1 Matrimony in the Set of the 7 Sacraments<\/p>\n
1.1 The \u201cDifference\u201d of the First \/ Last Sacrament<\/em><\/p>\n 1.2\u00a0The Paradoxical Logic of Matrimony\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n 1.3 Is Matrimony a Good?<\/em><\/p>\n 1.4\u00a0The History of the Subjects and the\u00a0<\/em>depositum fidei<\/em><\/p>\n 2 Four Classic Models of the Theology of Matrimony<\/p>\n 2.1\u00a0The Model of Origins: Matrimony and Patrimony<\/em><\/p>\n 2.2\u00a0The Laborious Construction of a Medieval Model: Roman and Barbarian Traditions<\/em><\/p>\n 2.3\u00a0The Modern Model: The Birth of Canonical Form<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4\u00a0The Secular Era and the Catholic Reaction: Resistance of Temporal Power<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.1\u00a0<\/em>Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Leo XIII\u00a0(1880) and the\u00a0Code of\u00a01917<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.2<\/em>\u00a0Casti Connubii, Pius XI (1930)<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.3<\/em>\u00a0Gaudium et Spes,\u00a0Second Vatican Council (1965)\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.4<\/em>\u00a0Humanae Vitae,\u00a0Paul VI (1968)<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.5<\/em>\u00a0Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II (1981)<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.6\u00a0Code of Canon Law\u00a0(1983)<\/em><\/p>\n 2.4.7<\/em>\u00a0Amoris Laetitia, Francis (2016)<\/em><\/p>\n 3 The Beginning of a “New Paradigm” for Matrimony, Family, and Relationships<\/p>\n 3.1\u00a0A Postmodern Theology with Premodern Schemes<\/em><\/p>\n 3.2\u00a0The Self-Criticism of the 19th-Century Magisterium<\/em><\/p>\n 3.3\u00a0From Act to Process: The Eschatological Dimension of Matrimony<\/em><\/p>\n 4 Open Questions on Union and Generation<\/p>\n 4.1\u00a0The Complex Character of Matrimony<\/em><\/p>\n 4.2\u00a0The Various Goods of Matrimony<\/em><\/p>\n 4.3\u00a0The Debate on Indissolubility<\/em><\/p>\n 4.4\u00a0Objective Law and Pastoral Process<\/em><\/p>\n 4.5\u00a0Forms of Life and the Five Continents of Catholicism<\/em><\/p>\n 5\u00a0The Good of the Sexual Relationship and the “Love Phenomenon”<\/p>\n 5.1\u00a0The Goods of Matrimony are Three, or Rather, Four<\/em><\/p>\n 5.2 Generation Loses its Exclusivity<\/em><\/p>\n 5.3\u00a0From the Use of Sex to the Experience of Sexuality<\/em><\/p>\n 5.4\u00a0Can a Single Good Be Blessed?<\/em><\/p>\n 5.5\u00a0The\u00a0Center and the Periphery: The Different Languages of the Church<\/em><\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Matrimony should be understood at the same time as a natural given<\/em>, as a social construct, <\/em>and as a\u00a0ritual symbol\u00a0<\/em>of the relationship between God and humanity, between Christ and the Church.\u00a0As such, it appears, since the first lists of the \u201cseven sacraments\u201d in the 13th century, as one of them.\u00a0It is surprising, however, that even in the oldest lists, the peculiarity of matrimony has \u201cpolar\u201d characteristics.\u00a0Indeed, it is placed at the end or at the beginning of the list, since it represents, at the same time, the\u00a0case par excellence\u00a0<\/em>and the\u00a0limit case\u00a0<\/em>of the sacrament phenomenon.\u00a0It is at the head or at the end of the sacramental experience.\u00a0On the one hand, in fact, it is the \u201clast\u201d among the sacraments, as it \u201cmakes licit what would be illicit\u201d and can be understood as a\u00a0remedium concupiscentiae<\/em>, that is, as a remedy for concupiscence.\u00a0On the other hand, the scholastic authors themselves do not forget that\u00a0ratione significationis\u00a0<\/em>(that is, \u201cby reason of its meaning\u201d) matrimony is also the first of the sacraments: not only because it was instituted by God before the fall into sin, but because it expresses the unity between God and humanity, between Christ and the Church, with a completely inimitable force and immediacy. These two \u201csouls\u201d of the ecclesial tradition are both concentrated in two famous Pauline expressions: matrimony as a \u201cdistraction\u201d and as a \u201ccurb on passion\u201d (1Cor 7) and matrimony as a way of access to the \u201cgreat mystery\u201d of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5).\u00a0The entire ecclesial tradition moves between these two poles.<\/p>\n Saint Thomas Aquinas explains to us, with extreme clarity, the complex nature of this sacrament.\u00a0In the\u00a0Summa Theologica\u00a0<\/em>(III, 65, 1, c), he presents a famous parallelism between \u201cnatural life\u201d and \u201cspiritual life\u201d and, after having illustrated for each sacrament its \u201cnatural equivalent\u201d (to birth corresponds baptism; to growth, confirmation, etc.), upon arriving at matrimony, he says that \u201cthis natural reality\u201d is the sacrament.\u00a0Instead, in the\u00a0Summa contra Gentiles<\/em>, he addresses matrimony in two different parts (III and IV): the greater part of what he writes is found in the section where reason elaborates the data, while few lines are dedicated to the properly \u201crevealed\u201d and sacramental part (we will return to this in the next paragraph).