Caracterización del modelo de gestión del conocimiento del equipo AVON de la zona

It is no accident that the above definition of marriage uses the term “covenant” rather than the perhaps more familiar term “contract.” The terms are not mutually exclusive; marriage is also in a real sense a contract. But the term “covenant” more fully captures the sacramental dimension of marriage, reflecting the totally faithful relationship of Christ and His Church that was brought into being by a new and everlasting covenant (cf. Lk. 22:20; Heb. 13:20). The Church's use of the term covenant points to the fact that husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ loved the Church” (Eph. 5:25)—to the point of laying down their lives for their beloved (cf. Jn. 15:12-13).

God made a series of covenants with His people in the Old Testament that were ultimately fulfilled in Christ. These covenants were not treated by God as something transitory or unimportant. Rather, they transformed Israel into His family (cf. Is. 61:10-62:12). Listen to what God thinks of His covenant with King David:

I will not violate my covenant,

or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David.

His line shall endure for ever,

his throne as long as the sun before me.

Like the moon it shall be established for ever;

it shall stand firm while the skies endure (Ps. 89:34-37).

Of the many distinctions to be made between covenants and contracts, the most important consideration is that a covenant is an eternal pact, not subject to dissolution because of a reversal of fortune, change of heart, or the failure of a marital partner to fulfill his or her end of the covenant. Contracts, on the other hand, are “made to be broken.” They are entered into precisely because breach is anticipated, and they typically set forth the respective rights of the parties in the event of such a breach. While contracts typically relate to an exchange of goods or services (“I'll give you X if you give me Y”), covenants create family bonds, and thus relate to the total, unconditional exchange of persons (“I am yours and you are mine”).

Because of the common understanding of what a contract is, the term “covenant” should be used for reasons beyond the superior theological accuracy of the term. The more marriage is understood as a mere contract, the more people will primarily—if not exclusively—look to legal principles rather than biblical principles, and with disastrous ramifications. Already it is evident that many Christians at least implicitly believe that only the state has jurisdiction over their marriages, and they are divorcing at a rate comparable to that of society as a whole. No-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements, and non-heterosexual unions are nat- ural progressions of an understanding of the marriage bond informed by the law of contracts, without regard to Scripture and apostolic Tradition.

We need to recognize that the term “marriage” has two distinct but intimately related meanings. It refers both to the marriage ceremony (i.e., the wedding) and to the lifelong relationship that began with the wedding. The term “contract” tends to emphasize the wedding ceremony, where there was an “exchange” of vows. The term “covenant,” on the other hand, tends to emphasize the permanence of the marital relationship. Its distinctive force and beauty as

applied to marriage is what it says about the lived sacrament—a “community of life and love” that images the mystery of the Family of God: “Authentic married love is caught up into divine love” (GS 48; cf. Catechism, no. 1639).

Baptism

Christian marriage presupposes that the spouses are “Christian,” that they have become members of the Family of God through the waters of Baptism. Marriage should be honored by all Christians (cf. Heb. 13:4) and, for those of us who are called to marriage, it is the means by which God desires to sanctify us.

It should also be noted that, at the beginning of His public ministry, Jesus performed His first “sign”—at His mother's request—at a wedding feast in Cana (cf. Jn. 2:1-11). The Church has always seen in this passage a confirmation of the goodness of marriage and Jesus' desire to bless those entering married life (cf. Catechism, no. 1613).

And yet we recognize that not all who profess the name “Catholic” have a living faith. Some people are baptized at infancy but have long since stopped practicing their faith. They want a Church wedding but they really do not want the Church. Should they be able to present their dusty baptismal certificates to the priest, much like a teenager would present a birth certificate to obtain a driver's license? Since sacraments not only presuppose faith, but are also intended to nourish, strengthen, and express it (cf. SC 59), should not more than mere proof of Baptism be required?

All Christians should have a living faith animated by charity. When a fallen- away Catholic approaches the Church for marriage, the pastor must seize this “teachable moment” as an opportunity to rekindle the faith. No one would argue that the marriage in the Church of a person without a living faith should be accepted without question or reservation, especially when that person is already cohabitating with his or her fiancé(e), which is the grave sin of fornication (cf. Mt. 15:19-20; Catechism, no. 2353).

But on the other hand, an infant who is baptized and then left to the “dogs” of society is still marked for life as a child of God. He is a prodigal son (cf. Lk. 15:11-32), not a stranger or alien.

Further, sacramental grace is conferred freely by Christ and is not dependent on the merits of the minister. Hence, a sinful priest is still able to celebrate a valid Mass. Likewise, baptized Christians are able to confer on each other a valid Christian marriage. As is the case with all sacraments, the ministers need only to intend to accomplish what the Church intends. To apply a more vigorous standard would involve accepting the Donatist heresy, which dates back to the fourth century. Simply stated, Donatism involves the mistaken belief that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the worthiness or holiness of the ministers, rather than on the unmerited grace of Jesus Christ.

This does not mean that faithless people can fully access the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage, any more than a recipient of Holy Communion who is without faith or who knows that he is in a state of grave sin is open to receiving the life-transforming grace that is always available through the Eucharist. Unworthy reception of sacraments is not only a grace-less encounter, but a sacrilegious act, as Saint Paul describes:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29; cf. Catechism, no. 2120).

nonexistent. For these, the fact that the sacrament “works” through the unmerited grace of Christ does not mean that the prospective spouses should be neglected. It is crucial that the abundant grace that Christ wishes to bestow on the couple through the sacrament be maximized, because this grace is absolutely necessary for growth in holiness and fidelity to the marriage covenant.

One who does not take his or her Catholicism seriously, or who has not been catechized well, may not know what the Church teaches about marriage “in the Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39). Yet, imposing criteria beyond Baptism involves serious risks, including (1) the risk of making unfair judgments concerning who is “eligible” for a Christian marriage; (2) the risk of causing doubts about the validity of marriages already celebrated, including marriages of separated brethren; (3) the danger of further secularizing the West by closing off the Church to the ignorant and weak, thereby furthering an elitist model of the Church; and (4) the risk of distorting marriage from being a means of grace for those who need it into a “reward” for those who are already “faithful” (cf. Mk. 2:15-17).6

Notwithstanding these concerns, a pastor cannot admit a couple to the sacrament where they reject explicitly and formally what the Church intends to do when the marriage of baptized persons is celebrated.

What this situation calls for is a renewed commitment to proclaiming and explaining the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially at this critical moment when the couple is actually coming to the Church asking for the sacrament. It also calls for a healthy optimism that God—who made the world out of nothing—can do great things with faith the size of a mere mustard seed (cf. Mt. 13:31-32).