Divorce and Remarriage: Resolving a Catholic Dilamma by Denis J. Doherty (review)

BOOK REVIEWS Divorce and Remarriage: Resolving a Catholic Dilamma. By DENIS J. DoHERTY. St. Meinrad, Indiana: Abbey Press, 1974. Pp. 194. $8.50. The author is quite forthright in stating the purpose of his book: " I propose to urge that the present official teaching of the indissolubility of marriage be changed because, as it stands, it is theologically untenable." (p. 4) The Council of Trent defended its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage on the grounds that it was in accord with " evangelical and apostolic teaching" (Sess. XXIV, Canon 7). One might expect that the author would look for flaws in the Church's teaching on scriptural or early historical grounds. But this is not the method to be used. The author is quite candid in admitting that " exegesis is not my area of competence," and in noting an observation of one who is competent, Joseph Fitzmeyer, S. J.: "So far as the texts are concerned we have Jesus's absolute command. [People looking for a change in the Church's attitude towards divorce] can't look to the New Testament scholars to provide them with loopholes." Doherty's own reply is somewhat startling: "No need. Moralists and canonists have already provided them in abundance ." (p. 153) If we may judge by the Index of Authors the writer seemingly has little competence in the area of early Church history or the history of dogma. Augustine alone is cited from the early Christian writers and Fathers of the Church who reflect and comment upon the data of Scripture. Candor seems to be the author's strongpoint, and this is evidenced once again when he informs us that he intends to urge a change in the Church's teaching" from the standpoint of moral theology, both traditional and contemporary ." (p. 4) But "traditional" moral theology begins with Gratian in the twelfth century, and contemporary moral theology is reflected almost wholly in the more advanced views expressed by Catholic and non-Catholic moralists and ethicians who agree with the author's conclusions. Admittedly there is a growing consensus among moralists, canon lawyers, and theologians that it is time for the Church to change her teaching on divorce and remarriage and to accomodate her practice to that of the Eastern Christians and that of our separated brethren of the West. Doherty's method of "resolving a Catholic dilemma" may appeal to some moralists, and I am sure that they would report more favorably on the author's efforts. As a sacramental theologian who has taught the theology of marriage for some decades and who has been more recently engaged in presenting a theology of marriage in terms of covenant, I find that the twelfth century, with its new emphasis on marriage as a contract, is not the best point of departure. St. Vincent's Seminary Boynton Beach, Floridn,, PAUL F. PALMER, s. J. ...