The Contribution of Matthias Joseph Scheeben to the Theology of Marriage

William Newton

The great German theologian of the nineteenth speculations; Leo did not have the luxury, as century, Matthias Joseph Scheeben – perhaps Scheeben did, of presenting and defending a per- along with Newman the greatest theologian of sonal theological vision of marriage in the light that century – has left us some profound insights of the Catholic tradition. Nonetheless, it is my into the mystery of marriage, which are worthy contention that, despite the years that separate of greater renown.1 In this essay, I shall briefly Mysteries of Christianity from Arcanum, it is pre- present the most important features of Schee- cisely the greater depth of Scheeben’s thought ben’s theology of marriage and demonstrate how, that makes it fruitful to read Arcanum in the light in some ways, he anticipated later developments of Mysteries of Christianity. Scheeben’s arguments in this area of theology, and provided greater give a deeper theological foundation to what Leo theological depth to the burning questions of his would assert and define in Arcanum. day. This essay will concentrate on Scheeben’s presentation of marriage as found in his Myster- ies of Christianity rather than in his Dogmatik 1. Scheeben and Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae because the character of the former work is more exploratory and profound. Nonetheless, it is Scheeben was writing on marriage in the latter interesting to note that Scheeben quotes Arca- half of the nineteenth century. His Mysteries of num several times in the more sober and system- Christianity (Mysterien des Christentums) was pub- atic treatment of marriage of his Dogmatik.2 This lished in 1865, while his treatment of marriage is an indication, perhaps, that Scheeben saw his in his Handbuch der Katholischen Dogmatik was innovative presentation of marriage in the written in 1887. Scheeben’s theological reflections Mysteries of Christianity vindicated in Leo’s on marriage, thus, historically straddle the prom- encyclical, even if its depth was, for the reasons ulgation of Leo XIII’s encyclical on marriage, already explained, not matched. Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae (1880). In his Mysteries of Christianity, evidently con- scious (like Leo himself) of the pressing issues of 2. The Sacred Character of Every Marriage, his day in regard to marriage, Scheeben addresses, Natural or Sacramental some fifteen years earlier, many of the themes found in Arcanum. As I hope to show, he also In the middle and late nineteenth century, argu- addresses them more profoundly. This is not a ably the most important topic with regard to criticism of Leo XIII, since his concern in Arca- marriage was the defense of its sacred character, num was to clarify and expound what is certain the sacred character of both natural as well as Catholic doctrine concerning marriage. An encyc- Christian marriage. This was the teaching at the lical is not the place to engage in theological heart of Arcanum. In that encyclical, Leo explains

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 184184 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 W. Newton

