-
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found
athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpt20
BijdragenInternational Journal for Philosophy and Theology
ISSN: 0006-2278 (Print) 1783-1377 (Online) Journal homepage:
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE TEXT OF GAUDIUM ET SPESON MARRIAGE AND THE
FAMILY
Prof. JOSEPH A. SELLING
To cite this article: Prof. JOSEPH A. SELLING (1982) A CLOSER
LOOK AT THE TEXTOF GAUDIUM�ET�SPES ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY,
Bijdragen, 43:1, 30-48, DOI:10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324
Published online: 02 Jan 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 94
View related articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpt20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324https://doi.org/10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjpt20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjpt20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00062278.1982.10554324
-
Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 43 ( 1982)
30-48
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE TEXT OF GAUDIUM ET SPES ON MARRIAGE AND THE
FAMILY
JOSEPH A. SELLING
In another article on the topic of Gaudium et Spes, 4 7-5 2
published elsewhere1 I took up the topic of comparing two English
translations of this text with respect to the official version of
GS found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. 2
Chapter One of Part Two of GS, "On Fostering the Dignity of
Marriage and the Family", is an extremely important text for
determining the teaching of the Magisterium on this subject and the
discrepancies I found in the two translations under study, that
edited by Abbott3 and that edited by Flannery,4
showed two different theological interpretations of the
'original' Latin version. In brief, my conclusions were that Abbott
was the more accurate of the two and that the translation found in
Flannery was essentially a re-interpretation, one closer to the
thinking of 'Roman school'S theologians than to the text itself as
originally intended. Comparing the two translations side by side
leaves the reader with distinctly different impressions of what
Vatican II
1 "Re-reading Gaudium et rper on Marriage and the Family," in
Louvain Studies 8/ 1(1980)82-94. 2 AAS 58( 1966) 1066-74. The text
of a document found in the AAS is supposedly its official version.
That
is why it was chosen for comparison. Nonetheless, precedence
must always be given to the original version of a document, in this
case the text of GS as promulgated by the Pope in Council on 7 Dec.
1965.
3 Walter M. Abbott, general editor, The Documents of Vatican II
(New York: America Press 1966). Actually reference might more
properly be given to Joseph Gallagher who is the "translation
editor" for this volume. However, I have used Abbott's name because
this reference has become virtually synonymous with that volume.
With all due respect, neither Abbott nor Flannery should be held
responsible for the very specific texts we are talking about in
this, or my former, study. The names have only been used for
reference. It is specifically stated in the "Preface to the
Translation" in Abbott (p.ix) that the text of GS was based upon
the final version of the document distributed at the Council and
nor that found in AAS because the latter had not yet been
published. Exactly which Council document (i.e. whether or nor the
official final one) was used can still be a matter of question. But
Abbott's (Gallagher's) translation still remains the better one,
exhibiting a great familiarity with the background material.
4 Austin Flannery, editor, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and
Port-Conciliar Documents (Dominican Pub., Talbot Press 1975 ). As I
wrote in the earlier article, responsibility for the translation of
the text here belongs specifically to Roman Lennon and Senan Crowe
who are named in a note, cf. p.903, n.a. The translation, despite
all its faults, appears to be based upon AAS 58.
5 The use of the term 'Roman School' is not meant to designate
theologians who pursue that science in the Eternal City. Rather, it
is meant to convey an attitude, one which is fundamentally
conservative and traditionalist in nature. While I do not know who
coined the label, the description of a so-called 'Roman' theology
appears in an article entitled "Moral Theology Forum: The
Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" in The
Clergy Review 61/6(1976)231-7. The article is a discussion on
Persona humana with Sean O'Riordan and Henry Stratton. In my
opinion, theologians of the 'Roman school' rend to interpret
Vatican II from a very traditional perspective, presupposing that
during and after the Council nothing had changed. Obviously, not
all theologians in Rome are of that school, nor for that matter is
the 'Roman school' geographically limited.
-
Joseph A. Selling 31
had to say on this vital topic. Pastorally speaking, those
differences can influence how Catholics will inform their
conscience with respect to making some important moral decisions.
Theologically, the discrepancies point to a widening divergence in
post-conciliar thinking which is not insignificant in the growing
rift between theologians and the Magisterium.6
However, recent events, most notable the 1980 Synod of Bishops,
have led me to take an even closer look at the text of GS, 47-52.
My studies on the Synod, centering upon the general documents
rather than on the actual occurrences between 26 September and 25
October 1980,7 have led me to analyze the relationship between this
episcopal Synod and the earlier, more important Synod of 1962-65,
Vatican II. More specifically, some of the questions to be
investigated are how the 1980 Synod read or utilized the earlier
teaching, whether that teaching was really understood and to what
extent was it allowed to influence the development of the bishops'
work 15 years later. In view of the fact that the final 'Message'
fully endorsed the teaching of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae on
marriage and the regulation of fertility, and the fact that a
significant consensus of theologians felt the outlook of that
encyclical to be incompatible with the teaching of GS, 47-52,8 it
seemed obvious to investigate how the bishops saw the relationship
between those two documents. Before this could be done, a very
close examination of the conciliar teaching itself was in order.
The results of this whole project are as yet to be completed and I
hope will be published later. But some very interesting facts have
turned up in my preliminary investigations which I believe should
receive the light of day. These facts came to my attention because
of something which would have otherwise been seen as a relatively
insignificant event. In 1972, the Catholic Theological Society of
America commissioned a group of experts to study the phenomenon of
human sexuality. The report of that committee was 'received' by the
CTSA Board of Directors in 1976 and was subsequently published the
following year.9 The book was almost immediately the center of
controversy causing, among other things, an inquiry by the
Doctrinal Commission of the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference. The
reaction of the U.S. Bishops was predictably unfavorable. Then, in
1979, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself
became involved in the
6 While a number of problems between scientific theologians and
Roman authority can be found in most every field it is probably
nowhere more stark and crucial than in those areas in and around
moral theology. This has often been a topic for investigation in
Richard McCormick's "Notes on Moral Theology," e.g. in Theological
Studies 42/1(1981)74-121, pp.l15-21.
7 By general documents I mean those which either preceded the
Synod, the Lineamenta (May 1979) and the Imtrumentum Laboris (June
1980), or those which flowed from the Synod as a whole, the 43
'Propositions' and the "Final Message to Christian families," both
of Ocr. 1980.
8 There is a great deal of literature available on this subject.
Scientifically, it would seem most appropriate to begin with
Philippe Delhaye's "L'encyclique Humanae vitae et l'enseignemenr de
Vatican II sur le mariage et Ia famille (Gaudium et spes)" in
Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosofie en theo/ogie
29(1968)351-68.
9 Anthony Kosnik, ed., er al, Human Sexuality: New Directions in
Catholic Thought (New York: Paulisr Press, and London: Search Press
1977).
