Final report : theology of marriage and the problems of mixed marriages, 1971-1977 : dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church


Q, /(hforr^-d She
f Marri^ y£ Pro ’k

report •. Ih&olcxji/ of masriouje and He p/dflews,,..

LUTHERAN WORLD
FEDERATION-
WORLD ALLIANCE OF
REFORMED CHURCHES-
ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH

3?*

V /
ON THE THEOLOGY

OF MARRIAGE
AND THE

PROBLEMS OF

MIXED MARRIAGES





FINAL REPORT

THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE

and the

PROBLEMS

of

MIXED MARRIAGES

1971-1977

Dialogue Between the

Lutheran World Federation

TheWorld Alliance of Reformed Churches

and the

Secretariat for Promoting

Christian Unity

of the

Roman Catholic Church

1978

Publications Dffice

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005





CONTENTS

Covering Letter to the Authorities of the RCC, LWF, and WARC 1

INTRODUCTION 3
Reasons for a Dialogue on the World Level 3

PARTICIPANTS IN THE DIALOGUE 5

I. CRISIS AND CHALLENGE 8

II. GENERAL ASPECTS OF MARRIAGE 10

III. THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO MARRIAGE 14

IV. MARRIAGE FOR LIFE 18

V. PASTORAL CARE 23
1. The nature of pastoral care 23

2. The preparation of the pastor for pastoral care 24
3. The pastoral care of the congregation as a whole 25
4. The pastoral care of individuals

r .... 25

a) Pastoral care of children 25

b) Pastoral care of adolescents 26

c) Pre-marriage counselling 26

VI. STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF THE NORMS OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDING MIXED MARRIAGES 28
A. NORMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON MIXED

MARRIAGES 28
1. Promises 30
2. The canonical form of the celebration of marriage 31
3. The liturgical form 32
4. Regulations concerning the pastoral care of mixed

marriages 32
B. LUTHERAN-REFORMED COMMENT 33
C. A CATHOLIC REPLY 34

CONCLUSION: Further Outlook and Tasks 37



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/finalreporttheolOOroma



COVERING LETTER TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, LUTHERAN WORLD

FEDERATION AND WORLD ALLIANCE OF
REFORMED CHURCHES

In submitting the final report of the Study Commission appointed

by the Secretary for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic
Church, the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches to their respective authorities, the members of
the Commission set on record their sense of thanksgiving to Almighty

God that the results of their work have eventually found an expression

of agreed theological conviction, although distinctive areas of disagree-

ment continue to exist.

One quotation from the Section on Pastoral Care in the report

illustrates the context and the spirit of the Commission’s work: “The

Commission has been heartened by the new insights which have come
to it through its work together and which hold out to it the hope of

even greater understanding of the nature of marriage under the Lordship

of Christ. It is the hope of the Commission that through its work this

gift of understanding may be reflected day by day in the Churches’
pastoral care of the People of God.’’

Recognizing that the matters treated under the original mandate

and the theological divergencies represented in our respective ecclesi-

astical positions are such as to demand much further examination, the
Study Commission respectfully requests their authorities to give the

present Report their most careful attention.

In the hope that this Report will be widely studied as a contribution

to the wholeness of understanding which we seek in the ecumenical
movement we would suggest the following points for consideration and
action:

1. That consideration be given to the publication of this Report, includ-

ing a selection of some of the major working papers presented
during the sessions of the Study Commission.

1



2. That, in the hope that the present Report will be submitted even-

tually to episcopal conferences and specific Churches for study, a

brief study-guide be prepared by the three partners in the dialogue

to accompany the document with a view to facilitating study and

reaction and comment.

3. That, in anticipation of an eventual reception of reactions from the

constituencies of the partners in dialogue, we suggest that an eval-
uation of these reactions would most usefully be implemented by the

three partners in dialogue together, which may well call for the
appointment of a specific commission for that purpose at some
future date.

We are,
Respectfully,

(on behalf of the Commission)

Rachel Henderlite

Dietrich Rossler

Jacqueline Stuyt

(co-chairpersons)

2



FINAL REPORT

Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Reformed

Study Commission

on

The Theology of Marriage

and the Problems of Mixed Marriage

Venice, Italy, 1976

INTRODUCTION

Dialogue in depth and at world level does not simply just “happen.”

There have to be reasons and a starting point mutually agreed. This

report, which gathers up more than five years of intensive dialogue work,

has its genesis documented in a consultation between representatives

of the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed

Churches and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, which took
place in Rome, December 15-17, 1970.

In preparing such a dialogue, involving together, Lutheran, Re-

formed and Roman Catholic participants, the 1970 Consultation stated
the raison d'etre of the dialogue and something of the goals envisaged:

“REASONS FOR A DIALOGUE ON THE WORLD LEVEL"

“1. Now as ever the division of the Churches is felt most painfully in
interconfessional marriages. This problem is today affected and

aggravated by a general crisis with regard to the understanding

and the function of marriage.

3



The common endeavor of the Churches should therefore be di-
rected in particular to the settling of these questions.

“2. Many local churches and regional Church authorities are collab-
orating with each other in the sphere of marriage and family. Since

the publication of the motu proprio, Matrimonia Mixta, others have

entered upon a new kind of conversation with one another and
especially in the field of interconfessional marriages. On a regional
level these attempts to get nearer to solving the problem of inter-

confessional marriages have generally proved promising.

“3. Nevertheless should efforts be exclusively confined to the regional

level and the universal aspects of the problem be therefore lost to

sight, it would be a narrowing of the issue. For this reason the

Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed

Churches advocated a world-wide conversation with the Roman
Catholic Church and prepared it by two consultations in Cartigny

(Switzerland), November 1969 and March 1970. The pertinent

reasons for this world-wide dialogue on the theology of marriage

and on the problem of interconfessional marriages are primarily

as follows:

“a. Satisfactory agreements on a regional level are often made
more difficult by factors dependent on local conditions—such
as ecclesiastical minority situations, lack of ecumenical stim-

uli and of the opportunities of dialogue; they may be pro-
moted by exchange and consultation on a world-wide level.

“b. The problem of interconfessional marriages is fundamentally

and ultimately due to the differences in the theological under-

standing of marriage. These theological questions are equally

valid throughout the world and have thus a universal char-

acter.

“c. The endeavor to reach a common understanding between the
Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of the Reformation
ought to make a helpful contribution to the overcoming of
the world-wide crisis with regard to the understanding and

the function of marriage."

Among the many issues that would call for study the 1970 Report
outlined: Marriage is a reality to all humanity, the sacramental reality

of marriage, the indissolubility of marriage, and ecclesiastical regula-

tions.

A projected time-table was agreed on, and after due consultation
the three partners officially appointed the members of the joint study
commission. Regrettably illness and death necessitated certain changes

as noted below.

4



PARTICIPANTS IN THE DIALOGUE
Roman Catholics: Rev. Franz Beffart

Roman Catholic Central Institute for Marriage and

Family Questions

Hohenzollernring 38-40

5 Cologne—1, Germany
Mr. Michel Dousse

Family Department of the Laity Council

Piazza S. Calisto, 16

00153 Rome, Italy

Rev. Gustave Marelet, S.J.

Professor at the Theological Faculty of Fourviere

4, Montee de Fourviere

69 Lyons—5, France
Mrs. Jacqueline Stuyt

Chairman of Commission on Ecumenism

World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations

Flat B—4 Cleveland Square
London W.2—6DH, Great Britain
Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P. (1971-1972)
General Secretary

Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity

Citta del Vaticano

Msgr. Jozef Tomko
5. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Citta del Vaticano

Rev. Olaf Wand, A.A. (1971)
Staff member of the Secretariat for Promoting

Christian Unity

Citta del Vaticano

Dr. Wolfdieter Theurer, C.S.S.R.

(1972; deceased 1973)

Staff member of the Secretariat for Promoting
Christian Unity

Citta del Vaticano

5



Lutherans:

Reformed:

Msgr. Charles Moeller

General Secretary

Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity

Citta del Vaticano

Rev. Pierre-M. de Contenson, O.P.

(1973-1976; deceased 1976)

Staff member of the Secretariat for Promoting
Christian Unity

Citta del Vaticano

Mrs. Sophia Tung

Lutheran Church in Taiwan

86-1 Section 3

Hsin Shen South Road

Taipei, Taiwan—Rep. of China

Prof. Dr. Dietrich Rossler

Engelfriedshalde 39

74 Tubingen, Germany

Rev. Maurice Sweeting

Lutheran Church

29, rue des Glaces

25000 Valentigney, France

Rev. Dr. Harding Meyer

Research Professor at the Institute for Ecumenical

Research

8, rue Gustave Klotz

67000 Strasbourg, France

Rev. Prof. Rachel Henderlite

Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

100 East 27th Street

Austin, Texas 78705, USA

Rev. Prof. Daniel Vidal

Trevino 1 bis 3

Madrid 3, Spain

Rev. Dr. Rudolf Ehrlich (deceased 1974)

The Manse
28 Summerside Street
Edinburgh 6, Scotland

Prof. Frank Nichol (1974)

Knox College

Dunedin, New Zealand

6



Prof. N. H. G. Robinson (1974-1976)

Professor of Divinity

University of St. Andrews, Scotland

Rev. Richmond Smith

Theological Secretary, WARC
150, route de Ferney

CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

Throughout the sessions the chair rotated between Mrs. Jacqueline

Stuyt (Roman Catholic), Prof. Dietrich Rossler (Lutheran), Rev. Dr.

