CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE AND SACRAMENT

Urban card. Navarrete, SJ

Uncomfortable doctrine for pastoral care in today's secularized world

The doctrinal principle of the inseparability between valid marriage and marriage-
the sacrament of two baptized is presented today as an insurmountable obstacle for
the creation of a matrimonial right and for the implementation of a pastoral of
marriages that truly respond to the real demands of the world
secularized today.
It is indeed a principle that transcends a wide range of issues.
theological, legal, sociological, and pastoral, to which modern man is
particularly sensitive.
Sacramental theology in recent times has increasingly emphasized the
importance of subjective dispositions in the reception of the sacraments, such as
reaction to a certain exaggerated objectivism that perhaps gave too much weight to the
the effectiveness "ex opere operato" of them, as if they were magical actions that
they produce their effect without the subject knowing it. From this perspective, it is asked whether it is
possible that the sacrament of marriage can be administered and received by
those baptized who have no relation to the Church, no Christian faith,
no willingness to give their marriage a redemptive and eschatological dimension.
Can a marriage whose
Are the parties absolutely ignoring Christ and the Church or do they no longer believe in them?
How is it possible to find that minimum of necessary intention - 'to do what one does'
Ecclesia" – in order to administer and receive the sacrament of marriage in those who
Do they deny or perhaps positively reject the sacraments?
Regarding the respect due to conscience, it is questioned whether it is fair that the
baptized individuals who do not wish to have any relationship with the Christian faith find themselves in the
situation of being unable to enter into a valid natural marriage without it being ipso
factosacramento. Can we think that Christ established such an order of
providence in which necessarily, beyond the will of those who marry and of
the power of the Church, the marriage of the baptized cannot exist as
natural reality if it does not exist simultaneously as supernatural reality? Is it not a
legal contradiction depriving the right to such a fundamental earthly reality as
it is marriage to those baptized who do not accept, not even implicitly,
that other supernatural reality that is the sacrament? Can a
doctrine that seems to contain such contradictions?

Christian marriage and sacrament, in Love and stability in marriage, Univ. Ed.
Gregorian University, Rome 1975, 55-75.
 2

In the socio-cultural context of many countries with a Christian tradition, there are presented
often to the parish priest baptized couples in the Catholic Church, who declare
not having faith, but wanting the religious marriage for family or sociological reasons.
They personally would prefer only civil marriage, but they do not dare to oppose it.
to the environment, anchored in the survival of a religious tradition that does not acknowledge
like true marriage more than religious marriage. Is it fair that the Church
is about to be instrumentalized for purposes so far from its mission of salvation and of
testimony of the truth? On the other hand, under the currently applicable law, if the Church
it does not admit them to religious marriage, it practically deprives them of the right to
marriage, since their civil marriage is invalid due to lack of form. The Church is
find in the pastoral impossibility of offering these Christians a solution
understandable and acceptable to them. Indeed, objectively – although the Church
it will eliminate the obligation of the canonical form - it can offer nothing but a dilemma: either
no marriage or sacramental marriage. There is no middle way: either everything
(sacramental marriage) or nothing (invalid marriage).
Taking into account, moreover, the principle of the indissolubility of marriage.
(sacramento) and accomplished, another sector of unsolvable pastoral problems arises.
The Church has the authority—and exercises it when certain presuppositions are met—to
dissolve the natural marital bond (that is, not sacramental), although the
spouses have exercised their marital rights. But it cannot dissolve the
marriage ratified and consummated. Currently, since civil divorce is
widely accepted in most civil codes, are presented
very often cases that could find a just pastoral solution if the
the first marriage contracted between two baptized non-believers would be considered a
marriage only natural, not sacramental. But the principle of inseparability remains.
between valid marriage and sacrament in the baptized does not admit exceptions, these
cases have no solution. The second marriage will not be blessed by the
Church.

2. Understandable reaction

In this historical moment of reflection and review of doctrine, law and

From the matrimonial pastoral, it is obvious that the principle of the
inseparability between the marital pact and sacrament, which raises so many difficulties
theoretical and practical.
In the theoretical field, there is a tendency to underestimate the weight of history by emphasizing that
the doctrine of the inseparability between conjugal pact and sacrament has matured
starting from a budget of faith in the contracting parties and in a context of struggle between
the Church and the State to reclaim competence over marriage. Starting from
From these facts, one would want to draw the conclusion that the principle of inseparability.
between pact and sacrament is valid only from the perspective in which it has been viewed so far
today, that is, assuming that the parties have the Christian faith. But not
It can be affirmed with the same certainty regarding those baptized who no longer have.
faith and live without any relationship with the Church. The same context of struggle Church-
 3