the sacred character of marriage by pointing out riage, namely unity and indissolubility. He points that it is God who is the author of this institu- out that, although these two properties are very tion. He says: fitting when one focuses on the final purpose of Nevertheless, all those who reject what is super- marriage (which he identifies as procreation), it natural as well as all who profess that they worship cannot be said that these two properties are abso- above all things the divinity of the State, and strive lutely required by natural law. Unity and indis- to disturb whole communities with such wicked solubility would normally be necessary to ensure doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. a stable and loving environment conducive to the Marriage has God for its Author, and was from wholesome raising of children. Nonetheless, the the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the goal of marriage might (in some rare circum- Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides stances) also be achievable in situations of polyg- in it something holy and religious; not extraneous, amy and even divorce with remarriage. He says, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted “the unity and indissolubility of the bond are, as by nature.3 a rule, necessary for this purpose [the well ordered As can be seen from the above quotation, the propagation of the human race], but not indis- intention of Leo in reaffirming the “holy and pensably and absolutely under all contingencies.”6 religious” character of marriage is partly political. Yet, Scheeben notes, God has – in the begin- He is facing up to those who would like to place ning and now again in the last days – demanded marriage wholly under the authority of the State. that the marriage union respect the properties of Their rationale for doing this is that they deny unity and indissolubility. These properties, he marriage has any religious character. For them, argues, are therefore part of divine positive law marriage is nothing more than a human conven- and not of natural law. Locating these two prop- tion. Leo’s adversaries “endeavor to deprive it of erties of marriage in divine positive law means all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted that God has taken a special and personal inter- sphere of those rights which, having been insti- est in the structure of the institution of marriage; tuted by man, are ruled and administered by the a more personal interest than he took in the civil jurisprudence of the community”.4 In structure of the State, for example, this latter response to this, Leo says: institution being only of natural law. God has [A]s, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rul- 1 The importance of Scheeben’s contribution to the theology of marriage is acknowledged but only lightly ers, but by the divine authority of the Church, expounded upon in P. Elliott: What God Has Joined: which alone in sacred matters professes the office The Sacramentality of Marriage, Homebush, NSW: of teaching.5 St. Paul Publications, 1989, 108-109; A. Scola: The Nuptial Mystery, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005, 48; Scheeben’s theology of marriage gives greater T. Mackin: The Marital Sacrament, Mahwah, NJ: substance to Leo’s affirmation that marriage is Paulist Press, 1989, 589, 594-595. More substantial con- sacred, presenting two arguments, not given in sideration of his contribution is given in M. ValkoviC: L’uomo, la donna e il matrimonio nella teologia di Mat- Arcanum but nicely complementing what we thias Joseph Scheeben, Roma: Università Gregoriana, 1965 read there. The first argument asserts that mar- (Analecta Gregoriana; 152); B.T. Mullady: “The riage is part of divine positive law rather than Mystery of Marriage in Matthias Joseph Scheeben”, in: natural law. The second shows God’s particular Divinitas 32 (1988), 435-441. 2 M. Scheeben: Handbuch der Katholichen Dogmatik, interest in the goal of marriage. We shall consider VII, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1933, 778, 783, 792. each in turn. 3 Leo XIII: Arcanum, 19. Scheeben’s assertion that marriage is part of 4 Ibid. 17. 5 Ibid. 19. divine positive law rather than natural law comes 6 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, trans. C. Vollert, from a consideration of the properties of mar- St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1961, 594.

185

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 185185 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 INTAMS review 16 (2010)

reserved the institution of marriage to himself in who, being the most civilized, had the greatest a special way – witnessed to by his special regu- knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all lation of its properties – and this fact establishes of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion the sacred character of marriage. that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought This conclusion – that marriage falls under of as conjoined with religion and holiness.11 divine positive law and not simply natural law The point is clear and luminous. For Scheeben, – is not explicitly stated in Arcanum, nor easily from every angle, even in the case of natural mar- read out of it. Leo does say that the properties riage, God is “an interested party” when it comes of unity and indissolubility were “deeply sealed, to marriage.12 The properties of marriage are as it were, and signed upon” marriage from the from positive divine law, and the end of marriage beginning;7 but it is probably too much to inter- is dependent in a special way on God. In this pret this as saying they are from positive rather way, Scheeben provides some theological depth than natural law. The argument seems to be to Leo’s main premise – the sacred character of properly Scheeben’s. marriage – and concludes with him that “the The second argument given by Scheeben to institution of matrimony is [therefore] under all under-gird his assertion that all marriages are circumstances withdrawn from the competency sacred starts from a consideration not of the of political and civil authority”13. properties of marriage but of the end or goal of marriage, namely procreation. Scheeben expresses this goal as “bringing into the world new images 3. Sacramental Marriage as an Extension of God who are to honour and glorify God on of the Nuptial Mystery of Baptism earth from generation to generation”8. The key point of his argument is that the spouses can only In Arcanum, after addressing the sacred character attain the end of marriage by means of a special of natural marriage, Leo XIII goes on to address intervention from God, because God alone can the position of those who would like to sever the infuse a rational soul into the child the parents marital contract (or covenant) of Christian conceive. Procreation is thus the fruit of a three- spouses from the Sacrament of Matrimony. Leo fold cooperation. Scheeben says: warns: Since it is only by acting as God’s instruments that Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction the married couple can realize the end of matri- which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted mony through the exercise of their marital rights, upon – the distinction, namely, by virtue of which God willed that they should enter into the union they sever the matrimonial contract from the sac- not merely on their own authority, but in His rament, with intent to hand over the contract to name.9 the power and will of the rulers of the State, while This is perhaps a more decisive argument for the reserving questions concerning the sacrament to religious character of marriage and is the reason the Church.14 why most cultures (for most of history) have seen The motivation for this supposed distinction marriage as a sacred reality. Children and fertil- (contract from sacrament) is again the control of ity were always considered a blessing and, more the State over marriage. If marriage is seen as or less, a gift from God or the gods. Scheeben two-tiered – first a contract, then a sacrament notes that, on the basis of this, marriage, even in – Christian marriages would, then, be nothing pagan societies, had the character of an oath and more than natural marriages with a sacramental was called a “sacrament”.10 Leo himself reminds crowning. This conception would lead to the us that: State claiming supreme authority over the sup- We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, posedly natural part of Christian marriage, as also the manners and customs of those people including the power to dissolve them.