Rudolf Ehrlich (Reformed) 1971-1974, Prof. Rachel Henderlite (Re-

formed) 1974-1976.

Observers have attended most of the sessions:

The Rev. Prebendary Henry Cooper (Anglican), London, the Rev.

Dr. Leslie Clements and the Rev. Rex Davies (both from the World

Council of Churches), Geneva.

In all the joint study commission has had five meetings: Strasbourg

1971, Madrid 1972, Basel 1973, Strasbourg 1974, Venice 1976. De-

pending on the nature of the subjects treated specialized resource

persons were invited to individual meetings:

I. 1971-theme: “Marriage today from the sociological, psychological

and religious points of view.” Adviser, Mrs. Micheline Hermann-

Meric, psychologist (Roman Catholic), Paris.

II. 1972-theme: “The sacramentality of marriage.” Adviser, Prof. Dr.

Hermann Ringeling (Lutheran), Bern.

III. 1973-theme: “The indissolubility of marriage.” Advisers: Rev. Ber-

nard de Lanversin (Roman Catholic), Marseilles; Prof. N. H. G.
Robinson (Reformed), St. Andrews.

IV. 1974-theme: “The indissolubility of marriage”—continued. Advis-
ers: Prof. Cyrille Vogel (Roman Catholic), Strasbourg; Prof. Dr. D.
Hans Dombois (Lutheran), Heidelberg.

V. 1976—“Review of the work of the commission and final report.”

7



I. CRISIS AND CHALLENGE
1. In its discussion of the problems of marriage the Commission has

been acutely aware of the contemporary crisis affecting marriage. While

acknowledging the magnitude of the present challenge, however, we
would wish to keep it in perspective by bearing in mind that there has

always been an element of crisis or of tension in marriage, insofar as

the actuality has too frequently fallen short of the ideal, what marriage

is has often fallen short of what it ought to be, and that this has not

seldom been accepted through corruptions of the ideal, such as the

double moral standard for husband and wife. Moreover, we are deeply
convinced that the Churches should not disguise whatever responsibility

they may have for contributing to the crisis, partly by their own divisions
and divided witness, partly by caring too much for the institution and
too little for those involved in it.

2. Nonetheless, the crisis exists at present, although once again it

should not be too rigidly separated from other contemporary movements

and trends which call in question accepted standards and authorities,

for it is probably not mistaken to see at the root of these the search for

a reality and meaning which have been lost by many traditional forms
of life and behavior; and this search commands a degree of sympathetic
and appreciative understanding. On the other hand, this search for
reality is probably not the only factor in the present situation; and there

is no doubt that the emancipation of women has brought great changes
to the marital situation, as have technological discoveries affecting this

area of human existence. Another factor, operating at a deeper level,
is an attitude of the human spirit which has readily emerged at a stage
of modern civilization which owes much to scientific achievements and
scientific ways of thinking. Perhaps this attitude of the human spirit
reflects the detachment of a scientific age, and it is certainly tentative

and skeptical, uncommitted and prone to experiment. It fits in well with

a period of pluralism and secularism; but it lacks the criteria for gauging

the success of the adventure of human life and history. Moreover, in
reaction against this emptiness of the human spirit, many in our time
have sought participation in reality in a wide diversity of ways. Some
of these ways have carried with them peculiar dangers to the human
person. Others have had an essentially religious character and have been

attempts to recover that existential sense of God the lack of which lies

at the deepest root of our present problems.

3. Yet whatever place there is for experiment here and there in the

course of human life, there is no place for it at the very roots of life, in

8



connection with life itself. When we allow ourselves to consider the
matter, we experience life both as a gift to us and as something we are
enabled to pass on to future generations—as if God had not only called
us into existence but has even made us partners with Himself in the
promotion and enhancement of human life. With life itself we are given
the promise of more life, and the possibility of its development in our
children for good or for ill. Moreover, each marriage, with the children

who may be given to it, must work itself out, again for good or ill,
through a succession of situations in circumstances of sickness and
health, of good fortune and bad, of prosperity and adversity, of life and

death. It seems impossible to be existentially aware of this basic experi-

ence which has something of the character of a mystery and a challenge,

without feeling the need for some interpretative vision; and certainly for
its part the Christian Church has always assigned and must continue to

assign, a very great importance and significance to the coming together

of the sexes in marriage, which is, as it were, a focus of this basic

situation.

4 . In articulating this vision one may fall into all sorts of reduction-
ist errors, and the Churches themselves have not always been free of

these. They have sometimes treated sexuality as a merely biological

means for the sole purpose of procreation; but others may likewise treat
it as a merely anthropological language of communication and self-

expression to the total exclusion of procreation. Both views, however,

are partial and one-sided. Others again may treat sexuality as a sphere
merely for self-satisfaction and the obsessive pursuit of pleasure; but

this is a double mistake. It reduces the human personality to nothing
more than instinct and sentiment and it isolates the individual from his

or her partner, from children, from society, from future generations, and

from God.

5. There are clearly questions at issue here concerning potentiality

and genuinely human reality which it would be tragic to allow to go by
default; and certainly even if our Churches have sometimes seemed

unduly legalistic and inward-looking, their present concern in these con-

versations is to recover the reality and values in their traditions and

under the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to serve humanity in its needs and

responsibilities in a rapidly changing world, which finds it easier to

despair than to believe. Believing in the values of our traditions, we
must help our people to grasp them afresh, in terms of their contem-

porary existence, lest they be lost in the confusion of change.

9



II. GENERAL ASPECTS OF MARRIAGE
6. The starting point for our analysis of marriage is the fact that
marriage is subject to constant change. The historicity of man comes to
the fore also in this matter. Particular changes have been brought about

in modern times, and among these changes one must include the transi-
tion from the pre-industrial form of life to the complex industrial society

of the present time. This transition does not occur simultaneously in all

places, and all stages of the process may therefore exist side by side
with each other. Examples of this are provided by comparing the char-

acteristic forms of marriage in different cultures and also by the influ-

ence that in one way or another is being continuously exerted on indi-
viduals in modern society, i.e., in political, moral, economic and other
respects. History and ethnology, as well as psychology and sociology,

give striking accounts of these factors of transformation, influence and

change. In the most recent past this transformation has been consid-

erably influenced by the technological development that has made man
independent of nature to an extent hitherto unknown. Other develop-

ments therefore occurred in the wake of this technological process, the

“sexual revolution" being a case in point.

7. It is quite astonishing that even a radical change in marriage uses

and customs could not destroy the basic character of marriage. The

transformation of marriage uses and customs is a consequence of the

historicity of man. Culture is not something static or invariable, but is

in a constant process of development. The nature of many of these
developments is not alien to the Church, and indeed many aspects of
the transformation only bring her face-to-face with the effects of her

own preaching. Examples of this are provided by the idea of man as a
person, the importance of personal freedom, and the preeminence of

love. These themes have always stood in the foreground of church

teaching. But even in the secularized world they have become dominant

concepts governing the general way of life.

8. A description of the exterior reality of marriage leads to a cata-

logue of complementary characteristics that are common everywhere:

• Marriage, especially in Western tradition, means a free union

based on reciprocity.

• It means cohabitation that involves the life, the work and the

interests of the partners.

• It is based on a community of life that embraces and gives

security to the persons and becomes enlarged into a community for the

begetting and raising of children.

10



• The description of marriage as a “spiritual community" ex-

presses the fact that in marriage the fundamental and all-embracing

questions of life have to be answered jointly by the partners. Since the

community regards the binding and all-of-life-embracing nature of such

questions, marriage has a religious character which is essential to its

nature.

In the case of an individual marriage, these characteristics never

constitute an invariable and fixed inventory. Neither the spouses nor the

marriage itself remain stationary at their starting point. The decision of

the partners to share their entire existence forms part of a development

that permits maturation and growth in all fields.

