cormacburke.me.ke

Summary: Sacramentality: an element or property of marriage? - Baptism: the basis for the sacramentality of marriage - The rite of sacramental marriage - Ministers and recipients - The intention required - The intention of doing what the Church does/intends - The importance of faith - Faith and fruit - The 1977 documents of the International Theological Commission - Separability - Conclusion

                       --------------

     There are many people in the Church today whose faith is extremely weak or apparently non-existent. Some still formally classify themselves as Catholics, though their religious practice is very deficient by what might be described as traditional standards. They seldom receive the sacraments, they attend Church sporadically, they certainly are not regular "Sunday-Mass-goers". Others, who were also baptized in the Church, do not practice at all, and tend in fact to describe themselves as "non-believers".

     Particular problems arise when, despite their situation, such people wish to marry "in Church". Familiaris Consortio (no. 68) gives criteria as to when they should or should not be allowed a religious marriage. The problems involved are essentially pastoral, and a proper (and hopefully adequate) solution in each case must depend on the pastor's discernment and prudence.

     The pastoral analysis and handling of the case becomes much more difficult, however, if it is not accompanied by a correct theological understanding of the sacramentality of marriage, and in particular of the necessity or otherwise of a conscious and active faith for the valid reception of the sacrament. The purpose of the present article is to offer some considerations which seem fundamental for a due examination of the question.

Sacramentality: an element or property of marriage?

     Sacramentality denotes the supernatural power which, by the will of Christ, accompanies certain human actions or material substances: the singular way in which divine grace works through particular natural realities, incorporating them, temporarily or permanently, into a new order; instrumentalizing them (more than changing them) for supernatural purposes. Sacramentality therefore cannot properly be said to be an element (or property or accident) of water in Baptism, of chrism in Confirmation or of the imposition of hands in Order. It is rather an efficacy permeating these natural substances or actions, by which they become instruments of Christ's operation and productive of divine effects. The sacramental and non-sacramental use of these realities are of course clearly distinguished. Water or oil do not become "intrinsically" sacramental for the Christian, for he or she can also use them for a natural purpose, without any sacramental effect or significance.

     The Eucharist is unique among the sacraments, inasmuch as the natural realities of bread and wine used as "matter", are not just endowed with supernatural efficacy "in usu", but are actually changed. Nothing of the former natural reality remains except the appearances: the substance has become totally other. Matrimony is closer to the Eucharist and differs from the other sacraments, in that the sacrament consists not in a passing action but in a resulting reality [1] that is permanently sacramentalized. As against this, while sacramentalized, it is not substantially changed; and in this way it differs fundamentally from the Eucharist. While in the case of the Eucharist the natural substance does not remain, in the case of marriage, it does - as a natural reality endowed with supernatural signification and efficacy.

     Nevertheless, as applied to marriage, sacramentality escapes easy classification. Certain writers seem at times to refer to as if it were a "component" of matrimony, some sort of "spiritual thing" added to marriage to make it christian... It is not that. Nor is it an element or property [2], however essential, of matrimony. It is rather a supernatural force that permeates and vivifies each and every one of the natural elements and properties of marriage, raising them to the order of supernatural meaning and efficacy. It coincides with marriage itself, which by the fact of Baptism has been inserted into the economy of salvation [3]. As Giacchi says, it simply signifies the supernatural viewpoint from which marriage is to be considered [4].

     Sacramentality refers to the special ontological configuration of the marriage between two baptized persons. While in the case of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, into a sacramental reality, it is not really accurate to say that matrimony "becomes" a sacrament, or is "changed" into a sacrament. Again, one does not speak of bread and wine being "raised" to sacramental dignity or efficacy. Yet that is exactly what one says of marriage; and in being raised to the dignity of a sacrament, it becomes operative on a new level.

     In the Eucharist, nothing remains of the natural reality of the bread and wine except the appearance. The reality is no longer what it seems: what appears on the outside, is no more than the "sign". In matrimony, on the contrary, the natural reality - the marital bond or relationship - remains intact; but it is endowed with grace and a new significance, none of which appear on the outside.

     It is perhaps more important than it might seem to avoid saying that the matrimonial covenant "becomes" a sacrament, for this appears to imply that, in the case of each marriage that is sacramentally celebrated, a "passage" occurs from one reality to another (as in the case of the Eucharist). If this were so, then one can begin to hypothesize about what "remains" when sacramentality is excluded. And it becomes possible to suggest that, just as there can be a non-sacramental eucharist where the bread and wine remain in their natural reality, so there can be a marriage between Christians that is complete in its natural reality even though sacramentality has been excluded. A point to which we will of course return.

Baptism: the basis for the sacramentality of marriage

     Behind the sacramentality of each sacrament always stands the will of Christ, wishing to incorporate man and his life into the supernatural order. Baptism is the gate to the other sacraments. Those baptized are "in" Christ; their lives henceforth bear this ineffaceable stamp or character - that of a son or daughter of God. Now, Baptism is not just the gate to matrimony as a sacrament, it is also its key in the sense that, given the positive institutional will of Christ, Baptism causes marriage to be sacramental.

     If Christians marry sacramentally, this is in virtue of their being "in Christ" through Baptism. "By means of baptism, man and woman are definitively placed within the new and eternal covenant, in the spousal covenant of Christ with the Church. And it is because of this indestructible insertion that the intimate community of conjugal life and love, founded by the Creator, is elevated and assumed into the spousal charity of Christ, sustained and enriched by his redeeming power" (Familiaris Consortio, no. 13).

     It is not simply the expression of marital consent (which in no way differs from the expression of consent to natural marriage), but the fact that the consent is expressed by baptized persons, that brings about the sacrament. We are moving here on the level not of juridical effects, but of ontological realities.

     Baptism gives a person a new ontological relationship with God. Marriage gives a man and a woman a new human relationship to each other. If they freely choose to establish this relationship between themselves, it is also affected by their already existing ontological relation with God. What occurs here eludes the power of their will. In fact the only way that two Christians who truly marry, could exclude sacramentality, would be by ceasing to be Christians; but this does not lie in their power [5]. The human will, which is not omnipotent, does not have the power to change the order of being established by Christ, but must work within it.

The rite of sacramental marriage

     The old axiom that 'God produces grace by means of the sacramental rite' needs to be properly understood in its application to marriage. The "sacramental rite" of matrimony does not refer to any liturgical ceremony or religious setting or church celebration. The sacramental rite is simply the valid exchange of consent between two Christians: their Yes to accepting each other as husband and wife, in mutual conjugal self-donation. Valid christian marital consent is therefore always a sacramental rite, although no external "religious" ceremony is performed [6].

     It is in virtue of their Baptism, as we have noted, that two Christians marry "in Christ". To marry in Christ is to marry "in the Church". From the theological viewpoint therefore, one can never say that a valid marriage between two Christians, no matter how effected, is a 'private' contract. Christian matrimony is always a "Church event", and therefore, theologically considered, public. Marriage between Christians is always celebrated "in the Church", even if it is not celebrated "in church" or "in a church" (If one says that the requirement of canonical form has the effect of making the marriage a public event, one is speaking in ecclesio-sociological terms, but not theologically).

     Before the Council of Trent, when clandestine marriages were frequent and valid, many people entering such marriages had probably no sense or intention of performing a religious rite; theirs were nevertheless true sacramental marriages (cf. St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 28, q. unica, art. 3; Bellarmine: De Sacramento Matrimonii., cap. 6). In modern times, getting married "in Church" has become such a frequent phrase, that spouses may easily be convinced that the religious rite is the sacrament. Here we could add that the attitude of many non-practicing or "non-believing" baptized persons is that they simply do not care whether their marriage is a sacrament or not; but they do have objections to a "Church celebration". This is what they dislike having "imposed" on them. It is the "Church-going" that causes difficulty: in the sense either of the "hypocrisy" which some of these non-believers may read into what is asked of them, or of the "scandal" which some believers may take when they see notorious non-practicers "wedding in Church".

     That is why the expression "religious marriage" needs to be used with circumspection. Every valid marriage between Christians has full religious value, in that it involves "marrying in Christ". The marriage of two Protestants who exchange consent before a civil Registrar is a religious marriage and a sacrament. Hence, while one can draw a contrast between "christian" and "natural" marriage, one cannot in all propriety do so between "religious" and "civil" marriage; nor is "religious" and "sacramental" marriage necessarily the same thing. Common parlance may understandably fall into looseness of expression in these points, but theological or canonical discourse should avoid it.

     To suggest that, without the presence of witnesses, "there is no sacrament" because there is no "essential reference to the Church", is to mistake the theological nature of marriage [7]. I therefore cannot agree that "the presence of the priest and of the community in the celebration of marriage is the expression and the cause of the very presence and action of Christ" (on the ground that while the spouses are ministers, they are not such "independently of the apostolic function that links them to the risen Savior, nor separate from the fraternity into which they have been incorporated") [8]. To posit the presence of the christian community - represented at least by the witnesses and by the officiating priest - as necessary so as to achieve the "complete sacramental structure" of matrimony, is an attempt to build a theological thesis on a purely accidental juridic foundation.

     In short, then, with regard to marriage of Christians, one must distinguish between canonical (or liturgical) form, and sacramental form. The sacramental form is the same as in natural marriage (the expression of consent (cf. St. Thomas, In IV Sent., d. 26, q. 2, art. 1 ad 1)); and so is the essential rite (matter and form combined). Bellarmine dwells on Melchor Cano's error in this respect, which was precisely to claim that "if matrimony is truly a sacrament, then, besides the civil contract, it should have some sacred form, as well as an ecclesiastical minister" ("si matrimonium revera sacramentum est, oportet illud praeter civilem contractum habere formam aliquam sacram, et ministrum ecclesiasticum": op. cit. cap. 8).

     It is important to remember that the question of canonical form is completely irrelevant to the theological consideration of marriage and concretely of its sacramentality. Much of the confusion over this matter which has been generated in the past few decades must be attributed to theologians allowing the question of form to be invoked, or invoking it, as if it had theological relevance.

     At times it is suggested that the Church should drop completely the requirement of canonical form, and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. While there are significant difficulties to this suggestion [9], it is important to remember that they are simply of a socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages so celebrated would be sacramental, just as much as those celebrated "in church". More accurately, to insist on what we have said, they too - in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense - would be celebrated "in Church".

     While the Church has competence over the form or social expression of matrimony, the concrete way chosen to exercise this competence is a canonical-legal issue, which leaves untouched the theological principle that it is not any Church intervention, but the ontological status of baptized persons that makes every valid marriage between Christians sacramental. Careless thinking here leads to proposals which run into insuperable theological difficulties, as in the not infrequently made suggestion that those baptized persons who do not want a sacramental marriage should be allowed to contract a valid (canonical or purely civil) non-sacramental marriage; which, if they so wished and if they had developed the appropriate dispositions of faith, etc., could later - through a liturgical celebration - acquire the deeper sacramental dimension.

Ministers and recipients

     Certain canonists and churchmen have consistently and energetically defended the Church's right to "marry Christians". Theologically speaking, of course, the expression is inexact. The Church does not really marry or join its members in marriage; it is they who marry one another. Again, while spouses tend psychologically to consider themselves simply as recipients of marriage, the theological fact is that they are both ministers and recipients.

     In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it has been generally held that the essence of matrimony consists in the "crowning" or "nuptial blessing", and therefore the priest is the real minister of the sacrament. The Catholic Church, in contrast to the Eastern position, has been constant in teaching that the spouses are the ministers [10]. Modern efforts to show that the priest's intervention is essential, while no doubt moved by a laudable ecumenical desire, have produced no real theological basis for the thesis. It should be added that these efforts represent in effect an attempt to clericalize what is in practice an essentially lay administered sacrament.

     While in pre-conciliar times matrimonial consent was given in the form of a reply to a question put by the priest, it is noteworthy that this question-and-answer form has been replaced in the 1969 Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium by a simple declaration of acceptance ("Ego accipio te..."), made by one spouse to the other. This is obviously intended to put clearer theological emphasis on the role of the spouses (cf. Barberi, op. cit. p. 206).

The intention required

     A particular and striking difference between marriage and other sacraments should be noted. In other sacraments (apart from the Baptism of infants), a specific sacramental intention is needed for their reception. In matrimony, the intention of receiving the sacrament is not required; it is enough if one intends the natural reality. Not even a religious intention is needed: simply the intention to marry. If this is the parties' intention, they receive what they intended - raised (perhaps without their realizing) to the sacramental and supernatural level: enriched and transformed by grace.

      What is needed is not a sacramental intention - not even implicitly [11] - but a matrimonial intention. Regarding marriage itself, then, the parties must have full personal intention to marry; regarding sacramentality, no further intention is required of them.

     These statements tend to provoke difficulties of course, but I would suggest that they are of a psychological, not a theological, nature. Is it so hard (as some seem to find it) to accept that the simple human act of consent to marriage can be so radically transformed by the "mere" fact of a person having been baptized (cf. Barberi, op. cit. p. 312)? The clear ontological root of this transformation is to be found in the constituent christian sacrament of Baptism. No person is the same in any of his acts once he has received the baptismal character, and so comes to "be in Christ". The problem here - apart from an underevaluation of the effects of Baptism itself - would appear to be one of confusing the ontological and the psychological planes, reality and intentionality.

The intention of doing what the Church does/intends

     The Council of Trent defined that, for the validity of a sacrament, the minister conferring it must have the intention of doing what the Church does (Sess. VII, can. 11; Denz. 854). This dogmatic principle has been invoked in some recent studies, as if it applied to matrimony in an identical way to the other sacraments. Proper consideration of this aspect of our subject is not possible unless it is realized that this is not so. The reason is both clear and striking: the Church, as such, "does" nothing in the conferral of the sacrament of matrimony.

     The Church has legislated on a series of points that affect the valid celebration of marriage. But these dispositions of positive ecclesiastical law do not take from the fact that, by divine law, matrimony is the one sacrament in which the Church, as such, has nothing to do, for its confection. The Church does not really "celebrate" the sacrament of matrimony. It provides no distinctive liturgical or ecclesiastical ceremony that is, per se, theologically essential to the sacrament.

     We repeat: there is no church rite that converts marriage into a sacrament; a valid marriage between Christians is a sacrament, with or without the Church's intervention. The Church has never made any particular religious rite a condition of validity; it simply requires (as does the civil authority) that marriage be contracted according to certain formalities designed to establish externally the fact of mutual consent; but these formalities need not necessarily include any specifically religious rite whatsoever (cf. canon 1116). It is for social or community reasons that the Church has made its action in "receiving" the consent of the spouses a requirement for validity, but the significance of this measure is purely disciplinary, not theological.

     This can be further analysed. The practical application of the principle, "doing what the Church does", is that the minister must have the internal will of fulfilling the external sacramental rite prescribed by the Church. What is the distinctive external sacramental rite of matrimony prescribed by the Church? There is none. The religious rite that Catholics usually follow when marrying is simply the canonical form which, under present discipline, is required for validity. But that is not the sacramental rite (which, as we have seen, is simply the valid exchange of consent between the spouses). Consequently, the principle of "doing what the Church does" is either inapplicable to the sacrament of matrimony, or else - due to the particular nature of this sacrament - must be understood in a very different way to how it applies in the case of the other sacraments.

     Nothing is "done" by the Church to "confect" the sacrament of marriage; all is done by the spouses. If we wish, we can say that in the moment of matrimonial consent, the spouses are the Church... Insofar as "a presence" of the Church is necessary for the confection of the sacraments, this presence - in the case of marriage - is supplied by the spouses and not by the priest. That is why statements like the following seem basically flawed: "The canonical-liturgical form required at present for the sacrament-sign, causes the marital consent expressed in this context to objectively have the meaning indicated by the economy of salvation, that is, the meaning of the sacramental sign" (Barberi, op. cit. p. 429). The canonical form currently required for the validity of marriage is something introduced by positive ecclesiastical law; it is theologically unacceptable to see in it the cause or explanation of the sacramental sign.