\u00a0These two examples, in the work of Thomas, confirm something important: in matrimony, in a very particular way, nature and grace, reason and faith are indissolubly intertwined.\u00a0This means that the assumption of reality, whether natural or civil, into the logic of matrimony is a condition of possibility for the sacrament.\u00a0It is no coincidence that only of this sacrament is it said that it is not \u201cinstituted by Jesus Christ,\u201d but is \u201celevated\u201d to a sacrament, its dynamic being already assured by the logic of creation, of nature, and of civil institutions.<\/p>\n It is known that Saint Augustine, in his\u00a0work De bono coniugali<\/em> [On the Good of Marriage<\/em>],\u00a0<\/em>offered the first exposition of a \u201cmatrimonial doctrine,\u201d in which, however, a particularity that draws attention is noted.\u00a0Although this text is at the root of the Christian and Catholic discourse on the \u201cgoods of matrimony,\u201d in reality the fundamental question to which Augustine’s text responds is the question of the compatibility between matrimony and baptismal life.\u00a0The polarization that we have already observed above finds a \u201ccommon place\u201d here: if faith is a way of \u201cmarrying Christ\u201d \u2013 and this applies to the whole Church, male and female \u2013 is it still possible or licit or advisable for the baptized to marry?\u00a0The question, which has predominantly received positive answers, retains, here and there throughout history and in various traditions, the force to translate into different disciplines or social roles.\u00a0Think, for example, of how matrimony has differently impacted, in the East and in the West, the forms of life of pastors (deacons, presbyters, and bishops).<\/p>\n The particular characteristics of the seventh sacrament have always had to mediate between nature, history, and grace.\u00a0For this reason, the major stages of the theology of matrimony are affected by a very close relationship between forms of life (familial, economic, cultural) and their interpretation by the Church.\u00a0At least until the 15th century, it was quite obvious to entrust to nature and society the articulation of this experience, which the Church limited herself to blessing and elevating to the dignity of a sacrament.\u00a0The changes in the history of institutions, in the geographical understanding of the world, in forms of production, and in subjective consciousness would lead, from the 19th century onwards, to a progressive change in the model of matrimony and family.\u00a0And it will be surprising to observe how the classic theme of \u201cmatrimony\u201d will increasingly unite with the new theme of \u201cfamily,\u201d ignored by ecclesial doctrine for about nineteen centuries.\u00a0However, it must be recognized that, precisely because of the very unique intertwining of levels of experience and knowledge, matrimony is the object of profound natural, social, psychological, and economic reconsideration.\u00a0On all these levels, the theological tradition, after the attempt to resist at all costs, was forced to \u201ctranslate the tradition,\u201d\u00a0as had already happened at least four times throughout history and as Amoris Laetitia<\/em> (AL) once again clearly demands as a task for the coming decades.\u00a0Let us, therefore, examine four classic forms of approaching matrimonial theology.<\/p>\n The proclamation of the fullness of the relationship between man and woman, as a place of truth of the Covenant with the heavenly Father, qualifies the word of Jesus (Mt 19:1-9) and inaugurates the overcoming of the \u201chardness of heart.\u201d\u00a0But already in the oldest words, the presence of the \u201cexception clause\u201d \u2013 \u201cexcept in the case of\u00a0porneia<\/em>\u201d \u2013 opens space for an ecclesial elaboration of the Master’s word, which implies a delicate mediation between natural, civil, and ecclesial logics.\u00a0The identification of the recipients of the word\u00a0\u2013 which was received as a universal word but has prophetic and eschatological characteristics indicating that its primary recipients are the disciples \u2013 can be clarified by examining the logic of the entirety of chapter\u00a019 of the Gospel according to Matthew, in which one moves from \u201cmatrimony\u201d (Mt 19:3-9) to \u201cpatrimony\u201d (Mt 19:16-30): the indissolubility of the personal bond and the absence of economic ties are announced in the same text, although tradition has been oriented to receive the first as a \u201cnorm of natural law\u201d and the second as an \u201cevangelical counsel\u201d (cf. BARBAGLIA, 2016).\u00a0The result is, on the one hand, the symbolic valorization of the spousal union and, on the other, an increasingly accurate discipline of Christian life.\u00a0The assumption of the creatural reality (\u201cChristians marry like everyone else,\u201d from the\u00a0Epistle to Diognetus<\/em>) or the judgment of the relationship on a legal, prophetic, or eschatological level color differently the first centuries of the reception of the Gospel, up to the first systematization by Augustine (On the Good of Marriage<\/em>).<\/p>\n The doctrinal and disciplinary evolution in the Middle Ages deserves careful consideration (cf. CORTONI, 2021).\u00a0In the first place, it becomes evident that the doctrine of matrimony, in its unity, had to mediate different cultural, legal, and even \u201cnatural\u201d traditions.\u00a0There is, in fact, a long elaboration, lasting for some centuries, that tries to harmonize the reading of matrimony as \u201cconsent\u201d\u00a0\u2013 typical of the Roman tradition \u2013 with that which understands it as \u201ccoitus\u201d \u2013 typical of the peoples who came to Rome from the North.\u00a0The synthesis, which theological and legal knowledge would sustain in the Universities of Paris and Bologna from the 12th century onwards, would offer a powerful historical mediation, combining in the same act the \u201cvalidity of consent\u201d and the \u201cindissolubility by consummation.\u201d\u00a0The legal formula, however, hides the presence, in the dynamic of the sacrament, of different levels of experience, whose composition is permanently entrusted also to the mediation of nature and civil culture and cannot be simply anticipated by the Church.<\/p>\n It is, therefore, extremely useful to carefully analyze one of the great syntheses of medieval knowledge on matrimony, as found in the Summa contra Gentiles<\/em> (ScG<\/em>) by Thomas Aquinas.\u00a0The theme of matrimony is \u201cdivided\u201d into two parts. The first, more substantial, is in book III (chapters 122-126), while the more strictly sacramental part is found in book IV.\u00a0It is necessary to know that the first three books of the ScG<\/em> are dedicated to the discussion of arguments \u201cof natural reason,\u201d while book IV works in the field of \u201cdivine revelation.\u201d\u00a0Therefore, there are two discourses on matrimony:<\/p>\n \u2013 in book III (chapters 122-126), the text deals with natural matrimony, indissolubility, monogamous matrimony, kinship, and the sinful nature of all carnal union;<\/p>\n \u2013 matrimony (as a sacrament) is found in book IV\u00a0and is limited to a single chapter (78).<\/p>\n In this chapter\u00a078, the theological discourse is concentrated in a few lines around the theme of<\/p>\n generatio<\/em> (that is, “generation”), as the central category of the sacrament:<\/p>\n Generatio autem humana ordinatur ad multa: scilicet ad perpetuitatem speciei<\/strong>; et ad\u00a0perpetuitatem alicuius boni politici<\/strong>, puta ad perpetuitatem populi in aliqua civitate; ordinatur etiam\u00a0ad perpetuitatem Ecclesiae<\/strong>, quae in fidelium collectione consistit. Unde oportet quod huiusmodi\u00a0generatio a diversis dirigatur<\/strong>. Inquantum igitur ordinatur ad bonum naturae, quod est perpetuitas speciei,\u00a0dirigitur in finem a natura inclinante in hunc finem: et sic dicitur esse naturae officium<\/strong>. Inquantum vero ordinatur\u00a0ad bonum politicum, subiacet ordinationi civilis legis<\/strong>. Inquantum igitur\u00a0ordinatur ad bonum Ecclesiae, oportet quod subiaceat regimini ecclesiastico<\/strong>. Ea autem\u00a0quae populo per ministros Ecclesiae dispensantur, sacramenta dicuntur<\/strong>. Matrimonium igitur secundum quod consistit in coniunctione maris et feminae intendentium prolem ad cultum Dei generare et educare est Ecclesiae sacramentum:\u00a0unde et quaedam benedictio nubentibus per ministros Ecclesiae adhibetur<\/strong>.<\/strong> (THOMAS AQUINAS, ScG, l. IV, c. 78)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In translation:<\/p>\n Human generation is ordered to many things, namely: to the perpetuation of the species<\/strong>, to the perpetuation of some political good<\/strong>, such as the perpetuation of the people in a certain city, or to the perpetuation of the Church<\/strong>, which consists in the assembly of the faithful.\u00a0It is, therefore, necessary that such generation be directed by different subjects<\/strong>.\u00a0Indeed, insofar as it is ordered to the good of nature, which is the perpetuation of the species, it is directed to this end by the force of nature that inclines it to this end: and for this reason it is said to be a duty of nature<\/strong>.\u00a0Insofar as it is ordered to a political good, it is subject to the force of civil law<\/strong>.\u00a0Insofar as it is ordered to the good of the Church<\/strong>, it is fitting that it be subject to ecclesiastical governance<\/strong>.\u00a0Now, what is conferred upon the people by the ministers of the Church is called a sacrament<\/strong>.\u00a0Therefore, matrimony, as it consists in the union of a man and a woman intending to generate and educate offspring for the worship of God, is a sacrament of the Church, and for this reason, a blessing of the betrothed by the ministers of the Church is provided. (THOMAS AQUINAS, ScG, l. IV, c. 78)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n If we examine the text, we will see presented, as in a mirror, the characteristics of the medieval model that will remain until the Council of Trent.\u00a0Let its key points be summarized:<\/p>\n \u2013 it is characterized by a \u201cplurality of forums.\u201d The same phenomenon, matrimony, is read in three spheres: natural, civil, and ecclesial, to which correspond three \u201claws\u201d and three \u201clogics\u201d;<\/p>\n \u2013 the sacramental dimension is the generation and education of children in the faith;<\/p>\n \u2013 the sacrament evidently consists in the \u201cblessing of the spouses\u201d by the ministers of the Church, without directly including the sexual union or the consent, which belong to the natural and civil logic.