-
32 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
matter and issued its own 'Observations' on the text of Human
Sexuality. 10
Those 'Observations' were published in English the following
year. 11 The insignificant event mentioned earlier is the
Congregation's, again predictable, unfavorable response to the
book. Four areas are singled out for criticism: the definition of
sexuality, the ends of genital sexuality, the inadequacy of
'creative growth' as a norm, and the consequences of these
theories. The text reads like a primer on Roman theology,
reiterating the perspectives of Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana,
12 refusing to reconsider any traditionalist notions on sexual
morality, and insisting on the importance of "some intrinsic
element in sexual morality, especially its procreative end". These
brief and informal 'Observations' probably should go unnoticed
except for the fact that they attempt to make reference to the
conciliar teaching, GS, 47-52, to substantiate their point. This in
itself is not unusual, for both HVand PH were attempted
re-interpretations of that teaching. Where this document goes
further, however, is through an appeal not only toGS but also to
one of the many explanatory conciliar documents. 13 For what I
believe is the first time, the Vatican itself was making use of
these documents to substantiate its interpretation of GS, 47-52. In
one sense, this opens up a new phase in the debate about the
current teaching of the 'ordinary magisterium' because it is a
recognition that for texts to be properly understood their entire
background and development must be appreciated. 14 On the other
hand, by appealing to what has been largely an obscure document,
the 'Observations' were giving the pretense of having some 'inside
information'. Lest that impression be allowed to persist, it seems
appropriate to both investigate the claim which has been made and
to illuminate the intricacies of the conciliar background
docu-ments.15
10 "Osservazioni della Sacra Congregazione per Ia Dottrina della
Fide sur Libro 'La Sessualita umana'. Studio commissionato dalla
'Catholic Society of America' a cura del Rev. Anthony Kosnik", in
L'Osservatore Romano 119(1 Dec. 1979)1 & 2.
" "Morality in Sexual Matters: Observations of the Sacred
Congregation ... (July 13, 1979)" in The Pope Speaks 25/2(
1980)97-102. To my knowledge, the 'Observations' have not found
their way into the AAS.
12 Humanae vitae, AAS 60(1968)481-509. Persona humana,
"Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" issued
by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 29 Dec.
1975 (Vatican, Polyglot 1975 ).
ll The text referred to but not named is the Expensio modorum. A
reprint of this may be found in the ACTA, IV, VII, pp.469-610. See
below, note 15, T 3.
14 The appreciation of background and development for
understanding documents emanating from the official Magisterium is
a long tradition in academic circles. That type of exegetical
approaGh has never been stressed by the Vatican which for the most
part has sought to keep relevant background material secret. This
was evident in the work of the 1980 Synod which was criticized for
the veil of silence which fell upon those proceedings after the
second week. Cf. Peter Hepplethwaite, "Report on the Synod, 1," in
Doctrine and Life 30/10(1980)527-37, p.537.
" All the background documents referred to here can now be found
in the Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II
(Vatican, Polyglot Press), here referred to as ACTA. These ACTA
were published in 4 volumes, each covering one session of the
Council. The documents which interest us here, those dealing with
the final evolution of the text of GS on marriage and the family,
can be found in Parts VI and VII of the fourth volume, both
published in 1978- thirteen years after the Council. They are:
-
Joseph A. Selling 33
Looking first at the problem which was the subject of the
'Observations', we find the following statement at the end of the
section dealing with the definition of sexuality. (English version,
p.lOO).
Furthermore, we must point out another mistaken notion regarding
the teaching of Vatican II. The book repeatedly asserts that the
council deliberately refuses to maintain the traditional hierarchy
of the primary and secondary ends of marriage, and is teaching the
Church a new and deeper understanding of the meaning and values of
conjugal love (see pp.l06ff). On the contrary, in responding to the
suggestion of numerous Fathers that the hierarchic distinction of
ends be included in the Pastoral Constitution No.48, the Commission
on Emendations explicitly declared: "In a text that is to be
pastoral in character and aims at fostering a dialogue with the
world, there is no need of introducing juridical elements ... In
any case, the primordial importance of procreation and education is
pointed out at least 10 times in the text" (see Nos.48 and 50).
Turning to pp.l06ff of Human Sexuality reveals that the
assessment rendered here is indeed accurate. The authors claim that
Vatican II was the culmination of a movement toward recognizing
that the personal dimension of human sexuality was "no less
important than the procreative". They also very keenly observe
that,
T 1: Schema Constitutionis Pastoralis. De Ecclesia in mundo
huius temporis. Textus Recognitus et Relationes. Pars II. Pages
5-89 in the original; in ACT A IV, VI, pp.474-559. The relevant
section can be found on pp.5-21 (ACTA, pp.477-90). This was
distributed to the Council during General Congregation 159 on 12
Nov. 1965 and was voted on during Gen. Cong. 162 on 16 Nov. 1965.
(Result: d. ACTA IV, VII, pp.469-70).
T 2: Schema Constitutionis Pastoralis. De Ecclesia in mundo
huius temporis. Textus et Correctiones AdmiJJae necnon Expensio
Modorum. Partis Primae. Pages 5-255 in the original; in ACTA, IV,
VII, pp.234-469. Relevant sections include: Text and notes:
pp.43-49 (ACTA, pp.271-278); Correctiones AdmiJJae: pp.l05-9 (ACTA,
pp.329-34). This was distributed during Gen. Cong. 166on 2 Dec.
1965 and was voted on during Gen. Cong. 167 on4 Dec. 1965. (Result:
cf.ACTA, IV, VII, p.631 ). A final vote taken on the text after a
few last minute changes was held during Gen. Cong. 168 on 6 Dec.
1965 (d. ACTA, IV, VII, pp.632 and 633; Result, p.641). Note that
the page and line numbers used in the Correctiones refer to T
1.
T 3: Schema Constitutionis Pastoralis. De Ecclesia in mundo
huius temporis. Expensio Modorum. Partis secundae. Pages 5-154 in
the original; in ACTA IV, VII, pp.469-610. Relevant Expensio
Modorum for Part II, Ch. I, pp.6-44 (ACT A, pp.470-509). This text
was distributed to the bishops at their residences on 3 Dec. 1965.
Note that the page and line numbers used in the Expensio refer
toT!.
T 4: Constitutio Pastoral. De Ecclesia in mundo huius temporis.
(de quo ageturin SeJJione publica diei 7 decembris 1965). Pages
5-85 in the original; in ACTA, IV, VII, pp.733-803. Relevant text
and notes, pp.43-49 (ACTA, pp.765-772). This constitutes the text
as promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the Bishops at Vatican II.
All these texts have been compared, originals (1965) to versions
in the ACTA (1978). Thus we will use the designations T1, T2 ...
and T 1 ACTA, T 2 ACTA ... etc. One of the final changes mentioned
above under T 2 involved the addition of the AAS page numbers
(i.e., pp.559-561) for the specific text of Casti connubii referred
to in Part I, C):l. II, note 14.
-
34 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
the implications of this decision can hardly be overestimated.