9. The lived marriage of the present day cannot therefore by any

means be understood as a mere multiplicity of forms of life that have

nothing in common and are of quite different stamp. Everywhere in the
world marriage is the institution that responds to the fundamental exper-

ience of humanity, according to which the human person exists as a

sexual being. Notwithstanding all the historical, cultural and psycho-

sociological differences, marriage contains a number of common and
important elements. One of these lies in the fact that a man and a
woman enter into community both with respect to themselves and with
respect to society. The fact that marriage as a primary institution confers

a social form upon the relationship between the sexes, excludes the

arbitrary treatment of the relationship. A man and a woman who enter
into a marriage therefore know that—in this marriage—they are ac-
cepted, sheltered and protected by society and all social authorities. On

the other hand, especially in modern times, it is precisely in the sexual

relationship that people seek personal happiness. This emphasis placed

on the sexual relationship for personal love and private happiness clearly

stands in a state of tension with marriage as an institution: Marriage

cannot be founded exclusively on the loving sentiments of the spouses

and have its fate depend on these sentiments, but it is just as obvious

that it cannot be said to be nothing more than a social institution. This

polarity may harbor dangers that—in individual cases—lead to the
destruction of a marriage. In a successful marriage, on the other hand,

the unity of this tension-filled polarity is experienced as an enhancement

of the quality of life. A lived marriage is the place where such genuinely

human life is attained, where the opposition between institution and
person and between self-love and conjugal love becomes cancelled. It is

the framework in which one partner accepts the other with all his

limitations, but also has the good fortune of being accepted by the

other, again with all his limitations. The partners free each other of the

fear that this acceptance may be withdrawn and they do so by seeking

11



“institutional support,” i.e., by making a public promise of constancy

and, consequently, being taken at their word by society.

10. We can therefore speak of three aspects or dimensions of mar-
riage. These are three aspects of its significance or its function. The

first aspect shows the married couple in its own life, its history, and its
fate. The second aspect brings the family as such into sharper focus:
Children are an expression of both the nature of the institution and of

personal love, they add nothing alien to the marriage but rather enlarge

it to the other dimensions. Lastly, the third aspect throws the limelight

on the importance of marriage for society. Marriage represents the living

cell, the fundamental element of both civil society and of the religious

community. These three dimensions mark the living expression of
marriage, and also its significance as going far beyond mere individual

interest. But at the same time they also indicate aspects of menace for
each individual marriage. In each of these three dimensions, indeed, a

lived marriage is liable to failure or lack of success: It is menaced to

an equal extent by a failure of the conjugal partnership, by a breakdown

of the family relationship and by a destruction of its social integration.

A marriage is already threatened when one of these dimensions is
neglected as compared with the others or is considered to be less rele-

vant. One of the best means of preventing marriage failure is to help

individual married people to gain insight into these aspects and to

accept responsibility for all dimensions. In this way they become in the

full sense fit for marriage.

11. The third of these aspects merits some additional remarks. The

relationship between a marriage and the culture or the society in which

that marriage is lived is the result of interaction. On the one hand,

marriage represents the formative and effective element out of which

society and community are constructed. On the other hand, the values,

the yardsticks and the criteria for the orientation of married life are

derived from society. And it is precisely within this interaction that both

the life of society and the history of each lived marriage unfold. But this

makes marriage depend in an altogether particular manner on the things

that a given society considers to be valid: Society must be open to the

vital needs of marriage in all its dimensions. Marriage proves to be

vulnerable and sensitive not only to limitation of and interference with

its living space (“Lebensraum”), but even to shortcomings in the public

support and sustenance that it needs. Although the religious community

is able to provide essential foundations for marriage, it can also become

a threat in a similar way. Indeed, it is just the religious community that

must allow marriage the space and the support to develop its life in all

dimensions. A religious community that recognizes only one of these
dimensions—the family aspect say—and neglects or undervalues the

12



others represents a menace to the vitality of marriage. In this sense the

religious community too must be open to all the vital needs of marriage.

In married life, of course, none of these aspects is in practice separated

from the others. Together, rather, they form a complex and irrevocable

unity.

13



III. THE RELATION OF CHRIST
TO MARRIAGE

12. In treating of the relation of Christ to marriage we touch also
on the paradoxical source of our divisions as Christians. What divides
us here is not, evidently, Christ himself, but the different conceptions

our Churches have of His action on us through grace; or at any rate the

way these different conceptions are spoken of. According to Catholics

the Reformation was particularly radical in its approach to the question

of marriage. In the name of a doctrine of grace that was often reduced
solely to the act, in itself essential, of justification, the Reformation

Churches contested the doctrine of the Catholic Church on marriage,

founded mainly on a doctrine of sanctification. The Catholic Church on

her part developed a sacramental doctrine of marriage which seemed

unacceptable to the Reformation Churches. To them it appears that the

Catholic Church in this way introduces in marriage an—as it were—au-
tomatic efficaciousness of grace which is theologically unacceptable and

spiritually unverified. It seems to them that in this connection the

Catholic Church does not respect the natural (“weltlich”) character of

marriage which belongs to it by virtue of creation itself and of the civil

institutions of man. She also appeared to them to give too much weight

in this domain of marriage to the role of the Church as opposed to that

of the State. Catholic doctrine seems to them, too, to overlook the fact

that such a human institution as marriage is itself in need of salvation.

In the view of Lutherans and the Reformed Churches, the Catholic

Church, in holding that marriage is a sacrament, seems to forget that

marriage does not of itself give grace but needs to receive it. Lastly, to

the Reformation Churches it seems at least doubtful whether Christ

himself instituted this sacrament.

13. Our intention here is not to try to solve all these problems. We
simply wish to indicate the direction we may need to take if we are to
discover together a Christian view of marriage which might truly become

the object of a common teaching of faith.

14. Revelation teaches us first of all that God, the living and true

God, is not only not a stranger to the human greatness of love, but that
He personally is its principle and source. In reality only love can explain
that God is truly the Creator and that it is His plan that there should
exist the human family, which is founded on, and lives by, love. God,
who desires that humanity should become, at all costs, a community of
freedom and love, does not want to accomplish His plan without the

14



conjugal ministry of man and woman. As a project for total communion
which has as its consequence the bearing and upbringing of human
beings in a human way, conjugal love manifests, therefore, the creative
plan of God for a world where human creatures are made according to.
and live in, His image.

15. However, God is not merely at the creative source of the world
and of humanity. He has Himself given within history an unequalled, an
unsurpassable, example of love. The People of the Covenant loomed up
through the centuries as the unique beneficiary and as the prophetic

witness for all men of a Love without limits which nothing can exhaust
or destroy. In fact, this Love led God to share wholly in our condition
through the Incarnation of His Son. In uniting Himself for ever in the

flesh of Christ to our humanity, God reveals that His Covenant love is
comparable to conjugal love. As Spouse totally faithful to the People of
Israel, God reveals Himself in Christ as the Spouse par excellence, He
who gives proof of His absolute love for the Church and for humanity by
offering Himself up for them on the cross.

16. We are convinced that such a mystery as this is not, can not,
be unconnected with the conjugal relationship. In fact, the Covenant

that is projected forward from the world’s creation, manifested through

Israel, realized in Jesus Christ, announced by the Church of the Apostles,

and communicated by the Holy Spirit, reveals that God commits Himself

in Jesus Christ to lead every form of love to its complete truth. If we

are asked who is this Christ who plays such a prominent role in conjugal
love, we may answer unhesitatingly: he is the Lord of the Promise, the
Lord of the Covenant and of grace. This is why, without ever forgetting

the action of the Spirit present in the core of all conjugal love, the fact

that Christians belong to the Lord by virtue of being incorporated into

His Life through baptism, also has a bearing on their conjugal existence.

17. If we are ready to step out of our conventional formulations of

one form or another, we shall see that this relationship of Christ to the
conjugal life of Christians is nothing other than what we all of us refer

to as grace. In reality grace is the presence of Christ given to men in
the Spirit according to the promise. Thus, without being contained in

the state of marriage as if it constituted a reality independent of Jesus

Christ, or as if marriage were sufficient of itself to produce it, grace is

wholly a gift of Christ to the married couple. This grace, which is granted

above all as a lasting promise, is as durable as marriage itself is called

to be.

18.

This relationship of grace between the mystery of Christ and the

conjugal state requires a name. We all of us believe that the biblical term
“Covenant” truly characterizes the mystery of marriage. It is this Cove-

15



nant that the Catholic Church calls a sacrament. The Reformation

Churches prefer not to employ this term chiefly because of their defini-

tion of what a sacrament is, because of the special character of marriage

in relation to the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, and finally

because of the controversies and misunderstandings of the past. We
believe, however, that in the light of our different mentalities and his-

torical situations, we can have a view of marriage which is in a profound
sense a common one.

19. In fact we are all. equally convinced that marriage is closely
connected with God’s promise. This promise is nothing other than Christ

Himself turning to look upon the spouses so that their love too should

become a real and lasting union. This promise is not simply an idea,

but the reality itself of Jesus Christ. Because it is the face of Christ

himself turned toward married life, this promise is never under the

power of those who are called to benefit from it. It is given to them
without their ever being able to become its masters. Therefore it pre-

supposes an explicit and ever-renewed annunciation of the word which

is no more the prerogative of the minister than it is of the beneficiaries

cf the grace of marriage.

20. This promise, then, holds the initiative from the beginning and

maintains it throughout. It has a kind of autonomy in regard to the

spouses. It summons them ceaselessly to allow themselves to be formed
by it, without the spouses ever being able to take for granted that they

have finally succeeded in wholly identifying themselves with the full

measure of its demands and its grace.

