Pray for Pope Francis
Scroll down for topics
100+ Important Documents in United States History
Apostolic Fathers of the Church
Biographies & Writings of Notable Catholics
Catholic News Commentary by Michael Voris, S.T.B.
(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Links to Churches and Religions
Links to Newspapers, Radio and Television
Links to specialized Catholic News services
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
****
****
****
****
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
Visits to this site
1. We said
previously that in the context of the present reflections on the structure of
marriage as a sacramental sign, we should bear in mind not only what Christ said
about its unity and indissolubility in reference to the beginning, but also (and
still more) what he said in the Sermon on the Mount when he referred to the
human heart. Referring to the commandment, "You shall not commit adultery,"
Christ spoke of adultery in the heart. "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28).
The sacramental sign of marriage—the sign of the conjugal covenant of a
man and a woman—is formed on the basis of the language of the body reread in
truth (and continuously reread). In stating this, we realize that he who rereads
this language and then expresses it, not according to the requirements proper to
marriage as a pact and a sacrament, is naturally and morally the man of
concupiscence—male and female, both of them understood as the "man of
concupiscence." The prophets of the Old Testament certainly have this man before
their eyes when, using an analogy, they condemn the "adultery of Israel and
Judah." The analysis of the words Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount lead
us to understand more deeply "adultery" itself. At the same time it leads us to
the conviction that the human heart is not so much accused and condemned by
Christ because of concupiscence (concupiscentia carnalis), as first of
all called. Here there is a decisive difference between the anthropology (or the
anthropological hermeneutics) of the Gospel and some influential representatives
of the contemporary hermeneutics of man (the so-called masters of suspicion).
The man who is "called"
2. Continuing
our present analysis we can observe that even though man, notwithstanding the
sacramental sign of marriage, notwithstanding conjugal consent and its
actuation, remains naturally the "man of concupiscence," he is at the same time
the man who has been "called." He is called through the mystery of the
redemption of the body, a divine mystery, which at the same time is—in Christ
and through Christ in every man—a human reality. That mystery, besides, implies
a determinate ethos which is essentially human, and which we have previously
called the ethos of the redemption.
3. In the light of the words Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount, in the
light of the whole Gospel and of the new covenant, the threefold
concupiscence (and in particular the concupiscence of the flesh) does not
destroy the capacity to reread in truth the language of the body—and to
reread it continually in an ever more mature and fuller way—whereby the
sacramental sign is constituted both in its first liturgical moment, and also
later in the dimension of the whole of life. In this light one must note that
concupiscence per se causes many errors in rereading the language
of the body. Together with this it gave rise also to sin—moral evil, contrary to
the virtue of chastity (whether conjugal or extra-conjugal). Nevertheless in the
sphere of the ethos of redemption the possibility always remains of passing from
error to the truth, as also the possibility of returning, that is, of
conversion, from sin to chastity, as an expression of a life according to the
Spirit (cf. Gal 5:16).
Sacramental sign of love
4. In this
way, in the evangelical and Christian perspective of the problem, historical man
(after original sin), on the basis of the language of the body reread in truth,
is able—as male and female—to constitute the sacramental sign of love, of
conjugal fidelity and integrity, and this as an enduring sign: "To be
faithful to you always in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, and to
love and honor you all the days of my life." This signifies that man, in a real
way, is the author of the meanings whereby, after having reread in truth the
language of the body, he is also capable of forming in truth that language in
the conjugal and family communion of the persons. He is capable of it also as
the man of concupiscence, being at the same time called by the reality of the
redemption of Christ (simul lapsus et redemptus).
Hermeneutics of the sacrament
5. By means
of the dimension of the sign proper to marriage as a sacrament there is
confirmed the specific theological anthropology, the specific hermeneutics of
man. In this case it could also be called the hermeneutics of the sacrament,
because it permits us to understand man on the basis of the analysis of the
sacramental sign. Man—male and female—as the minister of the sacrament, the
author (co-author) of the sacramental sign, is a conscious and capable subject
of self-determination. Only on this basis can he be the author of the language
of the body, the author (co-author) of marriage as a sign—a sign of the divine
creation and redemption of the body. The fact that man (male and female) is the
man of concupiscence does not prejudice his capacity to reread the language of
the body in truth. He is the man of concupiscence. But at the same time he is
capable of discerning truth from falsity in the language of the body. He can be
the author of the meanings of that language, whether true or false.
Called, not accused
6. He is the
man of concupiscence, but he is not completely determined by libido (in the
sense in which this term is often used). Such a determination would imply that
the ensemble of man's behavior, even, for example, the choice of continence for
religious motives, would be explained only by means of the specific
transformations of this libido. In such a case—in the sphere of the language of
the body—man would, in a certain sense, be condemned to essential
falsifications. He would merely be one who expresses a specific determination on
the part of the libido, but he would not express the truth or falsity of spousal
love and of the communion of the persons, even though he might think to manifest
it. Consequently, he would then be condemned to suspect himself and others in
regard to the truth of the language of the body. Because of the concupiscence of
the flesh he could only be accused, but he could not be really called.
The hermeneutics of the sacrament permits us to draw the conclusion that man is
always essentially called and not merely accused, and this precisely inasmuch as
he is the man of concupiscence.
Source: L'Osservatore Romano
109. Return to the Subject of Human Love in the Divine Plan - 5.23.1984