     A passage from Familiaris Consortio could well be noted here. "When in spite of all efforts, engaged couples show that they reject explicitly and formally what the Church intends when the marriage of baptized persons is celebrated, the pastor of souls cannot admit them to the celebration of marriage" ("Cum... nuptias facturi aperte et expresse id quod Ecclesia intendit, cum matrimonium baptizatorum celebratur, se respuere fatentur" (n. 68); AAS 74 (1982) 165).

     Here the Pope does not use the phrase "what the Church does" ("quod facit Ecclesia"); he speaks of what it intends ("quod Ecclesia intendit"). This indeed seems the only accurate way to refer to the matter in relation to matrimony. While the Church "does" nothing in this sacrament, it (insofar as it is present or aware of a marriage taking place) no doubt intends something - that two Christians marry. It intends, in other words, a marriage between two persons who are "in Christ". The question then is: do the spouses intend what the Church intends? Do the spouses intend to marry in Christ? If they intend to marry, they do, because - in virtue of their Baptism - they are in Christ. They intend what the Church intends [12] (just as the Church intends what they intend), and so they have a sufficient sacramental intention [13]. It would not be accurate to say that the Church wants them to be married "as" Christians, for they are Christians. Though one could say the Church wants them to be married, so as to receive help to be better Christians.

     Contrary to Barberi (op. cit. p. 431), therefore, I consider that the person marrying does not have to "do" what the Church does (the Church, I repeat, "does" nothing), but does have to intend what the Church intends: i.e. a valid marriage between two persons who are baptized.

     It is important to distinguish what the Church intends in matrimony from the theological significance it reads into it. It is required that the spouses intend what they Church intends; it cannot reasonably be required, for validity, that they have a full theological understanding of all that the Church reads into the sign value of matrimony. It would be unreasonable to make a grasp of the Church's theological understanding of matrimony a condition for the valid reception of the sacrament [14]. What is asked of the contractants is simply an intention. However desirable it may be that this intention be theologically informed and consciously sacramental, this is not required for validity. For validity, the intention required is simply the intention to marry on the natural plane.

     In order to bring about a sacramental marriage, then, just two elements are needed: Baptism and what establishes marriage, i.e. a natural matrimonial intention. Given genuine intention and capacity, it is the fact of Baptism that sacramentalizes matrimony. To the question therefore whether there can be a valid marriage between Christians which is not sacramental, the answer is No, because (to repeat the fundamental reason) sacramentality simply means the special ontological configuration of the marriage of those who are baptized. The dignity of sacramentality is of the essence of marriage between Christians (cf. Denz. 1766; 1773).

The importance of faith

     In recent years, there has been a revival and development of a thesis according to which the sacramentalization of marriage depends not on the objective factor of Baptism but on the subjective personal faith of the contractants: i.e. if they lack faith, they do not and cannot validly receive sacramental matrimony. In other words - and this is presented as a theological principle - actively and consciously held faith is necessary for marriage to be sacramental [15]. Is this principle theologically sound?

     It is obvious that conscious and active faith is necessary, if a particular marriage is to be fully fruitful, in all of its possibilities for the christian maturing of spouses and children. The point at issue, however, is not fruitfulness but validity: i.e. whether some degree of active faith is necessary for the valid reception of the sacrament.

     It is important here not to confuse "faith" and "intention". A very specific intention is required, in order to receive the sacrament (but this, we repeat, is a marital intention, and not necessarily a sacramental intention). Faith in the sacrament however is not required for its valid reception. I can see no theological grounds to support the thesis that the absence of personally professed faith impedes the valid sacramental reception of matrimony. Protestants, after all, who do not believe matrimony is a sacrament, nevertheless receive the sacrament when they marry.

     The matrimony of those who lack faith poses pastoral but not theological problems. In 1970 the French Episcopal Committee for the Family, noting, "lack of faith does not affect the validity of the sacrament", added: "the total absence of faith in those marrying undermines the authenticity of their step in the actual celebration of marriage" (cf. Barberi, op. cit. p. 359). This is a fair expression of the problem. It is pastorally important to help Christians have a personally coherent - "authentic" - approach to the religious celebration of marriage; but even if this is not achieved, their lack of faith does not affect the sacramental validity of their marriage.

     The thesis that lack of conscious faith invalidates the matrimony of baptized persons poses formidable doctrinal difficulties which - I feel - have been brushed over rather than resolved. Our considerations so far highlight one of these difficulties: the effective denial or at least ignoring of the ontological consequences of Baptism for the person. The same can be said for the existence of faith as a habit or infused virtue (cf. Wood: op. cit., p. 294). The practical difficulties facing the thesis are no less considerable.

     How can one gauge the "quantity" of faith required [16]? How can one quantify faith? Is it an absolute loss of faith that alone impedes sacramentality: i.e. is a person's marriage sacramental if he or she retains a "minimum" of faith? One can suffer degrees of loss of faith. How can one calculate when such a loss becomes total, so that not the least "vestigium" is left?

