Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/766

 IIA&&UOX

713

MAR&IAaS

ministers and recipiente. A consensual agreement can be made in writing as well as orally, and by proxy as well as in person. Henoe these methods are not op- posed to the validity of the sacrament. Of course, according to ecclesiastical law, the form prescribed for validity is, as a rule, the personal, mutual declaration of consent before witnesses; but that is a requirement added to the nature of marriage and to Divine law, which the Church can therefore set aside and from which she can dispense in individual cases. Even the contracting of marriage through authorized represen- tatives is not absolutely excluded. In such a case, however, this representative could not be called the minister, much less the recipient of the sacrament, but merely the agent or intermediarv. The declaration of consent made b^r him is valid only in so far as it repre- sents and contains the consent of his principal; it is the latter which effects the contract and sacrament, hence the principal is the minister of the sacrament. It is the prmcipal, and not the agent, who receives the consent of and marries the other party, and who there- fore also receives the sacrament. It does not matter whether the principal, at the exact moment when the consent is expressed by his agent, has the use of reason, or consciousness, or is deprived of it (e. g. by sleep); as soon as the mutual consent is given, the sacrament comes into being with the contract, and the conferring of grace takes place at the same time, provided no obstacle is placed in the way of this effect. The actual use of reason is no more required for it than in the baptism of an infant or in extreme unction adminis- tered to an unconscious person. It may even happen in the case of marriage that the consent, which was given many years ago, only now takes effect. This occurs in the case of the so-called sanatio in radice. Through this an ecclesiastical impediment, hitherto invalidating the marriage, is removed by ecclesiastical authority, and the mutual consent previously given without knowledge of the impediment is accepted as legitimate, provided it is certain that this consent has habitually continued according to its original intent. At the moment of the ecclesiastical dispensation th6 original consent becomes the effective cause of the sacrament and the hitherto presumptive, but now real, spouses receive the sacramental effect in the increase of sanctifying grace, provided they place no obstacle in the way.

V. The Extent of Sacramental Mahriage. — As we have several times emphasized, not even marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Chris- tians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recoenized here throueh valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith, or become a heretic, or even an infidel. Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Chureh. Through bap- tism one "becomes a member of Christ and is incor- porated in the body of the Church ", as declared in the Florentine Decree for the Annenians; so far as law is concerned, he remains irrevocably subject to the Church, and is therefore, in legal questions, always to be considered a Christian. Hence it is a general prin- ciple that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws, unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. Hence not only the marriage between Cath- olics, but also that contracted by members of the dif- ferent sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is imdoubtedly a sacrament. It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacra- ment or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacra- ment or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient te con- ■tttute a sacrament. But if he is absolutely deter-

mined not to effect a sacrament, then, of course, the production of a sacrament would be excluded, but the marriage contract also would be null and void. By Divine ordinance it is essential to Christian marriage that it should be a sacrament; it is not in the power of the contracting parties to eliminate anything from ite nature, and a person who has the intention of doing this invalidates the whole ceremonv. It is certain, therefore, that marriage contracted between baptized persons is a sacrament, even the so-called mixed mar- riage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, provided the non-Catholic has been validly baptized. Jt is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized per* sons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word.

There is, however, great uncertainty as to how those marriages are to be regarded which exist legitimately and validly between 'a baptized and an imbaptized person. Such marriages may occur in two ways. In the first place, a marriage may have been contracted between unbelievers, one of whom afterwards becomes a Christian, while the other remains an unbeliever. (Here believer and unbeliever are taken in the sense of baptized and unbaptized.) The marriage contracted validlv while both were unbelievers continues to exist, and though under certain circumstances it is dissolu- ble, it is not rendered void simply because of the bap- tism of one of the parties, for, as Innocent III says (in ly, xix, 8), ''through the sacrament of baptism mar- riage is not dissolved, but sins are forgiven '^ and St. Paul expressly states (I CJor., vii, 12 sq.): "If any brother hath a wife that belie veth not, ana she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband." There is question here, therefore, of a mar- riage which subsequently has developed into a mar- riage between baptized and imbaptized. Secondly, there may be question of a marriage, which from the beginning was a mixed marriage, i. e. which was con- tracted between a believer and an unbeliever. By ecclesiastical law, such a marriage cannot take place without a dispensation from the Church, which has made disparity of worship between baptized and un- baptized a diriment impediment. In regard to both kinds of mixed marriage it may be asked whether they have the character of a sacrament, and whether they have the effect of imparting grace at least to the bap- tized party. As to the unbaptized party, there can clearly be no (question of sacrament or sacramental grace, for baptism is the door to the other sacraments, none of which can be validly received before it.

The opinions of theologians on this point vary con- siderably. Some maintain that in both kinds of mixed marriages the baptized party receives the grace of the sacrament; others deny this in the case of a marriage contract contracted by unbelievers which subse- ouently becomes a mixed marriage, and affirm it in the case of a marriage contracted by a believer with an unbeliever in virtue of a dispensation from the Church; a third class again deny that there is a sacra- ment or sacramental grace in either case. The first view was held as probable by Palmieri (De matrimonio christiano, cap. h, thes. ii, Append, q. 3), Rosset (De Sacramento matrimonii, I, 350), and others; the sec- ond by the older authors, Soto, Toumely, Collet, and, among recent authors, especially by Perrone (De ma- trimonio christiano, I, 306-311); Sasse and Christian Pesch declare at least in favour of the sacramental character of a marriage contracted with ecclesiastical dispensation between a baptized and an unbapti»ed person, but express no opimon on the other case. The third opinion is upheld by Vasquez and Thomas Sanchez, and is at the present time vigorously de- fended by Billot (De sacramentis: II, De matrimonio, thesis xxxviii, sec. 3) and Wemz (Jus Decretalium, I v. v, 44).

No side brings convincing proof. Perhaps the weak-