<\/p>\n From a systematic point of view, the \u201cform\u201d of the sacrament and its ministeriality are conceived according to a very different vision from the current one.\u00a0Since \u201cconsent\u201d and \u201cconsummation\u201d belong to rational, natural, and civil logic, the ecclesial dimension is simply concerned with the \u201cblessing,\u201d which obviously is not an act of the spouses (as consent and consummation are), but of the presbyter or the bishop.<\/p>\n The transition that occurs with the Council of Trent is of extreme importance.\u00a0Not only because the classic doctrine on matrimony is reaffirmed, against the Protestant challenge, but because, through the Decree Tametsi<\/em> (1563), the institutional understanding of matrimony is transformed: as the first word says, \u201ctametsi<\/em>\u201d [= although, notwithstanding], there is a \u201cconcession,\u201d at the core of the document, that revolutionizes the history of Catholic matrimony.\u00a0Let us read the first paragraph of the decree:<\/p>\n The holy Church of God has always detested and forbidden for most just reasons clandestine marriages<\/strong>, although<\/strong> it should not be doubted that, carried out with the free consent<\/strong> of the contracting parties, they are ratified and true marriages, as long as the Church has not annulled them;<\/p>\n and, consequently, they should rightly be condemned, as the holy Synod <\/strong>with anathema condemns those who deny that they are true and ratified, and also those who erroneously affirm that marriages contracted by children of the family without the consent of the parents are null<\/strong>, and that the parents can make them ratified or null. (DH 1813)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In this paragraph, which opens the decree, a world is changing.\u00a0The role of the Church in matrimony changes.\u00a0The introduction of the \u201ccanonical form,\u201d necessary for the validity of the act, places the Church in a new position.\u00a0There was resistance at the time.\u00a0Here is the clarifying opinion of one of the bishops at the Council, who said: \u201cif clandestine marriage were abolished, marriages made freely and spontaneously would be abolished and, consequently, true friendship between spouses would be forbidden\u201d (so says the bishop of Cava de’ Tirreni, Tommaso Caselli).<\/p>\n This decision inaugurates the competence of the Church in matrimonial cases, which will remain a kind of imprinting<\/em> for the entire modern period and which will explode in the era of late modernity, when the competition will no longer be from the first modern States, but from the liberal States that succeeded the French Revolution.\u00a0The clash will revolve around the \u201ccompetence regarding union and generation.\u201d\u00a0A contemporary, Paolo Sarpi, who was a respected and critical chronicler of the Council of Trent, wrote about the decree:<\/p>\n Be that as it may \u2013 they said \u2013, the decree would not have been made except to elaborate, very soon, an article of faith affirming that the words pronounced by the parish priest would be the form of the sacrament… On the contrary, it was established that, without the presence of the priest, every marriage was null, the supreme exaltation of the ecclesiastical order, since such an important action in political and economic administration, which until then was solely in the hands of those to whom it belonged, became entirely subject to the clergy, leaving no way to contract marriage if the priests, that is, the parish priest and the bishop, for whatever interest, refused to attend. (SARPI)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n John Bossy, in turn, author of a successful synthesis on Christendom between the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Age, clarifies what happened to matrimony in the decree:<\/p>\n The proposal was accepted \u2013 it was the only one that could reconcile the parties \u2013 and became law.\u00a0Even if it had been in some way prefigured by the previous history on the subject, it was still a bolt from the blue, and it is not clear to what extent the Council was aware of having imposed on Christendom a true revolution, in the proper sense of the word.\u00a0By canceling the canonical doctrine according to which the conjugal contract followed by\u00a0carnal copulation\u00a0constituted Christian marriage, excluding the vast corpus<\/em> of customary rites and agreements for being deprived of sacramental potentiality, marriage was transformed from a social process guaranteed by the Church into an ecclesiastical process administered by the Church.\u00a0(BOSSY, 1997, p. 79)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The figure of matrimony, which emerged after the mid-16th century, would have a great influence on our way of thinking about the sacrament, its truth, and its effects.\u00a0Although it is a merely disciplinary intervention, it will have no small doctrinal consequences, which will be felt especially from the 19th century onwards.<\/p>\n The title of the recent Apostolic Exhortation (FRANCIS, 2016) is\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>, the\u00a0joy of love, the rejoicing of love, but also\u00a0the fruitfulness and creativity of love.\u00a0The Latin word laetitia<\/em> is rich in resonances and promises.\u00a0Thus begins the\u00a0document: with the joy of love.\u00a0After the joy of the gospel\u00a0\u2013 in\u00a0Evangelii Gaudium\u00a0<\/em>\u2013 the joy of love \u2013 in\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>.\u00a0How did we get here?\u00a0It may be useful to recall,\u00a0in an extremely summary way, the major stages\u00a0that have brought us to this point, which is a kind of \u201cnew beginning.\u201d\u00a0After the ancient, medieval, and modern-Tridentine models, a \u201c19th-century model\u201d emerged, which has its debut in the first\u00a0papal document of the \u201clate Modern Age\u201d that addresses the \u201cmatrimonial\u201d issue\u00a0in a new context.\u00a0We are in 1880, during\u00a0the pontificate of Leo XIII, a few years after the \u201cassault on the\u00a0Porta Pia\u201d and the loss of the \u201ctemporal power\u201d of the popes.\u00a0The story that begins at that moment \u2013 and that comes to an end with AL \u2013 is deeply marked\u00a0by institutional, legal, and political issues,\u00a0that characterized the evolution of much of the following 140 years.\u00a0Theological issues and institutional issues became intertwined in a new way, which is\u00a0unprecedented in the history of the Church.\u00a0In light of the new\u00a0text, we can reread this story in another way.<\/p>\n The entire great medieval tradition, mediated with authority\u00a0by the Council of Trent, assumes, with this\u00a0encyclical of Leo XIII,\u00a0the new and unprecedented problem of a reaffirmation of \u201cecclesial competence\u201d in the face of the claim of competence\u00a0by modern States over matrimony, which the 19th century\u00a0had just inaugurated.\u00a0The fundamental themes, typical\u00a0of the entire preceding tradition, are thus \u201cfiltered\u201d by this new and dramatic problem.\u00a0In this encyclical, the \u201cforms of thought and of action\u201d are elaborated that\u00a0will later be adopted by the Code of Canon Law of\u00a01917. And that will become, for many decades, the decisive\u00a0axis of the \u201cCatholic\u201d understanding of matrimony,\u00a0of family, and of love.\u00a0With its merits and its defects.\u00a0To this day, this institutional \u201cstrangulation\u201d casts its long shadow on the way we speak, reflect, act, and\u00a0even pray about love and matrimony.<\/p>\n Fifty years later, in a completely different world, Pius XI took up\u00a0a particular theme such as \u201ccontraception\u201d\u00a0as the \u201ckey to understanding\u201d matrimony and the\u00a0family.\u00a0This would determine, from then on, a\u00a0certain priority\u00a0in the \u201cnatural\u201d reading of matrimony and family.\u00a0The renunciation of \u201cfreedom\u201d in the matrimonial context\u00a0translates into the norm of a purely \u201cobjective\u201d sexuality, almost purified of subjectivity and regulated only\u00a0naturally and, therefore, by God himself.\u00a0In an embrace\u00a0between grace and nature that, in the long run, risks\u00a0suffocating and increasingly polarizing the relationship with\u00a0civil\u00a0culture\u00a0and its inevitable \u201cresponsible\u201d evolution.\u00a0The identification of God with the \u201cnatural\u201d and of man with the \u201cartificial\u201d created a growing polarization, which not only brought clarity but, in the long run,\u00a0clouded minds and hearts.\u00a0Thus, the theme of \u201cnature,\u201d which for the theological tradition was a guarantee of \u201cdialogue with reason,\u201d became a principle of confrontation and opposition to contemporary culture.<\/p>\n The texts we find in GS (n. 46-52) testify to some phenomena of great importance:<\/p>\n \u2013 matrimony and family are united and thought of in the category of \u201cmore urgent problems,\u201d but no longer primarily apologetically, but with openness, mercy, and dialogue;<\/p>\n \u2013 a \u201cpersonalist reading\u201d is proposed that, in no way, excludes the maintenance of the disciplinary and doctrinal structures of the 19th century, but rereads them with new lenses: family holiness, conjugal love, and fruitfulness are understood as part of the ecclesial mission;<\/p>\n \u2013 cultural dialogue becomes a promising ground for common development, for the recognition of the good of matrimony and family, as a \u201cschool of human enrichment.\u201d<\/p>\n This stage is crucial, as it fits into the \u201cpastoral nature\u201d of Vatican II, according to which the substance of the ancient doctrine of the depositum fidei<\/em> is distinguished from the formulation of its coating, according to the allocution Gaudet Mater Ecclesia<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>with which John XXIII opened the council’s works.