monogami

Kristus mengajarkan bahwa Allah sejak semula menginginkan sebuah hubungan monogami, satu suami satu isteri. Namun, karena kebebalan hati umat Israel pada saat itu yang ingin kawin cerai, akhirnya Musa menuruti kemauan mereka untuk membuat surat cerai. Sejak itulah, dalam sejarah, para nabi termasuk raja-raja merasa lumrah untuk memiliki isteri lebih dari satu. Kenyataan ini bisa kita baca dalam Alkitab dimana Raja Daud, raja yang diurapi Allah dan Salomo, raja paling bijaksana di muka bumi memiliki isteri lebih dari satu. Poligami kemudian menjadi suatu hal yang biasa di kalangan rakyat jelata. Bahkan semakin menjadi-jadi dengan menjadikan perempuan sebagai budak belian dan pemuas nafsu laki-laki.
Namun, apa jawaban Kristus tentang hubungan suami isteri ini setelah praktek poligami sudah menjadi hal yang lumrah bahkan membudaya di jaman-Nya? Apakah ia menyetujui poligami? Jawabannya bisa dibaca dalam Kitab Matius 19:3-12. Dalam ayat-ayat ini, Kristus dengan jelas menyatakan bahwa monogami menjadi kehendak Allah sejak semula. Mari kita baca dan bahas bersama-sama. Untuk terjemahan Indonesia, saya menggunakan kitab terjemahan LAI (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) dan terjemahan Inggris (melengkapi pemahaman kita karena adanya keterbatasan dari terjemahan bahasa Indonesia), saya menggunakan New Living Translation SE.
Matius 19:3-12
3 Maka datanglah orang-orang Farisi kepada-Nya untuk mencobai Dia. Mereka bertanya: “Apakah diperbolehkan orang menceraikan isterinya dengan alasan apa saja?”
3 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
Pada jaman Yesus, orang Farisi dikenal sebagai orang ‘penting’ yang menjunjung tinggi Hukum Taurat. Yesus sendiri sering mengecam mereka dengan menyebut mereka orang yang munafik dan mengibaratkan mereka seperti kuburan yang luarnya putih namun busuk di dalamnya. Orang Farisi tidak menyukai Yesus karena ajaran-ajaran-Nya yang dianggap ‘berbeda’ dan sering menghabiskan waktu dengan orang-orang berdosa. Dalam suatu kesempatan, orang-orang Farisi ingin menjebak Yesus dengan membuat sebuah pertanyaan tentang bolehkah seorang suami menceraikan isterinya dengan alasan apa saja?
4 Jawab Yesus: “Tidakkah kamu baca, bahwa Ia yang menciptakan manusia sejak semula menjadikan mereka laki-laki dan perempuan?
4 “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.”
Yesus yang sering mengajar dengan membuat perumpamaan, tidak menjawab dengan boleh atau tidak boleh. Ia menjawab, Tuhan sejak semula menciptakan laki-laki dan perempuan. Lewat ayat ini ditemukan satu kebenaran, bahwa Tuhan menciptakan laki-laki dan perempuan BUKAN laki-laki dan perempuan-perempuan. Artinya, satu laki-laki satu perempuan. Ayat ini juga menegaskan bahwa hubungan suami isteri yang Tuhan maksud adalah hubungan antara laki-laki dan perempuan. Jadi, pernikahan sesama jenis, homo dan lesbian, jelas bertentangan dengan kehendak Allah. Apapun justifikasi (pembenaran diri) yang dibuat, Tuhan sejak semula menjadikan manusia, laki-laki dan perempuan.
5 Dan Firman-Nya: Sebab itu laki-laki akan meninggalkan ayah dan ibunya dan bersatu dengan isterinya, sehingga keduanya itu menjadi satu daging. 6 Demikianlah mereka bukan lagi dua, melainkan satu. Karena itu, apa yang telah dipersatukan Allah, tidak boleh diceraikan manusia.”
5 And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ 6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”
Ayat ini benar-benar meneguhkan kita bahwa Tuhan menginginkan pernikahan yang sifatnya monogami. Di situ tertulis, "Mereka bukan lagi dua, melainkan satu (no longer two but one)." Bukan tiga jadi satu atau empat jadi satu, seperti dalam poligami. Dalam ayat ini juga dinyatakan bahwa perceraian tidak pernah ada dalam kamus Allah. Apa yang dipersatukan Allah tidak boleh diceraikan manusia.
7 Kata mereka kepada-Nya: “Jika demikian, apakah sebabnya Musa memerintahkan untuk memberikan surat cerai jika orang menceraikan isterinya?”
7 “Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife written notice of divorce and send her away?” they asked.
Orang Farisi kelihatannya tidak puas dan tidak bisa menerima dengan jawaban Yesus ini. Mereka kemudian mempertanyakan mengapa Musa mengijinkan perceraian dengan memberikan surat cerai. Apa jawaban Yesus tentang hal ini? Ini menarik.
8 Kata Yesus kepada mereka: “Karena ketegaran hatimu, Musa mengizinkan kamu menceraikan isterimu, tetapi sejak semula tidaklah demikian.
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.
Yesus menjawab, karena ketegaran hatimu. Rupanya di jaman Musa, umat Israel berkeras hati ingin kawin cerai. Musa akhirnya dengan berat hati, menuruti kemauan umat yang bebal ini. Padahal, sejak semula, manusia kawin cerai bukanlah kehendak Allah. Dalam terjemahan NLT, but it was not what God had originally intended.
9 Tetapi aku berkata kepadamu: Barangsiapa menceraikan isterinya, kecuali karena zinah, lalu kawin dengan perempuan lain, ia berbuat zinah.”
9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery - unless his wife has been unfaithful.”
Yesus kemudian melanjutkan bahwa barangsiapa menceraikan isterinya lalu kawin dengan perempuan lain, ia berbuat zinah. Jadi, meskipun seseorang sudah menceraikan isterinya sah demi hukum dan memenuhi ‘persyaratan-persyaratan’ sosial dalam pengadilan agama: istri cacat badan, tidak dapat menjalankan kewajibannya sebagai isteri, dan tidak dapat melahirkan keturunan, Kristus dengan tegas menyatakan bahwa orang itu berbuat zinah. Apalagi mereka yang kawin lagi tanpa bercerai alias poligami. Tinggal tambahkan kata ‘banget’, berzinah banget.
Kristus menyatakan bahwa seseorang boleh menceraikan isterinya, kalau isterinya itu berzinah dengan orang lain. Di luar itu, tidak ada persyaratan-persyaratan apapun yang membolehkan seseorang menceraikan isterinya, meski isterinya cacat badan, tidak dapat menjalankan kewajibannya sebagai isteri, dan tidak dapat melahirkan keturunan. Kristus menyatakan bahwa suami isteri adalah dua menjadi satu. Satu dalam suka dan duka. Jadi ketika suami atau isteri ditimpa duka, itu adalah duka bersama. Bukan malah menceraikan isteri atau suami karena mendapati salah satu di antara mereka cacat, ‘gagal’ menjadi isteri, dan sebagainya.
10 Murid-murid itu berkata kepada-Nya: “Jika demikian halnya hubungan antara suami dan isteri, lebih baik jangan kawin.” 11 Akan tetapi Ia berkata kepada mereka: Tidak semua orang dapat mengerti perkataan itu, hanya mereka yang dikaruniai saja.
10 Jesus disciples then said to him, “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!” 11 Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps.
Mendengar jawaban Yesus itu, murid-muridnya menjadi skeptis. Kalau memang begitu keadaannya, lebih baik tidak usah kawin. Apa jawaban Yesus?
12 Ada orang yang tidak dapat kawin karena memang lahir demikian dari rahim ibunya, dan ada orang yang dijadikan demikian oleh orang lain, dan ada orang yang membuat dirinya demikian karena Kerajaan Sorga. Siapa yang dapat mengerti hendaklah ia mengerti.”
12 “Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Yesus menjawab bahwa ada orang yang tidak dapat kawin karena terlahir demikian (cacat), ada pula orang dijadikan demikian oleh orang lain (kemaluannya dikebiri), dan ada orang yang secara sadar memilih tidak kawin karena Kerajaan Sorga (Rasul Paulus). Jadi, biarlah kita bisa mengerti bahwa ada tiga jenis orang yang membuat orang itu tidak kawin.
Kesimpulan: Kristus dengan tegas menyatakan MONOGAMI adalah kehendak Allah, sejak semula, sebelum dunia dijadikan.


