cormacburke.me.ke

"Married personalism" (the debate on this site between Professor Rik Torfs of Louvain and myself) has provoked quite a number of email comments from readers. While Prof Torfs and I are very good friends, our views on the topic of Married Personalism are quite different; which of course is why we could debate. It might be helpful if I here attempt a very brief summary of my views on two points in particular: married personalism and the good of the spouses.

Christian personalism, a key notion in the thought of John Paul II, is expressed in Vatican II's Gaudium et spes Constitution: "man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself" (no. 24). The application of this personalist approach to marriage is clearly expressed in the definition of marital consent given in the 1983 Code: that "act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage" (c. 1057; cf CCC 1662).

This personalist expression of the gift involved in marriage is at the root of any proper understanding of the bonum coniugum or the "good of the spouses" which is listed, along with procreation, as one of the ends of marriage (c. 1055). The "good" the Church proposes as one of the ends of matrimony is not an easy, self-satisfying life, but the good of giving oneself - to one's spouse and to one's children - and, by giving oneself, coming out of oneself and learning to love. Marriage, in God's plan, is a school of love; those who seek themselves in marriage, instead of giving themselves, will never achieve its end.

Certainly some canonists read the bonum coniugum in a reductive way; instead of the "good of the spouses" it would be the 'good' i.e. the subjective satisfaction of one of the spouses (independently of the good of the other or the children); and if that subjective satisfaction has not been achieved, this may provide grounds for declaring the marriage null. Such an interpretation contradicts the clear sense of the law; it reflects not true married personalism, but a totally opposed philosophy of individualism.

Some people regret the absence, in the present teaching of the Church, of a "hierarchy" of ends (procreation as 'primary' end). To my mind, the magisterium wishes to leave behind debates about 'primary' and 'secondary' ends, and rather to emphasize the necessary interdependence between them. Indeed it is possible here to see continuity of thought with the teaching of Humanae vitae about the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act. The self-giving of the spouses is not true unless it is open to life; and the good of the spouses is not achieved unless they learn together to sacrifice themselves generously and faithfully for their children.

I have consistently put forward these views since 1986. Many articles and sentences on my website illustrate them at greater length.