1. The sign of marriage as a
sacrament of the Church is constituted each time according to that
dimension which is proper to it from the "beginning." At the same
time it is constituted on the foundation of the spousal love of
Christ and of the Church as the unique and unrepeatable expression
of the covenant between "this" man and "this" woman. They are the
ministers of marriage as a sacrament of their vocation and their
life. In saying that the sign of marriage as a sacrament of the
Church is constituted on the basis of the language of the body, we
are using analogy (the analogy of attribution), which we have sought
to clarify previously. It is obvious that the body as such does not
"speak," but man speaks, rereading that which requires to be
expressed precisely on the basis of the "body," of the masculinity
and femininity of the personal subject, indeed, on the basis of what
can be expressed by man only by means of the body.
In this sense man—male or female—does not merely speak with the
language of the body. But in a certain sense he permits the body to
speak "for him" and "on his behalf," I would say, in his name and
with his personal authority. In this way even the concept of the "prophetism
of the body" seems to be well founded. The prophet spoke "for" and
"on behalf of"—in the name and with the authority of a person.
2. The newlywed spouses are aware of it when in contracting marriage
they institute its visible sign. In the perspective of life in
common and of the conjugal vocation, that initial sign, the original
sign of marriage as a sacrament of the Church, will be continually
completed by the "prophetism of the body." The spouses' bodies will
speak "for" and "on behalf of" each of them. They will speak in the
name of and with the authority of the person, of each of the
persons, carrying out the conjugal dialogue proper to their vocation
and based on the language of the body, reread in due course
opportunely and continually—and it is necessary that it be reread in
truth! The spouses are called to form their life and their living
together as a communion of persons on the basis of that language.
Granted that there corresponds to the language a complexus of
meaning, the spouses—by means of their conduct and comportment, by
means of their actions and gestures ("gestures of tenderness"—cf.
Gaudium et Spes 49)—are called to become the authors of such
meanings of the "language of the body." Consequently, love,
fidelity, conjugal uprightness and that union which remains
indissoluble until death are constructed and continually deepened.
3. The sign of marriage as a sacrament of the Church is formed
precisely by those meanings which the spouses are the authors of.
All these meanings are initiated and in a certain sense "programmed"
in a synthetic manner in the conjugal consent for the purpose of
constructing later—in a more analytical way, day by day—the same
sign, identifying oneself with it in the dimension of the whole of
life. There is an organic bond between rereading in truth the
integral significance of the language of the body and the consequent
use of that language in conjugal life. In this last sphere the human
being—male and female—is the author of the meanings of the language
of the body. This implies that this language which he is the author
of corresponds to the truth which has been reread. On the basis of
biblical tradition we speak here of the "prophetism of the body." If
the human being—male and female—in marriage (and indirectly also in
all the spheres of mutual life together) confers on his behavior a
significance in conformity with the fundamental truth of the
language of the body, then he also "is in the truth." In the
contrary case he is guilty of a lie and falsifies the language of
the body.
4. If we place ourselves on the perspective line of conjugal
consent—which, as we have already said, offers the spouses a
particular participation in the prophetic mission of the Church
handed down from Christ himself—we can in this regard also use the
biblical distinction between true and false prophets. By means of
marriage as a sacrament of the Church, man and woman are called
explicitly to bear witness—by using correctly the language of the
body—to spousal and procreative love, a witness worthy of true
prophets. The true significance and the grandeur of conjugal consent
in the sacrament of the Church consists in this.
5. The problematic of the sacramental sign of marriage has a highly
anthropological character. We construct it on the basis of
theological anthropology and in particular on that which, from the
beginning of the present considerations, we have defined as the
theology of the body. Therefore, in continuing these analyses, we
should always have before our minds the previous considerations
which refer to the analysis of the key words of Christ. (We call
them key words because they open up for us, like a key, the
individual dimensions of theological anthropology, especially of the
theology of the body.) Constructing on this basis the analysis of
the sacramental sign of marriage in which the man and woman always
participate, even after original sin, that is, man and woman as
historical man, we must constantly bear in mind the fact that that
historical man, male and female, is at the same time the man of
concupiscence. As such, every man and every woman enter the history
of salvation and they are involved in it through the sacrament which
is the visible sign of the covenant and of grace.
Therefore, we bear this in mind in the context of the present
reflections, on the sacramental structure of the sign of not only
what Christ said on the unity and indissolubility of marriage by
referring to the "beginning," but also (and still more) what he said
in the Sermon on the Mount when he referred to the "human heart."
Taken from: L'Osservatore Roman Weekly Edition in English 31 January
1983, page 11
Return to the Theology of the Body Main
Page...
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary