Bai Macfarlane: USCCB's statement on annulment contradict magisterium sources

For personal reasons, I seldom forward most things that I receive I really have not forwarded any from this writer, as I have never gotten any indication of how she learned of my blog. I suspect it was after I responded on Fr Joe's blog, but am not certain.

There are some things that I have personal issues with that I will not go into here, having resigned from her yahoo group quite awhile ago. My reasons are PERSONAL, not at all related to the ISSUES.

However, I DO agree with her on many things. The ISSUES are the same as those I have been 'fighting' for a very long time. However, THIS issue is important, and comes in response to a recent announcement of the USCCB:

A public service advertising campaign linked with this website began in June, 2007.

The ads (viewable on the left hand side of this page) are based on the theme

"What have you done for your marriage today?"

Because what she has to say is important, and needs to be noted and acted upon, I have decided to put her entire email here, though it is very long. It deserves to be read in full. I especially draw your attention to Question #2 here.

God bless!!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bai Macfarlane
Date: Jul 23, 2007 10:51 AM

News and Commentary
Westlake OH
Bai Macfarlane
founder Mary's Advocates

The USCCB's statement on goods of marriage is opposing the magisterium's
teaching on the goods of marriage. Canonists and tribunal officials
participated in consultations on marriage and this is their concerning
statement:

"Church teaching recognizes four distinct "goods" of marriage: The bonum
sacramenti, the bonum fidei, the bonum prolis, and the bonum coniugum.
In light of your experience examining marriage cases, how do individuals
generally understand their commitment to permanence? To fidelity? To
openness to children? To partnership?"
http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/canonists.shtml

The canonists have added a forth "good" of marriage (the partnership) to
the three timeless properties of marriage (permanence, exclusivity and
procreativity). But a Roman Rota Judge explains that "partnership" is
not a "good" of marriage, but an "end" of marriage. This sounds trite,
but in canon law this makes a huge difference.

To rephrase the problem, in normal-speak, start by recognizing that for
a marriage to be valid, both spouses must promise certain things. If
they do not promise those things, then the marriage is not valid. The
things to which they must promise are named in canon-law-speak,
essential elements, obligations, rights or properties.

In married life, spouses experience certain things. How much or how
little they experience those things is based on the couple's choices and
nature. The things couples experience in canon-law-speak are named
"ends." If we understand that "partnership" is and end of marriage,
then how much, or how little partnership they experience, is based on
the choices of both spouses. But, if they experience rotten partnership,
it doesn't mean the marriage is invalid - it means one or both are
sinning and selfish.

If canonists and tribunalists in the USA add a new item to the list of
things to which one must promise, that is not supposed to be there, all
havoc breaks loose and confusion prevails. For example, if one of the
essential things to which spouses must promise was to have a house with
a white picket fence, any unhappy spouse could accuse the other of being
incapable of contracting marriage because the fence was never provided.
This sounds ridiculous, but there are those who conclude that all
abandoning spouses, adulterous spouses or abusive or chemically addicted
spouses were never really validly married - because if they were, they
would not have committed their offenses against the dignity of their own
family. Using twisted logic, those expecting automatic annulments argue
that everyone who ever breaks a marital promise was actually never
capable of making the promise in the first place.

Our Church is to be a shepherd for us, as I am to be a mother to my
sons. If my son beat up his younger brother, I would certainly be a
negligent mother to tell him, "Oh dear, you are incapable of consenting
to the essential properties of brotherliness, so you and your brother
are not really brothers at all, and you might end up beating up other
people, because you are incapable of stopping."

No, I would tell him, "Son, you are perfectly capable of exercising your
free will and choosing to practice temperance and controlling your
anger. You are sinning when you beat up your brother. You need to
confess your sin, repair the harm you've done to your brother, and
reflect on how to stop this hurtful pattern, because to function in a
civilized society, you shall be expected to repair damage causes by your
actions and uphold your responsibilities towards others. You may need to
be separated from your brother for a time, for the purpose of calming
down and figuring out how treat your brother properly. The goal is to
remove the division between you two. If I tell you that you are
incapable of fighting sin, or tell you that sin is not a sin, how are
you ever going to grow in virtue? What purpose does it serve to tell you
that your brother is not your brother, just because you sin against
him?"

