A. The bond of marriage was restored by Christ to its original unity and indissolubility.
A. The bond of marriage was restored by Christ to its original unity and indissolubility.
I. Matrimony, or the permanent bond between man and wife for the propagation of the human race, was instituted as the union of one man with one woman.
(a) God in instituting marriage clearly pronounces its unity. It is not good for man to be alone.
Let Us make him a helper like unto himself
(Gen. 2: 18). God created man to His own image; male and female He created them.
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth
(Gen. 1: 27, 28). Afterwards, it is true, when the life
of man had been shortened, God, in order that His chosen people might be multiplied, permitted simultaneous polygamy.
For, although polygamy is less in accordance with the secondary end of marriage – that is, with the mutual help of husband and wife –
yet it cannot be said to be contrary to the primary end – that is, the propagation of the human race; whence it could be permitted by God.
(b) Christ, however, restored marriage to its original unity; for, pointing to its divine institution, He says:
Have ye not read that He who made man in the beginning made them male and female? And they two shall be in one flesh.
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh
(Matt. 19: 4-6).
II. Christ also restored marriage to its original indissolubility.
(a) That marriage was indissoluble in the beginning may be inferred from history, which makes no mention of divorce
till the introduction of the Mosaic Law. But the words of Christ put the matter beyond all doubt. Moses by reason of the hardness of your
hearts permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so
(Matt. 19:8).
(b) Christ abolished the permission of divorce, and thus restored the original indissolubility of the marriage bond. This is manifest from the teaching of Christ Himself and of the Apostles, from tradition, as well as from the definitions of the Church.
1. Christ, speaking of the New Law, says without restriction: Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits
adultery
(Luke 16: 18). Again, the Pharisees asked Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?' But He answered and said to
them, 'What did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses permitted us to write a notice of dismissal, and to put her away.' But Jesus said to them,
'By reason of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that commandment. But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore now they are no
longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.' And in the house, his disciples again asked Him
concerning this. And He said to them, 'Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away
her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery'
(Mark 10: 2-12). Christ makes no exception even when the disciples ask for
further explanation. Nor does the Apostle make any restriction. But to those who are married, not I, but the Lord commands that a wife is not
to depart from her husband, and if she departs, that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not a husband put away
his wife
(1 Cor. 7: 10-11). The exception which Our Lord makes in the case of adultery (Matt. 5: 32) evidently does not refer
to a severance of the bond of matrimony, but only to a separation from bed and board; for in the same place He declares that he who marries a
woman who has been put away – though she may have been put away for adultery – commits adultery, which could not be if the bond of marriage
were entirely loosed in the case of adultery.
2. The Greek as well as the Latin Fathers declare that marriage is indissoluble. St. John Chrysostom †407 (Hom. 17 in Matt.),
commenting on the text, He that shall marry her that is put away commits adultery
(Matt. 5: 32), remarks that the reason is
because she that is put away remains the wife of him who dismissed her.
St. Jerome †420 (Ep. 55 ad Amand.), on being consulted on
the matter, declared that in no case is a second marriage validly contracted as long as the former husband or wife is living, for the obvious
reason that one who marries a divorced person during the lifetime of the other party is an adulterer. The Council of Trent (Sess. 68, can. 5, 7)
declared: If anyone asserts that marriage may be dissolved on account of heresy, or the irksomeness of cohabitation, or the unwarranted absence
of one of the parties; let him be anathema.
Again: If anyone asserts that the Church errs in teaching that, according to the evangelical
and apostolic doctrine, the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of adultery committed by one of the parties, and that both,
or even the innocent party, who gave no cause for the adultery, are free to contract a second marriage during the lifetime of the other;
or that the Church errs in teaching that he who having put away his wife for adultery and marries another woman, or that she who leaves
her husband on account of adultery and marries another man, thereby commit adultery; let him be anathema.
3. What has been said in regard to the indissolubility of the marriage bond refers to marriages contracted and consummated
among Christians. Marriage between (certainly unbaptized) non-Christians may be dissolved in favor of one who is converted to
Christianity and cannot live peaceably with the other non-Christian party. For St. Paul says: If the unbeliever departs, let him depart.
For a brother or sister (converted to Christianity and baptized) is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
(1 Cor. 7: 15). Among Christians also a non-consummated marriage may be dissolved by the solemn profession of one of the parties
in a religious Order approved by the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. 24, can. 6), or by the intervention of the Pope for grave reasons.
A separation from bed an board, however, without dissolution of the marriage tie, is sometimes permitted, but only for very grave
reasons – either by mutual consent, or on account of ill-treatment or crime.
B. Christ raised Christian marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament.
Protestants denied the sacramental character of Matrimony – but unjustly, since Christ gave it all the marks of a Sacrament.
I. He made it an outward sign of inward grace; in the first place by making it a representation of His own union with
the Church. St. Paul says: A husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being Himself Savior of the body.