21. To bring together in this way the initiative of the promise in

regard to the spouses and the re-creative experience which the spouses

are called to have of its power over them, is to speak of the sacramental

power of marriage considered in the light of the Covenant. It also means

that marriage is a sign of the Covenant.

22. Understood in this manner, marriage confers on Christians a

responsibility both as beneficiaries and as witnesses. The spouses accept

more particularly to live their love according to this promise of grace

which they know makes it possible for them to put their deep longing

for each other in concrete form through the unreserved gift of self, as

well as to surmount its ambiguities.

23. In this way Catholics should envisage grace, not as a kind of

purely objective gift which acts unconditionally on the spouses, but as

an experience of fidelity and life that Christ stimulates in their hearts

through the gift of the Spirit. As for Lutherans and members of the
Reformed Churches, they accept that the promise sealed with the death

and resurrection of Christ is active in the hearts and lives of married

16



Christians who live the mystery of Christ, in this way becoming its bene-
ficiaries and witnesses. Both are well aware that in expressing in this

manner the “sacramental” aspect of marriage in the light of the promise

and the Covenant, we have not resolved all the differences that exist

between us. We are merely attempting to get beyond the theological
ambiguities which can be, and must be, overcome. We also know that
we don’t exhaust the wealth of meaning inherent in this mystery of
grace, a mystery that goes beyond the frontiers of the Christian life.

That is why we should not exclude from the beneficial effects of the
Covenant couples who are not believers. In trying to describe the rela-
tionship between Christ’s grace and Christian marriage, we simply wish
to point out what a wealth of grace the mystery of Christ contains that

may be put at the service of conjugal love which in this way acquires its
true greatness. But this greatness can never be separated from our

weakness. The message of our Churches, especially at such a time of

crisis as ours, should point at one and the same time to the values

which Christ Himself proclaimed, and to the weakness which He de-

nounced and from which He wishes to save us. Christ hands over to us

the grace which both judges and saves us.

17



IV. MARRIAGE FOR LIFE
24. It is our common conviction that in the conjugal union a man
and a woman commit themselves for their whole lives, and that the
couple is destined through marriage to remain united “as long as life

lasts,” as is said in our liturgies. Being a reciprocal gift that makes the

spouses “one flesh,” it must be total, without reserve and unconditional.

This is required by the dynamism inherent in any authentic love which

by its very nature tends to be life-long. It is a matter of the deep respect

for each other of those who mutually commit themselves, and of the
good of their children, as well of the common good of the human com-
munity. That is why, in our efforts to be in our Churches constant wit-

nesses to this conjugal love, we feel we can render a service to humanity
and to the individual couples concerned.

25. Although we have this common conviction, the fact remains that
we also have divisions, clear divisions just as we have with regard to
the “sacramental” aspect of marriage. In this latter case our divisions

are rather of a theological nature. In the present matter our divisions

concern, in great measure, pastoral work. They are so important that it

is necessary at this point to give a brief exposition of the motives under-

lying these differences.

26. The Catholic Church acknowledges it is powerless over a mar-

riage that has been validly contracted and truly agreed upon between

two Christians (what is called by the Church a marriage ratum et con-

summatum). In fact, in the Church’s view such a marriage is the sacra-
ment or sign of the union of Christ with the Church, and thus it is as

indissoluble as this union.

27. Confronted by the difficulties that such a marriage can en-

counter, one may ask oneself—from the Catholic Church’s viewpoint

—

whether these may not derive from a certain shortcoming inherent in
this marriage, and which in effect renders such a union inexistent or

null. If the marriage appears to be truly valid and effected in the normal

manner, one tries by every possible means to save the union by having
recourse to the grace that the relationship of marriage to the mystery of

grace puts at the disposal of the spouses. If in the end the continuation

of conjugal life seems impossible, a separation is then considered legiti-
mate. But if the spouses decide to obtain a divorce, then the Catholic

Church considers that it has not the right to view the second marriage

which might follow as a Christian marriage or even as a valid one. That

is, it denies that this second marriage, following upon a divorce, can

18



represent the union of Christ with the Church, a union which lasts for-

ever.

28 . The Catholic Church does not, therefore, consider that the

passages in Matthew 5 and 19 imply tolerance of divorce. The purpose

of the Church’s severe exclusion from the sacraments of such spouses,

is to manifest her disagreement with their behavior, and to point out

how they are acting against the mystery of Christ by contracting a

second marriage. But this exclusion (from the sacraments) should not

mean withholding the spiritual support which such spouses have the
right to find, in any event, within the Church.

29 . Even though they hold that marriage is a sign of the Covenant,

the Reformation Churches do not consider Christian marriage to be a

sacrament in the full sense of the word. Undoubtedly they see in the

union of Christ with his Church the model of Christian marriage. There-

fore they too, in accordance with Ephesians 5, endeavor in every possible

way that marriage should possess the quality of fidelity which Christ

expects of it. But this relationship with Christ does not mean that the

spouses who are mutually committed consider incompatible with the
mystery of Christ the fact that they might possibly, in the case of a

complete failure, seek a divorce.

30 . That is why, when it seems that the marriage cannot continue
any longer, the Reformation Churches consider that the bond of mar-

riage has been destroyed, a fact which is ascertainable, like death.

Nothing remains of the first marriage, therefore, that could prevent

re-marriage. This does not mean that in this way the Reformation
Churches resign themselves to divorce; but once divorce exists, they

would not consider themselves bound to hold that a new Christian

marriage is always impossible. The second marriage might perhaps

achieve what was not possible in the first one, that is, a greater

conformity with the love of Christ for the Church.

31 . The difference between this and the Catholic position is clear.

In the Catholic Church marriage exists as a Christian marriage only in

so far as it represents—must and can represent—in its fidelity the love
of Christ for the Church. The Reformation Churches, on the other hand,

consider that, since marriage needs to conform to the unity of Christ

with the Church, the unity that the first marriage has not been able

to realize, may possibly be realized in a second marriage after a
divorce. They do not therefore view divorce as a radical obstacle to a

second marriage.

32. The presuppositions of such an attitude are numerous. Without

entering here into the relation between creation and sin, we shall refer

to the following points: 1) the doctrine of the justification of the sinner;

2) a view of the Gospel which, over and above all its requirements, sees

19



the need for a spirit of mercy and forgiveness; 3) an interpretation of
the passage in Matthew as indicating a Christian tolerance of divorce.
As regards these last two points, the Reformation Churches adopt a

position that is close to the Orthodox practice of “oikonomia", since they

too in their own manner wish to give witness to the Gospel by showing
mercy toward those who are divorced. And lastly, 4) there is some
support for this doctrine in certain facts in the history of the Catholic

Church. Moreover, attention is called to the fact that although the

Catholic Church reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage at the Councils

of Florence and Trent, she has never formally condemned the position
of the Orthodox.

33. The differences between our various Churches, therefore, are

considerable. None of us dreams of denying this, and none imagines
that such problems can be resolved by us in an artificial way. But one

thing is certain, a thing we all share in common: that we all desire,
each in his own way, to be submissive to Christ who indicates for
marriage a fidelity which before His time was too often sacrificed. It is

therefore in His presence that we must together place ourselves.

34. When confronted with the problem that divorce presents to the
conjugal union, Christ, taking up again the teaching of Genesis, pro-

claims formally: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man
put asunder" (Mt. 19:6). The weakness and “hardness of heart" of men

had obscured the plan laid down “from the beginning" by God Himself,

and the Lord Christ opposes with all His authority the tolerance intro-

duced by the mosaic law. He calls spouses to an irrevocable fidelity

with such great force that His disciples take fright, forgetting that what

is impossible for men is possible for God.

35. In reality, just as God goes to meet His people in a Covenant

of love and fidelity, one that is described by Hosea and other prophets

with symbolism derived from conjugal life, so too Christ, the Saviour of

men and the Spouse of the Church, goes toward the love of Christian
spouses, whose model He is through His union with the Church. If He

spoke, therefore, about the indefectible union of man and woman, this
was not just in virtue of the lucidity of a legislator, but principally

because He is in His person the very source of this requirement of

married love. Or better, this requirement flows directly from His way of

being in regard to men. In His saving power, in effect, He remains

ever present with them so that, as He Himself has loved the Church and

given Himself for her, so too the spouses may be able to love each
other faithfully as long as life lasts.

36. This fidelity to God, which was fully revealed by Christ through

the crucifixion and resurrection, renders possible and supports the

fidelity of the spouses to the love which they have promised and owe

20



one another. The sexual impulse is assuredly an essential component

of this love; but notwithstanding its great importance, it does not suffice

by itself to ensure the perennial quality of love. As long as sin exists

in the world, conjugal love will remain vulnerable, just as marriage

itself is vulnerable. But since the promise made by Christ to the spouses

is a promise of fidelity, it is able to make their love durable. This promise

which is both a gift and an expression of God’s will, a vocation and an

exigence, can also become a judgment when it is refused.

