The Contribution of Matthias Joseph Scheeben to the Theology of Marriage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
William Newton The Contribution of Matthias Joseph Scheeben to the Theology of Marriage 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 184 INTAMS review 16, 184-193. doi: 10.2143/INT.16.2.2066204 © 2010 by INTAMS review. All rights reserved 994295_Intams_10-2_07.indd4295_Intams_10-2_07.indd 118484 228/03/118/03/11 112:582:58 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 the- ology 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 118585 228/03/118/03/11 112:582:58 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.