The code of canon law originates from the Holy See and is generated by
those who have the vested authority to teach the truth regarding faith
and morals. The legislators who wrote and edited the law publish
instructions to clarify the meanings of their words so those responsible
for interpreting the law will do it correctly. The magisterium's Roman
Rota is responsible for correcting mistaken judgments by lower courts.
Confusion is caused if teachers or regional judges contradict the
instruction of the legislator and the highest court.

Roman Rotal judge, Cormac Burke wrote, "I would here emphasize that, for
the purpose of analysis, it is important to realize that the "bonum
coniugum" is not a "fourth bonum", to be added to the augustinian triad
("bonum fidei"; "bonum prolis"; "bonum sacramenti")." See excerpts in
context below.

A recent validation of a mistaken US annulment is published on Cormac
Burk's site too. http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/466

Other writings of Burkes' plus writings of another Rotal Canon Lawyer
and Canon law editor who worked with John Paul II are linked from my
site
http://www.marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html.

---------------------------------
From "Marriage, Annulment, and the Quest for Lasting Commitment"
Catholic World Report, Jan. 1996:
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/362
"In the augustinian view, the three traditional bona are "goods" or
values of marriage which particularly show its dignity and goodness.
They are the bonum fidei (the faithful exclusiveness of the marital
commitment), the bonum sacramenti (its permanence) and the bonum prolis
(its procreative orientation). The augustinian bona refer to positive
and essential features of matrimony that give it dignity. Marriage is
good because it is characterized by faithfulness, permanence and
openness to having children. Each "bonum" is predicated of or attributed
to marriage. Offspring is a "bonum matrimonii" and so is exclusiveness
or permanence.
It is evident then that Augustine is speaking of the values or
essential properties of marriage, not of its ends or finalities. The
term "bonum coniugum" does not express a value or property of marriage
in any sense parallel to that of the augustinian "goods". The "bonum" of
this new term is not predicated of or attributed to marriage; it is
referred not to marriage (as if it were a value that makes marriage
good), but to the spouses (as involving something that is good for
them). It denotes not a property of marriage (a "bonum matrimonii"), but
something - the "good" or welfare or maturing of the spouses - which
marriage should cause or lead to. This confirms that the "bonum
coniugum" is in the line not of property, but of finality or end"

