Rights in the Family
Appendix 8. (1336).
We should note carefully that as awareness of our moral strength changes, moral teaching changes - moral teaching and awareness always correspond. One social period, nation or class of persons may maintain and declare obligatory a high level of morality; another dare not obligate itself or others at such a level. The former evidently possesses greater awareness of its own moral strength than the latter, who tend to reduce the obligation because, to their mind, it seems an excessively heavy burden on humanity. This consideration, an undeniable fact, reveals an intrinsic worth in Catholicism which alone is sufficient to demonstrate its divinity and truth. This intrinsic worth is shown by Catholics' awareness of a much greater moral strength than that of non-Catholics. This is shown by the fact that Catholics constantly accept as obligatory `a much higher and more perfect moral teaching than non-Catholics, who see it as impossible to practise'. A more perfect, obligatory moral teaching is understood and admitted solely in virtue of human awareness of a greater moral strength, an awareness that would be impossible if moral strength were in fact not greater. Catholics attribute this strength to a special divine influence they call `grace'. Let us apply these considerations to the moral teaching on marriage.
The Catholic Church alone recognises absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond and prescribes absolute unicity of the spouses. As people gradually distance themselves from the Church, they are fearful of such perfect teaching and, because they cannot bear the sight of perfection superior to their strength, introduce arbitrary modifications and relaxations. I could give many examples, but will take the single example of Henry Cocceji in his Commentaries on Grotius' well-known book. In Diritto di natura this learned Protestant jurist lacks the courage to admit the indissolubility of marriage and the unicity of spouses. He himself objects that Christ established indissolubility and unicity (Mt 5: 32; 19: 9), but then has recourse to those vain distinctions which are so useful to anyone wishing to make light of the clearest and most decisive authorities:
| We must distinguish between a corrupt and an integral state. If human beings had persevered in an integral state, there would not have been divorces; lust, discord and inconstancy of heart, which are causes of divorce, would not have been known. In the present corrupt state it is impossible to know what must have been of right in the perfect state, because today the heart craves for adultery with a married woman and hates her husband to the point of murder. |
He then compares Moses and Christ. Moses gave the law of divorce to provide for human beings as they are. Christ spoke of the perfect human state of long ago, and inculcated
| not what is required by law and necessity, but that which pertains to virtue and was commanded only in the beginning, before the fall. (In Grot. De J. B. et P., bk. 2, c. 5, §9) |
This extraordinary interpretation clearly presupposes that the moral strength of human beings has not increased in any way since the coming of the Saviour; on the contrary, it is still the same as that of the Hebrews with their `heart of stone', as the Bible describes them. The consequence is obvious. These teachers, separated from the Catholic Church, show they have not the slightest knowledge about the grace of JESUS Christ which, in the words of Scripture, gives human beings a `heart of flesh'. Their separation from the Church has, by their own admission, returned them to the state, feelings, needs and morality of the ancient Hebrews. The permission given by Luther and his associates for polygamy on the part of the landgrave of Hesse (1539) is a demonstration of this.
We can say in conclusion: the Catholic Church ALONE preserves uncontaminated the sublime and perfect moral teaching about marriage; she alone constantly proclaims and practises it. This shows that she ALONE is holy; she ALONE possesses grace; she ALONE is dignifiedly aware that her moral strength is greater than any possible to human beings in the corrupt state in which they are born; she ALONE possesses this strength in reality, and with it a dazzling attribute of truth.
I have shown elsewhere that law and the obligation it produces are not the same. Law cannot produce true obligation in those who lack strength to execute it, because it cannot oblige to the impossible. Hence, varying degree of moral strength is one of those humanitarian differences that change (ER, 80-83) the modes of duties and rights. St. John Chrysostom says:
| There was a time when we were not commanded such great virtue. We could take revenge on the one who had injured us, repay one outrage with another, strive for wealth, swear honestly, claim an eye for an eye and hate our enemy. We were not even forbidden to enjoy pleasures, express our anger, repudiate a wife and take another. Indeed, the law even allowed two wives simultaneously. At that time there was truly great indulgence in these and other matters. But the way has been made much narrower after the coming of Christ. (On Virginity, c. 44) |