial of reality. We evade many disagreeable realities simply by ignoring or refusing to accept them.

Mgr Gauci chose to ignore my comments on the validity of the sacraments administered by the Eastern churches. The separated Eastern churches regard divorce and remarriage as an exceptional concession to human brokenness, living as we do in a fallen world.

The Council of Florence (1438-1439) did not see divorce in the Eastern churches as an obstacle to the reunion with Rome.

Mgr Gauci’s omission to tackle head-on my two issues of the Pauline Privilege and the exercise of Papal Dissolution speaks volumes. These two issues have in common the fact that what was considered to be a true marriage is considered to be no longer binding. He must be aware that, among other things, under Papal Dissolution has been the accepted law in the Church that solemn religious profession automatically dissolves a marriage as long as it has not been consummated.

Mgr Gauci takes me to task regarding my assertion that Church doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is simply authoritative teaching and neither definitive dogma nor definitive teaching. Canon 7 in the Council of Trent’s declarations on marriage finishes by declaring ‘anathema’, meaning excommunication, those who do not admit the indissolubility of marriage. However, Mgr Gauci fails to understand the declarations in their historical and cultual context.

In his essay Catholic Divorce, Annulments and Deception, professor of sociology Pierre Hegy refers to Canon 7 thus: “In Canon 7 the council fathers accomplished the nearly impossible task of condemning the Reformers without condemning the early fathers and Eastern Churches. Canon 7 condemns those (the Reformers) who reject the Church’s right to teach ‘that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved because of adultery of either spouse’. The contention is on power and discipline, not doctrine: the Catholic Church claims to have the right to teach and administer authoritatively in the sphere of marriage: the Protestants denied such a right; the question of doctrine was thus bypassed. The text also implicitly acknowledges that the Eastern churches may equally be ‘in conformity with evangelical and apostoliv doctrine’”.

The Catholic teaching and practice with regard to indissolubility has undergone considerable development throughout history. This development seems strange given Jesus’ seemingly absolutist teaching on marriage.

The Christian conscience has always understood that the words of Jesus should not be taken literally as strict laws. Who has ever cut off his right hand and thrown it away “because it causes him to sin” (Matth 5: 3)? Jesus explicity says: “Do not swear at all” (Matth 5:34-37). If this is taken as an absolute command we would never be allowed, under any circumstances, to take an oath. Jesus clearly proclaims that we should be perfect, therefore, as our Heavenly Father is perfect (Matth 5:48). An internalisation of such a standard leads to inevitable failure that lends to frustration, guilt and self-devaluation.

We live in a morally complex world. We live with evil. Sometimes we tolerate evil, at other times we compromise with evil, and in rare cases we choose the lesser of two evils. Hence the need for Mgr Gauci to be less scathing in his remarks regarding pro-divorce activist Deborah Schembri and to be more circumspect about applauding Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi for his vigorous stand against divorce (Why Divine Laws Must Be Respected, June 15).