PEMIMPIN dan KELUARGANYA



Written by Pdt. Dr. M.D. Wakkary
Nov 28, 2007 at 06:18 PM
€œJikalau seorang tidak tahu mengepalai keluarganya sendiri,
bagaimanakah ia dapat mengurus Jemaat Allah?” I Timotius 3:5

Hubungan pernikahan para pemimpin Kristen disorot.
Kehidupan keluarga para pelayan gereja diamat-amati para warga jemaat.
Anggota-anggota yang kita pimpin ingin mencontohi kehidupan keluarga pemimpinnya, sebaliknya kalau keluarga para pelayan gereja tidak beres menjadi bahan omelan dan kritik.
Sebab itu, para pemimpin Kristiani harus memberikan porsi pelayanan yang prioritas kepada keluarganya, setelah kepada Tuhan.
TELADAN YOSUA
Yosua, pemimpin lebih dari 2 juta rakyat Israel setelah Musa meninggal, memberikan keluarganya sebagai contoh untuk seluruh bangsanya.
“Tetapi aku dan seisi rumahku, kami akan beribadah kepada Tuhan” (Yosua 24:15).
Yosua menjadi teladan, bagaimana Ibadah keluarga harus diberi prioritas.
Kepedulian Tuhan kepada keselamatan keluarga, pemulihan seisi rumah tangga, sangat jelas.
- Zakheus. Lukas 19:9
- Kornelius. Kisah 10:2-4.
- Kepala penjara di Filipi. Kisah 16:30

PEMIMPIN JEMAAT DAN PELAYAN
Pemimpin Jemaat (Gembala Sidang & Staf Penggembalaan) harus menjadi kepala keluarga yang baik. (I Timotius 3:4).
Seorang pelayan Tuhan (diaken), haruslah suami dari satu istri, mengurus anak-anaknya dan keluarganya dengan baik. Karena mereka yang melayani dengan baik beroleh kedudukan yang baik. (I Timotius 3:12-13).
SEORANG PELAYAN TUHAN TIDAK BOLEH MELUPAKAN PELAYANAN PADA KELUARGA.
TERUTAMA SUAMI-SUAMI DAN AYAH-AYAH, SELAKU KEPALA KELUARGA, HARUS MENYEDIAKAN WAKTU DAN USAHA UNTUK MELAYANI KELUARGA.
Saya pernah mengetahui, ada hamba Tuhan yang suka keliling melayani ke mana-mana, tetapi keluarganya diabaikan.
Seorang pengajar Firman, ketika ia menguraikan soal keluarga, maka keluarganya harus dapat dijadikan contoh, model atau panutan.
Jangan kita mengajar anak-anak jemaat supaya menjauhi pengaruh duniawi, anak sendiri ternyata pecandu narkoba.
Jangan kita mendorong orang-orang muda melayani Tuhan, tetapi anak sendiri masih sulit untuk setia dalam kebaktian.
Jangan kita mengajak ibu-ibu dalam jemaat untuk aktif dalam pekerjaan Tuhan, tapi istri sendiri tidak rajin melayani.
Beberapa pemimpin dalam Alkitab gagal mentransfer pelayanannya kepada anak-anaknya.
- Dua dari empat anak Imam Besar Harun dihukum mati oleh Tuhan, karena melanggar aturan Tuhan. Imamat 10:1-3
- Anak-anak Imam Eli tewas. I Samuel 2:22-34, 4:16-19
- Anak-anak Samuel. I Samuel 8:2-3.

MEZBAH DOA KELUARGA
Pemimpin/Pelayan harus membangun mezbah doa dalam keluarganya. Yaitu kegiatan sehari-hari untuk berdoa bersama dengan anggota keluarga.
Persekutuan dengan keluarg harus dijaga, melalui :
- mezbah doa keluarga
- beribadah bersama di gereja
- santap bersama keluarga
- aktivitas bersama di rumah
- berlibur bersama
- komunikasi terbuka (‘sharing’)
- persatuan / saling membantu (encouragement).

PERBEDAAN GENERASI ("Generation gap")
Ketidak harmonisan orang tua – anak banyak terjadi karena perbedaan “pandangan”, “selera”, “minat”, “pemahaman nilai”, dll, yang sebenarnya tergolong kepada perbedaan generasi. Kadang-kadang cukup lebar perbedaannya sehingga disebut “generation gap”.
Oleh karena itu acap kali hubungan orang tua – anak tidak cocok alias tidak nyambung dan berakibat “kortsluit” (pemutusan arus pendek).
Untuk hal ini ada janji nubuatan Firman Tuhan dalam Maleakhi 4:6.
“Maka ia akan membuat hati bapa-bapa berbalik kepada anak-anaknya dan hati anak-anak kepada bapa-bapanya supaya jangan Aku datang memukul bumi sehingga musnah.”

ROH KUDUS MEMULIHKAN
Dalam Kisah 2:16-17 dicatat khotbah Petrus tentang Roh Kudus, yaitu berkat Tuhan yang lintas generasi.
Semua generasi dengan cirinya masing-masing dapat kesempatan menjadi alat Tuhan melalui ragam karunia Roh Kudus.
Hubungan pelayan dari generasi muda kepada generasi tua diatur dengan indah dalam I Timotius 5:1-5.
Kewajiban orang tua dan pemuda yg diuraikan dengan gamblang dalam Titus 2:1-8.
Tuhan Yesus Kristus memberkati!