     Determining the minimum of faith required is not the only difficulty. One would have further to specify what type of faith is necessary for validity: christological faith, which admits the divinity of Christ?; ecclesial faith which accepts the institution and authority of the Church?; sacramental faith?; or just matrimonial faith, which accepts the nature of marriage as proposed by the Church? Then one would have to decide whether the required faith is to be explicit or implicit, etc. (cf. Baudot, op. cit., pp. 362-363)

     The practical difficulties do not end here. Who excludes a non-practicing Christian from marriage in Church? Who is to be assigned the invidious task of "classifying" Catholics according to the "acceptability" or otherwise of their degree of faith, deciding that a person does not have faith, or has not "enough" faith? Some priests would be more liberal in this task, others more conservative. The danger of discrimination (cf. Familiaris Consortio, no. 68, par. 6) and of violation of the fundamental right to marry is obvious, as is the risk of fostering "elitism".

     Here I would add that the suggested exclusion of "infideles baptizatos" from the broad category of "Christifideles" [17] seems to me not only theologically unacceptable, but also to run a grave danger of elitism. The Second Vatican Council, in broad but specific terms, described "Christifideles" as those who are "Christo per baptismum incorporati" (Ad Gentes, 15). It is not the Catholic faith, but the fact of Baptism, that constitutes a person a member of the People of God. Working from this fact, various degrees of incorporation into Christ and his Church can be distinguished (cf. Lumen Gentium, 14ss; Code of Canon Law, cc. 204-205). What degree of incorporation are we demanding? Are only those "perfectly" incorporated into Christ to be included?

Faith and fruit

     It is not theologically certain that all the sacraments require conscious faith (Baptism of infants does not); but it is certain that they all foster it. It is arguably those with weak faith who stand in most need of the graces deriving from the sacrament of marriage. The task of pastors is to instruct them so that they understand the power of these graces; and it would show unreasonable pastoral impatience to expect such a task to be completed in the few weeks that pre-marriage instruction normally covers. A marriage "in church" may mark the beginning of a long and fruitful process of catechising those who are notoriously weak in faith, and may also ensure the possibility of the catholic education of their children. Refusal of a "church marriage" may preclude both. Is there not a certain (unconsciously) penal character to the thesis that baptized nonbelievers cannot enter a valid sacramental marriage? It leaves people deprived of divine resources for turning towards Christ (cf. Familiaris Consortio, no. 68, par. 5).

     It has been suggested that married people without faith cannot signify the union of Christ and the Church. But this is to confuse sign and testimony. Every christian marriage signifies the Christ-Church relationship, even though some couples fail to testify to a loving and faithful union. But this failure cannot be taken as an invalidating defect in the sacrament; it is simply a failure to respond to sacramental grace.

     When one reads that "the lack of faith is an obstacle to the assumption of the commitments of marriage deriving from the fact of the sacrament" (S. GHERRO, Diritto matrimoniale canonico, Padua, 1985, p. 237), one asks what are these "commitments" beyond those of non-sacramental marriage? One readily admits that the lack of faith is an obstacle to truly grace-assisted fulfilment of duties, but not to their assumption. Here once again there is perhaps an unconscious passage from the ascetical-pastoral to the theological-juridical sphere, as well as an idea that lack of faith can be taken as a safeguard against having to assume duties, and not seen as a hindrance to the reception of benefits.

     Absence of faith may hinder the fruitful reception of the sacrament (i.e. the fruitful operation of sacramental grace, within marriage "in facto esse"); but does not hinder the actual reception of the sacrament, in the moment of consent (marriage "in fieri"). A failure to note this distinction can facilitate equivocal statements such as characterize the following passage: "The profound unity between the human reality and its sacramentality in the case of baptized partners is not realized in the absence of faith. While remaining ordered to a sacramental state by the baptismal character, their unbelief prevents the actualization of this state" [18].

     Even as regards the fruitfulness of the sacrament of marriage, it is by no means certain that lack of faith absolutely impedes a baptized person from achieving that fruitfulness. Sacramentality offers him an extra strength, of supernatural efficacy (of which he may be unaware), to live a more dedicated love for his partner and children. The lack of faith of two Protestants who marry does not necessarily prevent them from receiving the sacramental graces of their matrimony.

     Those who advocate a non-sacramental valid marriage for Catholics, seem to pass lightly over the fact that the sacramentality of matrimony confers graces - advantages - even on those unaware of them. This explains the repeated directives of the Holy See, under the old Code, insisting that while every effort must be made to instruct those who are ignorant of Catholic doctrine, spouses who refuse this instruction should not be denied the celebration of marriage [19].

     If the whole conjugal covenant between the spouses becomes a source of grace, then Christian spouses are always "in" a sacramental state, even if one or other, or both, are not personally in a "state of grace". The grace of matrimony makes it easier for them in fact to "return" to a state of grace if they have lost it. It would also seem to follow that those Christians with little or apparently no faith, who contract sacramental marriage, will have more grace for the finding or restoration of their faith than if they had entered a non-sacramental union. The sacramental state of marriage reconfirms or relocates people "in" Christ, even if they are unaware of the nature and extent of this benefit. Pastors need to overcome the tendency to look on and analyse sociologically what is essentially a theological reality, a "great mystery in Christ", where the power of the redemption is always - however hiddenly - at work.

     The ecumenical implications of all of this need to be carefully weighed. If it became accepted Catholic doctrine that active faith and/or a positive sacramental intention are needed for the valid reception of matrimony, then the vast majority of the marriages of our separated brethren would have to be held invalid by the Catholic Church (cf. Familiaris Consortio, no. 68, par. 6).