<\/p>\n Notwithstanding the partial change of language introduced\u00a0by the Second Vatican Council and the path towards a\u00a0\u201cpersonalization\u201d of matrimony and family, which\u00a0certainly find\u00a0an affirmation of\u00a0great importance\u00a0in\u00a0Gaudium et Spes<\/em>, still in 1968 we find\u00a0in Humanae Vitae,<\/em> by Paul VI, ample vestiges of the configuration that dates back to\u00a0Arcanum Divinae\u00a0Sapientiae\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Casti Connubii<\/em>: matrimony and family\u00a0\u2013 as unique places for the exercise of sexuality \u2013 are entirely\u00a0\u201cpredetermined\u201d by God, leaving for the human being a space of\u00a0responsibility so small that it often results almost fictitious and\u00a0always very formal and, in any case, hijacked by the theories\u00a0of \u201ccontractual consent.\u201d\u00a0The possibility of a \u201cresponsible\u00a0generation\u201d becomes an abstract theme, to which \u201cpractices\u201d and \u201cdisciplines\u201d that are realistic do not\u00a0correspond.\u00a0But the\u00a0ineffective solution depends \u2013 more generally \u2013 on a way of thinking about matrimony and family \u201cin contrast\u201d with\u00a0modern civil culture.\u00a0Matrimony and family\u00a0can still\u00a0be \u201cused\u201d as anti-modern bulwarks and\u00a0reserves of ecclesiastical competence.\u00a0But in this \u201cuse\u201d\u00a0they also suffer mortifications and progressive reductions, which\u00a0paralyze ecclesial thought and practice, isolating and\u00a0marginalizing it from the common culture.\u00a0\u201cResponsible parenthood\u201d becomes a space for reflection on the world and of self-reflection on the Church, with a view to a different understanding of the relationship between union and generation.<\/p>\n Although within a strong continuity with the language\u00a0of the previous century,\u00a0Familiaris Consortio\u00a0<\/em>makes two important changes: on the one hand, it introduces, even in the title, the expression familiaris<\/em>, which is new in the magisterium, which had always dealt with \u201cmatrimony,\u201d not\u00a0family.\u00a0Its precedent is certainly the Second Vatican\u00a0Council and its rethinking of the family ecclesiastically.\u00a0But the second\u00a0decisive step is the open recognition of a\u00a0\u201cdifferentiation\u201d of society, which henceforth emerges as evident\u00a0also for the Church.\u00a0There are not only \u201cregular families,\u201d\u00a0but also \u201cirregular\u201d ones, which are no longer automatically and\u00a0ipso facto\u00a0<\/em>\u201cinfamous\u201d and \u201cexcommunicated.\u201d\u00a0The document of John Paul II does not give much importance to this \u201cadmission,\u201d but it is the beginning of a small revolution.\u00a0The logic of opposition\u00a0to civil society, inaugurated by\u00a0Arcanum\u00a0Divinae Sapientiae,\u00a0<\/em>in 1880, one hundred years later no\u00a0longer\u00a0holds\u00a0up on the practical and operational level, even if theoretically\u00a0it can still provide some comfort.\u00a0Instead of frontal opposition,\u00a0reconciliation in\u00a0differentiation comes into question.\u00a0It is only a task, indicated and not performed,\u00a0but clearly recognized.\u00a0This opens the way for an evolution first of praxis and then also of theory.<\/p>\n In the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em>, n.\u00a01601, under the title \u201cThe Sacrament of Matrimony,\u201d the following text is found:<\/p>\n The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (CIC can. 1055, \u00a7 1)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n If we look systematically, one fact should surprise us: this is the only one of the seven sacraments to begin with a citation from the code.\u00a0This fact says a lot about the tradition, its lights and shadows.\u00a0It is a tradition that, as we have seen, is prepared by medieval theoretical developments, by modern institutional upheavals, and thus finds a language and a mens<\/em> ready to be applied also to new questions, which arise much later than the Council of Trent.\u00a0We see the root of this \u201cjuridical beginning\u201d in the evolution of the magisterium and of ecclesial experience, as it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.<\/p>\n The Code of Canon Law of 1917 defined matrimony in the following terms: \u201cMatrimonial consent is the act of the will by which each of the two parties transmits and receives the perpetual and exclusive right over the body (ius in corpus<\/em>), for the purpose of acts, by their nature, apt for the generation of offspring\u201d (can. 1081 \u00a7 2 of the 1917 CIC).<\/p>\n At least three important points can be observed here:<\/p>\n \u2013 matrimony is understood as a \u201ccontract\u201d;<\/p>\n \u2013 the central point is the \u201cright to dispose of the spouse’s body\u201d and not the \u201cintimate partnership of the whole of life\u201d;<\/p>\n \u2013 the absence of any reference to the \u201cgood of the spouses.\u201d<\/p>\n Also the legal language, in a century, has changed profoundly, which has not failed to be significant as a preparation for the leap that happened with\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>.<\/p>\n Thus, we arrive at the magisterium of Francis.\u00a0It is the last link\u00a0in the magisterial chain of the late Modern Age.\u00a0We do not just have a\u00a0\u201cnew\u201d\u00a0document, following an accurate synodal process, with a\u00a0strong demand for pastoral conversion and a vigorous\u00a0reception of the Second Vatican Council.