Family
tt=49
A term derived from the Latin, famulus, servant, and familia, household servants, or the household (cf. Oscan famel, servant). In the classical Roman period the familia rarely included the parents or the children. Its English derivative was frequently used in former times to describe all the persons of the domestic circle, parents, children, and servants. Present usage, however, excludes servants, and restricts the word family to that fundamental social group formed by the more or less permanent union of one man with one woman, or of one or more men with one or more women, and their children. If the heads of the group comprise only one man and one woman we have the monogamous family, as distinguished from those domestic societies which live in conditions of polygamy, polyandry, or promiscuity.
Certain anthropological writers of the last half of the nineteenth century, as Bachofen (Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 1861), Morgan (Ancient Society, London, 1877), Mc'Lennan (The Patriarchal Theory, London, 1885), Lang (Custom and Myth, London, 1885), and Lubbock (The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man, London, 1889), created and developed the theory that the original form of the family was one in which all the women of a group, horde, or tribe, belonged promiscuously to all the men of the community. Following the lead of Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, tr. from the German, Chicago, 1902), many Socialist writers have adopted this theory as quite in harmony with their materialistic interpretation of history. The chief considerations advanced in its favour are: the assumption that in primitive times all property was common, and that this condition naturally led to community of women; certain historical statements by ancient writers like Strabo, Herodotus, and Pliny; the practice of promiscuity, at a comparatively late date, by some uncivilized peoples, such as the Indians of California and a few aboriginal tribes of India; the system of tracing descent and kinship through the mother, which prevailed among some primitive people; and certain abnormal customs of ancient races, such as religious prostitution, the so-called jus primæ noctis, the lending of wives to visitors, cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, etc.
At no time has this theory obtained general acceptance, even among non-Christian writers, and it is absolutely rejected by some of the best authorities of today, e.g. Westermarck (The History of Human Marriage, London, 1901) and Letourneau (The Evolution of Marriage, tr. from the French, New York, 1888). In reply to the arguments just stated, Westermarck and others point out that the hypothesis of primitive communism has by no means been proved, at least in its extreme form; that common property in goods does not necessarily lead to community of wives, since family and marriage relations are subject to other motives as well as to those of a purely economic character; that the testimonies of classical historians in the matter are inconclusive, vague, and fragmentary, and refer to only a few instances; that the modern cases of promiscuity are isolated and exceptional, and may be attributed to degeneracy rather than to primitive survivals; that the practice of tracingkinship through the mother finds ample explanation in other facts besides the assumed uncertainty of paternity, and that it was never universal; that the abnormal sexual relations cited above are more obviously, as well as more satisfactorily, explained by other circumstances, religious, political, and social, than by the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity; and, finally, that evolution , which, superficially viewed, seems to support this hypothesis, is in reality against it, inasmuch as the unions between the male and the female of many of the higher species of animals exhibit a degree of stability and exclusiveness which bears some resemblance to that of the monogamous family.
The utmost concession which Letourneau will make to the theory under discussion is that "promiscuity may have been adopted by certain small groups, more probably by certain associations or brotherhoods" (op. cit., p. 44). Westermarck does not hesitate to say: "The hypothesis of promiscuity, instead of belonging, as Professor Giraud-Teulon thinks, to the class of hypotheses which are scientifically permissible has no real foundation, and is essentially unscientific" (op. cit., p. 133). The theory that the original form of the family was either polygamy or polyandry is even less worthy of credence or consideration. In the main, the verdict of scientific writers is in harmony with the Scriptural doctrine concerning the origin and the normal form of the family: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). "Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). From the beginning, therefore, the family supposed the union of one man with one woman.
While monogamy was the prevailing form of the family before Christ, it was limited in various degrees among many peoples by the practice of polygamy. This practice was on the whole more common among the Semitic races than among the Aryans. It was more frequent among the Jews, the Egyptians, and the Medes, than among the people of India, the Greeks, or the Romans. It existed to a greater extent among the uncivilized races, although some of these were free from it. Moreover, even those nations which practised polygamy, whether civilized or uncivilized, usually restricted it to a small minority of the population, as the kings, the chiefs, the nobles, and therich . Polyandry was likewise practised, but with considerably less frequency. According to Westermarck, monogamy was by far the most commonform of marriage "among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge" (op. cit., p. 459). On the other hand, divorce was in vogue among practically all peoples, and to a much greater extent than polygamy.
The ease with which husband and wife could dissolve their union constitutes one of the greatest blots upon the civilization of classic Rome. Generally speaking, the position of woman was very low among all the nations, civilized and uncivilized, before the coming of Christ. Among the barbarians she very frequently became a wife through capture or purchase; among even the most advanced peoples the wife was generally her husband's property, his chattel, his labourer. Nowhere was the husband bound by the same law of marital fidelity as the wife, and in very few places was he compelled to concede to her equal rights in the matter of divorce. Infanticide was practically universal, and the patria potestas of the Roman father gave him the right of life and death over even his grown-up children. In a word, the weaker members of the family were everywhere inadequately protected against the stronger.
The Christian family
Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom. The union between husband and wife is to last until death (Matthew 19:6 sq.; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11; 1 Corinthians 7:10; see MARRIAGE, DIVORCE). That this is the highest form of the conjugal union, and the best arrangement for the welfare both of the family and of society, will appear to anyone who compares dispassionately the moral and material effects with those flowing from the practice of divorce. Although divorce has obtained to a greater or less extent among the majority of peoples from the beginning until now, "there is abundant evidence thatmarriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of cultivation" (Westermarck, op. cit., p. 535).
While the attempts that have been made to show that divorce is in every case forbidden by the moral law of nature have not been convincing on their own merits, to say nothing of certain facts of Old Testament history, the absolute indissolubility of marriage is nevertheless the ideal to which the natural law points, and consequently is to be expected in an order that is supernatural. In the family, as re-established by Christ, there is likewise no such thing as polygamy. This condition, too, is in accord with nature's ideal. Polygamy is not, indeed, condemned in every instance by the natural law, but it is generally inconsistent with the reasonable welfare of the wife and children, and the proper moral development of the husband. Because of these qualities of permanence and unity, the Christian family implies a real and definite equality of husband and wife. They have equal rights in the matter of the primary conjugal relation, equal claims upon mutual fidelity, and equal obligations to make this fidelity real. They are equally guilty when they violate these obligations, and equally deserving of pardon when they repent.
The wife is neither the slave nor the property of her husband, but his consort and companion. The Christian family is supernatural, inasmuch as it originates in a sacrament. Through the sacrament of matrimony husband and wife obtain an increase of sanctifying grace, and a claim upon those actual graces which are necessary to the proper fulfilment of all the duties of family life, and the relations between husband and wife, parents and children, are supernaturalized and sanctified. The end and the ideal of the Christian family are likewise supernatural, namely, the salvation of parents and children, and the union between Christ and His Church. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it", says St. Paul (Ephesians 5:25). And the intimacy of the marital union, the identification, almost, of husband and wife, is seen in the injunction: "So also oughtmen to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself" (Ephesians 5:28).
From these general facts of the Christian family, the particular relations existing among its members can be readily deduced. Since the average man and woman are not normally complete as individuals, but are rather the two complementary parts of one social organism, in which their material, moral, and spiritual needs receive mutual satisfaction, a primary requisite of their union is mutual love. This includes not merely the love of the senses, which is essentially selfish, not necessarily that sentimental love which anthropologists call romantic, but above all that rational love or affection, which springs from an appreciation of qualities of mind and heart, and which impels each to seek the welfare of the other. As the intimate and long association of husband and wife necessarily bring to the surface their less noble and lovable qualities, and as the rearing of children involves great trials, the need of disinterested love, the ability to sacrifice self, is obviously grave.
The obligations of mutual fidelity have been sufficiently stated above. The particular functions of husband and wife in the family are determined by their different natures, and by their relation to the primary end of the family, namely, the procreation of children. Being the provider of the family, and the superior of the wife both in physical strength and in those mental and moral qualities which are appropriate to the exercise of authority, the husband is naturally the family's head, even "the head of the wife", in the language of St. Paul. This does not mean that the wife is the husband's slave, his servant, or his subject. She is his equal, both as a human being and as member of the conjugal society, save only that when a disagreement arises in matters pertaining to domestic government, she is, as a rule, to yield. To claim for her completely equal authority with the husband is to treat woman as man's equal in a matter in which nature has made them unequal. On the other hand the care and management of the details of the household belong naturally to the wife, because she is better fitted for these tasks than the husband.
Since the primary end of the family is the procreation of children, the husband or wife who shirks this duty from any but spiritual or moral motives reduces the family to an unnatural and unchristian level. This is emphatically true when the absence of offspring has been effected by any of the artificial and immoral devices so much in vogue at present. When the conjugal union has beenblessed with children, both parents are charged, according to their respective functions, with the duty of sustaining and educating those undeveloped members of the family. Their moral and religious formation is for the most part the work of the mother, while the task of providing for their physical and intellectual wants falls chiefly upon the father. The extent to which the different wants of the children are to be supplied will vary with the ability and resources of the parents. Finally, the children are bound, generally speaking, to render to the parents implicit love, reverence, and obedience, until they have reached their majority, and love, reverence, and a reasonable degree of support and obedience afterward.
The most important external relations of the family are, of course, those existing between it and the State. According to the Christian conception, the family, rather than the individual, is the social unit and the basis of civil society. To say that the family is the social unit is not to imply that it is the end to which the individual is a means; for the welfare of the individual is the end both of the family and of the State, as well as of every other social organization. The meaning is that the State is formally concerned with the family as such, and not merely with the individual. This distinction is of great practical importance; for where the State ignores or neglects the family, keeping in view only the welfare of the individual, the result is a strong tendency towards the disintegration of the former. The family is the basis of civil society, inasmuch as the greater majority of persons ought to spend practically all their lives in its circle, either as subjects or as heads. Only in the family can the individual be properly reared, educated, and given that formation of character which will make him a good man and a good citizen.