186

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 186186 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 W. Newton

Leo refutes this two-tiered vision and reaf- Scheeben’s point is that since spouses who are firms that all marriages between baptized persons joined in marriage are, by virtue of their baptism, are necessarily sacramental marriages; sacramen- already caught up in the nuptial mystery of Christ’s tal in the more specific sense of being one of the union with his Church, any further specification seven Sacraments of the Church. The argument of their Christian lives and vocation is going to given is that marriage is a sacrament in as much be within this mystery.18 Accordingly, their mar- as it is a sign of Christ’s union with the Church, ital union is going to replicate this presupposed and it is such a sign because of the marriage nuptial mystery. Christian marriage is, he says, bond. But this bond is the marriage. So there is “a branching out or offshoot of that union” only a logical distinction between marriage and between Christ and His Church: the Sacrament; in reality, for baptized persons, The married couple, for the very reason that their they are one and the same thing: marriage is based on the marriage of Christ with Marriage, moreover, is a sacrament, because it is the Church are wedded to Christ in their marriage a holy sign which gives grace, showing forth an to each other, and hence they enlarge the union image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the of Christ with the Church in one particular point Church. But the form and image of these nuptials for a determined end…like the branch on the is shown precisely by the very bond of that most tree…[their marriage] is at one and the same close union in which man and woman are bound time an extension or continuation, a replica, and together in one; which bond is nothing else but organ of [Christ’s union with the Church].19 the marriage itself. Hence it is clear that among Expressed in this way, Scheeben gives a deep Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by theological foundation to the assertion that “a itself, a sacrament; and that nothing can be further matrimonial contract cannot validly exist between from the truth than to say that the sacrament is a baptized persons unless it is also a sacrament by certain added ornament, or outward endowment, that fact”20, an assertion also made by Leo (using which can be separated and torn away from the different words) in Arcanum. Already pervaded contract at the caprice of man.15 Pope Leo’s argument for the identity of marriage and Sacrament for baptized persons is sound and 7 Leo XIII: Arcanum, 5. 8 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 595 clear. In his Dogmatik, after affirming this identity 9 Ibid. 596. of marriage and Sacrament, Scheeben contents 10 Ibid. 598. Cf. Leo XIII: Arcanum, 19. himself with quoting these very words from Arca- 11 Leo XIII: Arcanum, 19. 16 12 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 596. num. However, a consideration of what he says 13 Ibid. 595. in the Mysteries of Christianity provides a deeper 14 Leo XIII: Arcanum, 23. understanding of the reason for this identity. 15 Ibid. 24. 16 M. Scheeben: Handbuch der Katholichen Dogmatik, The starting point of Scheeben’s understand- VII, 783. Cf. J. Wilhelm/T.B. Scannell: A Manual of ing of Christian marriage is the status of the Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s Dogmatik, New spouses as baptized persons. Baptized persons, he York: Benziger, 1906, section 277.4. 17 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 602. notes, before marrying are already part of a nup- 18 According to Valkovic, this notion of participation is a tial mystery, that of the union between Christ development by Scheeben of the ideas of the French and his Church: Jesuit J.P. Martin found in the latter’s De matrimoniis, They [the spouses] have already been received into Lyon-Paris, 1844, 238. See, M. ValkoviC: L’uomo, la donna e il matrimonio, 170-171. This seems plausible the mysterious union of Christ with His Church. since Scheeben lists this work by Martin in his biblio- As members of the bride of Christ they themselves graphy for the section of marriage as a sacrament in his are wedded to Christ; hence the mystery of the Dogmatik. See M. Scheeben: Handbuch der Katholichen Dogmatik, VII, 769. union between Christ and the Church is found in 19 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 603. them [already].17 20 CIC 1983, can. 1055 §2.