37. The mark of the Christian couple, therefore, consists in this

promise which precedes and accompanies them. It is also the fact that

this promise is received with faith, is lived out and verified, as it were,

every single day. By means of it the conjugal union is enabled to

persevere, to grow through joys, as well as perils and sufferings, and

even to last throughout life.

38. The indissolubility of conjugal love is manifested to us from

then on as a fruit of the fidelity of God which demands and makes
possible a similar fidelity in the spouses. And so, before being a law,

indissolubility is a vital requirement of the love which the spouses have

for each other and which they also owe to their children.

39. It is true that we live in a society that tends to question the
validity of institutions and of marriage in particular. The aim of a protest

of this kind against marriage is to protect couples from what used to

be, or seems to be, a mere formality. This is why many young couples
refuse to give their relationship any official character, whether civil or

religious. Sociology and psychology have contributed to the fact that

today perhaps more than in the past marriage is seen as a means to
success, personal fulfillment and happiness, a view which tends to make
marriage more vulnerable. Also, life together is envisaged as an experi-

ence the duration of which one cannot, and does not wish to, guarantee.

However difficult it may be to evaluate all the consequences of this
calling in question of marriage—consequences which are not all nega-
tive and which go beyond the boundaries of marriage itself—our com-
mon concern is to see that nothing should damage marriage as a cell of
life and of love.

40. This concern is for Christians and indeed for all men. The prob-
lem is such a profound one that it goes beyond our doctrinal and

practical differences. Therefore, with one heart and one faith we pro-
claim once more our common conviction that God wishes marriage to
be a bond for the whole of life, in both depth and duration; and this is

for the good of humanity. The doctrine and behavior of our Churches

should therefore proclaim this message unceasingly, just as it is pro-

claimed in our liturgies in such a strikingly similar way and with a
conviction born of faith.

21



41. And yet, however deep this accord, the fact remains that, as we
have pointed out, our views and our practical pastoral approaches are

opposed to each other in regard to the relation of Christian marriage to

divorce. While Christian marriage and divorce remain incompatible in

the Catholic Church, this is not always the case for the Reformation

Churches and for the Orthodox. But each of us is convinced to be

faithful to the Gospel, even if this does not exclude serious differences

between us.

42. Lutherans and the Reformed Churches ask Catholics whether

in their approach to the indissolubility of Christian marriage they forget

the quality of mercy for the sake of a “mystery” which to their brothers

of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches seems to have become a “law”
that has not much to do with the Gospel. Catholics ask Lutherans and
members of the Reformed Churches whether the way they reconcile
divorce and Christian marriage does not contradict the mystery of

Christ, and also whether the practice of re-marriage after a divorce

does not blur the principle itself of indissolubility.

43. To these questions there are no ready-made answers which

could satisfy all concerned. On the one hand it is true that an attitude
of mercy should never favor solutions that are destructive of marriage

and of love. On the other hand, there is the Orthodox usage of “oikono-

mia,” and the passage of Matthew is a fact which remains a problem. It is

clear, therefore, that we cannot overcome these difficulties by employing

any short-cuts which might, mistakenly, be considered ecumenical. It

is better to face the fact that our pastoral differences on this matter for

the time being remain unreconciled, if not, perhaps, unreconcilable.

44. However, since we all wish to be faithful to the mystery of
Christ, our main concern is with this mystery, and not just with our

mutual relations. Consequently, we all need to answer a question which

should exclude the possibility of any complacency: how are we serving,

and do we truly serve, or do we serve as much as we should, the truth
of Christian marriage through our different practical approaches to this

matter, above all at a time when this spiritual service, both in regard

to marriage and to love, is more than ever necessary in society?

45. And so we are led to Him whom we have never ceased to dis-
cover at the heart and source of Christian marriage: the Christ whose

mystery of life and salvation we want to make shine out among us:
something we are never completely certain that we are doing, but
also never give up hope of doing. It is in any case this desire which

should inspire the attitude we have to adopt toward mixed marriages,
without minimizing or over-stating either our points of agreements or

our points of dissent.

22



V. PASTORAL CARE
46. The problems the Commission has been given to deal with are

theological problems and have been dealt with theologically; but the

concern of the Commission is also a practical, that is, a pastoral one.

The Commission has dealt with the question of the sacramental aspects

and the life-long character of the marriage of one man and one woman
of whatever Church, and with what our Churches can say and do in the

immediate situation in which we live to enable that man and woman
to live together in marriage under the Lordship of Christ.

47. The Church has always been acutely aware that it does not live

in an ideal world, and over the years the different communions have

developed their own ways of preparing people for marriage. Generally

these provisions for pastoral care have been worked out by the Churches

in isolation from each other, and even in opposition to each other.

However, the crisis the Churches face today in a world that has to a

considerable extent rejected the Christian faith lays upon all Churches

the common task of exercising a stronger prophetic and pastoral mis-
sion. Needless to say, the pastoral mission should not be concerned

exclusively with the casualties of marriage but should aim to play a

constructive role in building up individual marriages and in the realiza-

tion and fulfillment of our human potentialities. Moreover, the mission
could be more effectively carried out, it is believed, if it could be re-

garded as a common task to be dealt with by the Churches working
together in concrete situations, such as a common approach to mixed
marriages and even common celebrations of the marriage rite through
the use of common liturgical elements.

48. Although it is aware that it is working in a constantly changing

situation and that the need for pastoral care in relation to marriage can

never be precisely anticipated, the Commission has identified a number
of areas where special attention must be given to the nature of the

pastoral care likely to be required.

1. The nature of pastoral care

49. In the first place the Church must give attention to what it will

mean by pastoral care, assisting both pastor and people to come to a
deeper understanding. The Commission recognizes the broad dimensions
of this pastoral task. It is persuaded that marriage counseling as gen-

erally conceived is only a part of the pastoral responsibilities of the

Church and, in fact, cannot be done apart from the larger job. It is

persuaded also that the care for the needs of individuals and families

is not the task of the pastor alone but is the responsibility of the whole

23



Church. Members of the Church have by virtue of their vocation, an
obligation of mutual care for one another, of providing insofar as they

are able a community of grace in which everyone may find comfort

and strength and in which everyone may extend comfort and support

to his neighbor. Some Churches have come to regard pastoral care as
including social and political action in the community, thinking of it as

whatever the organized Church as individuals and groups may do in the
name of the Church to improve the conditions in which people live.

50. It will be the pastpr’s task to assist members of his congrega-
tion in understanding their calling and in equipping themselves to enter

into it faithfully. Obviously he will do this through a wide variety of

activities—in his preaching from the pulpit, in the teaching in the school
of the Church, in his special classes for parents, in his own relationship

with the children and young people of the congregation, in vocational

groups, and in other groups organized to meet particular needs of the

larger community. In effect, the Church provides pastoral care for its

members and equips them for marriage by drawing them into a worship-
ping, studying, witnessing community where they may know themselves
to be a part of the ongoing People of God who have been called to live
together under the Lordship of Christ and to minister to the needs

of the world.

2. The preparation of the pastor for pastoral care

51. The second task of the Church in its work of pastoral care will

be the preparation of the pastor for his responsibility of equipping

individuals and families for life and therefore for marriage. This will

include but will not be limited to couples who will enter mixed marriages
or who have already done so, and will thus require of them a new way
of looking at Church regulations. Time is running out to save Christian

marriages of the future and it is urgent that the Church interpret its

rules as an expression of God’s love and concern for human nature as
He made it and therefore as written for our good and for our happiness.

52. It will be no easy task to overcome the limitations of the tradi-

tional approaches to marriage. But fortunately seminaries are awakening

to the need for providing a broader course of study for their ministerial

students, going beyond the traditional biblical, theological and historical

studies and including pastoral studies and even apprenticeships in

pastorates under capable and experienced pastors. The recent Apostolic

Letter issued by Pope Paul VI in 1970 on Mixed Marriages opens new

possibilities of understanding the nature of the regulations of the Roman
Catholic Church. This letter shows Canon Law, as is no doubt intended,

as an expression of Christ’s loving care for his people, and the Church’s

attempt to carry out the love in the daily circumstances of life. Students

24



who hope to enter the pastoral ministry should be encouraged to inter-
pret Canon Law from this point of view, and to work with pastors of

other Churches to enable the couple to overcome the difficulties inherent

in a mixed marriage.

53. The nature of pastoral care of mixed marriages presents the

Churches with an urgent challenge to provide joint pastoral preparation

and continuing pastoral care. It presupposes the training of our pastors

on the special nature of mixed marriages (Norm 14 of Matrimonia

Mixta), as to the new approach to presenting rules, in a manner to which

married people can relate, and taking into account the vast growth of

knowledge and understanding which was not available when many
church norms were formulated.

3. The pastoral care of the congregation as a whole

54. A third situation which calls for pastoral care on the part of the
Church is the crucial need of all its people in relation to marriage and

family life in this period of stress and change. It is clear to the Com-
mission that in marriage as in all areas of life Christ creates a crisis.