Inasmuch as the average man will not put forth his full productive energies except under the stimulus of its responsibilities, the family is indispensable from the purely economic viewpoint. Now the family cannot rightly discharge its functions unless the parents have full control over the rearing and education of the children, subject only to such State supervision as is needed to prevent grave neglect of their welfare. Hence it follows that, generally speaking, and with due allowance for particularconditions, the State exceeds its authority when it provides for the material wants of the child, removes him from parental influence, or specifies the school that he must attend. As a consequence of these concepts and ideals, the Christian family in history has proved itself immeasurably superior to the non-Christian family. It has exhibited greater fidelity between husband and wife, greater reverence for the parents by the children, greater protection of the weaker members by the stronger, and in general a more thorough recognition of the dignity and rights of all within its circle. Its chief glory is undoubtedly its effect upon the position of woman. Notwithstanding the disabilities--for the most part with regard to property, education, and a practically recognized double standard of morals--under which the Christian woman has suffered, she has attained to a height of dignity, respect, and authority for which we shall look in vain in the conjugal society outside of Christianity. The chief factor in this improvement has been the Christian teaching on chastity, conjugal equality, the sacredness of motherhood, and the supernatural end of the family, together with the Christian model and ideal of family life, the Holy Family at Nazareth.
The contention of some writers that the Church's teaching and practice concerning virginity and celibacy, make for the degradation and deterioration of the family, not only springs from a false and perverse view of these practices, but contradicts the facts of history. Although she has always held virginity in higher honour than marriage, the Church has never sanctioned the extreme view, attributed to some ascetical writers, that marriage is a mere concession to the flesh, a sort of tolerated carnal indulgence. In her eyes the marriage rite has ever been a sacrament, the married state a holy state, the family a Divine institution, and family life the normal condition for the great majority of mankind. Indeed, her teaching on virginity, and the spectacle of thousands of her sons and daughters exemplifying that teaching, have in every age constituted a most effective exaltation ofchastity in general, and therefore of chastity within as well as without the family. Teaching and example have combined to convince the wedded, not less than the unwedded , that purity and restraint are at once desirable and practically possible. Today, as always, it is precisely in those communities wherevirginity is most honoured that the ideal of the family is highest, and its relations purest.
Dangers for the family
Among these are the exaltation of the individual by the State at the expense of the family, which has been going on since the Reformation (cf. the Rev. Dr. Thwing, in Bliss, "Encyclopedia of Social Reform"), and the modern facility of divorce (see DIVORCE), which may be traced to the same source. The greatest offender in the latter respect is the United States, but the tendency seems to be towards easier methods in most of the other countries in which divorce is allowed. Legal authorization and popular approval of the dissolution of the marriage bond, not only breaks up existing families, but encourages rash marriages, and produces a laxer view of the obligation of conjugal fidelity. Another danger is the deliberate limitation of the number of children in a family. This practice tempts parents to overlook the chief end of the family, and to regard their union as a mere means of mutual gratification. Furthermore, it leads to a lessening of the capacity of self-sacrifice in all the members of thefamily. Closely connected with these two evils of divorce and artificial restriction of births, is the general laxity of opinion with regard to sexual immorality. Among its causes are the diminished influence of religion, the absence of religious and moral training in the schools, and the seemingly feebler emphasis laid upon the heinousness of the sin of unchastity by those whose moral training has not been under Catholic auspices. Its chief effects are disinclination to marry, marital infidelity, and the contraction of diseases which produce domestic unhappiness and sterile families.
The idle and frivolous lives of the women, both wives and daughters, in many wealthy families is also a menace. In the position which they hold, the mode of life which they lead, and the ideals which they cherish, many of these women remind us somewhat of the hetæræ of classical Athens. For they enjoy great freedom, and exercise great influence over the husband and father, and their chief function seems to be to entertain him, to enhance hissocial prestige, to minister to his vanity, to dress well, and to reign as social queens. They have emancipated themselves from any serious self-sacrifice on behalf of the husband or the family, while the husband has likewise declared his independence of any strict construction of the duty of conjugal fidelity. The bond between them is not sufficiently moral and spiritual, and is excessively sensual, social, and æsthetic. And the evil example of this conception of family life extends far beyond those who are able to put it into practice. Still another danger is the decline of family authority among all classes, the diminished obedience and respect imposed upon and exhibited by children. Its consequences are imperfect discipline in the family, defective moral character in the children, and manifold unhappiness among all.
Finally, there is the danger, physical and moral, threatening the family owing to the widespread and steadily increasing presence of women in industry. In 1900 the number of females sixteen years of age and over engaged in gainful occupations in the United States was 4,833,630, which was more than double the number so occupied in 1880, and which constituted 20 per cent of the whole number of females above sixteen years in the country, whereas the number at work in 1880 formed only 16 percent of the same division of the female population. In the cities of America two women out of every seven are bread-winners (see Special Report of the U.S. Census, "Women at Work"). This condition implies an increased proportion of married women at work as wage earners, an increased proportion of women who are less capable physically of undertaking the burdens of family life, a smaller proportion of marriages, an increase in the proportion of women who, owing to a delusive idea of independence, are disinclined to marry, and a weakening of family bonds and domestic authority. "In 1890, 1 married woman in 22 was a bread-winner; in 1900, 1 in 18" (ibid.). Perhaps the most striking evil result of married women in industry is the high death-rate among infants. For infants under one year the rate in 1900 over the whole United States, was 165 per 1000, but it was 305 in Fall River, where the proportion of married women at work is greatest. As the supreme causes of all these dangers to the family are the decay of religion and the growth of materialistic views of life, so the future of the family will depend upon the extent to which these forces can be checked. And experience seems to show that there can be no permanent middle ground between thematerialistic ideal of divorce, so easy that the marital union will be terminable at the will of the parties, and the Catholic ideal of marriage absolutely indissoluble.
Family
tt=49
A term derived from the Latin, famulus, servant, and familia, household servants, or the household (cf. Oscan famel, servant). In the classical Roman period the familia rarely included the parents or the children. Its English derivative was frequently used in former times to describe all the persons of the domestic circle, parents, children, and servants. Present usage, however, excludes servants, and restricts the word family to that fundamental social group formed by the more or less permanent union of one man with one woman, or of one or more men with one or more women, and their children. If the heads of the group comprise only one man and one woman we have the monogamous family, as distinguished from those domestic societies which live in conditions of polygamy, polyandry, or promiscuity.
Certain anthropological writers of the last half of the nineteenth century, as Bachofen (Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 1861), Morgan (Ancient Society, London, 1877), Mc'Lennan (The Patriarchal Theory, London, 1885), Lang (Custom and Myth, London, 1885), and Lubbock (The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man, London, 1889), created and developed the theory that the original form of the family was one in which all the women of a group, horde, or tribe, belonged promiscuously to all the men of the community. Following the lead of Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, tr. from the German, Chicago, 1902), many Socialist writers have adopted this theory as quite in harmony with their materialistic interpretation of history. The chief considerations advanced in its favour are: the assumption that in primitive times all property was common, and that this condition naturally led to community of women; certain historical statements by ancient writers like Strabo, Herodotus, and Pliny; the practice of promiscuity, at a comparatively late date, by some uncivilized peoples, such as the Indians of California and a few aboriginal tribes of India; the system of tracing descent and kinship through the mother, which prevailed among some primitive people; and certain abnormal customs of ancient races, such as religious prostitution, the so-called jus primæ noctis, the lending of wives to visitors, cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, etc.
At no time has this theory obtained general acceptance, even among non-Christian writers, and it is absolutely rejected by some of the best authorities of today, e.g. Westermarck (The History of Human Marriage, London, 1901) and Letourneau (The Evolution of Marriage, tr. from the French, New York, 1888). In reply to the arguments just stated, Westermarck and others point out that the hypothesis of primitive communism has by no means been proved, at least in its extreme form; that common property in goods does not necessarily lead to community of wives, since family and marriage relations are subject to other motives as well as to those of a purely economic character; that the testimonies of classical historians in the matter are inconclusive, vague, and fragmentary, and refer to only a few instances; that the modern cases of promiscuity are isolated and exceptional, and may be attributed to degeneracy rather than to primitive survivals; that the practice of tracingkinship through the mother finds ample explanation in other facts besides the assumed uncertainty of paternity, and that it was never universal; that the abnormal sexual relations cited above are more obviously, as well as more satisfactorily, explained by other circumstances, religious, political, and social, than by the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity; and, finally, that evolution , which, superficially viewed, seems to support this hypothesis, is in reality against it, inasmuch as the unions between the male and the female of many of the higher species of animals exhibit a degree of stability and exclusiveness which bears some resemblance to that of the monogamous family.
The utmost concession which Letourneau will make to the theory under discussion is that "promiscuity may have been adopted by certain small groups, more probably by certain associations or brotherhoods" (op. cit., p. 44). Westermarck does not hesitate to say: "The hypothesis of promiscuity, instead of belonging, as Professor Giraud-Teulon thinks, to the class of hypotheses which are scientifically permissible has no real foundation, and is essentially unscientific" (op. cit., p. 133). The theory that the original form of the family was either polygamy or polyandry is even less worthy of credence or consideration. In the main, the verdict of scientific writers is in harmony with the Scriptural doctrine concerning the origin and the normal form of the family: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). "Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). From the beginning, therefore, the family supposed the union of one man with one woman.
While monogamy was the prevailing form of the family before Christ, it was limited in various degrees among many peoples by the practice of polygamy. This practice was on the whole more common among the Semitic races than among the Aryans. It was more frequent among the Jews, the Egyptians, and the Medes, than among the people of India, the Greeks, or the Romans. It existed to a greater extent among the uncivilized races, although some of these were free from it. Moreover, even those nations which practised polygamy, whether civilized or uncivilized, usually restricted it to a small minority of the population, as the kings, the chiefs, the nobles, and therich . Polyandry was likewise practised, but with considerably less frequency. According to Westermarck, monogamy was by far the most commonform of marriage "among the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge" (op. cit., p. 459). On the other hand, divorce was in vogue among practically all peoples, and to a much greater extent than polygamy.
The ease with which husband and wife could dissolve their union constitutes one of the greatest blots upon the civilization of classic Rome. Generally speaking, the position of woman was very low among all the nations, civilized and uncivilized, before the coming of Christ. Among the barbarians she very frequently became a wife through capture or purchase; among even the most advanced peoples the wife was generally her husband's property, his chattel, his labourer. Nowhere was the husband bound by the same law of marital fidelity as the wife, and in very few places was he compelled to concede to her equal rights in the matter of divorce. Infanticide was practically universal, and the patria potestas of the Roman father gave him the right of life and death over even his grown-up children. In a word, the weaker members of the family were everywhere inadequately protected against the stronger.
The Christian family
Christ not only restored the family to its original type as something holy, permanent, and monogamous, but raised the contract from which it springs to the dignity of a sacrament, and thus placed the family itself upon the plane of the supernatural. The family is holy inasmuch as it is to co-operate with God by procreating children who are destined to be the adopted children of God, and by instructing them for His kingdom. The union between husband and wife is to last until death (Matthew 19:6 sq.; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11; 1 Corinthians 7:10; see MARRIAGE, DIVORCE). That this is the highest form of the conjugal union, and the best arrangement for the welfare both of the family and of society, will appear to anyone who compares dispassionately the moral and material effects with those flowing from the practice of divorce. Although divorce has obtained to a greater or less extent among the majority of peoples from the beginning until now, "there is abundant evidence thatmarriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of cultivation" (Westermarck, op. cit., p. 535).
