Matrimony: Minister and Recipient

Chapter III: The Minister

Chapter IV: The Recipient

CHAPTER III THE MINISTER The contracting parties to a marriage administer the Sacrament to each other. The priest is merely the minister of the (accidental) celebration and the representative and chief official witness of the Church. This explains why his presence is prescribed by ecclesiastical law. a) That the contracting parties administer the Sacrament to each other is evident from the fact that contract and Sacrament coincide 1 and that both the matter and the form of Matrimony are contained in the contract.2 Contract and Sacrament being identical, he who makes the contract eo ipso administers the Sacrament. Again, as matter and form of the Sacrament are contained in the contract, whoever furnishes the matter and form, effects the Sacrament. It is the express teaching of the Church that the Sacrament of Matrimony is effected solely 8 by the mutual consent4 of the contracting parties. Conse1 V. supra, Ch. I, Sect t, Thetis cret. Gregor., 1. TV, tit. i, c 2$ II. (Denzliiger-Bannwart, n. 404). 2 V. supra, Ch. I, Sect a. « Mutuus consensus. Cf r. Deer. & Solus consensus. Cfr. ResP. Pro Armsnis (Denzinger-Bannwart, Nicolai J. ad Consult. Bulgar., c. 3 n. 70a). (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 334); Dt* 214 quently the contracting parties are the sole ministers of the Sacrament. It is on this assumption that the Tridentine Council declared clandestine marriages (i. e. marriages performed without a priest and the required witnesses) to be vera et sacra, provided the Church does not enjoin a special form of celebration as a condition of validity. Berlage’s opinion 5 that the priest is the ordinary, whilst the contracting parties are the extraordinary ministers of the Sacrament, is untenable, (1) because the form of a Sacrament can not be arbitrarily changed, and (2) because Nicholas I and Innocent III have expressly declared that the only thing required for the validity of marriage, and hence of the Sacrament, is the consent of the contracting parties. Very properly, therefore, is Matrimony called ” the lay Sacrament.” b) If, as we have seen, the sacramental form of marriage does not consist in the benediction given by the priest, the priest cannot be the minister of the Sacrament. How, then, are we to regard the part which he takes in the celebration of marriage? (1) The priest is the official representative of the Church, to whose external forum Christian marriage belongs on account of its juridical effects ; (2) He is the official chief witness (testis autorizabilis), upon whose presence, since the Council of Trent, both the licitness and the validity of marriage ordinarily depend ; (3) He is the (sole) minister of the solemn ceremonies with which the Church surrounds marriage, not only the BDognuttik, Vol. VII, p. 827, Monster 1864. 2l6 MATRIMONY ecclesiastical recognition (solemnizqtio matrimonii), which he expresses in saying, I join you together in Matrimony ; * but also the nuptial blessing, which is one of the Church’s most beautiful and significant sacramentals. Yet all these ceremonies are non-essential, as appears from the fact that they may, nay under certain conditions must, be omitted and that they have varied in different ages and countries. In the primitive Church the bride concealed her face under a red veil to symbolize her fidelity and submission to her husband, just as nuns wear a white veil as an emblem of fidelity and obedience to their mystic spouse.f The very word nuptiae is derived from nub ere, to veil or conceal. At one time it was customary for the bridal couple to carry burning candles as a sign of conjugal chastity.7 The bride, if she was a virgin, wore a crown of flowers, which later developed into the bridal wreath. Among the Greeks, in consequence of this custom, marriage is still called ” the crowning of the bride.” 8 Another ancient custom was to tie the bride and groom together with a ribbon as a warning that they must not break the bond of conjugal unity.9 This is still done in some dioceses, only that the stole is used instead of a ribbon. The blessing of the wedding ring, too, is an ancient ceremony. St. Isidore of Sevilla says that “the wedding ring is worn upon the fourth finger because a vein is believed to run from that finger to the heart.” 10 « Cfr. St Ambrose, De Virginitafie, c. 5, n. 26: * Utinotn possem revocare nupturasl Utinam possem Hammenm [. e. rubrum] nuptiaje pro integritatis mutate velaminet * 7 ” Luminum testimonio celebratur castitas nuptiarum.” St. Peter Cbrytologus (+ 45<>), Serrn., 22 (Migne, P. L., UI, 26a). 8 ffTe&vwfjLa, ffTc