187

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 187187 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 INTAMS review 16 (2010)

by the nuptial mystery of Christ and his Church, connection between Christian marriage and the a baptized couple cannot but participate in this mystery of Christ’s union with the Church. The mystery when they consent to marry.21 priestly blessing suggests that the marriage of Scheeben finds confirmation for his thesis in Christians is sanctified from without and is not a concise exegesis of Ephesians 5,31-32: “For this a necessary outworking of the spousal union that reason a man will leave his father and mother both spouses already enjoy with Christ in virtue and be united to his wife, and the two will of their baptism. He concedes that some have become one flesh. This is a great mystery – proposed the priestly blessing as the form of but I am talking about Christ and the Church” marriage (with the consent as the matter) from (Eph 5,31-32). a laudable motivation, namely, in the hope of His focus turns to an analysis of the words: exalting marriage. But, he contends, the opposite “this is a great mystery”. He is aware that the it achieved – a depreciation of marriage – word mystery is translated in the Vulgate as sac- because such a view “divests it [Christian mar- ramentum, but that this cannot be used as a proof riage] of its essential dignity and its essential text for the sacramental nature of Christian mar- relationship with the Church”23. The assistance riage. It cannot since the translation of mystery of a priest, he argues “is required not to make with sacramentum is fortuitous or purposefully marriage holy, but because it is holy”24. suggestive, and not strictly accurate. Nonetheless, Finally, Scheeben’s vision of Christian mar- Scheeben keenly notes that the Greek text applies riage as a participation in Christ’s union with the the word mystery to marriage and not to the Church founded on the baptized spouses’ prior union of Christ and the Church (though of nuptial union with Christ, sheds a new and exalt- course this is also a “great mystery”). ing light on the end or purpose of marriage. Arca- Scheeben explains the significance of this num addresses the question of the ends of mar- predication. If marriage is a mystery, then it is riage only briefly noting that marriage is much more than a symbol. A symbol is not a “instituted for the propagation of the human mystery even when it points to a mystery. For race, but also that the lives of husbands and wives example, creation points to God who is a mys- might be made better and happier”25. Yet again, tery but we do not normally call creation itself Scheeben supplies a firm theological foundation a mystery. Scheeben says: “if there is a question for this affirmation. He argues that, since the of a mere comparison with a mystery, marriage partners are already wedded to Christ in their itself could not be said to be a mystery, and baptism, when they join in the subsequent nup- particularly a great mystery, except by an extra- tial union of marriage, “they can rightfully unite vagant hyperbole.”22 If marriage itself is the with each other in matrimony only for the end “great mystery” then is must be something more which Christ pursues in His union with the than a mere symbol, and this something can Church”26. What then is this end? Scheeben says only be a participation in the mystery of Christ’s it is “the extension of the mystical body of union with the Church: “it becomes a true mys- Christ”. Now, since the mystical body of Christ tery only if the great mystery of Christ vibrantly can grow both by the deeper sanctification of lives, operates, and manifests itself” in Christian those already part of the body as well as by the marriage. addition of new members, these two types of Given this understanding of Christian mar- growth must also be the goal of Christian marriage, Scheeben is very much opposed to the riage. Here then, we have a profound theological suggestion that the priestly blessing is the form foundation for the ends of marriage as the Church of Sacramental marriage, and gives a surprising now expresses them, namely that marriage is amount of attention to this topic. This is because “by its nature ordered toward the good of the it appears to him to undermine the intrinsic spouses” that is, ultimately, to their sanctification,

188

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 188188 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 W. Newton

as well as to “the procreation and education of the rational soul, the perspective of procreation offspring”27. was darkened by the heritage of original sin. One can say that marriage, as the primordial sacrament, was deprived of the supernatural effica- ciousness it drew at the moment of its institution 4. Marriage as a Primordial Sacrament from the sacrament of creation in its totality.30 Nevertheless, while the marriage of Adam and In his Mysteries of Christianity, Scheeben has Eve before the fall was superior to Christian mar- some noteworthy things to say about the nature riage because it had the power to transmit grace of the marriage between Adam and Eve. For him, to offspring, Scheeben argues for the overall it represents a third type of marriage, different superiority of Christian marriage. This rests upon in some respects from natural marriage, on the what we have already seen, namely that by bap- one hand, and Christian marriage on the other, tism the Christian spouses already participate in while similar to both in other respects. The mar- the Mystical Body of Christ and, therefore, in riage of Adam and Eve is sacramental in the the nuptial union between Christ and the general way that natural marriages are sacramen- Church. This being so, Christian spouses are tal since, like natural marriage, it is sacred and caught up, so to speak, in the grace giving and religious (as already explained) and, like natural grace receiving relationship of Christ and the marriage, it was a sign that foreshadowed the Church. Accordingly, in the words of Scheeben, union of Christ and the Church. But unlike Christian marriage has “a fruitfulness for the merely natural marriage (yet like Christian marriage), the first marriage had an intimate connection with grace. It had a special relationship with 21 Theodore Mackin notes that it is exactly this vision, grace in that, free from the effects of original sin, inherited from Scheeben, that Karl Lehmann has taken Adam and Eve were destined to transmit human up more recently, as a member of the International life to their offspring in such a way that divine Theological Commission, in discussing whether baptized Christians with little faith contract sacramental life would be simultaneously conferred. Scheeben marriages when they marry. The answer must be yes. explains: Since they are incorporated into the mystery of Christ As long as both remained in the state of grace, the and his Church by baptism, “it is not left solely to the baptized who marry to determine on their own the Holy Spirit was so intimately present in them with meaning and reality of their union. At the moment His supernatural fruitfulness that without further they join with Christ in taking up life together he ado the children begotten by them would come himself intervenes in their marriage decisively” (see, T. Mackin: The Marital Sacrament, 649; cf. into existence not as mere children of men, but as R. Malone/J.R. Connery (eds.): Contemporary children of God.28 Perspectives on Christian Marriage: Propositions and In this sense, the marriage of Adam and Eve had Papers from the International Theological Commission, Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1984, 91-115). something superior even to Christian marriage. 22 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 602. In saying this, Scheeben seems to be pointing to 23 Ibid. 608. a view of the marriage in Paradise very similar 24 Ibid. 609. 25 Leo XIII: Arcanum, 26. to that envisaged by John Paul II in his Theology 26 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 602. of the Body, his catechesis on human sexuality 27 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1601; CIC 1983, can. delivered at his Wednesday audiences from 1979 1055. to 1984.29 There, the Holy Father says: 28 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 599. 29 Mullady suggests some likeness between Scheeben’s It is clear, however, that the heritage of grace was approach to marriage and that of John Paul II in his driven out of the human heart when man broke Theology of the Body but does not develop this point. the first covenant with the Creator. Instead of See B.T. Mullady: “The Mystery of Marriage”, 437. being illumined by the heritage of original grace, 30 John Paul II: Male and Female He Created Them, trans. which was given by God as soon as he infused M. Waldstein, Boston: Pauline Books, 2006, 507 (catechesis 97.1, 13 October 1982).