While the attempts that have been made to show that divorce is in every case forbidden by the moral law of nature have not been convincing on their own merits, to say nothing of certain facts of Old Testament history, the absolute indissolubility of marriage is nevertheless the ideal to which the natural law points, and consequently is to be expected in an order that is supernatural. In the family, as re-established by Christ, there is likewise no such thing as polygamy. This condition, too, is in accord with nature's ideal. Polygamy is not, indeed, condemned in every instance by the natural law, but it is generally inconsistent with the reasonable welfare of the wife and children, and the proper moral development of the husband. Because of these qualities of permanence and unity, the Christian family implies a real and definite equality of husband and wife. They have equal rights in the matter of the primary conjugal relation, equal claims upon mutual fidelity, and equal obligations to make this fidelity real. They are equally guilty when they violate these obligations, and equally deserving of pardon when they repent.
The wife is neither the slave nor the property of her husband, but his consort and companion. The Christian family is supernatural, inasmuch as it originates in a sacrament. Through the sacrament of matrimony husband and wife obtain an increase of sanctifying grace, and a claim upon those actual graces which are necessary to the proper fulfilment of all the duties of family life, and the relations between husband and wife, parents and children, are supernaturalized and sanctified. The end and the ideal of the Christian family are likewise supernatural, namely, the salvation of parents and children, and the union between Christ and His Church. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it", says St. Paul (Ephesians 5:25). And the intimacy of the marital union, the identification, almost, of husband and wife, is seen in the injunction: "So also oughtmen to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself" (Ephesians 5:28).
From these general facts of the Christian family, the particular relations existing among its members can be readily deduced. Since the average man and woman are not normally complete as individuals, but are rather the two complementary parts of one social organism, in which their material, moral, and spiritual needs receive mutual satisfaction, a primary requisite of their union is mutual love. This includes not merely the love of the senses, which is essentially selfish, not necessarily that sentimental love which anthropologists call romantic, but above all that rational love or affection, which springs from an appreciation of qualities of mind and heart, and which impels each to seek the welfare of the other. As the intimate and long association of husband and wife necessarily bring to the surface their less noble and lovable qualities, and as the rearing of children involves great trials, the need of disinterested love, the ability to sacrifice self, is obviously grave.
The obligations of mutual fidelity have been sufficiently stated above. The particular functions of husband and wife in the family are determined by their different natures, and by their relation to the primary end of the family, namely, the procreation of children. Being the provider of the family, and the superior of the wife both in physical strength and in those mental and moral qualities which are appropriate to the exercise of authority, the husband is naturally the family's head, even "the head of the wife", in the language of St. Paul. This does not mean that the wife is the husband's slave, his servant, or his subject. She is his equal, both as a human being and as member of the conjugal society, save only that when a disagreement arises in matters pertaining to domestic government, she is, as a rule, to yield. To claim for her completely equal authority with the husband is to treat woman as man's equal in a matter in which nature has made them unequal. On the other hand the care and management of the details of the household belong naturally to the wife, because she is better fitted for these tasks than the husband.
Since the primary end of the family is the procreation of children, the husband or wife who shirks this duty from any but spiritual or moral motives reduces the family to an unnatural and unchristian level. This is emphatically true when the absence of offspring has been effected by any of the artificial and immoral devices so much in vogue at present. When the conjugal union has beenblessed with children, both parents are charged, according to their respective functions, with the duty of sustaining and educating those undeveloped members of the family. Their moral and religious formation is for the most part the work of the mother, while the task of providing for their physical and intellectual wants falls chiefly upon the father. The extent to which the different wants of the children are to be supplied will vary with the ability and resources of the parents. Finally, the children are bound, generally speaking, to render to the parents implicit love, reverence, and obedience, until they have reached their majority, and love, reverence, and a reasonable degree of support and obedience afterward.
The most important external relations of the family are, of course, those existing between it and the State. According to the Christian conception, the family, rather than the individual, is the social unit and the basis of civil society. To say that the family is the social unit is not to imply that it is the end to which the individual is a means; for the welfare of the individual is the end both of the family and of the State, as well as of every other social organization. The meaning is that the State is formally concerned with the family as such, and not merely with the individual. This distinction is of great practical importance; for where the State ignores or neglects the family, keeping in view only the welfare of the individual, the result is a strong tendency towards the disintegration of the former. The family is the basis of civil society, inasmuch as the greater majority of persons ought to spend practically all their lives in its circle, either as subjects or as heads. Only in the family can the individual be properly reared, educated, and given that formation of character which will make him a good man and a good citizen.
Inasmuch as the average man will not put forth his full productive energies except under the stimulus of its responsibilities, the family is indispensable from the purely economic viewpoint. Now the family cannot rightly discharge its functions unless the parents have full control over the rearing and education of the children, subject only to such State supervision as is needed to prevent grave neglect of their welfare. Hence it follows that, generally speaking, and with due allowance for particularconditions, the State exceeds its authority when it provides for the material wants of the child, removes him from parental influence, or specifies the school that he must attend. As a consequence of these concepts and ideals, the Christian family in history has proved itself immeasurably superior to the non-Christian family. It has exhibited greater fidelity between husband and wife, greater reverence for the parents by the children, greater protection of the weaker members by the stronger, and in general a more thorough recognition of the dignity and rights of all within its circle. Its chief glory is undoubtedly its effect upon the position of woman. Notwithstanding the disabilities--for the most part with regard to property, education, and a practically recognized double standard of morals--under which the Christian woman has suffered, she has attained to a height of dignity, respect, and authority for which we shall look in vain in the conjugal society outside of Christianity. The chief factor in this improvement has been the Christian teaching on chastity, conjugal equality, the sacredness of motherhood, and the supernatural end of the family, together with the Christian model and ideal of family life, the Holy Family at Nazareth.
The contention of some writers that the Church's teaching and practice concerning virginity and celibacy, make for the degradation and deterioration of the family, not only springs from a false and perverse view of these practices, but contradicts the facts of history. Although she has always held virginity in higher honour than marriage, the Church has never sanctioned the extreme view, attributed to some ascetical writers, that marriage is a mere concession to the flesh, a sort of tolerated carnal indulgence. In her eyes the marriage rite has ever been a sacrament, the married state a holy state, the family a Divine institution, and family life the normal condition for the great majority of mankind. Indeed, her teaching on virginity, and the spectacle of thousands of her sons and daughters exemplifying that teaching, have in every age constituted a most effective exaltation ofchastity in general, and therefore of chastity within as well as without the family. Teaching and example have combined to convince the wedded, not less than the unwedded , that purity and restraint are at once desirable and practically possible. Today, as always, it is precisely in those communities wherevirginity is most honoured that the ideal of the family is highest, and its relations purest.
Dangers for the family
Among these are the exaltation of the individual by the State at the expense of the family, which has been going on since the Reformation (cf. the Rev. Dr. Thwing, in Bliss, "Encyclopedia of Social Reform"), and the modern facility of divorce (see DIVORCE), which may be traced to the same source. The greatest offender in the latter respect is the United States, but the tendency seems to be towards easier methods in most of the other countries in which divorce is allowed. Legal authorization and popular approval of the dissolution of the marriage bond, not only breaks up existing families, but encourages rash marriages, and produces a laxer view of the obligation of conjugal fidelity. Another danger is the deliberate limitation of the number of children in a family. This practice tempts parents to overlook the chief end of the family, and to regard their union as a mere means of mutual gratification. Furthermore, it leads to a lessening of the capacity of self-sacrifice in all the members of thefamily. Closely connected with these two evils of divorce and artificial restriction of births, is the general laxity of opinion with regard to sexual immorality. Among its causes are the diminished influence of religion, the absence of religious and moral training in the schools, and the seemingly feebler emphasis laid upon the heinousness of the sin of unchastity by those whose moral training has not been under Catholic auspices. Its chief effects are disinclination to marry, marital infidelity, and the contraction of diseases which produce domestic unhappiness and sterile families.
The idle and frivolous lives of the women, both wives and daughters, in many wealthy families is also a menace. In the position which they hold, the mode of life which they lead, and the ideals which they cherish, many of these women remind us somewhat of the hetæræ of classical Athens. For they enjoy great freedom, and exercise great influence over the husband and father, and their chief function seems to be to entertain him, to enhance hissocial prestige, to minister to his vanity, to dress well, and to reign as social queens. They have emancipated themselves from any serious self-sacrifice on behalf of the husband or the family, while the husband has likewise declared his independence of any strict construction of the duty of conjugal fidelity. The bond between them is not sufficiently moral and spiritual, and is excessively sensual, social, and æsthetic. And the evil example of this conception of family life extends far beyond those who are able to put it into practice. Still another danger is the decline of family authority among all classes, the diminished obedience and respect imposed upon and exhibited by children. Its consequences are imperfect discipline in the family, defective moral character in the children, and manifold unhappiness among all.
Finally, there is the danger, physical and moral, threatening the family owing to the widespread and steadily increasing presence of women in industry. In 1900 the number of females sixteen years of age and over engaged in gainful occupations in the United States was 4,833,630, which was more than double the number so occupied in 1880, and which constituted 20 per cent of the whole number of females above sixteen years in the country, whereas the number at work in 1880 formed only 16 percent of the same division of the female population. In the cities of America two women out of every seven are bread-winners (see Special Report of the U.S. Census, "Women at Work"). This condition implies an increased proportion of married women at work as wage earners, an increased proportion of women who are less capable physically of undertaking the burdens of family life, a smaller proportion of marriages, an increase in the proportion of women who, owing to a delusive idea of independence, are disinclined to marry, and a weakening of family bonds and domestic authority. "In 1890, 1 married woman in 22 was a bread-winner; in 1900, 1 in 18" (ibid.). Perhaps the most striking evil result of married women in industry is the high death-rate among infants. For infants under one year the rate in 1900 over the whole United States, was 165 per 1000, but it was 305 in Fall River, where the proportion of married women at work is greatest. As the supreme causes of all these dangers to the family are the decay of religion and the growth of materialistic views of life, so the future of the family will depend upon the extent to which these forces can be checked. And experience seems to show that there can be no permanent middle ground between thematerialistic ideal of divorce, so easy that the marital union will be terminable at the will of the parties, and the Catholic ideal of marriage absolutely indissoluble.