His presence at one and the same time brings to the world forgiveness
and new life and calls into question all accepted values. The Churches,
then, have with regard to marriage, and especially mixed marriages, a

two-fold responsibility. The first is to teach all of their people a strongly

theological view of marriage as rooted in the Covenant of God with His

people and of the Christian family as a community of love and a fellow-

ship of faith. The second is to mediate the liberating grace which will

assist the members of the Church not only to live their own marriage
under the Lordship of Christ but to become a supporting, sustaining
community for the mutual strengthening of one another.

4. The pastoral care of individuals

55. In addition to the provisions it makes for the congregation as a

whole the Church through pastor and congregation must provide pastoral

care for individuals as they move through life.

a. Pastoral care of children

56. Preparation for marriage like preparation for all of life should

begin at an early stage. The child of a Christian marriage comes into
the world as an expression of the couple's love for one another, and

knows himself to be the beloved creature of God through the full creative
love of his parents. Thus the child’s preparation for life and for marriage

will not begin with verbal admonitions but he will know the love of God
from the experience of living in a community of love and grace from

the moment of birth. To assist parents in receiving the grace of God so

25



that their household may become a community of grace is the Church’s
first task in the pastoral care of the child. Knowing from the beginning

the meaning of God's grace by living with parents who have themselves

experienced God’s grace, who have dealt with their own sin and its

attendant problems and deficiencies and are able to assist the child in

dealing with his/hers, the person may approach marriage with confi-
dence and clear intent, having been set free to enter into a Covenant

with his marriage partner and having the assurance that in this Cove-

nant Christ already awaits them.

57. Should persons, whose development has occurred in a family

and community of grace, love and security, contract a mixed marriage,

they will be prepared to enter into it in the love of Christ, the foundation

of the grace and faith they know they share. Such a marriage, like any

other marriage between Christians will bear witness to the grace of God

in Christ.

b. Pastoral care of adolescents

58. Present-day adolescents, who increasingly reject the institu-
tional Churches and their rules, in which they claim not to find Christ,

will nonetheless rise to the challenge and an ideal, and it is in this con-

text that the Churches must strive to present the theology of marriage
and their regulations, in relation to God’s plan for those he has created

and loves. Marriage must also be presented in relation to the Church

and secular community.

c. Pre-marriage counselling

59. This will lead naturally to actual pre-marriage training. Sex

education should from the beginning be linked to love, which, in mar-

riage, God has made the symbol of the Covenant, seen in the Bible.
Training must include factors common to all marriages, but which
assume even greater importance in the context of mixed marriages.
The pastor must be able to give information about the different

Churches, particularly the Churches of the two partners. The couple

will need to know, for example, not only the differences in doctrinal

belief in the two Churches, but also their different regulations regard-

ing the marriage ceremony. They must be clear about the expectations

the Churches may have with regard to children. These regulations and
expectations are set forth in Chapter VI of this report. A major concern
of such intending couples will be to decide on the best way to bring up

their children, in the knowledge, love and service of God in the light of

these regulations and expectations. This demands mutual understanding
of the possible consequences of different theological and practical

interpretations of the faith they share, not only in the chosen form of

26



religious instruction, but also on such basic matters as family planning

and abortion.

60 . The Commission lays great emphasis on the need for joint

pastoral support for the partners of broken marriages, including cases

where there has been a civil divorce, and on a permanent concern

for those whose marriages are performed and lived outside the Church.

61 . We would refer to the valuable guidelines on joint pastoral care,
contained in paras. 73-76 of the final report of the Anglican/Roman

Catholic Commission on the same subject as that of the present com-

mission. Examples include the wide diversities between national tem-

peraments and socio-cultural patterns, to which pastoral care must be

related and the various experiments in this connection which have been

made in different parts of the world. It is stressed that the clergy have

a duty to exercise a high degree of mutual understanding and trust,

which will help better joint pastoral preparation and support for mixed

marriages. Furthermore, there is the need to realize that the solution

of delicate personal problems involved in mixed marriages, of which

no two are alike, is to be found in the maturing and sensitive growing

together of the family itself. This sensitiveness must be matched by any

source of outside assistance from which, if joint pastoral care is

assumed, all hints of competitiveness, suspicion or possessiveness must

be banished, since these would inhibit the necessary sensitiveness from

the start.

62 . The Commission has been heartened by the new insights which
have come to it through its work together and which hold out to it the
hope of even greater understanding of the nature of marriage under

the Lordship of Christ. It is the hope of the Commission that through

its work this gift of understanding may be reflected day by day in the
Churches’ pastoral care of the People of God. The Commission also

hopes that through the common work of the pastors of the various
Churches, the Churches themselves may be brought into a closer fellow-
ship with one another. As the Churches make joint provision for training
their pastors, as pastors work together across denominational lines in

the case of particular couples and particular families who are involved
in mixed marriages, it may be that these instances can point us towards
oneness which is God’s will for His Church. Already little ecumenical

groups are emerging in places where pastors are discovering that they

are already one in understanding the sacramental and life-long character

of marriage and one in the call they have from God to minister to His

people as they attempt to live out their lives under His Lordship. It may
be that the consequences of our work as a commission may bring
healing to individuals and families but may also seem in some measure
to bring our Churches into a unity that is visible to the world.

27



VI. STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF
THE NORMS OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH REGARDING MIXED

MARRIAGES
63. The Commission was able to note in many matters a great deal
of agreement between the views of the Churches. These agreements

exist, above all, in dogmatic matters and in the practical and theological

aspects of pastoral care of spouses and families in mixed marriages.

64. In other matters, however, differences have come to the fore
and appear to be rather complex. The Catholic Church sees certain mat-

ters against a different horizon, or on a completely different plane from

the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. This is particularly true in the

field of canon law relating to marriage. This is not only a matter of the

function and the weight that the Catholic Church on the one hand and

the Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the other attribute to such a

juridical system. Each of the two sides, quite obviously, sees the juridical

system in a different dimension, as belonging to an altogether different

plane. The two sides therefore treat canon law in completely different

contexts, assess it in different ways, and assign altogether different tasks

and functions to it.

65. But the subject of canon law on marriage is of great importance

for ecumenical dialogue about the theology of marriage and, above all,

of mixed marriages. The Lutheran and Reformed members of the Com-
mission therefore deem it desirable for the present report to include a
detailed statement about the present state of legislation regarding mixed

marriages in the Catholic Church. This provides occasion for illustrating

the different ideas of the Churches in this matter and thus of beginning

a dialogue between them.

A. NORMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON MIXED MARRIAGES

66. Like all ecclesiastical laws and rules, the norms on mixed mar-

riages have a pastoral function whose primary and fundamental goal is

the salvation of souls. The principle “salus animarum suprema lex”

expresses the final end of all the normative activity of the Church. On
the other hand the regulations on mixed marriages, like other ecclesias-

tical laws, are an expression of theology, which makes it necessary to

28



examine their motives and their deep roots in relation to the Gospel

message and its theological explanation.

67. The Catholic regulations at present in force may be found in
Paul Vi's motu proprio, Matrimonia Mixta, of March 31, 1970. This

document contains a synthesis of the resolutions passed, after pro-

longed discussion, at the first Synod of Bishops in 1967. It is generally

known that the Fathers of Vatican II, unable to treat the question of

mixed marriages in a definitive manner, requested the Pope to reform

canonical discipline in this regard. This is what the Pope in effect did,

after meeting once again with the Bishops and in answer to their

wishes.

68. The Pope’s document is a kind of general law for the whole

Catholic Church which leaves to the episcopal conferences the power

of filling in the details in regard to certain aspects such as the concrete

form of the promises to be made by the Catholic party, the reason for
which a dispensation may be obtained from the canonical form of the
marriage ceremony, the way of registering mixed marriages, and the

different forms of pastoral care to be adopted in this matter. To learn

about these aspects it is essential to have recourse to the comple-

mentary norms issued by the various episcopal conferences.

69. Paul Vi’s motu proprio is in two parts, one doctrinal, the other

normative. The first underlines certain general principles of primary

importance for the understanding of the Catholic Church's position on

mixed marriages.

70. 1. The Catholic Church, like other Churches, for that matter

advises against mixed marriages insofar as they can easily cause

difficulties in families, since in such cases living together can endanger

the faith, and divisions in the faith can create problems in married life.

71. 2. The Catholic Church reaffirms as fundamental and primor-

dial the right of all men to marry and to have children. Respect for this
right leads the Catholic Church to take into special consideration the

difficulties encountered by Catholics in finding a Catholic partner in

countries where Catholics are a small minority.

72. 3. ‘The Church does not place on the same level, either from
a doctrinal or from a canonical viewpoint, a marriage contracted between

a Catholic and a non-Catholic who is baptized, and a marriage between
a Catholic and a non-baptized person. In fact, as was affirmed at Vatican
II, those who, among non-Catholics, ‘believe in Christ and are validly
baptized, may be said to be in communion, even if an imperfect one,
with the Catholic Church.’ There exists therefore in a marriage between

two baptized persons—which is a true sacrament—a certain com-
29



munion of spiritual goods which is lacking in a union where one partner

is baptized but not the other” (MM, para. 5).