The Council's deliberate rejection of the centuries-long tradition
that regarded the procreative end as supreme, necessitates a
thorough rewriting of the theology of marital sexuality found in
the moral manuals. 16
Nevertheless, the important point here is that Vatican II, GS,
47-52, is seen as the logical conclusion to a historical movement,
one which was referred to in the 1930's as the 'personalistic' view
of marriage. That movement is said, in the book, to be caused by a
return to "the biblical appreciation and emphasis on the
interpersonal dimension of human sexuality in the context of
marriage". The authors attempt to substantiate their position with
a quote from Casti connubii.
This mutual inward molding of a husband and wife, this
determined effort to perfect each other can, in a very real sense,
be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided
matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted
for the proper conception and education of the child, but more
widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual
interchange and sharing thereof. 17
Most persons unfamiliar with the text of CC may find this
reference startling. In fact it has been well known to scholars for
some time but has always been overshadowed by that encyclical's
harsh, unequivocal condemnation of contraception. It has also
always been seen in context, namely as a small part of a much wider
development. We should elaborate something on CC before going on
because of its ultimate relevance to the text of GS. Casti connubii
consists of three parts: I. on the traditional teaching on the ends
of marriage (AAS, pp.543-556), II. on various abuses threatening
marriage and the family (AAS, pp.556-5 76), and III. on the
authoritative teaching of the Church on divine law (AAS,
pp.576-592). Part I can be further broken down into the discussions
of 1. the bonum pro/is (pp.543-546), 2. the bonum fidei
(pp.546-550), and 3. the bonum sacramenti (pp.550-556). The quote
given above is found in the second sub-division with one
interesting twist. The
' 6 Human Sexuality, pp.l06-7. We would have to go further than
the authors here and say that what is demanded is a thorough
rewriting of the whole of sexual morality. Cf.JavierGafo "Una
pastoral del sexo que supere los 'rebajas' y el arcaismo moral", in
Sal Terrae 67 /12(1979)843-53.
" Haec mutua coniugum interior conformatio, hoc assiduum sese
invicem perficiendi studium, verissima quadam ratione, ut docet
Catechismus Romanus (p.II, cap. VIII, q.13), etiam primaria
matrimonii causa et ratio dici potest, si tamen matrimonium (p.549)
non pressius ut institutum ad prolem rite procreandam educandamque,
sed latius ut totius vitae communio, consuetudo, societas
accipiatur (AAS 22(1930)548-549). The text and footnote emphasized
here have been left out of the quote in Human Sexuality, p.l06.
Perhaps this was done to conserve their idea that the thought
expressed could be confined to the 20th century. By excluding the
16th century reference the authors sidestep an historical insight
which would probably have been more beneficial than detrimental to
their argument. Note 11 to this text in Human Sexuality (found on
p.263) is given as "AAS 22 (1930): 559-61". This error mistakenly
refers to the text of CC which constitutes the condemnation of
contraception. It was my search for the correct page numbers -
looking first at the text in the Expensio modorum soon to be dealt
with - that led to the discoveries which have prompted the present
article.
-
Joseph A. Selling 35
reference to the "inward molding" being said to be the "chief
reason and purpose of matrimony" (primaria matrimonii causa et
ratio) is found on AAS, p.548 while the restriction, "provided
marriage be looked at ... " is found on AAS, p.549. Therefore, to
place emphasis on the primacy of the marital relationship without
including the restriction as to types of definition (limited or
broad), one would refer only to AAS, p.548, p.547, 18 or both: AAS,
pp.547-548. The teaching of CC on Christian marriage is, as a
whole, rather clear and somewhat definitive (i.e. single minded~.
However, it is not without its own ambiguity when the texts
mentioned above are closely studied. There was, even in 1930, a
tension present in the Church's understanding of marriage. When it
was a question of dealing with marital sexuality the author
instinctively fell back upon the primary-secondary distinction
taking the preservation of procreative potential as normative. 19
But when it was a question of defining marriage itself, even
classical thinking had to respect the difference between the
essence of a thing and its purpose. The essence of marriage is the
personal relationship which can be spoken of as sacrament in that
conjugal love symbolizes, participates in, and concretely expresses
the love relationship between God and His People, Christ and the
Church. 20 One of the purposes or ends of marriage may be its
procreative potential, though a non-procreative union is no less of
a marriage. A great deal depends upon how one formulates the
definition, descriptively or functionally. The presence of both
types of definitions in CC is the cause of the tension which
ultimately calls into question the doctrine of the hierarchy of
ends. 21
The thesis found in Human Sexuality appears, in the minds of
most moral
18 The reference to AAS, p.547 alone would draw attention to
another text stressing the importance of conjugal love in
particular:
This (conjugal faith), however, which is most aptly called by
St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more
beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in the more excellent
soil; the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of
married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. Haec
autem, quae a Sancto Augustino aptissime appellatur castitatis
fides, et facilior et multo etiam iucundior ac nobilior efflorescet
ex altero capite praestantissimo: ex coniugali scilicet amore, qui
omnia coniugalis vitae officia pervadit et quemdam tenet in
christiano coniugio principatum (p.548) nobilitatis.
19 While this is clear in the text of CC it must still be
nuanced in theological interpretation in as much as only protection
of the procreative end or purpose is relevant. At those times when
procreation is not possible, it no longer has a normative
character. That is, marital sexual behavior does not necessarily
have to be potentially procreative. Cf. AAS 22(1930)561.
20 The statement about the sacramentality of marriage here is
put forth as classical but still preliminary.lt obviously needs
further investigation and explanation which is not the topic of the
present contribution.
21 Cf. ]. Selling, "Moral Teaching, Traditional Teaching and
Humanae Vitae", in Louvain Studies 7 ( 1978)24-44, p.34 on CC, p.36
on the ambiguity of traditional teaching. Even HV recognized that
it was no longer possible to speak of either 'ends' or a
'hierarchy'. Rather than confronting the problematic, however, the
author of HV made the issue even more vague by introducing a new
term: significatio, 'meaning'. This created a different teaching
based entirely upon an "indissoluble connection" between the
unitive and procreative 'meanings' of sexual intercourse (HV, 12).
Nowhere does HV address the ends, purposes or even the 'meanings'
of marriage itself.
-
36 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
theologians, to be substantially correct, though it certainly
would not have suffered from a much more detailed justification.
Nevertheless, the 'Observa-tions' completely reject that thesis and
in doing so appeal to an official commentary on the text of GS.
Their own hypothesis is that GS presumes the doctrine of the
hierarchy of the ends of marriage to remain in tact, even though it
is not explicitly expressed. We should now examine the source to
which appeal is made. The text of the Expensio modorum quoted in
the 'Observations' occurs at number 15. We reproduce it here in
full.2 2
15 - Pag. 6, linn. 11-15: Plures Patres petunt ut in hac phrasi,
in qua origo matrirnonii eiusque proprietates dcscribuntur,
quae-dam immutentur:
t:;) Quinque postulant ut loco: «Ita actu humano », dicatur:
«Ita actu voluntatis legitime manifestato », ut melius declare-
tur natura illius actus et ut attcndarur ad formam requisitam.
b) 34 Patres pro lineis 11-13 («quo coniuges sese mutuo
tradunt ... etiam coram societate ») alium textum proponunt:
«quo inter se (vel: inter proprias personas) specifica iura et
of-ficia mutuo atque legitime tradunt et accipilli"'lt coniuges,
etiam coram societate in matrimonio legitimo constituuntttr,
vinculo divino coniuncti; quod vinculum ... ». Rationes: obiectum
con-sensus matrimonialis non sunt personae («sese») sed potius
actiones personarum; cxpressio: « propriae personae traditio,.
videtur vitanda: d. AAS 36 (1944) 103; additur: «legitime», quia
etiam in matrimonio naturali scrvandae sunt leges iustae ab
auctoritate legitima impositae; vitatur vox; « institutum ,., quia
consensu coniugum legitime praestito nascitur non insti-tutum in
genere sed proprium matrimonium.
c) Ob easdem rationes, ad recolendam doctrinam catholicam
hucusque traditam et ad melius indicandam hierarchiam finium 190
Patres sequentem immutationem pericopae proponunt: «Ita actu
voluntatis legitime manifestu!'J, qtto utraque pars tradit et
acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum in ordhte ad act!tS
per se aptos ad prolis geenrationem, institutum
22 Cf. T 3, pp.l2-13; T 3 ACTA, pp.476-478. The text reproduced
here is that of the original (1965) version except that we have
added our own line numbers for the sake of reference. There are at
least three mistakes in this text, all of which were subsequently
corrected for the version found in the ACTA ( 1978). In line 25,
geenrationem should be generationem; line 57, 75-376 should be
375-376; and line 63-4, nomemtum should be momentum.
-
Joseph A. Selling 37
ordir...;rior:e oi"~.:ina firmum orirur; hoc dein vinculum ~crum
in-tuitu boni tum personarum tum societatis libere contractum a
quolibet humane arbitrio minime pendet. Ipse vero Deus est auctor
matrimonii, variis praediti bonis ac finibus hierarchice connexis
».
d) Unus Pater petit ut loco: « actu humano », dicattir: «
con-sensu humano >), ne vidcatur agi de ipso actu coniugali.
e) Decem vero Patres sequentem additionem rogant: « Ita actu
humane, quo coniuges sese personaliter in vitae amoris commrmione
traclunt atque accipiunt », ut vita coniugalis ut integrc humana et
non tantum biologica appareat.
/) Unus denique Pater petit ut explicite memorentur bona
matrimonii: «de hisce bonis revera agitur, ait, attamen ver-bum
«fidem » vel semel tantum inducitur *'·
R. - a) In textu pastorali praecisio ilia iuridica non
requiritur. h) Ius non existit sine obiecto, quod in matrimonio
perso-
nas coniugum respicit. Expressio: « traditio personae » nullo
modo in AAS 36 {1944) 103 reiicirur, ir.1mo in Enc. Casti Con-nubii
explicitis verbis adhiberur: AAS 22 (1930) 553: « ge-nerosa
propriae personae traditio ». Quoad vocabulum: « legi-time»: cf.
sub a). Retinetur vox: « institutum » utpote termi-nus receptus pro
ipso matrimonio.
c) In textu pastorali qui dialogum cum mundo instituere
in-tendit elementa ilia iuridica non requiruntur. De «bonis ac
fini. bus hierarchice connexis »: cf. infra sub litt. f.
d) Clarum est vocabu1um ad consensum referri. e) Hoc ex ipso
contextu elucet. /) Cum in hoc loco de matrimonio in ordine
naturali agatur,
bona christiana. (uti sacramentum) bic enumerari nequeunt.
Ci-tabuntur tamP.n in nota plura documenta traditionis et
Magi-sterii in quibus de illis sermo fit: cf. S. AuGUSTII\'US, De
bono cotziugii, PL 40, 75-376 et 394; S. THO;\.!AS, Summa Theol.,
Suppl. Quaest. 49, art. 3 ad 1•"'; Decretum pro Armenis:
Denz.-Schon., 1327; Enc. Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)
547-548.-
Noterut hierarchiam bonorum sub diverso aspectu considc:-rari
posse: c£. Casti Connubii, AAS 22 (1930) 547. Insuper. in textu,
qui stylo directo et pastorali mundum alloquitur, verba nimis
technica (hierarchia) vitanda apparent. Ceteroquin 11no-
-
38 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
mentum primordinlc procreationis et educarionis saltern dedes in
textu exponitur, de sacramento pluries sermo fit, fidelitas et
indissolubilitas saltern septies in textu sublineantur. Verum est
in nostro nw-.1. 52« fidem » semel tantum induci: quare lin. 34
legenda erit: « se invicem perpetua fide!itate diligant •·
A comparison with the 'Observations' reveals that the quote
reproduced there is in two parts, coming from Responses c) and f)
sequentially. This is because c) of number 15 contains two major
ideas: 1. the introduction of the juridical definition of marriage
complete with the words lifted out of CIC 1081 §2 (ius in corpus
... ) and the word contractus, which part of the modus is answered
in Resp. c); and 2. the addition of the qualification hierarchice
connexis to the words bonis ac finibus, which is referred to Resp.
f) for an answer. Thus, the first part of the answer proposed by
the 'Observations', that "In a text that is to be pastoral in
character and aims at fostering a dialogue with the world, there is
no need of introducing juridical elements ... ", is inappropriate
in respect to hierarchical ends. This statement of the expensio,
Resp. c), is a rejection of the canonical language which obviously
had no place in a pastoral document. To imply that this restriction
to pastoral language had anything to do with presuming "the
hierarchic distinction of ends" (NB. Resp. c): "De bonis ac finibus
hierarchice connexis": cf infra sub litt. f.) is a
misrepresentation of the text. There simply is no such presumption.
The second part of the quote in the 'Observations' comes from Resp.
f) and addresses idea 2 found in c) of number 15, "hierarchically
connected". But the quote conveniently passes over the core of the
issue and uses the words "primordial importance of procreation and
education" to insinuate that the hierarchy had been maintained.
This is again a misrepresentation of the Response taken out of
context and allowed to function on the presumption that the
"hierarchic distinction" is even being contemplated. It was not, as
the original text shows. A close examination exposes the issue more
clearly. The original text (16 Nov. 1965) of which this is a
correction had already introduced a change from an earlier version.
23 That version had "Ipse vera Deus ... variis bonis ac finibus
matrimonium instruxit". T 1 had changed this to "Ipse vera Deus est
auctor matrimonii, variis bonis ac finibus praediti". The reason
given for the change was a recognition of the fact that there was
no agreement on how to express the goods of marriage, traditionally
or personalistically. So a compromise was struck by completely
leaving it out and stating that God was the Author of marriage
which, naturally and of itself, "is endowed with" goods and ends.24
There is no question of a hierarchy here " The earlier version
referred to is that of 28 May 1965. Cf. ACTA, IV, I, 435-552; text,
p.478; relatio,
p.536 (in the original, pp.47 and 103 respectively). 24 Cf. T 1,
p.15; T 1 ACTA, p.484. "Proponitur ut textus servetur, iuxta ea
quae dicta sunt in Relatione ad
priorem textum, p.103, sub !itt. B. Mutando instruxit in
praediti clarus apparet agi de re naturali et intrinseca (E/5648,
E/5619)". It is interesting to note that the two modi cited here
are from Msgrs. Reuss and Colombo respectively; a rare moment of
agreement?