The 1977 documents of the International Theological Commission

     A reference should not be omitted to the two documents which the International Theological Commission published in 1977: "The sacramentality of christian marriage" and "Foedus matrimoniale" (Enchiridion Vaticanum, VI, EDB, 1983, pp. 352-397). There the traditional doctrine on the inseparability of covenant and sacrament is clearly presented in passages such as the following: "As between two baptized persons, matrimony, as an institution willed by God the Creator, cannot be separated from marriage as a sacrament, since sacramentality does not constitute an accidental element of marriage between the baptized (which might or might not be present in it), but is so bound to its essence that it cannot be separated from it" (p. 385, no. 495). "For the Church, as between two baptized persons, there exists no natural marriage separate from the sacrament, but only a natural marriage raised to the dignity of sacrament" (p. 389, no. 498).

     However there are other less clear passages, which are at times quoted in support of the view that conscious and active faith is essential to the validity of sacramental marriage, or that the possibility of a valid non-sacramental union should be allowed for Christians. It is stated, for instance, that the matrimonial covenant "becomes a sacrament only if the future spouses agree to enter conjugal life by passing through Christ to whom they are incorporated through Baptism. Their free adhesion to the mystery of Christ is so essential to the nature of the sacrament that the Church wishes, by means of the ministry of the priest, to be assured of the christian authenticity of their commitment. The human conjugal covenant therefore does not become a sacrament in virtue of a juridic statute that would be efficacious of itself independently of any freely given adhesion to Baptism. It becomes such in virtue rather of the publicly christian character which their mutual commitment intimately implies" (p. 363, no. 471).

     These statements can scarcely be called a model of clarity. What is meant by this "passing through Christ", which (so it seems to be implied) was not effected by their being incorporated into Him by Baptism? The spouses have already passed "through" Christ, and are ontologically in Him, in virtue of their Baptism; that is the reason why they marry in Christ. No theological reasons are given to support or explain the suggestion that some further "passing through Christ" is necessary, in order that their matrimony may "become" a sacrament.

     One is puzzled by the imprecision of the expression "so essential..." (essentiality does not admit of degrees; something is essential or else it is not). Presumably the sense is that "adhesion to mystery of Christ" is important to the fruitfulness of the sacrament (rather than essential to its constitution); a point we agree with, but which should have been stated more precisely [20].

     Regarding the priest's intervention - which is simply that of a qualified witness - it is doubtful that it can properly be called a "ministry". We would further note that what the Church wishes to ensure through the priest's or other qualified witness's presence, rather than (the very woolly idea of) the "christian authenticity of the spouses' commitment", is their intention of exchanging genuine matrimonial consent. Therefore, as the Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium states, the priest questions the spouses about "their freedom, their intention of mutual fidelity and of accepting and educating offspring" (Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium, cap. I, no. 24). Contrary to what the Commission seems to suggest, no questions relating to "free adhesion to the mystery of Christ" are to be found in the Ordo.

     The second document states: "In the last analysis, true intention is born of living faith and nourished by it. Therefore where there is no trace of faith as such, the practical doubt arises whether or not there exists the aforesaid general and truly sacramental intention, and whether the marriage contracted is valid or not. As pointed out, the personal faith of the contracting parties does not of itself constitute the sacramentality of marriage; but in the total absence of personal faith, the very validity of the sacrament would be undermined" (p. 383, no. 492).

     Once more we must note the imprecision of language. What is a "trace of faith"? What is the unacceptable minimum? When does faith become utterly extinguished? Besides, while some take the last phrase (that in the total absence of faith, the very validity of the sacrament "would be undermined") as the conclusion of the passage, one must ask what sure conclusion can be drawn from a doubt ("the doubt arises..."). The text in fact continues: "This gives rise to new problems for which a satisfactory solution has not yet been found, and imposes grave pastoral responsibilities regarding christian marriage". Theological and pastoral considerations are mixed together in these documents. The theological opinions rather obscurely put forward [21] have received no support from subsequent magisterium; the clear pastoral concerns expressed have been dealt with in detail by Pope John Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio.

     The International Theological Commission is an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not in any way an organ of the Magisterium. Since it is composed of papally appointed theologians, its views should be studied with particular attention. It is clear however that they carry no more weight than their intrinsic worth. The intrinsic theological worth of the documents referred to here (also in view of their many internal ambiguities or contradictions) is questionable. For the purpose of the subject under discussion, it is evident that they carry no magisterial authority.

Separability

     According to the theory of "separability", marriage can in certain cases exist as a valid natural alliance or contract between Christians, without its being a sacrament. The theory rests on the view mentioned earlier: that if a couple lack faith, they do not and cannot validly receive sacramental matrimony. Out of respect for their human rights, the thesis goes on, it should be acknowledged that in such a case, despite their Baptism, they can and do receive valid marriage in its natural entity "alone"; in other words such persons, according to their circumstances, can validly receive either a sacramental marriage or else a simple "natural" marriage. The theory is frequently proposed today, although it so far remains out of harmony with official Church teaching [22].

     In passing I would confess to not being very happy with the use of the term "contract" in discussing this subject (as if it were tied up necessarily with "contractualist" theories of marriage). The more precise expression of the issue is whether marriage itself is divisible into two realities for Christians: a valid, natural, non-sacramental marriage, on the one hand, and a sacramental marriage, on the other. More importantly, I find that "separability" (or "inseparability") is an inappropriate working term. It suggests two elements or "components" of christian marriage, whereas in fact, as we have tried to show, there is simply one indivisible reality. One can indeed debate whether the reality of marriage exists inside or outside the sacramental order; but the solution of this question depends not on constitutional principles of marriage but on the ontological condition of the spouses.