73. With regard to the communion of spiritual goods, the Catholic
Church distinguishes in theology and in canon law between three kinds

of mixed marriages among its members: 1) with members of the
Oriental Orthodox Churches; 2) with other baptized persons; 3) with the

non-baptized.

74. Baptism is a fundamental and precious bond of union. It forms

the basis of the sacramental character of marriage. The identity between

the bond of marriage and the sacrament and sacramental reality of

Christian marriage is the reason for the (Church’s) pastoral concern

for the marriage of Catholics as regards its essential presuppositions,

its conditions, its preparation and celebration, and for the development

of married life.

75. This sacramental character is also one of the reasons for the

different attitude adopted by the Catholic Church in connection with

different kinds of mixed marriages. Those of Catholics with baptized

persons cannot be licitly contracted without first obtaining a dispensa-

tion from the diocesan authority. For marriages of Catholics with

un-baptized persons the dispensation is required for validity.

76. Ecclesiastical regulations touch on the following aspects of

mixed marriages:

1) The promises made by the Catholic partner.

2) The canonical form of the celebration.

3) The liturgical form of the celebration.

4) Regulations concerning pastoral care of mixed marriages.

1. Promises

77. Catholic regulations underline the responsibility in conscience

of the Catholic partner to profess his (or her) faith and to transmit it

to the children as a requirement inherent in the faith itself.

From this there follow these rules:

78. a. “The Catholic partner should declare himself ready to re-

move any danger to the loss of his faith,” even dangers that may result
from a mixed marriage.

79. b. The Catholic partner “has a grave obligation to promise

sincerely to do everything he can so that his children are baptized and

educated as Catholics.”

30



80. To provide a religious education for the children is viewed as

a requirement that derives from the nature of the faith. This obligation,

however, is conditioned by circumstances which may escape the control
of the Catholic parent. That is why it is stated that he is obliged to do

all that lies within his power, all that is possible.

1. c. Abiding by the principles laid down at Vatican II, the Catholic

hurch does not wish to impose on the non-Catholic partner anything

contrary to his conscience. But the Church has the duty to support and

enlighten the conscience of the Catholic partner (and so also his free-

dom of conscience), since it is directly responsible for his salvation.
Consequently, the Church requires that the non-Catholic partner be

informed of the moral obligations of the Catholic spouse, without, how-

ever, asking him to make any promises.

2. The canonical form of the celebration of marriage

82. If a marriage, even a mixed marriage, is to be recognized as

valid by the Catholic Church, the Church requires its own faithful to
celebrate it according to the canonical form. The canonical form consists

in the celebration of the wedding in the presence of a Catholic priest

or deacon empowered to do so, and in the presence of two witnesses.
This law applies to all marriages of Catholics. It was introduced at the
Council of Trent, but not with any polemical intention or any wish to

defend the Catholic faith against the Reformers.

83. At the Synod of Bishops of 1967, a large majority of the world’s

episcopal delegates agreed that this law was still necessary for mixed
marriages also, since it offered a greater safeguard of the sacred and

sacramental character of marriage, a greater guarantee of the indisso-

lubility of marriage, a greater certitude of the validity of marriage and

the respect for its essential qualities, and finally, greater possibilities for

the pastoral care of married life. These are reasons which in the course

of time have become more important than the original aim of the avoid-
ance of clandestine marriages.

84. Whenever, in the case of mixed marriages, serious difficulties

arise in the implementation of the canonical form, local Ordinaries have

the right to grant dispensation from it. But it is the task of each epis-

copal conference to establish the rules according to which this dispen-

sation may be granted in a licit and uniform manner throughout their
region or territory, with due attention to the fact that the celebration

should possess a certain public character.

85. It is evident that dispensation from the canonical form does

not mean that the Catholic partner is dispensed from the other obliga-
tions concerning the faith and mentioned above.

31



3. The liturgical form

86. The canonical form normally coincides with the liturgical form

of the celebration of marriage. In the case of a marriage of a Catholic

with a baptized person, two possibilities are envisaged:

a) a celebration without a Mass, according to the rite of the

“Ordo celebrandi matrimonium” of 1969, nos. 39-54, in the framework

of a liturgy of the word, followed by the exchange of promises and the

blessing of the spouses;

b) alternatively, with the consent of the local Ordinary, a cele-

bration during Mass, according to the same “Ordo,” nos. 19-38; but in
this case for the distribution of Communion the rules concerning inter-
communion must be observed.

87. Paragraph 13 of MM is intended to prevent a form of celebra-
tion which might be to the detriment of sound ecumenism instead of
promoting it; or else one that might cause doctrinal confusion. This

paragraph forbids a simultaneous celebration in two different rites, or

a non-Catholic celebration preceding or following the Catholic one, if

this includes a fresh expression or renewing of the marriage vows. In

fact, since the Church considers as valid the exchange of vows of the

spouses in the presence of a Catholic priest or deacon, another exchange

of vows, either before or after, would be like performing a second

marriage, for a marriage is made effective through a single act.

4. Regulations concerning the pastoral care of mixed marriages

88. Paragraph 14 of MM lays down that diocesan authorities and
parish priests should give special attention to mixed marriages, since

this pastoral care in the course of the preparation, celebration and the

entire development of such marriages, can help to prevent and to resolve

numerous problems. More particularly, those who have the care of

souls should:

• offer the Catholic partner and the children born of the mixed

marriage the spiritual support they need to accomplish their duties in

conscience;

• offer this support especially to help him to give witness to his

faith;

• offer such help so that the unity of the couple and of the family

should grow above all on the basis of their common baptism in Jesus
Christ;

• finally, this paragraph supports the wish of the 1967 Synod of

Bishops that in mixed marriage ceremonies there should be a loyal and

sincere collaboration with the ministers of other religious communities.

32



89. Local Ordinaries and parish priests should take care that the

Catholic partner and the children born of a mixed marriage should not

lack the spiritual help they need to perform the duties they have in

conscience. They should also encourage the Catholic partner to always

take care of the divine gift of the Catholic faith and to give witness

"with gentleness and reverence and with a clear conscience" (1 Pt

3:16); and they should help the spouses to strengthen the unity of their

conjugal and family life which, since they are Christians, is founded also

on their baptism. For this reason it is desirable that those responsible

for souls should establish with ministers of other religious communities

relations of sincere loyalty and enlightened confidence. This regula-

tion has encouraged fruitful collaboration at various levels.

90. The norms in the Apostolic Letter Matrimonia Mixta are gen-

eral laws for the Catholic Church. In different countries these laws are

embodied in regulations laid down by the appropriate episcopal con-

ference. From an ecumenical viewpoint these regulations may often be
of more interest since they go into detail, facing diverse situations and

suggesting possible solutions in particular cases. But particular regula-

tions laid down for a given territory cannot go beyond the limits stated

in the general law.

B. LUTHERAN-REFORMED COMMENT

91. In the Lutheran and Reformed Churches we are accustomed to
marriages between spouses who belong to different ecclesiastical tradi-
tions such as our own and the Anglican, Methodist and Baptist com-
munions; and although at one time these presented problems, and al-

though even yet it is impossible to make unqualified universal judg-
ments, by and large the problem has disappeared, and conventions

have arisen to govern situations of this kind. One such convention, for
example, which operates in some areas, is that whereby the wedding
takes place according to the form of the bride’s Church and the mar-

ried couple thereafter attach themselves to the husband's Church. There

is no doubt that a major factor in bringing about this state of affairs is

the growth of mutual understanding and recognition within the ecumeni-

cal movement and the family of Churches it has produced.

92. In the past there has been, however, a serious and a difficult

problem where one of the intending partners was a Catholic; and it
can hardly be disputed that the difficulties stemmed from the legal
norms imposed on the situation by the Canon Law of the Catholic
Church. This idea of legal norms in this connection is foreign to the
spirituality of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. From their point
of view these norms seemed to place the first importance upon the
fulfillment of the Catholic spouse’s obligations to the Catholic Church

33



and, hopefully, upon the fulfillment of similar obligations on the part

of the children; whereas it has been possible for Lutheran and Reformed

ministers and Churches to give the first priority to the Christian good

and growth in grace of husband and wife together as a married couple

and so of the whole family.

93. Against this historical background the Lutheran and Reformed

Churches welcome the changes in the legal norms which have taken

place in recent years and which are expressed in Matrimonia Mixta; and

they appreciate the intention of the Catholic Church to seek the

Christian good of the whole family. The Lutheran and Reformed

Churches recognize further that the legal norms seek to express a

pastoral concern and that they have their roots in underlying theological

convictions regarding such topics as the nature of the Church and

of divine revelation.