But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ
also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for Her
(Eph. 5: 22-29). Now, Matrimony could not represent the union of Christ
with the Church, and on this very ground impose special obligations on man and wife, unless it also conferred grace upon them to fulfill
these obligations. Since, therefore, Christ not only restored marriage to its original perfection, but also made it a figure of His union
with the Church, it is, like the other Sacraments, a sign instituted by God, and productive of grace. Therefore St. Paul calls it a great
Sacrament, or mystery, in Christ and in the Church
(Eph. 5: 32).
II. The Church always regarded Matrimony as a sacred sign productive of grace – as a Sacrament. St. Augustine †430
(de nupt. et concup. I c. 10) puts it on the same line with Baptism and Holy Orders. In like manner, Popes Innocent I and Leo I.
The Eastern sects also agree with the Catholic Church on this point. Finally, the Council of Trent (Sess. 24, c. 1) declares:
If anyone assert that Matrimony is not really and truly one of the seven Sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ,
but that it is of human invention; let him be anathema.
Marriage of St. Clotilde with King Clovis in 493, leading to his conversion and that of much of the Frankish people.
The Sacrament of Matrimony consists in the marriage contract itself; so that whenever a Christian man and woman are lawfully united in marriage they receive also the Sacrament of Matrimony; and, on the other hand, if for any reason they should not receive the Sacrament, the contract itself would be null and void. For Christ raised the marriage union to the dignity of a Sacrament; He did not add the character of a Sacrament to it by way of supplement, as something accessory and separable. Hence the Council of Trent calls Matrimony itself – the marriage contract – a Sacrament instituted by Christ, without any distinction between the contract and the Sacrament, and speaks of the contract of marriage as that wherein the Sacrament essentially consists. Since Matrimony is a contract, and since to every contract mutual consent is essential, such consent is also necessary for the validity of marriage. This mutual consent must be manifested by some outward sign – commonly by words; for without an external manifestation there can be no valid contract. The contract must refer to the present, not merely to the future. If it only referred to the future, it would not be a marriage, but only a promise of marriage.
It is held as certain that the minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony is not the priest, but the contracting parties themselves; and that by the very act of the marriage agreement, or mutual consent. For the Church never questioned the validity of clandestine marriages, not contracted before a priest, until the Council of Trent made the presence of the Ordinary, pastor, or a delegated priest, an essential condition of validity – which condition is considered to belong to the form of the Sacrament. The 1918 Code of Canon Law, c. 1094, prescribes that there must also be at least two witnesses present.
The sacramental grace proper to Matrimony consists in a special help given to the spouses to discharge faithfully the duties proper to their state – mutual love and fidelity, and the Christian education of their children.
C. There are certain impediments – also of ecclesiastical institution – which render marriage between certain parties not only illicit, but invalid.
Impediments are causes why certain parties cannot lawfully be joined in Matrimony. Some impediments are merely forbidding (impediment); others are annulling (diriment). The former make the marriage illicit; the latter render it also invalid.
The Church has a right to establish impediments (e.g., disparity of religion – when one of the contracting parties is not baptized),
which not only prohibit but also invalidate certain unions which are prohibited neither by the natural law nor by the positive law of God.
For, marriage being a contract, the legislative authority to whose sphere it belongs can make its validity dependent upon certain conditions.
Now, since Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament, and has confided the administration of the Sacraments to His Church,
She alone has the right to add new conditions to those already prescribed by the natural and the positive law of God, as circumstances may demand.
The Council of Trent (Sess. 24, can. 4) has therefore decreed: If anyone assert that the Church has not the right to establish annulling
impediments, or that it has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.
In order the more easily to discover any possibly existing impediments, the Council of Trent decreed that the names of persons to be married should be published at the principal Mass in the parish Church on three Sundays or holydays preceding the marriage. The Church alone can dispense from those impediments which are of ecclesiastical institution. This power is given to the Church alone as the dispenser of sacred things; and it is only for grave reasons that it makes use of this power.
The Council of Chalcedon (Act 15, can. 14), in the year 451, prohibited marriage with heretics except on condition that the heretical party promised to embrace the Catholic Faith. This prohibition has often been renewed, and the Popes have frequently and urgently called attention to the danger of such unions. And, in fact, the danger is great for the Catholic party who already is, or is likely to become, indifferent in religious matters, as well as for the children, who are exposed to the danger of losing the Faith. Nor is the dignity and sacredness of the Sacrament itself secured against danger; for by non-Catholics marriage is neither regarded as a Sacrament nor as an indissoluble tie. Moreover, there can be little prospect of true happiness between those who differ in religious belief. Hence very grave reasons are required to obtain the necessary dispensation for contracting such a union.
The conditions on which the Church grants a dispensation are: (a) that the Catholic party be allowed the free exercise of his or her religion; (b) that he or she endeavor – by way of conviction – to convert the non-Catholic party to the true Faith; (c) that all the children be brought up in the Catholic religion. The Church, in fact, would not show due solicitude for the spiritual welfare of its children if it did not insist on the fulfillment of these conditions.
Alphabetical Index; Calendar List of Saints
Contact us: smr@salvemariaregina.info
Visit also: www.marienfried.com