\u00a0Even just at the\u00a0\u201clexical\u201d level,\u00a0the \u201cnames\u00a0of love\u201d change and transform: from \u201carcane\u00a0divine wisdom\u201d to \u201cchaste matrimony,\u201d then to\u00a0\u201chuman life,\u201d to \u201cfamilial consortium,\u201d to finally arrive\u00a0at the \u201cjoy of love.\u201d\u00a0Behind these changing names, we see a complex, painful, problematic,\u00a0and at the same time, promising history emerge.\u00a0The new document must\u00a0be read in this \u201cbroad arc,\u201d in the context\u00a0of this recent history,\u00a0without simply dissolving it into the\u00a02,000 years of Christian history, but also not compressing it\u00a0into the very recent history of the last decades.\u00a0In light\u00a0of this last document, all the others today inevitably take on\u00a0new colors and forms.\u00a0Thus it has always been\u00a0in the long history of the Christian Church, every time the tradition has managed to show and recognize itself not only\u00a0as \u201cliving,\u201d but also as \u201chealthy.\u201d\u00a0To maintain this \u201chealthy and robust constitution,\u201d it is necessary to incessantly resort to the sources of tradition and offer a \u201ctranslation,\u201d as I will try to do next.<\/p>\n The period that followed the Second Vatican Council accelerated the dissolution of the \u201c19th-century model\u201d of understanding and articulating the matrimonial experience.\u00a0To use the image of a great German sociologist of the second half of the 20th century,\u00a0\u201cmodern society is distinguished from previous social formations by a double increase: a greater possibility of impersonal relationships and more intense personal relationships\u201d (LUHMANN, 2008, p. 43).\u00a0The text of AL, in fact, sanctioned the ecclesial encounter with this world by means of a series of novelties that deserve to be briefly considered next.<\/p>\n The end of the 19th-century model of Catholic theology of matrimony is nourished not only by a new experience of \u201cunion\u201d and \u201cgeneration,\u201d offered by the open liberal and post-liberal society, but also by the use of \u201cinterpretive schemes\u201d different from those established between the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council.\u00a0A \u201cpostmodern\u201d theology of union and generation resorts to \u201cpremodern schemes\u201d to overcome the difficulties of the modern reading provided by the Tridentine \u201ccanonical form,\u201d reinterpreted by the apologetics of the 19th century and by the two codes of the 20th century.<\/p>\n \u2013 a “personalist reading” is proposed that, in no way, excludes the maintenance of the disciplinary and doctrinal structures of the 19th century, but rereads them with new lenses: family holiness, conjugal love, and fruitfulness are understood as part of the ecclesial mission;<\/p>\n \u2013 cultural dialogue becomes a promising ground for common development, for the recognition of the good of matrimony and family, as a \u201cschool of human enrichment.\u201d<\/p>\n This stage is crucial, as it fits into the \u201cpastoral nature\u201d of Vatican II, according to which the substance of the ancient doctrine of the depositum fidei<\/em> is distinguished from the formulation of its coating, according to the allocution Gaudet Mater Ecclesia<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>with which John XXIII opened the council’s works.<\/p>\n The end of the 19th-century model of Catholic theology of matrimony is nourished not only by a new experience of \u201cunion\u201d and \u201cgeneration,\u201d offered by the open liberal and post-liberal society, but also by the use of \u201cinterpretive schemes\u201d different from those established between the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council.\u00a0A \u201cpostmodern\u201d theology of union and generation resorts to \u201cpremodern schemes\u201d to overcome the difficulties of the modern reading provided by the Tridentine \u201ccanonical form,\u201d reinterpreted by the apologetics of the 19th century and by the two codes of the 20th century.<\/p>\n Quite explicitly, AL proposes a \u201cself-criticism\u201d of the magisterial style of the two preceding centuries (cf. AL n. 35-37).\u00a0In particular, the distortions of a matrimonial pastoral care based on sterile denunciation, on alleged normatization, on \u201cinadequate ways of expressing convictions and of treating people,\u201d on the \u201cimbalance between the unitive end and the procreative end,\u201d on the ideological idealization of theology, on the alleged \u201cself-sufficiency of doctrine,\u201d and on the presumption of \u201creplacing consciences, not forming them\u201d are underlined.<\/p>\n One of the most decisive aspects of the paradigm shift consists precisely in a difficult transition from considering matrimony as an \u201cact\u201d to thinking of it as a \u201cprocess.\u201d\u00a0The relevance of the \u201cfacts of life\u201d and the \u201cpaths of conscience\u201d thus becomes decisive also for theology, as the last number of AL states with luminous clarity:<\/p>\n Contemplating the fullness we have not yet reached also allows us to relativize the historical path we are taking as families, thus ceasing to demand of interpersonal relationships a perfection, a purity of intentions, and a coherence that we can only find in the definitive Kingdom.