54. It is necessary, however, to affirm that the legal norms continue

to create problems especially in connection with the provisions concern-

ing the promises and the canonical form. We must raise the question
whether especially at these two points the legal norms do not hinder a

fully ecumenical solution to the problem of mixed marriages. In other

words, in view of the undoubted intention of the Catholic Church to

seek the Christian good of the whole marriage and in view of the

pastoral concern behind the Canon Law we would ask whether that
pastoral concern is fully and adequately expressed by the legal norms.

It is significant to note that the conversations on marriage between

Anglicans and Catholics found difficulties at the same points and we
venture to suggest that the question may be raised whether the degree
of consensus which our own dialogue has achieved does not justify

some modification of the legal norms.

C. A CATHOLIC REPLY

95. The difficulties of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches men-

tioned above seem to derive from the fact that the theological roots
and the eminently pastoral function of the Catholic regulations have

not been studied deeply enough. This could lead to two forms of

distortion:

• that of thinking that the various Churches are united in faith

and doctrine concerning mixed marriages and of regarding ecclesias-

tical regulations as the sole source of differences in this matter;

• that of viewing ecclesiastical laws themselves as “the law" in

the formalistic and legalistic Old Testament sense, and of pushing

divergent ideas of law to the point of giving the impression that one

34



wishes to reduce the radical character of the Gospel to a mere invitation

by Christ which is not binding and which vanishes when confronted

with the failure of man’s weakness.

96. In the Catholic view, on the contrary, the laws of the Church

are a function of theology and an expression of pastoral concern. They

express in a practical manner the requirements of the doctrine of faith,

and are intended to introduce Christian values into the life of the faith-

ful. It is therefore true that theological convictions about the nature

and obligatory character of the faith, as well as about the nature of

the Church, influence the characteristic spirit of Catholic regulations:

the conception of the Church as both visible and invisible, the role of

bishops as doctors and guides of the faithful, what in the faith binds

believers, the very conception of the Incarnation of Christ and the

sacramental nature of His Church (as institution and mystery, sign and

instrument, of the grace of Christ) . . ., all this implies a fuller embodi-

ment of theological insights in ordinary practical life, even by means
of numerous and detailed rules of behavior.

97. The pastoral concern of the Catholic Church is expressed in

various ways: through the liturgy, through a great variety of means of
evangelization, through the personal contacts of bishops and parish

priests with the faithful, as well as through juridical rules. These regu-

lations then do not exhaust the pastoral activity of the Church: but their

purpose is still profoundly pastoral.

98. Therefore it may be true that pastoral concern is not totally
and fully expressed in juridical rules. Yet it remains true that they have

a pastoral function, that of guiding bishops and parish priests and the

faithful toward a conduct which introduces into the daily Christian life

of married couples values brought by Christ and communicated to us

by the Church. These regulations, moreover, can at times help to give

direction to other pastoral activities (of a non-juridical kind), and in

this sense they serve a doubly pastoral purpose.

99. Apart from the differences in doctrinal and theological convic-

tions on the nature and authority of the Church, on the obligatory

nature of the faith, and on the sacramental and indissoluble character

of marriage, there are certain other differences which create difficulties

with regard to mixed marriages. These concern chiefly moral principles.

100. The Catholic Church possesses a single general law for mixed

marriages, which can be applied in a highly flexible manner in different

situations in accordance with the directions of national episcopal con-

ferences. But the Church is now in relation with the numerous Churches

that came from the Reformation, Churches with diverse theological

35



convictions and sometimes also different legal principles regarding

mixed marriages. Hence agreements arrived at by a commission need to

be very closely studied, while at the same time seeking their practical
expression at various levels.

101. In spite of difficulties that persist, the present dialogue and

the partial progress already made by this Commission would seem to
indicate, not that dialogue should be brought to a close, but that it

should be continued and made more effective at various levels.

36



CONCLUSION
Further Outlook and Tasks

102. 1. Looking back over the course of our discussions as re-

flected in the present document, one may summarize matters as follows:

starting from an examination of marriage as a human reality, we imme-

diately encountered two questions that are fundamental for the theology

of marriage, two questions whose importance became more and more

apparent to us as we went along and to which we therefore felt bound

to dedicate particular attention, i.e., the problems of the “sacramen-

tality” and the “indissolubility” of marriage. The result of our work is

therefore primarily of a theological nature, and we are convinced that

it is fundamental for all further dialogue between our Churches in mat-

ters of marriage and mixed marriages. Even though it did not prove

possible to obtain a complete consensus on all points, we did discover
or work out agreements that have brought us decisively closer to a

common understanding of marriage and also have a positive effect on
the problem of mixed marriages. Undoubtedly, however, it is not the

aim of an interconfessional dialogue like our own to heap up a mere

series of theological agreements. It will be just as important for our

Churches to translate on a broad basis theological convergences into

the practical life of the Churches. In this sense we should like to place

particular emphasis on the following points:

103. • The particular nature of Christian marriage should be clearly

stressed in the doctrine and the preaching of our Churches and

an appropriate liturgical form of contracting marriage should

be preserved.

The Lutheran and Reformed Churches must use the possibility

of re-marrying divorcees in such a manner that this will not

obscure their basic conviction and their witness that marriage

is of lifelong duration.

104. • Given the prospect of a theological rapprochment, our Churches

should endeavor, especially in the field of the problems of mixed

marriages, to abandon the mutual mistrust which still often
prevails; as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, moreover,

every attempt should be made—albeit without interfering with
the pastoral responsibility of the competent authorities—to
ensure that the possibilities opened by the Apostolic Letter

Matrimonia Mixta in connection with mixed marriages between

Catholics and Lutherans or Reformed will be fully utilized in all

countries and not merely applied in a restrictive manner.

37



105. 2. The Lutheran and Reformed members of our Commission
felt that there were two questions that they had specially to formulate

for their Catholic partners:

a. Given the theological agreements that have already been ob-

tained would it not be desirable to examine very seriously in each country

whether a mixed marriage celebrated by a Lutheran or Reformed

pastor could not be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church even

in the absence of dispensation from canonical form, especially since

this would correspond to the practice of the Lutheran and Reformed

Churches? When examining this question, the non-Catholic members
stressed it should be borne in mind that the Catholic Church in its rela-

tionship with the Orthodox Church does not make the dispensation

from canonical form necessary for validity in the event of a mixed mar-

riage, and this notwithstanding the fact that there ate still serious

differences between the way in which the two Churches understand

marriage.

b. Moreover, would it not be desirable to examine whether the

obligation of the Catholic partner of a mixed marriage to baptize and edu-

cate his children in the Catholic faith could not be safeguarded in a more

pastoral and also more ecumenical manner than by exacting a formal

promise? In this connection the non-Catholic members drew particular

attention to the suggestion for an alternative made in the report of

the Anglican/Roman Catholic Commission on the theology of marriage

with special reference to mixed marriages (cf. no. 71). 1

106. The Catholic members of the Commission showed great un-

derstanding for these requests, and stressed their hope that such steps

would eventually be taken. But they did feel that the present state of

1 “It would be for the Church to require of the Roman Catholic parish
priest responsible for the marriage a written assurance to his bishop that

he had duly put the Roman Catholic partner in mind of his obligations
concerning the baptism and upbringing of the children and, according to

opportunity, satisfied himself that the other partner knew what these obli-

gations were. He would not be empowered to exact a promise in the matter
from either partner, though he might well ask formally if the obligations

were understood. The bishop, if satisfied in other respects, might then issue

a dispensation for the marriage on the strength of his assurance. Such a

procedure would be more consistent than the present one with the spirit
of Vatican II documents on ecumenical relations and religious liberty, and

would, it is believed, earn more respect and so command more attention,
from the non-Roman Catholic partner as well as from the Catholic.”

38



the dialogue could not yet justify these steps, which both sides desire.2

Quite apart from the ethical questions closely connected with marriage,

insufficient consideration had yet been given, above all, to the nature

and the intention of the canonical form of contracting marriage. But

both sides were convinced that the theological agreements attained in

the course of the dialogue were of decisive importance for the treat-

ment of these questions, and, indeed, formed a fundamental condition

for tackling them.

107. Over and above this, the results of our dialogue make it

possible to tackle jointly a number of questions that our Commission

encountered in the course of its work and which should therefore

become the subject of further discussions between our Churches;

they include:

108. • The religious function of Canon Law

• The problem of Christian ethics (justification and sanctification;

law and grace)

• The concept of man underlying marriage

• The understanding of revelation and the role of Holy Scripture

as a binding witness

• The relationship between sociological facts and Christian norms.

2 On this point one of the Catholic members, Msgr. Jozef Tomko, who
already in the course of the discussion had disagreed in some respects
with both proposals, has still some reserves. Being in fact unable to be
present at the last session of the meeting because of another engagement,
he wrote a letter to Msgr. Charles Moeller, in which he said that he could
not share the hope expressed by the Catholic members. In particular he
stressed that, in his opinion, it is by ius divinum that certainty is required
that the Catholic side truly accepts the obligations; that is why the bishop
cannot proceed without this certainty.

39



.
.

> ;
•-

. .

.

'

I