I thought that 'theology' had something to do
with God. In the whole of Doctor Schokenhoff's talk God gets
mentioned precisely once when he says, "In the strict sense, only
the past is irrevocable and not even God can wipe it out."
That is the extent of the theology in this essay. It is really his
reflection on how things are with sex and love as a matter of
sociology.He starts by saying that many people do not see
themselves as being capable of an indissoluble marriage but are
prepared to say they will do their best but it may not last.
Apparently many engaged couples in the course of a marriage
preparation meeting suggest a trial marriage. We must take his word
for that. He says it is an 'existential auto-contradiction' when
they promise fidelity at the same time as having the idea that it
might not last. The word 'existential' is supposed to impress us
that this is serious stuff. Even Cameron has started using it: 'ISIS
presents an existential threat'. I am never sure what it adds to the
meaning but it does sound good. Apparently "There is a cat on
the mat" is an existential statement in linguistics. But I
digress.
I suppose what the Professor is saying is that it
is a bit strange to take a vow 'till death do us part' and at the
same time think they can part earlier. Actually that would be
grounds for nullity which would obviate the whole problem of divorce
and remarriage in any particular case but he does not mention that
point at all. But then throughout this talk the teaching of the
Church is ignored.
He says this scepticism about the possibility of
permanence is not some fault they consider themselves to have but
something that has arisen in the modern era. He goes on about the
profound splits or changes that have happened in the modern world, in
matrimonial life and the family. The fragmentation and loss of
confidence in social institutions; the contradictions; the complexity
and incoherence of the modern world etc etc. All of this may be true
but were there not problems in earlier ages perhaps different but
just as difficult? He cites Erich Fromm and Adorno on the problem of
a sentimental attitude where the idea of will to love is excluded.
He says the social sciences have recorded all this.
Next we are told all these difficult questions
admit a double response. One could say good-bye to the ideas of
fidelity, trust and security as one response so one is not
disappointed when things end. Alternatively you can say that there
is excess of meaning which invites one to reflect on the consequences
of a response that is at once playful and lacking in seriousness. I
am not sure what that means.
Briefly, he says, what is the consequence if we
say love is only temporary? Well then we must accept that love can,
effectively, cease. Even if two people decide on a permanent
relationship it does not mean that they could not review the decision
later. This is where he says that nothing is irrevocable and God
himself cannot change that! The indissolubility of marriage is just
something the spouses impose on themselves. I think he means it is
rather like writing something down like 'We will stay together' in
the hope that such will make them stay together. It is not something
to be imposed from the exterior. Indissolubility becomes some sort
of magic charm or incantation to be adopted at the time of the
marriage in the hope that it will actually work out like that.
Then we move onto sex. Sex is not to be a
question of using another as a sexual object but a rejoicing in the
presence of the other. The word 'existential' gets several more
outings. Basically though sex is really about desire and he quotes
some book on love which says that what it is about is "I want
you because it is good for me that you are there". The
spouses are useful to one another. He claims this is different from
treating the other as an object because it is reciprocal. He quotes
some Protestant Theologian who said "In love there is no
possession which does not arise from a gift". However the idea
of giving gets only brief mention. "The other has given
permission to give". Quite what is given is never mentioned and
certainly there is no mention whatsoever of procreation.
The whole talk is devoid of any mention of the
theology surrounding marriage or any part that God might have to play
or any idea of the sacramental life. I suspect the intended message
is really; "This is how things are in the modern world and the
Church had better accept it." Once again God has just got it
wrong.
By the way Doctor Strabismus (whom God preserve)
of Utrecht has got back to me on the question of Professor Soding of
Bochum's idea that a Tomtom GPS can be used to get to Heaven. He
says the idea was possibly suggested by Chesterton; you know the poem
with such lines as "The night we went to Birmingham by way of
Beachy Head" finishing with the line "Before we go to
Paradise by way of Kensal Green". His studies continue but
generally his findings are unfavourable to the idea: difficulties
with selecting the destination; getting bored with being told to keep
going straight leading to ending up in a cul-de-sac or what the
French more accurately call a "Sans issue".
No comments:
Post a Comment