     The separability theory would grant the person marrying the power to dissect christian marriage: to separate and exclude its specific christian aspect (which is its sacramentality), while retaining its valid natural aspect. This is a power which he or she does not have - any more than a person has the power to "separate" Christ from the consecrated Host. "I will receive the host as a memorial meal; but I will not receive the true Body and Blood of Christ"... But you do.

     According to the Church's understanding, if a person goes through the actions of any other sacrament but excludes the supernatural efficacy which the Church sees in it, the sacramental aspect is lost but the natural aspect remains. If the minister of Baptism excludes the intention of conferring a sacrament, no sacrament is in fact conferred, but the natural action of pouring water - a natural ablution - remains. Is it not logical to say that the same can happen in the case of marriage: i.e. that a person can simply contract marriage in its natural sense, while excluding the supernatural significance the Church attaches to it? If the answer once again is No, it is for a reason which underlines the uniqueness of matrimony among the sacraments, and explains why the analogy does not hold. Our Lord did not will that every ablution of Christians be a sacrament; but this is exactly what He did will of every marriage between Christians (cf. Palazzini, op. cit., p. 756). Sacramentality is a consequence not of their will, but of their condition as Christians incorporated into the economy of salvation.

     Here we could refer to the rather striking conclusion of an article by Michael Lawler already referred to (a conclusion which, he says, "is evident and needs no further elaboration"): that "If the marriages of nonbelievers, including baptized nonbelievers, are nonsacramental, then they are also dissoluble according to the norms of canon 1143" (op. cit., p. 731). Since the dissolution of a marriage, under c. 1143, requires as a sine qua non condition that the marriage be between two non-baptized persons, it is not clear how one would elaborate this conclusion in reference to our subject. Surely Susan Wood is right when she states that the proponents of a possible non-sacramental valid marriage for baptized nonbelievers also insist that it would be indissoluble (Wood: op. cit. pp. 295-296). The common theological opinion has been that the marriage of a baptized person to one non-baptized is not sacramental. Yet such marriages (entered by the Catholic party with a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult) are considered no less indissoluble than a marriage between two Catholics.

Conclusion

     To my mind, certain views advanced in the "separability" debate show not only a defective appreciation of the beauty, dignity and purpose of the sacrament of marriage itself, but (perhaps paradoxically) also a devalued concept of marriage considered on the natural level as well.

     One notes a tendency to see the properties of the conjugal covenant (procreativity, exclusiveness, permanence) in a negative rather than a positive light. In this context, I feel that certain pastoral and canonical views of marriage have become hampered by a one-sided understanding of these properties, emphasizing the obligations they involve rather than the basic goodness they represent. We need a revived appreciation of St. Augustine's view of these aspects of marriage as "bona" - good things - that mark its dignity and endow it with a noble attractiveness (see the author's Covenanted Happiness, Ignatius Press, 1990, pp. 42ss). There is a basic pessimism in any assumption that human nature is more afraid of, than attracted by, the commitment aspect of the marital covenant. Since the permanence of the marriage bond is particularly disesteemed today, an anthropological analysis of how indissolubility corresponds to the "for-ever" aspiration of human love is specially called for. But a deep reappraisal of the human attractiveness of the fruitful, one-spouse aspects (procreativity and exclusiveness) of the marital covenant also needs to be undertaken.

     There would seem to be the idea too that natural marriage involves people in a lesser commitment than christian marriage; that it is less demanding, or that its demands are more easily ignored or dispensed with. But natural marriage, we repeat, is in fact as much of a commitment as christian marriage. The difference is that it is not as enriched. It does not confer the same strength or receive the same help from above, to achieve in practice the happiness it promises.

     Sacramentality is an expression of God's largesse, not of his exigence. It is something that strengthens, remedies, and enriches. In this respect, it imposes no peculiar obligation over and above natural marriage, other perhaps than one of particular gratitude - for the unique gifts which it bestows.

NOTES

[1] i.e. the bond. Some thinkers would apply sacramentality to the moment of consent alone. According to St. Thomas, not just matrimonial consent, but the bond established by it, is the sacrament of matrimony: "actus exteriores et verba exprimentia consensum directe faciunt nexum quendam, qui est sacramentum matrimonii" (Suppl. q. 42, art. 3 ad 2).

[2] in the Encyclical Arcanum, Leo XIII taught it is false to hold "esse Sacramentum decus quoddam adiunctum, aut proprietatem allapsam extrinsecus, quae a contractu disiungi ac disparari hominum arbitratu queat" (ASS, XII, p. 394).

[3] "it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Sacrament is not an accidental quality added to the contract, but is essential to matrimony itself" (Letter of Pius IX to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852: in "Acta SS.D.N. Pii PP. IX ex quibus excerptus est Syllabus", Rome 1865, p. 105).

[4] "The sacramental dignity to which Christ raised the marriage contract is not an element of the matrimonial institution, to be considered on a par with unity, perpetuity, etc. It is rather the supernatural consideration of marriage, the viewpoint from which it is to be regarded on the supernatural plane". O. GIACCHI: Il Consenso nel Matrimonio Canonico, Milan, 1950, p. 69.