State would seem the least suitable for a serene theological maturation, far from
any interference of contingent political elements.
In the field of pastoral care, there has not been a lack of those who have presented it as a 'hypothesis of
work" a "third way" for the marriage of baptized non-believers. According to
this working hypothesis, the absence of faith would constitute an obstacle that would prevent
baptism develops its specific role, which is to transform human reality
of the marital love of the baptized in sacrament. Such a marriage would remain in
the level of matter of the sacrament with this particular: that the baptismal character
would imply in itself as a virtuality of sacramentalization. Such
marriages would be on the verge of becoming a sacrament, and, by
therefore, they would not be fully comparable to the marriage of the unfaithful, which are
found in remote power. Thus, the civil marriage of baptized non-believers
it would no longer be considered merely as a legally recognized civil cohabitation, since
would have within itself an 'ordering' towards a future sacramentalization, by a
possible 'reviviscence' of the effect of baptismal character, once elobex is removed, or
be, the disbelief of these baptized ones1.
The principles of this working hypothesis seem to be at the base of some
attempts to introduce a new pastoral practice regarding baptized couples
that, even claiming not to want the sacrament, which they may not believe in, they want, without
embargo, a non-sacramental religious rite, after having celebrated the marriage
civil. The Church welcomes them and is willing to hold this religious ceremony, in the hope that
a first step towards the sacramental marriage, which would be reached after a
long period of matrimonial catechumenate2A celebration is also mentioned.
sacramental progressive and staged, nostalgically evoking the Gracian distinction of
initiated marriage, perfect marriage3.
In this movement of doctrinal and pastoral review, most of the literature
It primarily insists on highlighting the weak points of the
traditional doctrine. Few have taken the trouble to delve into its theological foundation.
Thus, while "opportune et importune" the difficulties that this raises are repeated.
doctrine and it is emphasized the contingency of historical circumstances
that stimulated the explication of it until reaching the formulation of c. 1012
§2, theology may have insisted less than necessary on the deepening of
the doctrinal foundations that are at its base and that, with the general progress of the
theology of marriage in the post-conciliar period, they could find a
a more solid foundation than the one they had found in the past.

1
J.M. AUBERT, "Faith and Sacrament in Marriage", La Maison-Dieu 104 (1970) 140.
2"
New pastoral experience in France," The Kingdom, Documents, no. 306 (April 1, 1975) 153-
154.
3
M. LEGRAIN, 'Essay on Diagnosis', in Faith and Sacrament of Marriage, Lyon 1974, 20-21.
 4

3. Problem Complexity

The thesis of the identity between contract and sacrament in Christian marriage
it assumes a mature doctrinal elaboration of the two terms of the issue - contract
ysacramento - and tries to express in scientific schemes the faith of the Church according to the
The marriage of the baptized is one of the seven sacraments.
This thesis synthesizes two very complex problems. The first, of a character
philosophical-legal; the second, strictly theological.
First of all, the philosophical-legal reflection had to provide a scientific response to the
issue about the dynamic process through which marriage is constituted in its
natural reality. Marriage in its 'fieri', what does it consist of? What is its nature?
of the act or acts by which it is constituted in its essential elements? Does it consist
only in the consent of the spouses? Is the intervention of the
public authority? Is consummation also necessary?
Theology, for its part, resolved the problem of ensuring that marriage
It is a sacrament in the strict sense, it had to determine the relationship that exists between
the natural reality of marriage and the sacrament.
The sacrament, is it the very natural reality of marriage assumed as a sign?
Effective grace? Is it perhaps something that is added to the already established natural marriage?
Is it separable from him in the baptized?; Are the baptized parties free to
to carry out a marriage that is only natural, if they do not want the sacrament?

Consensus makes marriages

The canonists and theologians of the early scholastic period, around the mid-12th century,
they faced the problem of determining the constitutive moment with formidable courage
of the marriage bond.
From past centuries, fragmented and confusing vestiges had reached them.
from two different conceptions: the consensualist, inspired by Roman law,
according to which consent is the only effective element of marriage
("consensus creates marriages"), and the realist, inspired by the law of the peoples
Germanic, according to which, in addition to consent, conjugal copulation is required.
so that the marriage is fully constituted ('consensus traditione mulieris
"The firm creates marriages."
These two currents of thought became polarized in the Parisian school and in the
Bologna school, headed by the respective Grand Masters Peter
Lombardo and Graciano.
According to Pedro Lombard and his school, marriage is constituted solely and
totally by the consent of the parties. That is why the marriage contracted with the
current consent (de praesenti) is fully established before the
consummation, and if it is a Christian marriage it is a perfect sacrament and
absolutely indissoluble. The consummation does not add any further firmness to the
marital bond. This is only relevant in the line of mystical symbolism, if
it is about marriage-sacrament.
 5

For Gracian and the school of Bologna, however, marriage is not

fully constituted if it is not consummated. The consent, before the
consummation only gives rise to a matrimonium initiatum, which is not yet
Sacramento and what is dissoluble also if it is a Christian marriage. This
marriage initiated becomes perfect marriage – if it concerns baptized individuals –
sacramento and absolutely indissoluble at the moment of its consummation through
the conjugal copulation.
By the end of the 12th century, the doctrinal synthesis had already been reached that, since
so until today, it has always been taught and defended by the ordinary Magisterium
of the Church, is at the basis of canonical legislation and jurisprudence
ecclesiastical, and has constituted the common teaching of theologians and canonists, almost without
no discordant voice. We are interested in highlighting some aspects of this synthesis.

The only efficient cause of marriage is the consent of the parties.

legitimately manifested (consensualist theory). The marriage bond arises
in their essential elements at the time of the legitimate exchange of the
consents. The consummation is not an essential element in the constitution
of marriage. Despite this, if it is a Christian marriage, it is not
irrelevant for legal and theological purposes. By it, the marriage-sacrament
it achieves absolute indissolubility and perfect mystical symbolism regarding
image of the spousal relationship of Christ with the Church.
Consent is considered and affirmed as consent of
contractual nature. Indeed, it is an act of will, legitimately
manifested, which creates or produces the marital bond, which binds the man
and to the woman with respective rights and obligations of a strictly nature
legal. This effect persists, once produced, independently of the
will of the parties. Once created, it 'no longer depends on the will of
"man" (GS 48). It is a totally different conception from that of the
modern Romanists (from Manenti, 1888) give consent
matrimonial in Roman law. According to this interpretation by the Romanists
modern ones, on the other hand strongly contested in our days4, the
marital consent, at least in classical Roman law, was not a
transient act of will, but a permanent attitude, a continuous consensus
(marital affection), in the sense that the marriage remained alive as long as
as long as the parties continued to wish to be husband and wife. If
this will was ceasing, marriage was dying by itself. This conception of
marital consent is completely foreign to all canon law tradition and
theological about the nature and causality of marital consent.

2. Having this vision of nature and the causality of consent

matrimonial, canonical and theological doctrine has not hesitated to apply, since the
the beginning of scholasticism, the term contract and the contractualist doctrine to

4
Cf. O. ROBLEDA, The marriage in Roman Law, Rome 1970, 130 et seq.
 6

legitimate exchange of consent, even noting carefully the

peculiarities of marriage in relation to other contracts. The term
"contract" is commonly used to designate the constitutive moment of marriage.

The contractualist theory applied to the constitutive act of marriage is reinforced.

with the introduction of the canonical form in the Council of Trent (the contract
marriage becomes a formal contract), and is the basis of all the
controversy between Church and State in the 17th-18th centuries regarding competence
about marriage. The term 'contract' is the only term that is used both
by the authors as well as by the documents of the Magisterium, whenever one wants
to contrast the human reality of marriage with the sacrament.

4. Disregarding any possible further controversy, the term 'contract'

it must be understood in the indicated sense, especially in the documents
of the Teaching. It is a common and customary term that does not come
explained because its meaning is supposed to be known. With it, it indicates
simply the constitutive moment of marriage, the legal act by which
marriage is created.

The sacrament is the very contract of marriage.

Acquired in the Middle Ages, the full awareness of the sacramentality of the
Christian marriage and overcoming disputes about the formation of the bond
matrimonial, it was easily reached to the sentencing according to which the sacramental ratio
identify with the consensus of the present, that is, with the legitimate manifestation of the
marital consent. Taking into account, afterwards, the application of the theory
increasingly elaborate contractualist approach to this constitutive act of marriage, it
it concluded without major controversies that the sacrament of marriage is the same
reality of the natural contract, assumed by Christ as an effective sign of grace. The
the doctrine of the real identity between contract (matrimonium in fieri) and sacrament
makes common.
This thesis, however, involves only the inseparability between contract and
sacrament in the sense that the sacrament cannot exist without the contract.
By itself, it leaves open the possibility that a contract can exist among baptized individuals.
valid marriage without it being a sacrament.
In fact, while there was never any inseparability in the first sense
discordant voices among Catholic theologians, there were not a few until the 18th century
regarding inseparability taken in the second sense.
The sentences that, throughout the centuries, upheld the possibility of there being
among baptized individuals a valid marriage contract without it being a sacrament can be
reduce to three currents of thought. The three currents are based on assumptions
which, subsequently, have proven to be unfounded. Ultimately, it
find as a common element the intention to apply to the sacrament of the
marriage some valid principles for other sacraments, but that do not have
 7

application in the sacrament of marriage, taking into account its great

peculiarities.
A considerable group of theologians, led by Duns Scotus († 1308),
He did not admit that the sacrament of marriage could be administered inter absentes.
On the other hand, it could not be put into discussion - at least until the Council of Trent,
that introduced the obligation of the canonical form – the validity of the contract carried out
through the procurator, by letters through a messenger. The conclusion was imposed: in these cases
Marriage exists as a natural contract, but it does not exist as a sacrament.
The separability between contract and sacrament was affirmed by another current of
theologians, as a conclusion of the thesis according to which the minister of the sacrament of
marriage is the priest, the form is the words of the blessing of the liturgical rite,
and the matter is the natural contract. This sentence, which started confusingly in the
Middle Ages, found in M. Cano († 1560) whom in a more significant way and
convinced she defended it and developed it. After M. Cano, despite the abuse that this
sentence made by the royalists, found defenders – at least with regard to the
minister - until the mid-19th century. According to this ruling, among the baptized the
A contract can be valid even if it does not become a sacrament due to lack of the form.
sacramental which is the blessing of the priest.
Finally, a third group of theologians, among whom the one who stood out mainly
perhaps Billuart († 1757) believed that it depended on the free will of those who...
they are only contracting natural marriage or sacramental marriage.
Against these minority currents of Catholic theology, it always prevailed as
common doctrine that held that there can be no valid contract among baptized individuals
without sacrament. The sacrament follows the vicissitudes of the contract. It can be entered into.
in the absence of the parties (by agent, by letter, by messenger); the sacramental form does not
it is an extrinsic element to the contract; the ministers are the contracting parties; the intention
prevalent not receiving the sacrament makes it impossible to fulfill the intention of performing the
contract.
Regarding this issue, the attitude of the
Preparatory Commission of the Vatican Council I on marriage. It can be said that
it focused its attention, from a doctrinal point of view, on the problem of the
inseparability between contract and sacrament. During the preparatory studies, the
The commission was convinced that the doctrine of inseparability was ripe.
for a dogmatic definition. In this sense, he prepared outlines of canons that
they contained the dogmatic definition of various aspects of the problem. Only at
finally, due to the steadfast opposition of one of its members, the Commission decided that the
matter was not definable5. As the Council did not have time to address marriage,
we do not know what his position would have been on this matter. We can, however,
reasonably conjecture that there would have been no dogmatic definition, since
that there had been an important current of Catholic theologians, also

