cormacburke.me.ke

An assumption at times found in current canonical writing is that Church thinking has been dominated for centuries - right up to Vatican II - by an "institutional" understanding of marriage, and that this is now gradually but surely giving way to a more personalist understanding. In the institutional understanding the social aspect of marriage is emphasized and, concretely, its role as an institution for propagating the human race. This understanding has roots that stretch far back into the past. A lot of its strength developed from the doctrine of the three-fold matrimonial "bona" and, later, from the elaboration of the contractual concept of matrimony and from the requirement of canonical form.

This century has seen an ongoing debate within the Church about the ends of marriage. A traditional understanding presented these ends in a clear hierarchy or order of importance: a "primary" end (procreation) and two "secondary" ends (mutual help and the remedy for concupiscence). Early on in the century a feeling began to emerge that this understanding was too exclusively centered on the procreative function of the marital relationship, while it neglected "personalist" aspects or values also characterizing this relationship, and of which modern times have become more aware: love between man and woman as the main motive for marrying, the promise of personal happiness or fulfillment that marriage seems to offer, the human values felt to underlie physical sexuality.

            The Autumn 1995 issue of your Newsletter carried an article on my jurisprudence by Prof. Rik Torfs, a translation of a paper that he presented some four or five years ago at a Flemish Canon Law Workshop. The trouble in responding to this article is that it is somewhat dated - certainly as regards the present state of discussion between myself and my respected friend and sparring partner, Prof. Torfs.