\u00a0Furthermore, it prevents us from judging harshly those who live in conditions of great fragility.\u00a0We are all called to keep alive the tension for something beyond ourselves and our limits, and every family must live in this constant stimulus.\u00a0(AL n.325)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A doctrine on matrimony, family, and facts of cohabitation implies a rereading of the entire tradition.\u00a0Here are the main elements that synthesize historical analysis and systematic reflection.<\/p>\n Matrimony is an \u201cinstitution\u201d that simultaneously participates in nature, civil culture, and ecclesial vocation.\u00a0None of these dimensions, even in their relative autonomy, can be considered without the others.\u00a0There are, therefore:<\/p>\n \u2013 facts and desires to be assumed;<\/p>\n \u2013 rights \/ duties to be observed and processed;<\/p>\n \u2013 gifts and mysteries to be recognized and celebrated.<\/p>\n The irreducibility of each of these levels to the others is one of the greatest challenges of this sacrament.\u00a0And the challenge of tradition lies precisely in safeguarding the correlation between non-reducible elements.\u00a0This original complexity of matrimony has put ecclesial doctrine to the test.\u00a0Both because matrimony comes \u201cbefore\u201d the sacrament, and because it comes \u201cat the end\u201d of the sacrament.\u00a0That is why it could be the \u201cfirst\u201d and \u201clast\u201d of the sacraments.\u00a0Because in matrimony \u201cgrace\u201d shows itself as nature and, at the same time, nature \u201cis already\u201d grace.\u00a0And, amidst these \u201cpoles,\u201d moves the law, which, on the one hand, functions as \u201cpedagogy\u201d and, on the other, as \u201crecognition.\u201d\u00a0Perhaps it is precisely at this point that we find the most difficulties in our time.<\/p>\n The reflection on the \u201cgoods\u201d of matrimony was, in turn, the fruit of a natural, cultural, and ecclesial elaboration.\u00a0When we speak of the \u201cgoods\u201d of matrimony, we are moving precisely on this slippery slope.\u00a0Their identification \u2013 inaugurated by Augustine through the triad proles<\/em>, fides<\/em>, and sacramentum<\/em> \u2013 realizes a selection of the \u201cdata\u201d that \u2013 from time to time \u2013 nature, history, and the Church place in the focus of their attention.\u00a0Thus, it was possible for \u201cgoods\u201d to emerge that the ancient, medieval, and modern Church did not consider.\u00a0Let us examine just three:<\/p>\n1 Matrimony in the Set of the 7 Sacraments<\/strong><\/h6>\n
1.1 The \u201cDifference\u201d of the First \/ Last Sacrament<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em><\/h6>\n
1.2\u00a0The Paradoxical Logic of Matrimony\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
1.3 Is Matrimony a Good?<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
1.4\u00a0The History of the Subjects and the\u00a0<\/strong>depositum fidei<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2 Four Classic Models of the Theology of Matrimony<\/strong><\/h5>\n
2.1\u00a0The Model of Origins: Matrimony and Patrimony\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.2\u00a0The Laborious Construction of a Medieval Model: Roman and Barbarian Traditions\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
\n
2.3\u00a0The Modern Model: The Birth of Canonical Form<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
\n
\n
2.4\u00a0The Secular Era and the Catholic Reaction: Resistance of Temporal Power<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.1\u00a0Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, Leo XIII\u00a0(1880) and the\u00a0Code of\u00a01917<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.2<\/strong>\u00a0Casti Connubii, <\/strong>Pius XI (1930)<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.3\u00a0Gaudium et Spes,\u00a0Second Vatican Council (1965)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.4<\/strong>\u00a0Humanae Vitae,\u00a0<\/strong>Paul VI (1968)<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.5<\/strong>\u00a0Familiaris Consortio, <\/strong>John Paul II (1981)<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
2.4.6\u00a0Code of Canon Law\u00a0(1983)<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
2.4.7<\/strong>\u00a0Amoris Laetitia, <\/strong>Francis (2016)<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
3 The Beginning of a “New Paradigm” for Matrimony, Family, and Relationships<\/strong><\/h5>\n
3.1 A Postmodern Theology with Premodern Schemes<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
3.2\u00a0The Self-Criticism of the 19th-Century Magisterium<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
3.1 A Postmodern Theology with Premodern Schemes<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
3.2\u00a0The Self-Criticism of the 19th-Century Magisterium<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
3.3\u00a0From Act to Process: The Eschatological Dimension of Matrimony<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
4 Open Questions on Union and Generation<\/strong><\/h5>\n
4.1\u00a0The Complex Character of Matrimony<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n
4.2\u00a0The Various Goods of Matrimony<\/strong><\/em><\/h6>\n