189

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 189189 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 INTAMS review 16 (2010)

production of grace”31. Grace wells up for the This contribution takes place as a by-product spouses from within the marriage. This was not of his Trinitarian theology, rather than directly the case for Adam and Eve: in marrying they in his theology of marriage, since in both his performed a good work (since it was an act of Mysteries of Christianity and his Dogmatik he love) and so received grace by way of merit, but illustrates the mystery of the Trinity on the basis this was a bestowal of grace from without. For of human family relationships.34 He is aware of them, the grace proper to marriage remained the novelty of this approach since he confesses more extrinsic than intrinsic. In contrast, since that “we have not found…[this idea] in the Christian marriage entails a living participation Fathers and theologians under this form”.35 in the grace giving union of Christ with his Scheeben should know because he is deeply Church – sprouting forth from this Union like immersed in the Fathers and as well as the Scho- a branch from its trunk – it cannot but be a lastic tradition. source of grace for the spouses when no imped- In the question of man’s creation in the image iment of sin intervenes. Scheeben explains: of God in the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas [Christian spouses] gain these graces by attaching addresses the possibility of human sexuality hav- themselves in their union with each other, to the ing some place in the imago Dei when he asks union of Christ with the Church, since by their “whether the image of God is found in man only alliance they reproduce and expand the union of according to the mind?”36 In a reply to one of Christ with His Church. For these reasons the the objections, Thomas, drawing from St. Augus- marriage of Christ with the Church, upon which tine, points out the danger of an approach that the entire communication of grace rests, must ipso would assign individuals of a family to the dif- facto manifest its power over grace in the matri- ferent persons of the Trinity: for example, the monial union between Christians as in its off- father of the family to the Father and the son of shoot.32 the family to the Son. This would leave the wife Herein lies another reason why Scheeben opposes and mother as the Holy Spirit. Clearly this does the notion of the priestly blessing as the form of not work since the Spirit proceeds from the marriage. Such a concept, he contends, makes Father and the Son but the wife does not proceed grace extrinsic to marriage. He concludes: “it is from the husband or the son. A similar problem radically wrong to suppose that the grace of the results if the Son is assigned to the wife, and the sacrament of matrimony is produced by some Spirit to the son. This does not work because the blessing distinct from the contracting of the mar- wife does not proceed from the husband, as the riage union”33. Son does from the Father. Therefore, St. Thomas concludes: [W]e must understand that when Scripture had 5. Human Sexuality and the Image of God said, “to the image of God He created him”, it added, “male and female He created them”, not Perhaps the most innovative aspect of Scheeben’s to imply that the image of God came through the theology of marriage is his understanding of the distinction of sex, but that the image of God place marriage and family have as part of the belongs to both sexes, since it is in the mind, doctrine of man’s creation in the image of God. wherein there is no sexual distinction.37 Here he makes a really significant contribution But Scheeben finds a possible way out of this to the theology of marriage and helps lay the difficulty with the help of Gregory of Nazianzus foundation for others in more recent decades, and the latter’s response to the Macedonian her- including John Paul II, who have sought to show esy. The Macedonians denied that the Holy Spirit how human sexuality is a constitutive part of the was consubstantial with the Father and Son imago Dei. because they thought the only possible procession

190

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 190190 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 W. Newton