-
Joseph A. Selling 39
because there is no scriptural or theological evidence to
support such a proposition. God is the Author of marriage, but He
did not communicate any given order of the benefits which are
inherent in His creation. It was finally recognized that theology
was incompetent to judge the matter and the doctrine of the
hierarchy of ends was inappropriate.25 Furthermore, the text of
Resp. f) substantiates this position even more. The initial part of
the response is to a modus of a single bishop asking for an
explicit list of the goods of marriage, especially the mention of
fidem (that is the bonum fidei). The answer states that speaking of
marriage in the natural order, as is done in this text, hardly
lends itself to an enumeration of goods, especially that of the
sacrament which is specifically Christian. Nonetheless a historical
reference will be given in a footnote (the substance of which we
will return to shortly). Then the second part of Resp. f)
explicitly points to the ambiguity of listing any hierarchy because
this "can be considered from different aspects". Here we find a
reference to CC, AAS, p.547 on conjugal love. It goes on to observe
that the whole text of GS did not neglect the traditional insights
but mentions them many times. The vocabulary here is very important
for, after it had already been established that there is no longer
a question of a hierarchy, the commission chose its words carefully
to list the "primordial importance" (momentum primordiale) of
procreation and educa-tion, and not its 'primacy'. Therefore,
taking the quote from the 'Observations' the way it stands will
inevitably mislead the reader. It is said that "there is no need of
introducing juridical language". It has been shown that this
statement refers to ius in corpus and contractus. Yet the reader
will see here a reference to the hierarchic distinction. Then, "In
any case ... " is seen in the original context to follow a
relativization of the ends of marriage, while the reader of the
'Observations' sees something like "we will not use juridical
language (to describe the hierarchy) but ... it is still part of
our understanding". Finally, the carefully chosen designation as
"primordial importance" for procreation and education is lifted out
of context and allowed to mislead the reader. From the perspective
of allowing the texts to speak for themselves, it appears that the
statement found in the Congregation's 'Observations' is a clear,
albeit possibly uninten-tional, misrepresentation.26 " It is
probably this insight which prompted one of the members of the
Commission itself to write that
"after the vote of 16 November, the debate (on the hierarchy of
ends) was considered closed''. Cf. Victor Heylen, "La note 14 dans
Ia constitution pastorale 'Gaudium et spes' P. II. C. I, N. 51," in
ETL 42(1966)554-66, p.559.
26 It is tempting here to go on to discuss the ultimate status
of the doctrine of the ends of marriage in GS, 47-52 for,even in
light of this expose it might still be argued that silence on the
issue is not equivalent to rejection. I believe the rejection can
be proven textually from GS even though such a proof would be
difficult because GS, like every competent theologian who
interprets it knows, rejects only the hierarchy and not the
(potential) presence of various possible goods- values- inherent in
Christian marriage. Such a proof will have to be done elsewhere for
we have other matters to attend to here. Suffice it to say that
traditionally, silence on a point which obviously stood in need of
defense is equivalent to admitting that the point is actually
indefensible. That silence is conspicuous not only in GS but also
in HV. It is unfortunate that the only persons upon whom this light
has not broken are members of the 'Roman school'.
-
40 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
The qualification of this judgment as "possibly unintentional"
rests upon a presumption of good faith. The author(s) of the
'Observations' is clearly convinced that the theology of marriage
found in GS is essentially the same as that put forth in CC,
perhaps without the technical terminology. This is understandable
for the implications of accepting such a fundamental change in the
basis of sexual morality, as mentioned earlier, will be tremendous.
But the attraction toward a more secure view of things here has led
the "Roman school" to perform a few more interventions which cannot
help but raise our curiosity. Turning our attention back to the
proposed footnote in the Expensio, 15, Resp. f), we see the context
as the inappropriateness of enumerating the goods of marriage.
"Nevertheless, documents of tradition and of the Magisterium in
which there might be discussion of these things will be cited". The
note follows and contains four elements. The reference to
Augustine's De bono coniugii is curiously a nuance of the
traditional interpretation. The encyclical CC refers to this work
in notes 10 and 14 on AAS 22( 1930)543 and 544, dealing with the
doctrine of the tria bona and the primary place of procreation. The
reference there is to Ch. 24, nr.32, which corresponds to PL 40,
394. But in the note for GS, 48 two additional pages are referred
to, 375-376 which correspond to De bono coniugii Ch. 3-4, nr.3-4.
The content of those passages is a statement to the effect that
marriage is good, that it should be characterized by unity and
lastingness, that the cause of its goodness is "not only because of
the procreation of children but also because of the natural
companionship between the two sexes'',27 that marriage also
provides a relief from incontinence, and finally, that fidelity
belongs solely within marriage. The first reference, therefore,
already constitutes a nuance of the traditional thinking, one which
will be carried right through the footnote. Following this, the
reference to St. Thomas is even more specific. For all the
references which could have been made, though few in number, a very
small one is chosen relating the end of an act to the intention of
the agent. The objection to which this is the reply, and evidently
with which Thomas disagrees, is a statement to the effect that
offspring is the chief good of marriage. The reference has been
chosen with some purpose in mind. The Decretum pro Armenis (a Bull
of Eugene IV, 22 Nov. 1439) is one of those convenient historical
texts containing a compendium of doctrine in conclusory style. Here
we find a declaration that marriage is the seventh sacrament, its
efficient cause is mutual, verbal consent, and it enjoys a triple
good: the doctrine of Augustine. Again, this is a general
reference.
27 The text of the De bono coniugii, PL 40, 375, referred to
here is the following: Bonum ergo conjugii, quod etiam Dominus in
Evangelio confirmavit, non solum quia prohibuit dimittere uxorem,
nisi ex causa fornicationis (Mt 19:9), sed etiam quia venit
invitatus ad nuptias (]n 2:2), cur sit bonum merito quaeritur. Quod
mihi non videtur propter solam filiorum procreationem, sed propter
etiam naturalem in diverso sexu societatem.