5
Cf. E. CORECCO, "Is the Priest Minister of Marriage? Analysis of the Problem in
relation to the doctrine of the inseparability between contract and sacrament in the works of the Council
Vatican I, The Catholic School 98 (1970) 427-476.
 8

post-Tridentines, who had defended the separability between contract and sacrament in the
Christian marriage. But probably, taking into account the controversies of
At that moment, there would have been an authentic proposition of the doctrine of inseparability.

3. The Teaching Profession

The Magisterium pronounces on the doctrine of the inseparability between contract and
Sacramento in a historical context of denial of the sacramentality of marriage
Christian or the struggle between the Church and the State to reclaim the competence over
marriage. This subject is not an exception in history. We know, in
effect, which have usually been the doctrinal deviations that have moved the
Magisterium to pronounce authoritatively on the doctrine that must be
maintain.
The Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century denied the sacramentality of the
marriage, thus resolving the problem at its root. The ideological trends and
policies of Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephinism in the 17th-18th centuries
they found in the distinction between contract and sacrament—especially in the theory of M.
Cano–the theoretical foundation for attributing to the State absolute competence over the
marriage as a contract, leaving the Church only the competence over it.
same as a sacrament. The natural contract regulated by the State is like the
matter of the sacrament. The sacrament is a reality that is added accessory to
marriage already contracted according to civil law6.
This theory paves the way for the introduction in the Catholic world of
civil marriage, after the French Revolution. The State claims
absolutely the competition over marriage, as well as over other realities
earthly, completely ignoring their sacramentality.
In this way, the process of secularization of marriage, which began in the
the heart of Christianity in the sixteenth century with the Protestant reformist movement, was
develops significantly in the 17th and 18th centuries, on the occasion of the controversy
gift-giving, and reaches its complete victory in the 19th century with the promulgation of the
Napoleonic code and all other codes inspired by it. But the dynamics of
this long and complicated process is based on the denial of the sacramental character
of marriage (Protestant world) or in the theory of the real distinction between contract and
sacramento (Catholic world).
Against the Protestant reformers, the Church reacted at the Council of Trent.
pronouncing the dogmatic definition of the sacramentality of Christian marriage7;
against the theory of the distinction between contract and sacrament, the reaction of the Magisterium
the Church's was quite late and probably would not have occurred if the theory
would not have served as a doctrinal basis to draw practical consequences of a certain scope
as serious as those that the royalists and later the liberals tried to remove.

6
On this issue, E presents a good synthesis, rich in bibliographic references.
CORECCO, 'The Minister Priest' (cf. nt. 5), 361-367.
7
CONC. TRIDENT., sess. 24, can. 1, in DENZ–SCHÖNM, 1801.
 9

Always in the context of reclaiming for the Church the competence over the
Christian marriage, the Roman Pontiffs, starting from Pius VI8they are pronounced as
in an increasingly clear and explicit way about the inseparability in marriage
Cristiano between contract and sacrament, resolutely denying that the sacrament is
an accessory that is added to the marriage already validly celebrated according to civil law.
Pius IX condemns several propositions regarding this.9With Leo XIII, the doctrine reaches its
precise formulation10, welcomed later in c. 1012 §2 and repeated by Pius XI in the
On Marriage11.
Taking into account the tradition and these documents of the Magisterium, the theologians give
As a theological note to this doctrine, it is the Catholic doctrine, namely, that it deals with
a certain truth, taught as such by the Magisterium of the Church, but not proposed
for the same as defined truth12.

3.1 Christian marriage and sacramental sign

The Magisterium and theologians insist on affirming the inseparability between marriage
valid and sacrament; but generally they put little effort into the attempt to penetrate
in the unfathomable mystery of God's designs to understand the reasons for this
salvation plan, according to which the baptized are not free to be able to carry out the
human reality of marriage without simultaneously making a gesture
sacramental.
However, there is a reason that is more or less explicitly assumed in all.
reasoning. This reason consists in the fact of having been assumed by Christ as
sacramental sign the same natural reality of marriage, due to its capacity
symbolic of the alliance of love and fidelity. In order for this human reality to be
having this strictly sacramental symbolism presupposes baptism, since it is the
basic budget—the door—to all the other sacraments. Given this
budget, the valid marital covenant always has the supernatural dimension of being
effective sign of salvific and eschatological realities, regardless of the
will and the subjective dispositions of the contracting parties. Usually, the
8
We asked Our Dear Apostolic Letter to the Bishop of Moluten, September 16, 1788, in DENZ–
NICE, 2598.
9
PIOIX, Enc. Quanta cura, December 8, 1864, Syllabus, propositions 66 and 73, in DENZ–SCHÖNM, 2966
and 2973; cf. also Lett. Apost. Ad Apostolicae, August 22, 1851, in GASPARRI, Sources, II,
858-859; Epist. The Letter, September 9, 1852, in Sources, II, 869-870; Alloc. Most Bitter, 27
Sept. 1852, in Sources, II, 877; Your letter, Dec. 1, 1875, in Sources, II, 97-98.
10 LEÓN XIII, Encyclical Arcanum, February 10, 1880, in Acts, II, 25-26. See also Encyclical.