CHAPTER IV THE RECIPIENT The contracting parties are not only the ministers, they are also the recipients of the Sacrament. The conditions of valid reception are four: (1) The recipients must be baptized; 1 (2) They must be of different sex.2 (3) There must be no diriment impediment in the way of their marriage ; (4) They must have the intention of doing what the Church does, i. e. contracting a Christian marriage.8 In order that a marriage be licit as well as valid, the Church furthermore requires: (1) Freedom from forbidding impediments (impedimenta prohibentia) ; (2) Compliance with all other ecclesiastical precepts; (3) The state of sanctifying grace.4 The detailed explanation of these requirements belongs to Moral Theology and Canon Law. a) Are all men obliged to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony? 1 V. supra, p. 157. • V . supra, p. t$%. 2 V. supra, p. 140. 4 V. supra, pp. 168 iqq. 217 218 MATRIMONY If Matrimony were necessary for salvation, all men would be obliged to marry, regardless of whether Matrimony were a Sacrament or not. However, no such obligation (praeceptum matrimonii) can be proved either from the law of nature or from the positive divine law. The law of nature obliges a man to do those things, and those only, which are necessary to attain his final end. ,Marriage is not necessary for this purpose, except per accidens, e. g. for those unable to live chastely outside of the married state. But does not the individual owe it to the community in which he lives, to the State, to society, — to marry and beget offspring? The duties we owe to society, we owe to existing society, not to the society of the future. Marriage serves to beget future citizens, towards whom we have no duties because they do not yet exist. True, the State has an interest in marriage because without a sufficient number of marriages the human race would become extinct. But the State has no right to compel any individual to marry in order to forestall such a calamity. Marriage is a matter of the heart, and compulsory legislation would lead to tyranny and rouse popular opposition. Sanchez says : ” Formerly, when men were few, [God] obliged individuals; now that they have multiplied, he merely obliges the State in a general way to compel its subjects to marry in case of necessity.” 5 This assertion is untenable. How could the State make marriage obligatory? It is simply impossible. Nor is anything gained by attributing this right to the law of nature in the abstract. For to say that the obligation of marrying & De Mat rim onto, 1. I, disp. 3, n. turn obligat rempublicam in com3 : ” Olim quum pauci homines erant, muni, ut necessitate occurrente comobligabat [.voluntas Dei] singulos, pellat subditos.” nunc autem Hits multiplicatis tanTHE RECIPIENT 219 does not bind all men, but merely some (a restriction demanded by the inequality in the number of men and women) is equivalent to saying that nobody in particular is obliged to marry, or at most the community at large, which, as such, cannot marry. We may add that a law compelling people to marry would be utterly superfluous. The sexual instinct is so strongly developed in the majority of men, and marriage offers so many advantages, that it is morally impossible that all men should prefer a single life.6 As a matter of fact the face has steadily multiplied from Adam and Eve down to the present day without any law compelling people to marry. b) But how about the positive divine command (Gen. I, 28) : ” Increase and multiply and fill the earth ,r? These words were obviously addressed, not to our first parents alone, but to all their descendants. As an argument for compulsory marriage, however, they prove nothing. Our Lord Himself and St. Paul frequently extol virginity above marriage.7 God would contradict Himself if He recommended the single life to some after imposing the obligation of marriage cm all. Hence if, as some believe, Gen. I, 28 contained a universal command, that command must have lost its obligatory force as soon as the Creator’s purpose in giving it was attained, that is to say, as soon as the earth became peopled with human beings. In matter of fact God’s words to Adam e Cfr. St. Thomas, Sumrna Theol., plentur. Quum ergo ad perfectionem SuppL, qu. 41, art a: ” Ex tali in- kumanae tnultitudinis sit necessarium clinatione non obligator quilibet aliquot contemplative vitae inhomo per modum praecepti; alias servire, quae maxime per matrimoquilibet homo obligaretur ad agri- nium impeditur, inclinatio naturae culturam et aedificatoriam, et ad hu- ad matrimonium non obligat per moiusmodi officio quae sunt necessaria dum praecepti, etiam secundum ph* communitati humanae; sed inclina- I o sop ho s.” tioni naturae satisfit, quum per di- 7 V. supra, pp. 130 tqq, vmu divtrsa di protdictii com* 220 MATRIMONY and Eve were meant as a benediction ; they form part of the general blessing pronounced upon all living creatures. The words ” Increase and multiply ” are on a level with ” subdue the earth and rule over the fishes of the sea,” etc. They embody a vocation, not a command. For our first parents, of course, this vocation involved the duty of marrying, because their failure to do so would have frustrated the express purpose of the Creator. This does not, however, apply to all their descendants. What if the human race were threatened with extinction,— would marriage in that case be obligatory on all? This question is purely theoretical because such an eventuality is not likely to occur. Without attempting an answer, we will simply call attention to St. Augustine’s8 declaration that there would be no universal obligation to marry even if the human race were about to die out, but that even in that case it would be more advisable for men to lead a virginal life in order that the predestined number of the elect might be attained as soon as possible. Readings : — I. Pleyer, De Ministro Sacramenti Matrimonii, 1759. — Th. M. Filser, Debet den A us spender des Ehesakramentes, 1844. — A. Fischer, Der Spender der sakramentalen Gnade bei den unter Christen geschlossenen Ehebundnissen, 1845. — W. Sulercyski, Wer ist Minister bei dem Sakrament der Ehe? 1881. D Bono Coniugali, L X.