[5] cf. T. RINCÓN PÉREZ: "Fe y sacramentalidad del matrimonio", in AA.VV. Cuestiones fundamentales sobre matrimonio y familia, Pamplona, 1980, p. 193.

[6] Bellarmine, commenting the teaching of Trent (Session XXIV: Denz. 970), makes the point that the difference between matrimony in the Old and in the New Testament lies not in the rite (which in essence remains the same), but in the simple fact that matrimony in the New Testament is a cause of grace, and in the Old Testament was not. "Concilium non agnoscit differentiam inter Matrimonia veterum, sive ante peccatum sive post peccatum Adae, et Matrimonium ut est novae legis Sacramentum, quod attinet ad ritum: sed discrimen in eo ponit, quod hoc est causa gratiae, illa non erant. Materia igitur, forma, et minister Sacramenti Matrimonii ex Tridentino Concilio eadem sunt, quae erant in Matrimoniis veterum, quae Sacramenta non erant" De Matr. cap. 7.

[7] and indeed of the other sacraments. Would one maintain that there is no "essential reference" to the Church in the case of Baptism administered in an emergency by a hospital nurse?

[8] S. MAGGIOLINI, Sessualità umana e vocazione cristiana, Brescia 1970, p. 140 (in P. BARBERI: La celebrazione del matrimonio cristiano, Rome, 1982, p. 57).

[9] cf. those proposed by Corecco, Navarrete, Tomko and others, in Barberi, op. cit. pp. 242-243; 394-395; 489; 527; 535.

[10] "benedictio quae fit per sacerdotes in nuptiis, non est de essentia matrimonii...; est quoddam sacramentale" (Suppl. q. 42, art. 1). The Decree for the Armenians laid down that the exchange of consent and not the blessing of the priest is the effective cause of the sacrament (Denz. 702); cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1623.

[11] It is therefore not necessary to posit the difficulty, as J.M. Aubert does, that "It seems difficult to allow that the general intention of truly marrying must automatically be considered as including the implicit intention of receiving the sacrament of marriage, if one does not believe in it" ("Foi et sacrement dans le mariage", La Maison-Dieu 104 (1970), p. 130.

[12] cf. Susan WOOD: "The Marriage of Baptized Nonbelievers: Faith, Contract, and Sacrament" Theological Studies, 48 (1987), p. 292.

[13] "minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesiae, cuius est minister; in verbis autem quae proferuntur, exprimitur intentio Ecclesiae; quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri et recipientis sacramentum" (Summa Theol. III, q. 64, art. 8 ad 2). "When a sacrament is celebrated in conformity with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and of his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister": Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1128.

[14] "What is required then is to do what the Church does, not to understand what the Church understands - the conjugal covenant as a sacrament. No minimum of faith therefore is required" (D. BAUDOT: L'inséparabilité entre le contrat et le sacrement de mariage: la discussion après le Concile Vatican II, Rome 1987, p. 358). This is well expressed although, as we have pointed out, we would say "intend" rather than "do".

[15] cf. Michael G. LAWLER: "Faith, Contract, and Sacrament in Christian Marriage: a Theological Approach" Theological Studies, 52 (1991)-4, p. 721.

[16] cf. Rincón Pérez, op. cit., p. 192; O. FUMAGALLI CARULLI: "La dimensione spirituale del matrimonio e la sua traduzione giuridica", Ius 27 (1980), p. 45.

[17] cf. R.C. FINN: "Faith and the Sacrament of Marriage", in Marriage Studies, vol. III, Washington 1985, pp. 104-105; Lawler, op. cit., p. 728. Lawler goes on in fact to say that "Baptized nonbelievers have no right to be equated with Christian believers" (p. 729). If this affirmation is intended to carry pastoral weight, it could pass. But is it sound theologically?

[18] R.C. Finn: op. cit., p. 106. This article, incidentally, is not alone in advancing the claim that St. Albert, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, etc. teach the need of active faith for the reception of marriage; whereas, as a simple reading of the Latin texts included in the article shows, they posit faith as necessary for the efficacy of the sacrament once constituted, but not for its valid constitution.

[19] cf. Barberi, op. cit. pp. 351-354. Canons 1063-1072 of the new Code of Canon Law remain in the line of these directives, as does Familiaris Consortio, no. 68.

[20] The Commission itself, in contradiction to what it suggests here, seems later to acknowledge this point: "faith is presupposed as a «causa dispositiva» of the fruitful effect of the sacrament; the validity of matrimony, however, does not necessarily imply that it be fruitful" (p. 383, no. 492).

[21] A particularly obscure passage concerns the case of mal-formed Catholics who consider that they can contract matrimony, even though they exclude the sacrament. The Commission weighs, on the one hand, their lack both of faith and of the intention of doing what the church "does", which makes them "incapable of contracting a valid sacramental marriage", and on the other, their "natural right to contract marriage". It continues: "in such circumstances they are capable of giving and accepting each other as spouses..."; and yet concludes: "Such a relationship, even though it may offer the characteristics of matrimony, can in no way be recognized by the Church as a conjugal society, even in a non-sacramental form" (pp. 387-389, no. 498).

[22] The inseparability of sacrament and contract has been held to be "fidei proxima" (cf. P. PALAZZINI, "Il Sacramento del Matrimonio", in I Sacramenti, Rome 1959, p. 756). For a list of magisterial documents, see Barberi, op. cit., p. 412, note 174.