Inscrutable, April 21, 1878, in Acta, I, 54; Enc. Quod Apostolici, December 28, 1878, in Acta, I, 177-
178; Litt. Here we are, January 1, 1879, in GASPARRI, Sources III, 132-133; Litt. The resolution, February 8,
1893, in Acts, XII, 37-40; Alloc. In letters, March 18, 1895, in Acts XV, 74-75; Epist. Which
religious, August 16, 1898, in Act, XVIII, 142-143; Alloc. To bring more pleasant things, December 16, 1901,
inActa, XXI, 186; Epistle. While many, December 24, 1902, inActaXXII, 261.
11
AAS22 (1930) 552.
12
Cf. P. ADNÈS, The Marriage, Tournai 1963, 145.
 10

argumentation proceeds as in canon 1012. From the premise that Christ elevated to the
the dignity of the sacrament the natural reality of marriage, the consequence is drawn from
that among baptized there cannot be a valid marital covenant that is not ipso facto.
sacramento.
Among the documents of the Magisterium, without a doubt, is the encyclical 'Arcanum' by Leo.
XIII the one who spends the most time developing the argument. It is worth gathering its
words:
... such distinction (between contract and sacrament), or rather separation, cannot be
accepted, since it is stated that in Christian marriage the contract is not dissociable from the
Sacramento, so that a true and legitimate contract cannot exist without
seaipso factosacramento. Indeed, Christ the Lord enriched (auxit) with dignity
from Sacramento the marriage; and marriage is the contract itself, provided that it is
legitimately carried out. In addition, marriage is a sacrament because it is a
sacred and effective sign of grace and represents the image of the mystical wedding of Christ
with the Church. And the form and figure of these weddings is expressed by that same bond of
sum union with which the man and woman are linked to each other, which is nothing other than
something that marriage itself. This makes it clear that any legitimate marriage between
Christians in themselves and by themselves are a sacrament, and nothing is further from the truth.
that the assertion that the sacrament is an added adornment to marriage or a
property that arrives to it extrinsically, which can be divided and separated from the contract
according to the judgment of men13.

The emphasis of the argumentation is completely placed on the objective order, that is
to state, in the fact that Christ has taken on as an effective sign of grace the reality
the human aspect of marriage, giving this reality, by sacramentalizing it, in addition to the
the symbolism inherent in every sacrament related to the invisible grace that signifies and
produce, another extrinsic symbolism of fundamental importance in history of the
salvation, which is the nuptial alliance of Christ with the Church, His Bride, by the
mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Redeemer. It is about an order
objective, deeply theological, in which, given the ontological assumptions
indispensable–baptism and valid conjugal pact–, the subjective factors do not have
incidence to destroy the objective order of sacramentality, established by Christ
for the marriage of those who have been regenerated in Him through baptism. It is
of course, without the necessary subjective dispositions, the sacrament will not unfold its
sanctifying efficacy for the contracting parties; but this does not take away from the sacramentality
fundamental of the conjugal pact of the two baptized. This symbolizes the pact of love
and the faithfulness of Christ to the Church as well as the supernatural charity of the
contracting parties, even in the case that, for the moment, it does not produce it because of the
hinders the established by the lack of the necessary subjective requirements
part of the contracting parties.

13
LEON XIII, Encyclical Arcane, February 18, 1880, in Acts, II, 25-26.
 11

3.2 The baptized man, new creature

This doctrine of the inseparability between marital pact and sacrament in the
baptized is not understandable if it is not framed in the wonderful set of
transformations made in man by baptism, and which cannot be destroyed
completely although the vicissitudes of his earthly pilgrimage lead him to lose the
or even to renounce Christ and His Church.
Man, once consecrated to the Trinity by baptism, remains
forever consecrated. His insertion in Christ, his adoptive filiation, his regeneration
--new creature--, your consort with the divine nature--consors divinae naturae--, your
participation in the priesthood of Christ, his ability to receive others
sacraments are indestructible realities, just like the baptismal character that is
in the base.
So, taking into account these supernatural ontological realities, we can
to glimpse the unity, beauty, and depth of the order established by God
regarding the marriage of the baptized. "Just as the human person as such
is immersed in the Christ-Church Alliance through baptism, just as the same
A human person, as a man or woman, that is to say, considered sexually, remains
also immersed in that same Alliance for the marriage-sacrament. The
the sacramentality of marriage is like a formal effect or immediate consequence
of the baptism of the two parties. The baptism of the man and the woman, when submerged
objectively, your people in the New Alliance do the same with their union.
conjugal, making it an effective sign of that same Alliance.14.