Paham Perkawinan

menurut Kitab Hukum Kanonik 1983

oleh: Romo Antonius Dwi Joko, Pr



1. PERKEMBANGAN PEMAHAMAN

Dalam tahun-tahun setelah Konsili Vatikan II, pemahaman tentang Perkawinan Kristiani mengalami perkembangan yang pesat. Perkawinan yang semula dilihat hanya sebagi kontrak, kini dipandang sebagai perjanjian (covenant, foedus) yang membentuk suatu persekutuan hidup dan cinta yang mesra.

Dalam Kitab Hukum Kanonik 1917 (hukum lama), kan. 1013 dikatakan bahwa tujuan pertama perkawinan adalah mendapat keturunan dan pendidikan anak; sedangkan yang kedua adalah saling menolong sebagai suami dan sebagai obat penyembuh atau penawar nafsu seksual. Namun sekarang, dengan mengikuti ajaran ensiklik Humanae Vitae dari Paus Paulus VI, cinta suami istri dilihat sebagai elemen perkawinan yang esensial. Kodeks baru (KHK 83) dalam Kan 1055, $ 1 berbicara tentang hal itu dalam arti “bonum coniugum” (kebaikan, kesejahteraan suami-istri).

Hak atas tubuh suami-istri dalam kodeks lama merupakan tindakan yang sesuai bagi kelahiran anak. Konsili Vatikan II dalam Gaudium et Spes (GS) no. 48 menekankan pemberian atau penyerahan diri seutuhnya (total self donation, total giving of self). Maka, perkawinan tidak dilihat sebagai suatu kesatuan antara dua badan (tubuh), melainkan suatu kesatuan antara dua pribadi (persona).

2. PAHAM DASAR PERKAWINAN

“Dengan perjanjian perkawinan pria dan wanita membentu antara mereka kebersamaan seluruh hidup; dari sifat kodratinya perjanjian itu terarah pada kesejahteraan suami-isteri serta kelahiran dan pendidikan anak; oleh Kristus Tuhan perjanjian perkawinan antara orang-orang yang dibaptis diangkat ke martabat Sakramen.” (Kan. 1055 $ 1)

a. Perjanjian Perkawinan

Perkawinan itu dari kodratnya adalah suatu perjanjian (covenant, foedus). Dalam tradisi Yahudi, perjanjian berarti suatu “agreement” (persetujuan) yang membentuk (menciptakan) suatu hubungan sedemikian rupa sehingga mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sama seperti hubungan antara orang-orang yang mempunyai hubungan darah. Konsekwensinya, hubungan itu tidak berhenti atau berakhir, sekalipun kesepakatan terhadap perjanjian itu ditarik kembali. Berdasarkan pilihan bebas dari suami-istri, suatu perjanjian sesungguhnya akan meliputi relasi antar pribadi seutuhnya yang terdiri dari hubungan spiritual, emosional dan fisik.

b. Kebersamaan Seluruh Hidup

Dari kodratnya perkawinan adalah suatu kebersamaan seluruh hidup (consortium totius vitae. “Consortium”, con = bersama, sors = nasib, jadi kebersamaan senasib. Totius vitae = seumur hidup, hidup seutuhnya). Ini terjadi oleh perjanjian perkawinan. Suami istri berjanji untuk menyatukan hidup mereka secara utuh hingga akhir hayat (bdk. janji Perkawinan).

c. Antara Pria dan Wanita
Pria dan wanita diciptakan menurut gambaran Allah dan diperuntukkan satu sama lain, saling membutuhkan, saling melengkapi, saling memperkaya. Menjadi “satu daging” (Kej 2:24).

d. Sifat Kodrati Keterarahan kepada Kesejahteraan Suami-Istri (Bonum Coniugum)
Selain tiga “bona” (bonum = kebaikan) perkawinan yang diajarkan St. Agustinus, yakni (a) bonum prolis: kebaikan anak, bahwa perkawinan ditujukan kepada kelahiran dan pendidikan anak, (b) bonum fidei: kebaikan kesetiaan, menunjuk kepada sifat kesetiaan dalam perkawinan, dan (c) bonum sacramenti: kebaikan sakramen, menunjuk pada sifat permanensi perkawinan; Gaudium et Spes no. 48 menambah lagi satu “bonum” yang lain, yakni bonum coniugum (kebaikan, kesejahteraan suami-istri).
e. Sifat Kodrati Keterarahan kepada Anak
Perkawinan terbuka terhadap kelahiran anak dan pendidikannya. KHK 1983 tidak lagi mengedepankan prokreasi sebagai tujuan pertama perkawinan yang mencerminkan tradisi berabad-abad sejak Agustinus, melainkan tanpa hirarki tujuan-tujuan menghargai aspek personal perkawinan dan menyebut lebih dahulu kesejahteraan suami-istri (bonum coniugum)

f. Perkawinan sebagai Sakramen

Perkawinan Kristiani bersifat sakramental. Bagi pasangan yang telah dibabtis, ketika mereka saling memberikan konsensus dalam perjanjian, maka perkawinan mereka menjadi sah sekaligus sakramen.

3. SIFAT-SIFAT HAKIKI PERKAWINAN (Kan. 1056)

Kanon 1056 mengatakan: “Sifat-sifat hakiki perkawinan ialah monogam dan tak terputuskan, yang dalam perkawinan kristiani memperoleh kekukuhan khusus karena sakramen.”
Sifat-sifat hakiki perkawinan, yaitu monogami dan sifat tak terputuskannya ikatan perkawinan, termasuk paham Perkawinan Katolik. Patut diperhatikan bahwa penafsiran serta penerapannya di dalam Gereja Katolik tak jarang berbeda dengan di kalangan non-Katolik. Kedua sifat hakiki ini berkaitan erat sekali, sehingga perkawian kedua tidak sah, meskipun suami-istri perkawinan pertama telah diceraikan secara sipil atau menurut hukum agama lain, karena Gereja Katolik tidak mengakui validitas atau efektivitas perceraian itu. Dengan demikian suami istri yang telah cerai itu di mata Gereja masih terikat perkawinan dan tak dapat menikah lagi dengan sah. Andaikata itu terjadi, maka di mata Gereja terjadi poligami suksesif.

3.1. Monogami

a. Arti Monogami

Monogami berarti perkawinan antara seorang pria dan seorang wanita. Jadi, merupakan lawan dari poligami atau poliandri. Sebenarnya UU Perkawinan RI No. 1 tahun 1974 juga menganut asas monogami, tetapi asas ini tidak dipegang teguh karena membuka pintu untuk poligami, tetapi tidak untuk poliandri.

b. Implikasi atau konsekuensi Monogami

Sebaiknya dibedakan implikasi / konsekuensi moral dan hukum. Di sini perhatian lebih dipusatkan pada hukum. Dengan berpangkal pada kesamaan hak pria dan wanita yang setara, sehingga poligami dan poliandri disamakan:

(1). Mengesampingkan poligami simultan: dituntut ikatan perkawinan dengan hanya satu jodoh pada waktu yang sama.

(2). Mengesampingkan poligami suksesif, artinya, berturut-turut kawin cerai, sedangkan hanya perkawinan pertama yang dianggap sah, sehingga perkawinan berikutnya tidak sah. Kesimpulan ini hanya dapat ditarik berdasarkan posisi dua sifat perkawinan seperti yang dicanangkan Kan. 1056: monogami eksklusif dan tak terputuskannya ikatan perkawinan. Implikasi dan konsekuensi ini lain - tetapi hal ini termasuk moral - ialah larangan hubungan intim dengan orang ketiga.

c. Dasar Monogami

Dasar monogami dapat dilihat dalam martabat pribadi manusia yang tiada taranya pria dan wanita yang saling menyerahkan dan menerima diri dalam cintakasih total tanpa syarat dan secara eksklusif.

Dasar ini menjadi makin jelas bila dibandingkan dengan alasan dalam UU Perkawinan yang memperbolehkan poligami, yakni: bila istri tidak dapat menjalankan kewajiban sebagai istri, cacat badan atau penyakit lain yang tidak dapat disembuhkan, dan bila istri tidak dapat melahirkan keturunan.

Dalam pendasaran ini istri diperlakukan menurut sifat-sifat tertentu, dan tidak menurut martabatnya sebagai pribadi manusia. Bdk. Gagasan janji perkawinan: kasih setia dalam suka-duka, untung-malang, sehat-sakit.

Tak jarang dilontarkan argumen mendukung poligami yang dianggap lebih sosial menanggapi masalah kekurangan pria, sedangkan penganut monogami tak tanggap terhadap kesulitan wanita mendapatkan jodoh.

3.2. Sifat tak-terputuskannya Ikatan Perkawinan

a. Arti

Ikatan perkawinan berlaku seumur hidup karena perkawinan berarti penyerahan diri secara total tanpa syarat, juga tanpa pembatasan waktu di dunia fana ini.

b. Implikasi

Memang kesesatan saja tentang sifat-sifat hakiki perkawinan tidak otomatis membuat perkawinan menjadi tidak sah, tetapi sifat-sifat hakiki ini juga menjadi obyek konsensus perkawinan (Kan. 1099).

Barangsiapa menjanjikan kesetiaan tetapi tidak menghendaki perkawinan seumur hidup melakukan simulasi parsial yang membuat perkawinan itu menjadi tidak sah.

Barangsiapa bercerai, tidak memenuhi janjinya untuk menikah seumur hidup, dan bila ia menikah lagi, maka perkawinan itu tidak sah, karena masih terikat pada perkawinan sebelumnya.

Itulah salah satu kesulitan umat Katolik di Indonesia, di mana 60 % perkawinan setiap tahun diceraikan.

c. Dasar

Dalam Kitab Suci : misalnya Mrk 10:2-12; Mat 5: 31-32; 19:2-12; Luk 16:18
Ajaran Gereja : Konsili Trente (DS 1807); Konsili Vatikan II (GS 48), Familiaris Consortio 20; Katekismus Gereja Katolik 1644-1645
Penalaran akal sehat memang dapat mengajukan aneka argumen untuk mendukung sifat tak terputusnya perkawinan, misalnya martabat pribadi manusia yang patut dicintai tanpa reserve, kesejahteraan suami istri, terutama istri dan anak-anak, terutama yang masih kecil. Tetapi argumen-argumen ini tak dapat membuktikan secara mutlak, artinya tanpa kekecualian.

d. Tingkat kekukuhan

Perkawinan Katolik bersifat permanen dan tak terceraikan, baik secara intrinsik (oleh suami istri sendiri) maupun ekstrinsik (oleh pihak luar). Dalam hal perkawinan antara orang-orang yang telah dibaptis, perkawinan itu memperoleh kekukuhan atas dasar sakramen. Meski demikian, hukum masih mengakui adanya tingkat-tingkat kekukuhan dalam perkawinan sesuai macam perkawinan itu sendiri.

