Is the indissolubility of marriage a *dogmatic* teaching?

The Church has always taught that marriage, validly entered (i.e., with true and free consent of both spouses) and consummated, is indissoluble - that is, bluntly, "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt 19:6, Mk 10:9).  This is true both of natural marriage (i.e., between unbaptized persons), and of sacramental marriage (i.e., between baptized persons).  A quick glance at, say, the index of Denzinger's or the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will show how often this teaching has been repeated.

But, one might ask, is this perennial teaching doctrinal (could be divinely revealed, or is at least consistent with apostolic teaching and practice, yet possibly subject to revision), or dogmatic (divinely revealed in Scripture and Tradition, defined as clearly as possible/necessary with full authority, and not subject to revision as far as the definition goes)?

Doctrine and dogma are not opposed to each other, in the sense that the first is optional and the second not.  Both are to be received as fully as humanly possible, for living and believing with "the mind of Christ," and for not living "according to this age" (Rom 12:2, etc).  There's no difference of truth between them, but there is a difference of clarity and of finality.  Dogmatic teaching is the highest level of exercising the teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium); doctrinal teaching is the ordinary level of the same.

To asnwer the question posed, consider a small sample of points:

• The quote in the first paragraph, above, shows without ambiguity that the indissolubility of marriage is taught by Christ Himself, directly. 

• The 24th session of the Council of Trent (Nov, 1563) dealt with marriage, and its decrees and canons were accepted and promulgated by Pope Pius IV.  It certainly appears to be a formal, solemn, and intended-to-be-dogmatic definition of marriage, including its indissolubility.

• Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Casti Connubi (1930), refers to that definition of Trent as a "solemn definition," and repeats the unchanging teaching of indissolubility with great clarity.

• The Second Vatican Council, in its sacred consititution Gaudium et Spes, repeats the same (e.g. #48, albeit without the same verbal markers of dogmatic intent; it does, however, cite Casti Connubi, which seems to imply dogmatic intent, given that document's clarity).

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats the same again (e.g. #1639, 1640, etc), without ambiguity.  It cites the same biblical passage above, and GS #48.

Moreover, all these sources consistently present a clear and compelling theological reason why marriage ought to be indissoluble; namely, that God, in establishing the natural of marriage, does so on the pattern of the divine covenant.  This is a thoroughly Scriptural and Traditional claim (e.g., Jer 31:31, Dan 2:44, Eph 5, etc.).  Since God's covenant is indissoluble, marriage must also be.  To claim that marriage is soluble is to claim that the divine covenant is also soluble, that God could change His mind about the promises of salvation; or in other words, that Christ died, but not for our sins (!).  If marriage has any spiritual reality at all, it must, then, necessarily be indissoluble.

Given all this sort of evidence, it seems to me very difficult to claim that the indissolubility of marriage is merely a doctrinal, but not a dogmatic, teaching. 

Homily - Feb 15, Wednesday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time

"Be doers of the word, and not hearers only."

Probably the most common way we Catholics today hear the word, but don't do it, is with contraception. So many Catholics use contraception - I know I'm preaching to the choir right now, but so many of our friends, neighbors, co-workers, even family members. The voice of the world is loud and constant, telling us we must use contraception to be happy. And, in light of mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services that our Catholic institutions will have to pay for these immoral acts in a year, it's much on our mind right now. Perhaps you have been asked, like I have, why is it wrong? Why is using contraception the opposite of "doing the word," the will of God?

There are a lot of things to say in response to that question. I really encourage you to get to know the answers that are in Humanae Vitae, and Evangelium Vitae, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But right now, I want to offer you a very brief and simple theological argument to defend what the Church has always taught.

Look at Jesus on the Cross. Look at the blood dripping from His holy wounds. That's the blood that cleanses us from our sins.

Look at the hole in His side, where the lance went it. That's where the blood and water poured out, that gives His power to all the sacraments of the Church, everywhere and for all time.

That's the total gift of self. That image, right there, is what it means to do the word, and not only hear it. Jesus on the Cross makes a covenant with us, in His blood.

Now, imagine what that covenant would look like, if contraception were a part of the mind of God. Jesus would not be giving us the total gift of Himself. He would go up on the Cross, but not permit His blood to wash our wounds of sin. He would go up on the Cross, and not permit the lance to pierce His most sacred Heart. No blood and water would flow out into the seven sacraments we receive. He would love us, but not enough to transform us into Himself, through His suffering, death, and Resurrection. He would die, but not for us.

That's what contraception does. It's an act which denies that Christ wants to be our Savior, that that kind of love is even possible. Would people who use contraception still do so, if they understood this love? I don't think they understand. I don't want to condemn anyone for not understanding, for doing what seems to be necessary, or for being tricked or coerced into something. But I do want to condemn the idea of contraception. It's an idea that cannot be reconciled to the love of Christ. It's a false god.

St. James also says in the reading today, "The one who peers into the perfect law of freedom (the law of the Cross) and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts; such a one shall be blessed in what he does." May God in this Holy Eucharist strengthen our faith, and keep us united with Christ our Savior.

Ecclesiology, for class discussion

First, here’s the link to Pius XII's encyclical, Mystici Corporis (1943). Note what he says about the Church being (definition, not description) the mystical Body of Christ.

Second, "What is the Church?" We started with details of the preparatory revelation of the Old Testament, and types of the Church. We looked in the NT for some of the key moments when Christ gives the Church its most powerful gifts. And we've glanced quickly at how those gifts both remain stable and unchanging, and simultaneously can be used very differently, through time (Tradition). From all of this, I suggest three things for your consideration and discussion, to help prepare for next class on 9/24. I hope it’s obvious how these three (mutually enlightening) definitions come out of the OT, NT, and Tradition that we covered in our first two classes.

1. The Church is the New Covenant.
a. Where are the fundamental elements of the Old Covenant in the New (i.e. God, People, Land, Law; sacrifice, revelation, unique mission for the world, unique identifying rituals)?
b. Fit into this the threefold mission (liturgy, proclamation, service).
c. Fit into this the seven virtues (faith, hope, love, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude).

2. The Church is the Body of Christ.
a. How is St. Paul’s language about being the Body of Christ literal (historical, and eschatological, both) and not merely a metaphor?
b. How does our being this Body make us “a perfect and visible society”? What else (more than visible) needs to be added (more on this with Lumen Gentium on 10/8).

3. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ.
a. Sometimes this is conflated with Covenant, but not necessarily. How do the Gospels and St. Paul use this nuptial identity? (Again, more on this with LG.)
b. How does this relate to traditions of clerical and monastic celibacy? How are celibacy and marriage connected within the Church, and therefore by analogy between Church and Christ?

Discuss!