3.3 The Christian marriage, participation in the Christ-Church covenant

In the same line moves Vatican II when it affirms that marriage is

"image and participation of the pact of love between Christ and the Church" (GS 48)
adding to the idea of image or symbol – common in tradition and teachings
of the Teaching - the novelty of making explicit the idea of participation of the Christ pact -
Church.
It is evident that the reality that Christ has assumed as an image and participation of
his alliance of love with the Church is not coexistence – although it is permeated with love.
(marital) - lived existentially between a man and a woman; and not even the
the fact that both spouses live their Christian life and their married life to the fullest
and familiar according to their condition as Christian spouses.
Simply living together, even if it is experienced in mutual love, is more of a
a counter-sign, a counter-image, a counter-testimony, of the love of Christ to the
Church, as it constitutes a situation not in accordance with the principles of morality
Christian.

14
M. MARTÍNEZCAVERO, "Mixed marriages: new aspects", Burgenses 16
(1957) 281-282.
 12

The mere fact of living their lives as Christian spouses perfectly does not constitute
a sign, an image, of the covenant of love between Christ and the Church, but it is
simply a consequence of the sacrament, a response to the demands that are
derives from the fact that Christian marriage is a sacrament.
The reality that Christ has taken on to elevate it to the image and participation of his
the pact of love with the Church is the "foedus coniugii", the conjugal pact, that is to say, the
pact of love and fidelity by virtue of which a man and a woman through a
irrevocable act of free will, they commit to a community of life and love
in order to procreation, thus constituting a bond of love and
fidelity, a 'sacred bond', that keeps their commitment alive,
regardless of the subsequent vicissitudes of one's own free will (cf. GS 48).
The baptized spouses who bring this pact of love and
faithfulness ipso facto realizes a gesture that is ontologically, by the institution of Christ, ...
image and participation of the covenant of love and fidelity between Christ and the Church. The
subjective spiritual dispositions of the contracting parties do not have an impact on this
deep order of salvific and eschatological realities established by Christ. Those
provisions have influence only in terms of the effects of personal actual sanctification
of the parties involved. As with other sacraments, certain elements may be lacking.
necessary subjective dispositions to receive it successfully, and, nevertheless, to be
presents the essentials to receive it validly.

3.4 Grace that perfects natural love

We believe that the same conclusion can be reached by considering another

aspect of the same reality, strongly emphasized by the Magisterium, starting from
fundamental text of Paul to the Ephesians: 'husbands, love your wives, as'
Christ has also loved the Church and has given himself for her, to sanctify her. This
the mystery is great, in relation, I intend to say, to Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:25 and
35).
The Council of Trent teaches for this purpose that Christ earned for us with his
passion "the grace that perfects (perficere) natural love..." typical of the
spouses15The same idea is echoed by Leo XIII in the encyclical 'Arcanum'.16and Pius XI in
the 'Casti connubii'17Vatican II adds to the verb perfecting the verb to be.
To elevate: "The Lord has deemed it worthy to heal, perfect, and elevate this love with a gift."
"special grace and charity" (GS 49). This action that heals, perfects, and elevates the
conjugal love, the Lord fulfills it through the sacrament, as is evident from the
context of the cited texts and the works of the Conciliar Commission18.

15
CONC. TRIDENT., session 24, in DENZ–SCHÖNM, 1799.
16
Cf. LEON XIII, Acts, II, 16.
17
Cf.AAS22 (1930) 554.
18
Cf. U. NAVARRETE, The legal structure of marriage according to Vatican II: Momentum
juridical love of marriage, Rome 1968, 122, note 186.
 13

The same Vatican II Council, in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes, in the
paragraph dedicated to marriage as a sacrament, emphasizes mainly on
the transformative action of Christ through the sacrament concerning love
conjugal
Christ, the Lord has abundantly blessed this multifaceted love, born of the
divine source of charity and constructed in likeness to its union with the Church. For of
in the same way that God at another time came to meet his people with a
alliance of love and fidelity, now the Savior of men and Spouse of the Church,
through the sacrament of marriage, meets the Christian spouses.
He also remains with them so that, as He Himself loved the Church and gave Himself up for it
she, likewise the spouses, with their mutual commitment, love each other with perpetual fidelity. The
authentic marital love is embraced in divine love and is governed and enriched by
redeeming power of Christ and the saving action of the Church, to effectively lead
to the spouses to God and to help them and strengthen them in the sublime task of being father and mother.
Therefore, Christian spouses are strengthened and consecrated for their duties and
dignity of their state by a special sacrament (GS 48, 2).

If all these profound teachings of the Magisterium are taken as a whole about the
transformative action of conjugal love brought about by the salvific action of
Christ, who has wanted to assume marriage, a covenant of love and fidelity, as a sign
effective of grace, it is difficult to understand that Christ has established others
conditions in addition to baptism and valid marriage to carry out
ontologically this transformation that elevates conjugal love. The others
subjective conditions refer only to the order of personal actual sanctification of
the contracting parties; but they do not touch the deeper order of the sacramental action of
Christ, accomplished in His Church through the ministry of those of His children - although
they are sinners, ignorant and without current faith - who act out their conjugal love with a pact
naturally valid and legally effective. To demand other conditions – in addition to the
baptism and valid marriage – it seems that it would reduce the salvific design of
Christ - who appears magnificent in his unity and in his ecclesial universality - to a
unending and incomprehensible casuistry.