from the Father was that of generation and the ion of persons. This idea is expounded in his Person proceeding by generation is the Son.38 Theology of the Body but more concisely and per- They could not conceive of another type of haps clearly in his apostolic letter on the dignity procession because, they said, there is no other and vocation of women, Mulieris dignitatem. mode of procession in creation (in created There he says: things). Gregory denies this and points to the The fact that man “created as man and woman” procession of Eve from Adam. That, he says, is is the image of God means not only that each of a mode of procession distinct from generation them individually is like God, as a rational and and so there is an analogy in creation that would free being, it also means that man and woman, allow us to think of another type of procession created as a “unity of the two” in their common in the Trinity.39 humanity, are called to live in a communion of Taking his lead from St. Gregory, Scheeben love, and in this way to mirror in the world the states that in this procession of Eve from Adam communion of love that is in God, through which and their child from both, there is a likeness of the Three Persons love each other in the intimate the procession of the Son from the Father and mystery of the one divine life.42 the Spirit from both. He states: To be fair, the approaches taken by Scheeben [God] wished to exhibit family unity in mankind and John Paul II are somewhat different in that as the truest possible imitation of the unity in the former seeks to show a likeness on the basis nature of the divine persons. As in God, the Son of processions by making a correspondence alone proceeds from the Father, and the Holy between the divine persons in the Trinity and Spirit is the fruit, the crown, and the seal of their the human persons in the family, while the latter unity, so in mankind the woman was first to pro- keeps the likeness at the more general level of ceed from the man alone, and the child was to be communion. Marc Ouellet surveys different the fruit and crown of the union of man and approaches to what he calls “a family analogy of woman.40 the Trinity” and concludes that these are the two It seems fair to say that this theological observa- main options: “the correspondence between the tion of Scheeben marks a watershed in affirming persons or the communion of persons”43. a place for marriage, family, and human sexual- It has to be admitted that there are some ity in the image of God. This idea, of course, residual problems with “the correspondence was vigorously championed by John Paul II dur- ing his pontificate after the Second Vatican 31 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 593, 606. 32 Ibid. 605. Council had sanctioned it with the now famous 33 Ibid. 606. statement from Gaudium et spes: 34 Cf. M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 181-189 and Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Handbuch der Katholichen Dogmatik, I, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1933, 877-881. Father, “that all may be one…as we are one” (Jn 35 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 184. 17,21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, 36 St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae I q.93 a.6. for He implied a certain likeness between the 37 St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, I a.93 a.6 ad2. union of the divine Persons, and the unity of 38 Cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Oratio theologica V, 10. 41 God’s sons in truth and charity. 39 The procession of Eve is not generation because Eve is These words from the Council Fathers, of course, not like Adam as a child is like a parent, and likeness is do not relate directly to human sexuality but to needed when we speak of generation (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, q.27 a.2). human communion “in truth and charity”. 40 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 182. However, John Paul II undoubtedly saw the 41 Gaudium et spes, 24. human couple, the spouses, as a particular and, 42 John Paul II: Mulieris dignitatem, 7. 43 M. Ouellet: Divine Likeness: Towards a Trinitarian one might say, archetypal human community Anthropology of the Family, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, made in the image of God, Himself a commun- 2006, 34.

191

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 191191 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 INTAMS review 16 (2010)

between the persons” approach, the one taken human sexuality as part of the doctrine of man’s by Scheeben. For one thing, it can only apply to creation in the image of God, an idea that had the first married couple, Adam and Eve, because lain dormant for centuries. Ouellet says that this of the unique relationship of procession that theme, which only played a minor role in the exists between them, namely that in their case history of theology until recently, was practically the wife came forth from the husband (Gen 2,21- forgotten until it “return[ed] in strength in the 22). Only this unique situation can adequately twentieth century under the impulse of Schee- mirror the procession of divine persons in the ben”46. Furthermore, it is an idea of singular Trinity. On the other hand, for John Paul II, importance for our day since it breathes new life every family is a living icon of the Trinity. Per- into the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. haps the fact that a likeness at the level of communion fits all families is one reason why John Paul II favours this form of the analogy. 6. Conclusion Other problems with a likeness on the basis of “correspondence between the persons” are Even though Scheeben did not write much addressed by St. Thomas in that article from the about marriage – there is only one chapter deal- Summa Theologiae (quoted above) in which he ing specifically with it in his Mysteries of Chris- considers whether the image of God is found tianity and a short section in his Dogmatik – only in the human mind.44 There, Thomas crit- what he has left us is very insightful. It is evident icizes this approach because it seems to imply that he is both a man of his time and a man that the human father is only the image of one ahead of his time. He is a man of his time divine person, namely God the Father, and the because he addresses the burning issues of mar- wife and mother only the image of the Holy riage that faced the Church of the late nine- Spirit, and so on. But, this does not seem to be teenth century. In particular, he brings theo- the sense of Sacred Scripture when it is said, “let logical depth to the important statements of Leo us make man in our image, according to our XIII concerning the sacred character of marriage likeness” (Gen 1,26); there is not sense of assign- and the identity of marriage and Sacrament in ing human persons to divine persons. It should Christian matrimony. He is a man ahead of his be noted that Thomas does not even consider time when he describes the marriage of Adam the alternative, namely of an image of God at and Eve as the primordial sacrament of marriage the level of communion. One cannot say he and, particularly, in his explanation of the fam- rejects this notion, or accepts it. ily as the best created analogy of the Trinity: St. Thomas also makes the point that Scrip- both topics given extensive consideration one ture assigns the image of God to man and woman hundred years later by John Paul II. before they have any children. The image does Nevertheless, while the number of lines ded- not need to wait for the birth of a child on the icated to the topic of marriage are few, marriage basis of which the correct sequence of family rela- itself is an important theological hermeneutic for tions are created that would mirror the divine Scheeben. This can be seen in the fact that the processions.45 The childless couple is also, already, two great pillars of Christian doctrine, the Trin- a living image of the Trinity. When the likeness ity and the Eucharist – “the most fundamental remains at the level of a communion of persons, and essential teaching in the hierarchy of the whether the couple have children or not is no truths of faith”47 and “the source and summit of longer decisive for establishing the analogy. Christian life”48 – are understood by him in Despite these unresolved difficulties in the terms of marriage. This we have already seen model proposed by Scheeben, he ought to be with the Trinity, but it is equally the case with credited with reigniting interest in the idea of the Eucharist.