(1) Perkawinan putativum (putatif): perkawinan tak sah yang diteguhkan dengan itikad baik sekurang-kurangnya oleh satu pihak (Kan 1061, $ 1). Secara hukum perkawinan ini tidak mempunyai sifat kekukuhan dan ketakterceraian sama sekali.

(2) Perkawinan legitimum antara dua orang non-baptis. Perkawinan ini sah, tapi tak sakramental, yang sekaligus mempunyai sifat kekukuhan, namun bisa diceraikan dengan Previlegium Paulinum *karena suatu alasan yang berat.

(3) Perkawinan legitimum antar seorang baptis dan seorang non-baptis. Perkawinan ini pun sah, tapi tak sakramental karena salah satu pasangan belum atau tidak dibaptis. Perkawinan inipun dapat dibubarkan karena suatu alasan yang berat dengan Previlegium Petrinum (Previlegi Iman)**, walaupun telah memperoleh ciri kekukuhan dalam dirinya.

(4) Perkawinan ratum (et non consumatum): perkawinan sah dan sakramental, tapi belum disempurnakan dengan persetubuhan (Kan 1061, $1). Tingkat kekukuhan perkawinan ini sudah masuk kategori khusus atas dasar sakramen, namun karena suatu alasan yang sangat berat, masih dapat diputus oleh Paus.

(5) Perkawinan ratum et consumatum: perkawinan sah, sakramental, dan telah disempurnakan dengan persetubuhan. Perkawinan ini pun mempunyai kekukuhan khusus atas dasar sakramen, tapi lebih dari itu bersifat sama sekali tak terceraikan, krn sudah disempurnakan dengan persetubuhan.

4. KONSENSUS PERKAWINAN (Kan 1057)

Konsensus atau kesepakatan perkawinan adalah perbuatan kemauan dengan mana suami istri saling menyerahkan diri dan saling menerima untuk membentuk perkawinan dengan perjanjian yang tak dapat ditarik kembali. Itu berarti hanya konsensus yang “menciptakan” atau membuat suatu perkawinan menjadi ada (matrimonium in fieri, terjadinya perkawinan pada saat mempelai menyatakan konsensus)

Pada saat mempelai saling memberikan konsensus dalam perjanjian perkawinan, saat itu dimulai hidup perkawinan atau hidup berkeluarga yang akan berlaku dan berlangsung sepanjang hidup (matrimonium in facto esse, hidup berkeluarga).

Para pihak harus cakap hukum atau mempu menurut hukum untuk membuat konsensus perkawinan (Kan 1057 $ 1), artinya mereka tidak terkena suatu cacat psikologis apapun yang dapat meniadakan konsensus perkawinan (Kan 1095).

Konsensus harus dinyatakan secara legitim, artinya harus dinyatakan oleh kedua pihak satu terhadap yang lain, menurut norma hukum yang berlaku, misalnya dengan keharusan mentaati forma canonica atau suatu bentuk tata peneguhan publik lainnya yang diakui.

Konsensus tak dapat diganti oleh kuasa manusiawi manapun; artinya tak ada kuasa apapun atau siapapun yang dapat dengan sewenang-wenang dan melawan hukum membuat konsensus bagi orang lain.

5. WEWENANG GEREJA ATAS PERKAWINAN ORANG-ORANG KATOLIK

Kanon 11 menyatakan bahwa orang yang dibaptis dalam Gereja Katolik atau diterima di dalammya terikat oleh undang-undang yang bersifat semata-mata gerejawi. Itu berarti mereka yang bukan Katolik, entah dibaptis atau tidak, tidak terikat oleh undang-undang tersebut.

Namun, dalam hal perkawinan, ada semacam perkecualian. Kanon 1059 mengatakan: “Perkawinan orang-orang Katolik, meskipun hanya satu pihak yang Katolik, diatur tidak hanya hukum ilahi, melainkan juga oleh hukum kanonik, dengan tetap berlaku kuasa sipil mengenai akibat-akibat yang sifatnya semata-mata sipil dari perkawinan itu.”

Dengan demikian jelas bahwa dalam hal perkawinan campur, pihak non-Katolik secara tak langsung terikat oleh undang undang gerejawi (karena harus mengikuti pasangannya yang Katolik dan yang secara langsung terikat oleh undang-undang gerejawi).

Akibat-akibat perkawinan yang semata-mata sifatnya sipil berada di luar kewenangan Gereja. Misalnya, Gereja tidak bisa mengatur bagaimana harus mengurus harta warisan, harta bawaan, harta bersama, kewarganegaraan, perubahan nama istri dengan mengikuti nama suami, dsb.

6. SYARAT-SYARAT UNTUK SAHNYA PERKAWINAN KATOLIK

6.1. Bebas dari Halangan-halangan Kanonik

Ada sekitar 12 halangan kanonik yang dibicarakan secara spesifik dalam KHK 1983, yakni:

(1) Belum Mencapai Umur Kanonik (Kan. 1083)
Kanon 1083 $ 1 menetapkan bahwa pria sebelum berumur genap 16 tahun, dan wanita sebelum berumur genap 14 tahun, tidak dapat menikah dengan sah. Ketentuan batas minimal ini perlu dimengerti bersama dengan ketentuan mengenai kematangan intelektual dan psikoseksual (Kan 1095). UU Perkawinan RI menetapkan usia minimal 19 tahun untk pria dan 17 tahun untuk wanita.

(2) Impotensi (Kan. 1084)
Ketidakmampuan untuk melakukan hubungan seksual suami-istri disebut impotensi. Impotensi bisa mengenai pria atau wanita. Menurut Kan. 1084 $ 1 impotensi merupakan halangan yang menyebabkan perkawinan tidak sah dari kodratnya sendiri, yakni jika impotensi itu ada sejak pra-nikah dan bersifat tetap, entah bersifat mutlak ataupun relatif. Halangan impotensi merupakan halangan yang bersumber dari hukum ilahi kodrati, sehingga tidak pernah bisa didespansasi.
(3) Ligamen / Ikatan Perkawinan Terdahulu (Kan. 1085)
Menurut kodratnya perkawinan adalah penyerahan diri timbal balik, utuh dan lestari antara seorang pria dan seorang wanita. Kesatuan (unitas) dan sifat monogam perkawinan ini adalah salah satu sifat hakiki perkawinan, yang berlawanan dengan perkawinan poligami atau poliandri, baik simultan maupun suksesif. Sifat monogam perkawinan adalah tuntutan yang bersumber dari hukum ilahi kodrat, yang tak bisa didispensasi. Kan 1085 $ 1 memberikan prinsip hukum kodrat demi sahnya perkawinan: “Adalah tidak sah perkawinan yang dicoba dilangsungkan oleh orang yang terikat perkawinan sebelumnya, meskipun perkawinan itu belum disempurnakan dengan persetubuhan.”

(4) Perkawinan Beda Agama / disparitas cultus (Kan. 1086)
Di dalam perkawinan, suami-istri bersama-sama berupaya untuk mewujudkan persekutuan hidup dan cintakasih dalam semua aspek dan dimensinya: personal-manusiawi dan spiritual-religius sekaligus. Agar persekutuan semacam itu bisa dicapai dengan lebih mudah, Gereja menghendaki agar umatnya memilih pasangan yang seiman, mengingat bahwa iman berpengaruh sangat kuat terhadap kesatuan lahir-batin suami-istri, pendidikan anak dan kesejahteraan keluarga.
Mengingat relevansi iman terhadap perkawinan sakramental dan pengaruh perkawinan sakramental bagi kehidupan iman itulah Gereja Katolik menginginkan agar anggotanya tidak melakukan perkawinan campur, dalam arti menikah dengan orang non-Katolik, entah dibaptis non-Katolik (mixta religio) maupun tidak baptis (disparitas cultus). Di samping itu, ada sebuah norma moral dasar yang perlu diindahkan, yakni bahwa setiap orang dilarang melakukan sesuatu yang membahayakan imannya. Iman adalah suatu nilai yang amat tinggi, yang perlu dilindungi dengan cinta dan bakti.

(5) Tahbisan Suci (Kan. 1087)
Melalui tahbisan suci beberapa orang beriman memperoleh status kanonik yang khusus, yakni status klerikal, yang menjadikan mereka pelayan-pelayan rohani dalam gereja. Kan 1087 menetapkan: “Adalah tidak sah perkawinan yang dicoba dilangsungkan oleh mereka yang telah menerima tahbisan suci”.

(6) Kaul Kemurnian Publik dan Kekal (Kan. 1088)
Seperti tahbisan suci, demikian pula hidup religius tidak bisa dihayati bersama-sama dengan hidup perkawinan, karena seorang religius terikat kaul kemurnian (bdk. Kan. 573 $ 2; 598 $ 1)

(7) Penculikan (Kan. 1089)
Halangan penculikan atau penahanan ditetapkan untuk menjamin kebebasan pihak wanita, yang memiliki hak untuk menikah tanpa paksaan apapun. Kemauan bebas adalah syarat mutlak demi keabsahan kesepakatan nikah.