Common priesthood of the baptized

The baptismal character, indelible and unrepeatable, configures man with Christ.
Definitely. The baptized is a consecrated person, a priest configured with Christ.
for participation in your priesthood. No event in human existence
can eliminate this sublime reality. By virtue of this fundamental consecration, the
man is radically inserted into the priestly people and made radically capable
to perform those acts of worship of the New Covenant for which the
ministerial priesthood. Among these cultic acts, an eminent place is occupied by the
administration and the reception of the sacraments. The baptized is radically subject
capable of receiving all the other sacraments and of being a minister of them, according to the
nature of the different sacraments and their hierarchical degree in the priesthood.
 14

To validly administer and receive the sacrament of marriage, it is sufficient to

ontological participation in the priesthood of Christ through baptism. The baptized
it has within itself, in an irrevocable and indelible way, the priestly capacity necessary to
to be a minister and subject of the sacrament of marriage.
On the other hand, as we have said before in the words of the Council, "the
authentic marital love is embraced in divine love and is sustained and enriched
by the redemptive power of Christ and by the salvific action of the Church [...] For this
reason, Christian spouses are strengthened and consecrated by a
sacramento special.
And it is evident that both sinful Christians and those who have none
external relationship with Christ and the Church (non-believers) have 'the authentic
conjugal love, which is expressed in the act of reciprocal donation characteristic of the pact
conjugal. In my opinion, it would be a contradiction for Christ to have established a
order of providence, according to which the authentic conjugal love of these baptized
indelibly consecrated to Him and ontologically participants in His priesthood–not
was embraced in divine love and enriched with the redeeming strength of Christ and by
the salvific action of the Church. These Christian spouses –even if they are
fishers, although they may be far away, perhaps without guilt, from any external relationship with Christ and
with the Church – they have the ontological demand, rooted in the baptismal character, to be
"strengthened and as consecrated by a special sacrament ...".
It is a grand plan for the elevation of true marital love of the
regenerated in Christ–participants in His priesthood in an irrevocable manner–that makes
that the 'marital pact', that is, the irrevocable personal consent of delivery and
definitive acceptance of oneself as husband and wife, may in turn be an act of worship
of the New Alliance, one of the seven fundamental gestures of worship established by
Christ in the economy of the New Testament.

4. Faith and intention in the minister of the sacraments

Each sacrament has its own nature, so it is hardly possible to find

common aspects for all, except for some very general notes that justify the
uniquely applying some concepts to everyone. This is particularly true for the
marriage. Many of the difficulties that often arise regarding this
Sacramento comes from the fact that there is a preconceived scheme that is too
narrowing what a sacrament is, as if Christ had been obliged to
structure your salvific signs according to the limited scope of our schemes
conceptual.
We know that current faith is not a necessary requirement to be able to manage and
to validly receive the sacraments, at least some of them. Baptism can be
administered by a non-believing pagan, and can be received by a child incapable of
human acts. Faith, therefore, in the minister or in the subject of the sacraments is not
a requirement posited by the very nature of the sacraments.
However, the minister's intention is an indispensable requirement. The degree
minimum of intention or explicitness of the intention required depends on the
 15

the nature of each of the sacraments. All, however, except for marriage,
they require the explicit intention to apply the matter and the form to constitute the sign
sacramental, because otherwise the gesture would not be specified as sacred. The
baptism, for example, is not a common ablution; but rather an ablution (subject:
indeterminate element) that is determined by the words (form: element
determinant) to constitute the sacramental sign. In the other sacraments (except
marriage) the sacramental sign does not preexist the sacrament, not even as
profane reality. In marriage, however, Christ has elevated it to an effective sign of
sacramental grace is the same natural reality of the conjugal covenant. That is why, whoever
effectively intends to enter into a valid marriage by that very fact
necessary to perform the sacramental sign, since this is none other than the
same natural contract assumed by Christ as sacrament. From this fact,
they deduce far-reaching consequences regarding the very peculiar structure of
this sacrament.
In canon law, marriage by proxy is accepted and regulated.
(c. 1089), conditional marriage (c. 1092), marriage celebrated in form
extraordinary, without the presence of the priest (c. 1098), the healing at the root of a
null marriage (cc. 1138-1141). It would be presumptuous to think that these institutes, which
they have a long life in the history of Church law, being less compliant with
the demands of Christian marriage. Likewise, it would be reckless to place in
doubt that the marriage of two baptized persons contracted by proxy, celebrated in
extraordinary form, under condition, or healed at the root, be true and proper
sacramento. Today no Catholic can reasonably doubt the sacramentality.
of these marriages.
These possibilities of contracting marriage-sacrament show us how far
the point the sacrament follows the vicissitudes of the contract and depends on it in its
conditions of validity. Where a valid marriage bond arises between two
baptized, anyone who has undergone the journey of consent
marriage to deploy its legal effectiveness, it is administered and received by the
the contracting parties of the sacrament, even if they have no intention at that moment
actual or virtual–not even explicitly habitual–to administer and receive the sacrament.
It is a typical and unique peculiarity of the sacrament of marriage compared to the
other sacraments. The intention to administer and receive the sacrament goes
inseparably linked to the effective will to marry.
The sentence defended by Duns Scotus, according to which it would not be possible to celebrate
of the sacrament of marriage inter absentes, as well as that of M. Cano and others,
according to which the minister of the sacrament of marriage would be the priest, are
absolutely and definitively overcome. The progress in the knowledge of the doctrine
revealed have proven to be incongruent with the truth.
As for the possible conflict between the two intentions, that of not carrying out the
Sacramento and the contracting of marriage, the validity of marriage and the existence of
Sacramento will depend on the prevalence of this over that. Write, for example,
Sánchez:
 16

