Over dinner in Davao last week, kuya, an RTC judge, asked an interesting question. “’Nel, I’m about to rule on a separation of a married couple. I have the report from the Church tribunal. They ruled nullity of marriage. It’s persuasive. One problem, though,” he said. “The wife is schizophrenic & she needs hospitalization. But the tribunal doesn’t stipulate if she will be financially looked after. Does canon law stipulate support for the ex after annulment?” I said I didn’t remember there being such a provision. There’s provision for child support. But none ordering support for the ex who couldn’t support him/herself after separation. “Are you going to approve the separation, kuys?” I asked. “Well,” he said, “I asked the guy & his lawyer who was going to support the woman. And both of them said they didn’t know. So, until I’m sure she’ll be financially supported, I’m going to take it slow before I rule on anything.” Then kuya shook his head. “It gets really nasty, these marriage cases. Lalo na pag pinag-awayan na ang ari-arian,” he said. “Worst, when it comes to the children.” That’s why his ruling, whatever it is, he said, must benefit all who are involved, not just the petitioner.”
The Sadducees were a religious sect of Jewish aristocrats. They were major movers in Israel’s socio-political life. Their most important preoccupation was maintenance of the Temple, the beating heart of it all. So, they knew the law well, esp. Levirate marriage law, from levir, husband’s brother, or brother-in-law. Per this law, if your husband died, his single brother was required to marry you. As long as it was possible, widows were not allowed to remarry outside the clan. It was quite practical. One, whatever property the dead left behind would stay within the family. Two, the widow would be looked after & cared for by the same family.
But Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. So, their question about marriage “in the resurrection,” was suspect. It was really a reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity. They took issue with something they didn’t believe in, then, they jostled it & pressed it towards the cliff’s edge or logic, in order to prove Jesus wrong & mock him on the side. But ever the gentleman, Jesus answered them, anyway.
We Catholics believe in “till death do us part” because in the afterlife, the very presence of Jesus, the Sacrament of sacraments, already fulfills what earthly sacraments celebrate: the saving presence & mission of Christ. In matrimony, spouses make visible to each other & to community the love Christ bears for the Church. But in the afterlife, all love is fulfilled & perfected by the very presence of the Triune God. So, there’s no need to symbolize “invisible grace” through “visible realities,” which is how we often define sacrament. In the afterlife, we share in the divine life immediately & directly. So, union with God over there excels & transcends any marriage, friendship, partnership on earth—in the superabundance of grace.
Based on Jesus’ whole disposition towards the Sadducees, though, I wouldn’t put it past him to have thought: “Alam n’yo, bago n’yo problemahin ‘yang issue ng kasal sa langit, atupagin muna kaya natin ang maraming issue sa buhay may-asawa dito sa lupa?” At the time, Jewish men divorced their wives for the flimsiest reasons, like, she talked too much, or didn’t cook very well, or her face had become wearisome. Plus, this whole thing about wives being merely pushers of children out into the world, to assure their husbands’ lineage. They weren’t tutored beyond the rudiments. You didn’t need much education to fire up a stove, or squeeze oil out of olives, or knead dough, or suckle a baby. So, the Sadducees’ question about marriage in the afterlife was typical of their blindness. Sitting high on their aristocratic, pious, male perch, they were sightless of the real distress & drudgery that Jewish wives had to pull themselves through every darn day.
For many years, to this day, much debate swirls around marriage, still: indissolubility vs. solubility; who should get married vs. who shouldn’t; what to call a marriage (i.e., only between male & female) vs. what to not call it (i.e. between same gender); what’s within boundaries in procreation (i.e. natural contraception) vs. what’s immoral (i.e. artificial contraception), etc. Very often, we, Churchmen, are asked for our “ruling.” And we do make a ruling, but often from high on our perch, off & away from what’s really happening to married couples & their families. When in truth, marami pa kaming kailangang atupagin, kailangan aralin, saliksikin; marami pa kaming kailangang pakinggan muna, damayan, intindihin, before we make any statements or preach any morals on marriages. I guess, I could learn from kuya. Unless he’s sure that his ruling will benefit all of who are involved, not just the complainant, all—he will not let that gavel fall easily on the sounding block. In other words, rule from down on the ground, on the earth. Not from the “heavenly” perch.
Homily of Fr. Arnel Aquino, SJ on the 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time
5 November 2022
Cenacle Retreat House