(8) Pembunuhan teman perkawinan (Kan. 1090)
Ini disebut halangan kriminal conjungicide.

(9) Konsanguinitas / Hubungan Darah (Kan. 1091)
Gereja menetapkan halangan hubungan darah untuk melindungi atau memperjuangkan nilai moral yang sangat mendasar. Pertama-tama ialah untuk menghindarkan perkawinan incest. Hubungan ini dilarang. Hubungan ini juga berakibat buruk terhadap kesehatan fisik, psikologis, mental dan intelektual bagi anak-anak yang dilahirkan.
Kan 1091 $ 1 menegaskan: “Tidak sahlah perkawinan antara orang-orang yang berhubungan darah dalam garis keturunan ke atas dan ke bawah, baik legitim maupun alami”. Kan. 1091 $ 2 menegaskan bahwa dalam garis keturunan menyamping perkawinan tidak sah sampai dengan tingkat ke-4 inklusif.

(10) Hubungan Semenda / affinitas (Kan. 1092)
Hubungan semenda tercipta ketika dua keluarga saling mendekatkan batas-batas hubungan kekeluargaan lewat perkawinan yang terjadi antar anggota dari dua keluarga itu. Jadi, hubungan semenda muncul sebagai akibat dari suatu faktor ekstern (= ikatan perkawinan), bukan faktor intern (= ikatan darah).
Kan. 1092 menetapkan: “Hubungan semenda dalam garis lurus menggagalkan perkawinan dalam tingkat manapun”. Secara konkret, terhalang untuk saling menikah: a). antara menantu dan mertua [garis lurus ke atas tingkat 1], b). antara ibu dan anak tiri laki-laki, demikian juga sebaliknya antara bapak dan anak tiri perempuan.

(11) Kelayakan Publik (Kan. 1093)

Kelayakan publik muncul dari perkawinan yang tidak sah, termasuk hubungan kumpul kebo (konkubinat) yang diketahui umum. Menurut Kan. 1093 halangan nikah yang timbul dari kelayakan publik dibatasi pada garis lurus tingkat pertama antara pria dengan orang yang berhubungan darah dengan pihak wanita. Begitu juga sebaliknya.

(12) Hubungan Adopsi (Kan. 1094)
Anak yang diadopsi lewat adopsi legal memiliki status yuridis yang analog dengan status yuridis anak kandung. Kanon 1094 menyatakan: “Tidak dapat menikah satu sama lain dengan sah mereka yang mempunyai pertalian hukum yang timbul dari adopsi dalam garis lurus atau garis menyamping tingkat kedua.”

6.2. Adanya Konsensus atau Kesepakatan Nikah

a. Pengertian Konsensus

Konsensus (Kan 1057, $ 2) adalah perbuatan kemauan dengan mana pria dan wanita saling menyerahkan diri dan saling menerima untuk membentuk perkawinan dengan perjanjian yang tak dapat ditarik kembali.

b. Faktor Penyebab Tak Adanya Konsensus

Konsensus bisa cacat atau tidak ada sama sekali oleh faktor-faktor berikut:

(1) Ketidakmampuan psikologis (Kan. 1095)
(2) Tak ada pengetahuan yang cukup mengenai hakekat perkawinan (Kan. 1096)
(3) Kekeliruan mengenai pribadi (Kan. 1097)
(4) Penipuan (Kan. 1098)
(5) Kekeliruan mengenai sifat perkawinan dan martabat sakramental perkawinan (Kan. 1099)
(6) Simulasi (Kan. 1101): simulasi total; simulasi parsial (bonum prolis, bonum fidei, bonum sakramenti, bonum coniugum)
(7) Konsensus bersyarat (Kan. 1102)
(8) Paksaan dan ketakutan (Kan. 1103)

6.3. Dirayakan dalam “forma canonika” (Kan. 1108-1123)

“Forma canonica” atau tata peneguhan ialah bahwa suatu perkawinan harus dirayakan dihadapan tiga orang, yakni petugas resmi Gereja sebagai peneguh, dan dua orang saksi.

7. PERKAWINAN CAMPUR (Kan 1124-1129; 1086)

7.1. Pengertian

Perkawinan campur, yaitu perkawinan antara seorang baptis Katolik dan pasangan yang bukan Katolik (bisa baptis dalam gereja lain, maupun tidak dibaptis). Gereja memberi kemungkinan untuk perkawinan campur karena membela dua hak asasi, yaitu hak untuk menikah dan hak untuk memilih pegangan hidup (agama) sesuai dengan hati nuraninya.

Keyakinan Gereja tentang perkawinan sebagai sakramen dan dimungkinkannya perkawinan campur tidak boleh diartikan bahwa Gereja membedakan dua perkawinan, seakan-akan ada perkawinan kelas 1 dan kelas 2. Perkawinan yang sudah diteguhkan secar sah dan dimohonkan berkat dari Tuhan apapun jenisnya, semuanya berkenan di hadapan Tuhan. Semuanya dipanggil untuk memberi kesaksian akan kasih Kristus kepada manusia.

7.2. Dua Jenis Perkawinan Campur

Perkawinan campur beda gereja (seorang baptis Katolik menikah dengan seorang baptis non-Katolik) perkawinan ini membutuhkan ijin.

Perkawinan campur beda agama (seorang dibaptis Katolik menikah dengan seorang yang tidak dibaptis) untuk sahnya dibutuhkan dispensasi.

7.3. Persyaratan Mendapatkan Ijin atau Dispensasi

Pihak Katolik diwajibkan membuat janji yang berisi dua hal:

(1) Pihak Katolik berjanji untuk setia dalam iman Katoliknya.
(2) Pihak Katolik berjanji akan berusaha dengan serius untuk mendidik dan membaptis anak-anak yang akan lahir dalam Gereja Katolik. Janji ini acapkali menjadi salah satu permasalahan. Maka sangat dianjurkan untuk dibereskan dahulu, sehingga bisa diantisipasi.

7.4. Soal Larangan Nikah Ganda (Kan. 1127 $ 3)

Kita berhadapan dengan kenyataan: dalam perkawinan campur, tata peneguhan kanonik diwajibkan, sedangkan nikah ganda (peneguhan sebelum atau sesudah peneguhan Katolik masih diadakan peneguhan menurut agama lain) dilarang.

Kesan yang sering timbul dari pihak non-Katolik: Gereja Katolik mau menangnya sendiri, mengapa tidak “fifty-fifty”: baik menurut hukum agama Katolik di Gereja Katolik, maupun menurut agama yang lain. Tetapi justru ini dilarang Kan. 1127 $ 3 yang sering sulit dipahami pihak non-Katolik.

1. Dalam Pernikahan Beda Gereja
Terbuka perkawinan ekumenis di hadapan pelayan Katolik dan pendeta, kalau perlu bahkan dengan dispensasi dari tata peneguhan kanonik (bila pernyataan konsensus tidak diterima oleh pelayan Katolik). Maka perlu disepakati pembagian tugas yang jelas antara pelayan Katolik dan pendeta, misalnya firman dan berkat diserahkan kepada pendeta, sedangkan pelaksanaan tata peneguhan Katolik dipercayakan kepada pelayan Katolik, demi sahnya perkawinan.

2. Dalam Pernikahan Beda Agama
Terutama pihak non-Katolik dapat mempunyai keberatan, mungkin bahkan menurut hati nuraninya: sebelum menikah menurut agamanya, perkawinan tidak sah, dan hubungannya dirasakan sebagai zinah. Atau dapat juga terjadi bahwa fakta ini dipakai sebagai kesempatan untuk berpisah (menceraikan jodohnya) dengan alasan: belum menikah sah.

7.5. Pastoral Kawin Campur

Memang sudah banyak ajakan untuk meningkatkan pastoral perkawinan dan keluarga, tak hanya untuk tahap persiapan perkawinan yang hanya meliputi waktu yang amat pendek, melainkan terutama untuk tahap pasca-nikah yang meliputi hal-hal praktis seluruh hidup perkawinan. Namun demikian upaya-upaya itu kerapkali masih sporadis dan insidental, daripada gerakan yang melibatkan seluruh umat.

Dalam pandangan Gereja tentang kawin campur sudah disebut unsur-unsur (misalnya sehubungan dengan interaksi antara perkawinan dan agama) yang menggarisbawahi perlunya pastoral perkawinan dan keluarga pada umumnya, dan kawin campur pada khususnya.

Mengingat makna perkawinan dan keluarga, dibandingkan dengan upaya dan program pembinaan, apa yang diusahakan untuk mereka yang hidup berkeluarga masih amat kecil.

7.6. Kesulitan Pencatatan Sipil

Berlakunya UU perkawinan 1974 mengakibatkan tidak mudahnya mereka yang menikah dalam perkawinan campur untuk mendaptkan pengesahan sipil. Sering dijumpai tidak konsistennya petugas pencatatan sipil. Pasangan perkawinan campur tidak boleh menyerah dalam mengusahakan pengesahan secara sipil, apapun caranya.

7.7. Beberapa Catatan dan Harapan

Hal yang utama dalam perkawinan adalah kasih. Kasih yang selalu terikat pada pribadi. Perlu senantiasa mengusahakan berbagai hal yang menyatukan. De fakto dalam perkawinan campur ada perbedaan, namun membicarakan perbedaan tidaklah berguna bahkan menimbulkan kerenggangan. Senantiasa yakin akan pemeliharaan dan penyertaan Tuhan.