By virtue of the institution of Christ, the reality of the sacrament is inseparable from
marriage contract; where the intention not to produce the sacrament is in
opposition with the legitimate intention to celebrate marriage as a contract.
Likewise, he who wants to produce the sacrament of marriage and not the contract, does not
produce neither one nor the other. In effect, by the institution of Christ, these two realities are
United in an inseparable way. One cannot be carried out or suppressed without the other.19.

The same principles apply in case of error regarding sacraments. The case
he saw it and resolved it already Saint Thomas. He explicitly sets forth the difficulty of
error of faith, which is in heretics not believing this sacrament
the heretics who do not believe in this sacrament). And it answers that this error does not invalidate the
marriage, since it does not concern the essence, but "around those things that are of marriage"
consequentia," that is, about an element that is inseparably accompanied by the
marriage (as a property) without belonging to its essence20.
This is the doctrine that the Church has traditionally applied, considering
always valid and sacramental the marriages of baptized persons separated from the
Church, even if they do not believe in the sacramentality of marriage. And let it not be thought that it
it deals with exceptional cases, since after the Protestant Reformation a large
A multitude of baptized people do not accept that marriage is a sacrament. And despite
Hello, the Church, both in theoretical teachings and in jurisprudential practice and
pastoral has always considered the marriage of these baptized as valid
(sacramento) and, if it has been consumed, absolutely indissoluble.
The error about sacramentality is addressed in doctrine and in the law of the
Church (c. 1084) as referred to the essential properties–unity and
indissolubility of marriage21, even though sacramentality is a quality
supernatural and the essential properties belong to the natural structure of the
marriage. The simple error regarding them does not affect the legal effectiveness of the
marital consent and consequently in the validity, both of the contract
like of the sacrament.

6. Concluding word

The principle of inseparability between valid marital covenant and sacrament in the
Baptized certainly raises many theoretical and pastoral difficulties in the world.
secularized today. But when it comes to a divine institution—as a reality
earthly and as for sacraments, it would not be fair to be overly impressed by the
contingencies of a certain historical period. It is necessary to broaden the perspective
to contemplate God's designs towards His people, who pilgrimage through the
history and dispersed in all the deserts.
19
T. SANCHEZ, Of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, book 2, disp. 10, n. 6.
20
Cf. S. THOMAS,Summa Theol.,Suppl., q. 51, a. 2, c.
21
H. DOMINE, The simple error regarding the essential properties of marriage and its
influence on its validity, Dissertation for the Degree in Faculty of Canon Law University.
Gregoriana, Parma 1966, especially pp. 81-128.
 17

In order to understand the theological depth of this principle and its unity with
the other principles that are the basis of the structure of the sacrament of
marriage and determine its peculiar nature, it is necessary to frame it within the vast and
sublime panorama of God's salvific design, which has made the regenerated man
in Christ a new creature, from His people a priestly people, and He has taken on the
authentic conjugal love of those regenerated in Christ in divine love and its
commitment of love (the 'foedus coniugii' or conjugal pact) in 'image and
participation in the covenant of love between Christ and the Church" (GS 48).
The principle of the inseparability between contract and sacrament, expressed in the
c. 1012 §2, it is not a principle of positive human law – like the little way
talking about some current authors could lead one to think—rather it is a
doctrinal principle that has, for its part, almost a millennium of conscious and laborious
validity, as it has been the practically common doctrine of theologians and canonists
of this period and the doctrinal budget of the jurisprudence and pastoral practice of the
Church, as well as the explicit and repeated teaching, in the last two centuries, of the
Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs and of Bishops throughout the world
catholic.
It is true that the doctrine has matured in a context of faith and the Church struggle.
State to defend the competition over Christian marriage. But this fact
history does not diminish the value of the doctrine. A similar phenomenon has been verified in the
over the centuries in other sectors of the Christian doctrinal deposit, giving rise
even to dogmatic definitions, without diminishing the degree of certainty
objective they deserve.
The Church at the present moment cannot apply another doctrine as a norm of its
legislative and pastoral action on the matter. The knowledge you have, at the moment
current history, the structure given by Christ to marriage leaves no room for
act differently. He cannot take as a rule the opposite principle, that is, that of
the separability between marital pact and sacrament, since it is deprived of everything
theological foundation.
In the purely theoretical field, vast possibilities for study and
"working hypothesis" about this problem; but it would not be fair to transfer to the field
practical of the legislation or of the pastoral "working hypothesis" personal, which not
they enjoy no theological basis. The 'working hypotheses' - which have
certainly an indispensable instrumental value in the field of sciences
experimental, but very little in the field of speculative sciences – remain
as mere 'hypotheses' until the result of the work transforms them into 'theses', is
to say, in proven certainties. Meanwhile, they cannot be adopted as
operating principle, especially in the field of morality, law or
pastoral.

_____________