-
Joseph A. Selling 41
The fourth reference might be said to nuance the third as Thomas
had been used to specify Augustine. The reference to CC, AAS
22(1930)547-548 contains the texts on the bonum fidei, particularly
those which envision this as being spoken of as 'primary' or
"holding pride of place in marriage". Note that there are no
Denzinger numbers given here but rather a citation of the official
text. The author of the proposed footnote is presently unknown, but
it can be pointed out that no suggested reference was given in
these modi. It is very doubtful that a mistake had been made here
for the following lines explicitly repeat the use of p.547. Whoever
composed the text did not have Denzinger in their hand but the
whole text of CC in AAS. In contrast to this, one might cite two
other footnotes for GS, namely numbers 2 (GS, 48) and 14 (GS, 51)
which were also the result of interventions in the Expensio. 28
Both of these contain Denzinger references but possibly for
different reasons. For note 2 (T 3, nr.25 ), a concrete suggestion
had been made to address the issue of conjugal fidelity and
indissolubility, namely Denz. 2229. Admitting the reference, a
correction had to be made because the suggestion was in error. The
author of the text probably again with AAS in hand, notes the
correct reference as pp.546-547; and then, correcting the fault of
Denz. 2229 (which should have been 2231) had substituted the new
Denz.-Schon. number 3706. As for the famous note 14, we know that
this had been the result of a proposed papal modus communicated to
the commission by the Vatican Secretary of State.29 After the
controversy which ensued the reference to CC was simply inserted as
it stood, the participants of the debate having been preoccupied
with other matters (the reference to Paul VI's speech of 23 June
1964 and "Sic stante ... ").3° The anomaly of this note is twofold:
it contains no page numbers for AAS and although the numbers given
are the new ones (Denz.-Schon.), only
28 Cf. T 3 numbers 25 and 107, pp.16-17 and 38-39 respectively;
T 3 ACTA, pp.481-482 and 502-504. 29 Cf.Jan Grootaers, "Histoire de
deux commissions" elements d'information, points de repere", in H
& L
Beulens-Gijsen and Jan Grootaers, Manage catholique et
contraception (Paris: Epi 1968), 139-373, p.171. At the end of the
meeting of the Mixed Commission, which was dealing with the
proposed modi, on 24 Nov. 1965, a letter was made known which was
addressed to Card. Ottaviani, president of the Commission, and said
to come from Card. Cicognani, the Vatican Secretary of State. The
letter contained four additional modi emanating from the papal
office, the third of which was the cause of introducing note 14
into GS, 51. Rather than this remaining simply private information,
the Expensio modorum (p.44; in ACTA, p.509) contains the following
addenda:
"In expensione Modorum sub numeris 5, 71, 98, et 107, Commissio
Generalis Mixta sedulo et reverenter ratione habuit consiliorum
Summi Pontificis, quae ei, mediante E.mo Cardinali a Secretaria
Status, transmissa fuerunt."
The modus in question here is handled in nr.107 (p.39, ACTA,
pp.503-4). Its substance is treated extensively by both Grootaers
and Heylen, art.cit.
30 The final sentence of note 14 reads, "Sic stante doctrina
Magisterii, S. Synodus solutiones concretas immediate proponere non
intendit". This extremely important statement is an explicit
recognition of the fact that the Church's teaching on methods of
regulating fertility was still under investigation and that a real
state of doubt existed. A great deal of care had to be taken to
insure that the statement was not changed, as the introduction of a
comma between Sic and stante could have done, rendering the notion,
"Thus, with the teaching of the Magisterium standing, .. :· Cf. Hey
len, art.cit., p.564. '
-
no
te
1 (G
S,48
)~~-
~ not
-=_
2 (G
S,4
8)
_l_
no
te ~-~~~~
no
te
11
(GS
,49)
--
~~~"
--=-
~ (G
S,5
1)_
T
1 I
AAS
22
(19
30
),
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
i
p.
538
p.
547
et
54
8.
Tex
tus
reco
gn
itu
s et
1 _j_
D
enz.
22
33
rela
tio
nes,
12
N
ov.
II (3
707)
19
65.
(p.
11)
----·------+--------r------·--~~------
T
1 AC
TA
1
I AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
i p
. 53
8 p
. 54
7 et
54
8.
(p.
480)
1
I I
Den
z. (;
~~~)
-;-;
----
-----~~-
AA
S 22
(1
93
0).
l
AAS --;
-~;;
;,--
-~22
( 1 ~
AA
S 22
( 1
9;0
).
I AAS
22 (
19
30
):
pp
. 5
47
-54
8;
II p
p.
54
6-5
47
; 1
p.
583.
p
. 54
7 et
548;
2 D
ec.
1965
. 3
70
3-3
71
4.
37
06
. 3
70
7.
(p.
49)
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
37
16
-37
18
; T
extu
s D
enz.
-Sch
on
. D
enz.
-Sch
on
. __J
___
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
--------
·---+
--------
-·--
-T
2 A
CTA
(pp
. 2
77
-8)
T
2
Co
rrec
tio
nes
ad
mis
sae
(p.
1 09)
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
pp
. 5
47
-54
8;
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
37
03
-37
14
.
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
p
p.
54
7-5
48
: D
enz.
-Sch
on
. 3
70
3-3
71
4.
i A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
pp
. 5
46
-54
7;
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
37
06
.
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
p.
583.
A
.A.S
.,2
2(1
93
0),
p
. 54
7 et
548;
D
enz.
-Sch
on
.
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
pp
. 55
9-56
1 :
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
37
07
. -----t-
~716-3718; ~--
l
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0):
Den
z.-S
cho
n.
37
16
-37
18
;
T
2 AC
TA
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
), 1
PP
· 5
47
-54
8:
I D
enz.
-Sch
on
. 3
70
3-3
71
4.
-;-;--
------
i~:=~~
=:---~
------
--ji.
A
; A .S
., 2
2 (1
93
0):
-+
----
nz.
-Sch
on
. 16-37~
AAS
22
(19
30
).
(p.
334)
T 3
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
I AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
5
47
-54
8.
54
6-5
47
: D
enz.
-Sch
on
. 3
70
6.
Den
z.
37
16
-37
18
; E
xp
ensi
o m
odor
um
3 D
ec.
1965
. (p
p.
5-4
4)
-------------~
~
T 3
ACT
A
(pp
. 46
9-50
9)
-----~--.---. ·-
·--
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
54
7-5
48
. I
A.A
.S.,
22
(1
93
0),L
I
_j De
nz.
546-5~
7: 3
71
6-3
71
8;
--·-
-D
enz.
-Sch
on
. -
---·
l ~~-~_:_______
---------
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
).
.....
N >
..., 0 ~ 8 ,... ~ s- " " ~ 8., ~ t ~ ~ .. ..,
-
T
4 A
AS
22 (
19
30
)'
AA
S 22
(1
93
0)'
A
AS
22 (
19
30
)'
I A
AS
22 (
19
30
)'
I AA
S 22
( 1
93
0)'
p
p.
54
7-5
48
; p
p.
54
6-5
47
; p
. 5
83
. '
p.
547
et
54
8;
pp
. 5
59
-56
1:
Tex
t as
pro
mu
lgate
d
Den
z.-
Sch
on
. D
en
z.-
Sch
on
. I
Den
z.-
Sch
on
. !
Den
z.-
Sch
on
. 7
Dec
. I 9
65
. II
j I
(p.
49
) 3
70
3-3
71
4.
37
06
. i~~------i
37
16
-37
18
; -
-··-·
T
4 A
CTA
A
.A.S
.,2
2(1
93
0),
A
.A.S
.,2
2(1
93
0),
A
.A.S
.,2
2(1
93
0),
A
.A.S
.,2
2(1
93
0),
,
A.A
.S.,
22
(19
30
),
1 p
p.
54
3-5
55
; p
p.
54
8-5
55
; p
. 5
83
. p
p.
547
et
54
8;
I p
p.
55
9-5
61
: (p
. 7
71
) I
Den
z.
Den
z.
Den
z.
Den
z.
22
27
-22
38
22
31
22
32
2
23
9-2
24
1
(37
03
-37
14
).
(37
06
).
(37
07
).
I (3
71
6-3
71
8);
AA
S 5
8(1
96
6).
-1
A.A
.S.
22
(19
30
) A
.A.S
. 2
2(1
93
0)
I A
.A.S
. (1
93
0)
A.A
.S.
22
(19
30
) I A
.A.S
. 2-2
(19~0;
-1
pp
. 5
43
-55
5:
pp
. 5
46
-54
7:
p.
58
3.
PP
· 5
47
-5
48
: I P
P·
55
9-5
61
; (p
p.
10
66
-10
74
) I
Den
z.
Den
z.
I D
enz.
D
en
z.-
Sch
on
. 2
22
7-2
23
8
2231
22
32
1
(37
03
-37
14
).
(37
06
).
(37
07
).
37
16
-37
18
;
Tra
nsla
tio
n
fou
nd
in
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
AA
S (1
93
0),
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
Ab
bo
tt.
pp
. 5
47
-54
8;
pp
. 5
46
-54
7;
p.
58
3.
p.
547
and
5
48
; I
Den
z.-
Sch
oen
. D
en
z.-
Sch
oen
. I
Den
z.-
Sch
oen
. I D
en
z.-
Sch
oen
. (p
p.
24
9-2
58
) 3
70
3-3
71
4.
37
06
. 3
70
7.
I 3
71
6-1
71
8;
Tra
nsla
tio
n
fou
nd
in
A
AS
22
(19
30
),
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
A
AS
(19
30
),
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
!
AA
S 2
2(1
93
0),
F
lan
nery
. p
p.
54
3-5
45
; p
p.
54
6-7
: p
. 5
83
. p
p.
547
and
5
48
; [
pp
. 5
59
-56
1;
Den
z.
Den
z.
Den
z.
I D
enz.
(p
p.
94
9-9
57
) 2
22
7-2
23
8
2231
2
23
2
22
39
-22
41
(3
70
3-3
71
4).
(3
70
6).
__
__
(37
07
).
1 (3
71
6-3
71
8);
._
0 x; '0
::r ,.. ~ ~- ~
\.)-
>
-
44 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
the designation Denz. 3716-3718 appears. 31
The point to be made here is that the original version of note 1
to GS, 48 on the bonis ac finibus contained a very specific
reference to two pages in the AAS, pp.547-548, that introduced a
balance to viewing the bona in a strict hierarchy. This must be
interpreted as intentional because it is in keeping with the entire
thrust of the proposal in the Expensio modorum. Unfortunately,
things were not allowed to stay as they were originally. When we
examine the 'official' text of GS, 48 in the AAS 58(1966), p.1068,
we find that the reference to CC is given as A.A.S.
22(1930)543-555; Denz. 2227-2238 (3703-3714). Naturally one will
immediately ask why the suggested footnote had been changed. Was
this an official intervention or was it a manipulation of the text?
What may at first appear to be a trivial matter must be more
seriously appreciated for we are dealing with a text about which
there are two distinct schools of thought, namely, is GS, 47-52
(here specifically the text of GS, 48 on the bonis ac finibus) a
mere repetition of traditional doctrine or is it actually, as most
theological consensus believes, a fundamentally developed teaching
on marriage? In order to establish the facts about the evolution of
this footnote, I compared the available texts dealing with the
conciliar teaching. Further, to seek to find out what had been
happening, behind the scenes as it were, I compared all the
footnotes in this chapter which made reference to CC. There are
five of them, numbers 1, 2, 7, 11, and 14. The material for study
can be found in the included chart.32
Before we attend to the more crucial changes we can make some
preliminary observations. Notes 7 and 11 were present in the
original draft of 12 Nov. 1965 (as notes 4 and 7 respectively). At
that point, both contain (typographical?) errors. Note 7 refers to
the existence of the sacrament which strengthens and
'' The Expemio here also includes suggested numbers which are
again in error: 3176-3177. Hey len, p.560, basing himself on the
original letter from Card. A. Cicognani,quotes the suggestion as
"AAS 22( 1930): cfr. locos in Denz.-Schon. 3716-1718" (sic). There
appear to be a number of typographical errors here, Grootaers
(p.176) giving the reference as '3726-3718'. Note also that the
second reference in these 'original' versions also neglected to
give the AAS page numbers for Pius XII's "Address to the Midwives."
By 2 Dec. 1965 (T 2) some, but not all, of these errors had been
corrected.
" See Note 15,above. ThechartincludesT 1 and T 1 ACTA, the text
of 12 Nov., T2 and T2ACTA with respect to the text as amended, T 2
and T 2 ACTA with respect to the admitted corrections which also
contained a list of footnotes (and where note 14 is inaccurately
attributed toGS, 50 in both versions), T 3 and T 3ACTA which is the
Expensio modorum, T 4 and T 4ACTA which is the text as promulgated,
and the version found inAAS 58( 1966) 1066-1074. I have also added
the versions of two English translations studied earlier for
illustrative purposes. It appears now that Abbott was probably
based upon the original text of 2 Dec. (T 2) with a typographical
error omitting the AAS val. nr. in note 11. Flannery appears to be
based upon AAS, but a number of differences suggest another
influence: erroneous pp. in note 1 (typographical?- or an attempt
to single out the bonum prolis?), use of the word 'and' in note 11
which is not in AAS, and use of old Denz. numbers in note 14. The
list of texts here is not chronological. That order would be: T 1,
T 3, T 2, (Abbott), T4,Abbott,AAS, Flannery, T 1 ACTA, T 2ACTA, T
3ACTA, T 4ACTA.
-
Joseph A. Selling 45
consecrates the spouses to live up to their dignity and duties.
The text (AAS, p.583, not p.538) is not reproduced in Denzinger.
Note 11 calls to mind both Texts in CC stressing the importance of
conjugal love (thus the use of the word et). The Denz.-Schon.
number is correct, but the old number was not parallel. Notice also
that T 2, T 2 ACTA and T 4 do not use the old Denzinger numbers.