------------------------------
2) From, "Progressive Jurisprudential Thinking": The Jurist 58
(1998:2), pp. 437-478:
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/339
"There is a secondary point regarding the adequate juridic
categorization of the "bonum coniugum" which, however secondary, is
still at times a source of confusion. This is the relationship of the
"bonum coniugum" with the three augustinian "bona". Leaving some
positive aspects of this relationship for later consideration, I would
here emphasize that, for the purpose of analysis, it is important to
realize that the "bonum coniugum" is not a "fourth bonum", to be added
to the augustinian triad ("bonum fidei"; "bonum prolis"; "bonum
sacramenti").
Back in 1985, Francesco Bersini, one of the first authoritative Italian
canonists to comment the matrimonial norms of the new Code,
unhesitatingly affirmed that the "bonum coniugum" "has nothing to do
with the three augustinian bona" (Il Nuovo Diritto Canonico
Matrimoniale, Turin, 1985, 10). U. Navarrete similarly insists on the
radical difference between the "bonum coniugum" and the augustinian
"bona": "the term «bonum» of c. 1055 § 1 has a completely generic
sense
and in no way the specific meaning which the word has in the augustinian
trilogy" ("I beni del matrimonio: elementi e proprietà essenziale", in
La nuova legislazione matrimoniale canonica, 1986, p. 97). Mendonça (op.
cit. 512) does not seem to interpret Navarrette correctly on this.
It is to remain on the surface of the matter to let a linguistic
similarity confuse fundamental differences of category and meaning. In
the augustinian view, the three "bona" refer to "goods" or values of the
married state: they are positive features of matrimony that show its
worth and dignity. Marriage is good because it is characterized by
faithfulness, permanence and fruitfulness. Each "bonum" is predicated of
or attributed to marriage. The readiness to have children is a "bonum
matrimonii" and so is exclusiveness or permanence. It is evident that
Augustine is speaking of the values or essential properties of marriage,
not of its ends or finalities.
It helps if this is presented schematically:
- bonum fidei: exclusive fidelity is a "bonum" or attribute of
matrimony;
- bonum prolis: "openness to having children" (what St. Thomas calls,
"proles in suis principiis", which could also be termed procreativity)
is a "bonum" or attribute of matrimony;
- bonum sacramenti: indissolubility is similarly a "bonum" or attribute
of matrimony.
As is immediately evident, we cannot proceed to add the "bonum
coniugum" to this list. It would make no sense to say that "coniuges" -
the spouses - are a "bonum" or a value of matrimony. The fact is that
the term "bonum coniugum" does not express a value, property or
attribute of marriage, in any sense parallel to that of the augustinian
"goods". The "bonum" of this new term is referred not to marriage (as if
it were a value that makes marriage good), but to the spouses (as
involving something that is good for them). It denotes not a property of
marriage (a "bonum matrimonii"), but something - the "good" or welfare
of the spouses - which should result from marriage. The augustinian
"bona" are fundamental qualities or properties that qualify and describe
aspects of the essence of marriage, the "bonum coniugum" is an end of
marriage, an effect that marriage should produce on the persons of the
spouses themselves. It is predicated not of marriage (a "bonum
coniugii"), but of the spouses ("bonum coniugum"), as something that
marriage ought to cause or lead to (cfr. C. Burke: L'Oggetto del
Consenso Matrimoniale: un'analisi personalistica, Giappichelli, Turin,
1997, 91-92). If carelessness in thinking is let create confusion here,
any adequate analysis of the meaning and force of the new term is made
unnecessarily difficult, and can result impossible.
None of this means that there is not an interrelation between the
augustinian "bona" and the "bonum coniugum". On the contrary, it is only
logical to find the different aspects of marriage - properties,
elements, ends - closely connected. I consider the "bonum coniugum", as
an institutional end of marriage, to be closely linked to the three
augustinian "bona". They are clearly distinct - end as related to
properties - yet are closely interrelated. In fact I do not think one
can make any adequate analysis of the "bonum coniugum" which does not
see it as an end of marriage achieved in the first place through the
force and effect of the three "bona"..."

--------------------------------------------------

Here is the USCCB site
http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/canonists.shtml

With Canonists and Tribunal Officials

Church teaching recognizes four distinct "goods" of marriage: The bonum
sacramenti, the bonum fidei, the bonum prolis, and the bonum coniugum.
In light of your experience examining marriage cases, how do individuals
generally understand their commitment to permanence? To fidelity? To
openness to children? To partnership?

Those who seek marriage in the Church are not always fully conscious of
the Church teaching on the goods of marriage. Many Catholics do not
generally view marriage in terms of goods, fruits, or ends. Couples are
naturally aware of fidelity, they know that marriage most often includes
children, and they believe that marriage is meant to be "until death do
us part." However, many couples tend to treat these goods as assumptions
prior to marriage, and often do not talk about them prior to their
wedding.

Often, the goods of marriage are not understood as being a part of the
nature of marriage, i.e., as determined by God, but rather as things
that will be determined at some later time. Couples also often see them
as "good" as long as they lead to some manner of material or emotional
fulfillment. Each good is filtered through the lens of individuality,
whereby it is interpreted relativistically, rather than objectively. The
goods of marriage are not always perceived as something that may require
sacrifice in return for greater benefits. It was observed also that in
some instances men and women express different interpretations and
expectations of certain of the marital goods.

Partnership
People tend to be highly individualistic, a characteristic of society,
in general. Couples have little sense of how to work together truly as
partners. People marry because they believe it will make them happy
individually. They do not understand that their spouse's happiness
should be the object of their concern. A common attitude seen in
marriage tribunal cases is: "Your task in marriage is to make me happy,
and my task is to enjoy happiness." This is a very difficult attitude to
overcome, even though Catholic teaching emphasizes notions of
sacrificial love, self-gift, and community. The challenge is to show
couples how their commitment to another person (spouse) also fits into
this picture. The Church, especially at the parish level, should
continue to model in practice community and agapic love.

----------------------