192

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 192192 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58 W. Newton

Scheeben rejects food as an adequate analogy a common human nature) was only a prelude to of the union we achieve with Christ in the their marital one-flesh union. In this way, for Eucharist because the latter union is not between Matthias Scheeben, just like John Paul II a full us and a lifeless body (such as food is) but a century later, the Eucharist is best understood as substantial union between two living bodies. He “the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and the says, therefore, that “the best natural analogy for Bride”51. this union of bodies is provided by the union which obtains in marriage”49. Again, the marriage of Adam and Eve is put to the fore. By the Incar- nation, the Logos became flesh of our flesh: He shared our human nature and so united Himself 44 St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, q.93 a.6 ad2. 50 45 Ibid. to each one of us in a most general way. Yet 46 M. Ouellet: Divine Likeness, 25-26. this was only a prelude to that greater union, the 47 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 234. substantial and personal union with each com- 48 Lumen Gentium, 11. 49 M. Scheeben: Mysteries of Christianity, 483. municant in the Eucharist. In the same way, 50 Cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22. Eve’s coming from the side of Adam (united in 51 John Paul II: Mulieris Dignitatem, 26.

• Summary The Contribution of Matthias Joseph Scheeben to the Theology of Marriage

Matthias Scheeben has left us his Theology of the Body, where William Newton, PhD, born some profound insights into the the latter calls the marriage of in 1968, is Assistant Professor mystery of marriage, especially in Adam and Eve a “primordial sac- at the International Theo- his masterpiece, Mysteries of rament”. Of arguably greater sig- logical Institute for Studies of Christianity. Writing in the latter nificance is Scheeben’s incorpora- Marriage and Family, Tru- part of the nineteenth century, tion of marriage and human mau, Austria. Originally from he addresses the same burning sexuality into the doctrine of the United Kingdom, he has issues with regard to marriage as man’s creation in the image of a PhD in theology from the Leo XIII does in Arcanum, yet God. This idea was later taken up John Paul II Institute, Mel- with greater theological depth. by Vatican II and, extensively, by bourne, Australia. These issues are the sacred char- John Paul II. Scheeben seeks to acter of marriage, even natural show a likeness of the family to marriage, and the identity of mar- the Trinity on the basis of a cor- riage and sacrament in Christian respondence of persons. John marriage. The greater theological Paul II founds the likeness on a penetration achieved by Scheeben communion of persons. While into these issues makes it fruitful John Paul II’s approach ulti- to read him alongside Arcanum. mately proves more satisfactory, Scheeben’s theology of marriage nevertheless, Scheeben must be is also innovative and foreshad- credited with reigniting theologi- ows certain developments that cal investigation into the family have come to fruition in the analogy of the Trinity. This is a twentieth century. Among these theological development of pioneering elements is a descrip- importance since it allows a more tion of the marriage of Adam and dignified presentation of human Eve as quasi-sacramental, some- sexuality than has sometimes thing taken up by John Paul II in been achieved in the past.

193

994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 193193 228/03/118/03/11 12:5812:58