Note 2 substantiates the Church's teaching on fidelity and
indissolubility and was introduced by the Expensio. It has already
been mentioned that a correction was necessary for the suggested
Denzinger number. This was done by using Denz.-Schon. 3706. Whoever
introduced the old numbers did not make a correction but simply
used the parallel supplied in the margins of Denz.-Schon. (32 ed.,
1963). Also, the error in note 2 found in T 4 ACTA is curious. It
appears to be both typographical (548-) and a carry over from note
1 (-55 5). Looking at T 4 which would have been the basis for this
reprint, one sees the numbers directly above and below each other
which would make for an easy error in transcription. A dittography
would be especially understandable if the T 4 used as a model had
been altered with the 'correction' written into the copy. That is,
the same 'corrected' version ofT 4 used for the AAS version and
including the old Denzinger numbers. Now the most important
footnotes in GS, 47-52 are, of course, 1 and 14. The latter has
already received a sufficient amount of academic attention. My own
study reveals that when the text ofT 2 (2 Dec.) was transcribed to
the ACTA someone saw fit to include the pp.559-561 which had only
been approved on 6 Dec. and subsequently was part of the text as
promulgated (T 4) making the page numbers introduced toT 2 an
anachronism. However, this corrector did not bother tu change the
Correctiones admis sae of T 2, nor the Expensio modorum, T 3, the
latter perhaps in deference to its originality. Finally, three of
the anomalies found in AAS might be easily explainable. In note 7
the absence of the AAS vol. nr. is probably an oversight and in
note 11 the substitution of a hyphen for et was probably due to
ignorance of the special nature of the CC texts. My hypothesis is
that whoever did the transcription for AAS had their eye on the
Denzinger numbers and misunderstood this to be a single text. He
just brought the AAS pages and the Denzinger numbers into parallel
as we will see he did in note 1. In note 14 the inconsistent
quotation of Denz.-Schon. without the old numbers is possibly
traceable to the aura of scrupulosity33 in the reproduction of this
crucial footnote. All these hypotheses, however, do not give us a
satisfactory explanation for the change introduced in note 1 which
obscured the true intent of the Expensio modorum. To begin, it
appears that there were many hands at work here instead of just
one. For instance, whoever transcribed the text for AAS was
responsible for introducing the old Denzinger numbers for notes 1,
2, and 11, but not for note 14. If it was the same person who
transcribed T 4 for the ACTA, had they lost their respect for the
integrity of note 14, or was it
33 Cf. Heylen, art.cit., p.564.
-
46 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
someone different? Secondly, whoever changed the page numbers
for note 1 probably did not bother to consult the AAS 22(1930)
text. The intent behind the original change appears to be in order
to introduce, in block form, the entire teaching of CC on all three
goods of marriage. The citation would then be all of CC part I or
pp.543-556. But neither Denz. nor Denz.-Schon. include a quote (rom
p.556. So the citation follows Denzinger and not AAS 22. This
brings us to the question of the original change in note 1. In my
hypothesis this occurred in the transcription of the agreed upon
text produced by the Mixed Commission for GS Part 2 Ch. 1 and
published on 2 Dec. 1965 (T 2). The invisible hand at work was
quite familiar with Denz.-Schon. as a 'primary source' and took it
upon himself to introduce what he thought were the relevant numbers
into note 1. This would have been logical since all the other
appropriate notes (note 7 having no parallel reference) already had
a Denzinger reference. What is important is that the mind directing
this invisible hand did not comprehend the theological nuance
introduced in T 3 at the Response to number 15. Had he done so, he
would have changed the page numbers as well or would have had to
use the single relevant number alone (3 707). As it is, he never
caught his own error. Nor for that matter did anyone else,
preoccupied as they were with note 14. The result was the citation
of non-parallel references: AAS 22(1930)547-548; Denz.-Schon.
3703-3714. Fortunately, the error was not detected in the text as
promulgated and anyone in possession of a more or less accurate
representation of the original (e.g. the translation in Abbott) can
be aware of the meaning of the text as expounded by the Mixed
Commission, at least after they have the answers to some confusing
questions. These non-parallel references in note 1 of the original
text as promulgated obviously contain an error. Consulting the
explanatory background texts we have shown that the correct
reference is to AAS 22(1930)547-548. Whoever prepared the 2 Dec.
text for publication and distribution introduced a new idea with
the reference to Denz.-Schon. 3 703-3 714, an idea which was out of
place in the theology of GS, 48. This mistake went unnoticed in the
final days of the Council, but when (another?) invisible hand
transcribed the promulgated text for the AAS and introduced the old
Denzinger numbers, the inconsistency was noticed. However, instead
of consulting the true source of this footnote it was presumed that
the Denzinger numbers were correct and the AAS 22(1930) page
numbers were 'corrected' to be parallel. The mind behind the
invisible hand was most probably a member or bureaucratic employee
of the 'Roman School' that reads Denzinger instead of original
texts and presupposes that every utterance of the Magisterium is
irreformable. In this mentality, the teaching of the Church is an
affirmation of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage which is
merely repeated over and over. It would be incomprehensible for
them to envision a change in that doctrine, even if all the bishops
in council agreed that the time had come, even if a pope like Paul
VI could grant his approval to the evolution and respect the
change
-
Joseph A. Selling 47
when he attempted to address himself to the responsible
regulation of the bonum pro/is in Humanae Vitae (1968). It is a
mentality which not only lacks the inhibition of changing approved
and promulgated conciliar texts, but goes on to read those texts
with a traditionalist prejudice. Acting in good faith, this
mentality operates unintentionally, motivated by a desire to shore
up a safe and secure bulwark against the shifting sands of the
sensus fidelium and the insights of bishops and theologians who are
attempting to communicate with the People of God. It is this
mentality, this school of thought, which wrote Persona humana,
which had 'Observations' about an errant book, and which,
ultimately, manipulated the work of the 1980 Synod from start to
finish.
-
48 A closer look at the text of Gaudium et Spes ...
Summary
The text of Gaudium et Spes, Part II, Chapter I, on "Fostering
the Dignity of Marriage and the Family", has been the topic of
considerable commentary because of its importance for the Church's
teaching in this delicate area, a topic which recently came to the
fore because of the 1980 Synod on the Family. However, it has
become evident that there are different interpretations of what the
conciliar text says. The interpretation presented by the Vatican,
for instance, presumes that Gaudium et Spes upholds the doctrine of
the hierarchy of the ends of marriage, while most theological
consensus holds the opposite point of view. Furthermore, a recent
document of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
has put forth this interpretation, basing itself upon the Expensio
Modorum for the text in question. Following this 'official'
precedent of appealing to background documents for an exposition of
the conciliar teaching, the present study was undertaken with a
view to investigating the attitude of the Pas coral Constitution
toward the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. It has been revealed
that the Congregation's quotation of the Expensio Modorum is, in at
least some sense, a misrepresentation of the original document.
Furthermore, a meticulous comparison of the final versions of the
text of Gaudium et Spes, 47-52 as it evolved during the last month
of the council has also revealed that a change was introduced in co
the first footnote which was at variance with the original intent.
This manipulation of the note, though incomplete at the time of
promulgation, was adjusted for consistency and carried over into
the official version of the text found in the Acta Apostolicae
Sedis. The discrepency between the text as promulgated and the AAS
version, though minute in itself, can become the locus for
discussing the different interpretations of Gaudium et Spes.
Whereas most theological opinion views the conciliar teaching co be
an evolved and dynamic one, the Vatican's own interpretation
believes that nothing has changed since Casti Connubii. In the
interest of further study, especially in view of understanding the
recommendations of the 1980 Synod of Bishops, this preliminary
study is aimed at exposing the presence of different and sometimes
opposing schools of thought on the substance of this magisterial
teaching.
Joseph A. Selling, born in 1945, prof. Kath. Univ. Leuven, moral
theology. Address: Koning Albertlaan 154, B-3200 Kessel-lo,
Belgie.
