|
The Sacrament of Matrimony
MATRIMONY
is a sacrament, and not a mere worldly contract, as Luther and Calvin and
their followers would have it to be. God established matrimony in the
Garden of Eden, and Christ afterwards raised it to the dignity of a
sacrament.
After the Lord had created Adam He
cast a deep sleep upon him, during which He took one of his ribs and built
it up into a woman, whom he named Eve. For the Lord had said, "It is not
good for man to be alone: let us make him a help unto himself." Then He
brought her to Adam to be his companion. And Adam said: "This is bone of
my bone and flesh of my flesh: wherefore a man shall leave father and
mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh."
And God blessed them, saying, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth,
and subdue it" (Gen. i. and ii.)
Such was the first marriage,
established by the Lord Himself. Matrimony did not remain always in its
primitive condition or form. After mankind had fallen away by sin from
God the matrimonial union was not looked upon as so sacred a state until
the Savior came and rehabilitated it, and restored it to the condition in
which God had made it, and ordered that matrimony should be a union of one
man with one woman till death took one of them.
That Christ elevated matrimony to the
dignity of a sacrament is clearly seen from the words of St. Paul the
Apostle to the Ephesians (v. 25), who, because it is an image of the union
between Christ and His Church, calls it "a great sacrament." In all this
there could be no meaning if the union between a married couple be not
like to that existing between Christ and His Church, which is a
supernatural union, and one sanctified by divine grace. Again the Apostle
says: "To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the
wife depart not from the husband. And if she depart, that she remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put
away his wife" (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11). "Let every one of you in particular
love his wife as himself" (Eph. v. 33). "If a man have not care of his
own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and
is worse than an infidel" (1 Tim. v. 8). "Let women be subject to their
husband as to the Lord" (Eph. v. 22).
The sacred writers all speak of
matrimony not only as a holy and religious act, but they teach expressly
that Christ sanctified it and attached a special grace to it. In the
ancient rituals, both of the Eastern and Western Churches, matrimony
always takes its place among the seven sacraments.
The outward sign of matrimony and its
matter is the expressed consent by which the bridal pair declare in the
face of the Church, before their lawful pastor and two witnesses, their
mutual consent to be married. The form of the sacrament consists of the
words by which this consent to inseparable union is expressed, and the
blessing by which the priest sanctifies the union.
Matrimony in addition to augmenting
sanctifying grace, confers on the married couple the special grace to live
together in truth and love and mutual happiness, and, with God's blessing,
to bring up their children in a Christian manner, and to bear with
patience the burdens always associated with the married state.
When making a choice of husband or
wife one should not be influenced solely by worldly attractions, but
rather by honest excellence and virtue. "House and riches are given by
parents: but a prudent wife is properly from the Lord" (Prov. xix. 14).
"Marry thy daughter well, and thou shalt do a great work, and give her to
a wise man" (Ecclus. vii. 27). "Then the angel Raphael said to Tobias:
Hear me, and I will show thee who are over whom the devil can prevail.
For they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from
themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as
the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath
power" (Tob. vi. 16).
If the married state would be a happy
one, both parties should profess the same religion, and as far as possible
be of the same condition of life. In making a selection, the counsel of
parents and virtuous friends should not be altogether despised. The
engagement should not be made in a hurry, for it is binding in conscience,
and it would be sinful not to fulfill it. The bridal parties should
prepare themselves carefully for the reception of the sacrament. During
courtship, the parties should live carefully in the love and fear of God,
praying earnestly, and approaching the Sacrament of Penance and
Eucharist. They should receive their knowledge of Christian truth, and
endeavor to fit themselves for imparting instruction to their children.
Diriment Impediments, Rendering Marriage Void
1. ERROR.
That is, when one has by mistake married one person instead of another, as
when Laban gave Lea to Jacob instead of Rachel, whom he demanded.
2.
CONDITION. When a person who is free contracts marriage with one
who is a slave, not knowing at the time that the latter is a slave. This
impediment, of course, no longer exists in this country.
3.
A
SOLEMN
VOW. A monk, a nun, a priest,
cannot marry, because they have made a solemn vow; their marriage is void
and sacrilegious.
4.
RELATIONSHIP. Marriage
cannot take place between cousins down to the fourth degree.
5.
CRIME. If a husband should
kill his wife, or a wife her husband, with the intention of marrying
another person, such a marriage would be void. If a man and a woman
committed adultery with each other under the promise of marriage, such a
marriage, if afterward ratified, is also void.
6.
VIOLENCE AND
FEAR. If a person is forced to
enter upon marriage by an unjust threat of a real evil or suffering, such
a marriage is void.
7.
ABDUCTION. If a man abducts
a girl from her parents, he cannot marry her until her has, according to
the will of her parents or guardians, given her back her entire liberty.
8.
SACRED
ORDERS. A subdeacon, a deacon, a
priest, cannot marry.
9.
AN
EXISTING
MARRIAGE. People already married
cannot enter upon another marriage until the bond of marriage in which
they stand is broken by death. If they do so nevertheless, this later
union is not marriage, but adultery.
10.
SECRECY. If, where this
regulation of the Council of Trent prevails, a marriage is not ratified
according to laws demanding publicity, it is void.
11.
PUBLIC
PROPRIETY. When a promise or
engagement has taken place between two persons, they cannot marry the
brother or sister of each other, without having received dispensation.
12.
DIFFERENCE OF
RELIGION ("disparitas cultus")
makes null the marriage of a baptized and an unbaptized person.
Prohibitive Impediments, Rendering
Marriage Illicit, but not Void
1.
PROHIBITION BY THE
CHURCH. The Church forbids her
children to marry on fast-days, during Advent, and during Lent, because
the joys of the wedding interfere with the holy mourning of penance. She
forbids marriages in chapels outside of the parish church, to avoid all
semblance of secrecy. She forbids marriage with persons of another
religion, to prevent the dangers of alienation among the married
themselves and their children.
2.
PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE. One who is engaged to a
person owes to that person a perfect arrangement and understanding before
entering upon other obligations.
3.
THE
SIMPLE
VOW OF
CHASTITY, either not to marry or to
go into a monastery. It would be a mortal sin to marry after having
entered upon such obligations toward God. Dispensation from such vows
must be previously obtained from the spiritual superiors.
Mixed
Marriages
By a mixed marriage is understood a
marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic.
At all times the Church, for the most
important reasons, has looked unfavorably on mixed marriages, and
disapproves of them. From long experience she knows too well that the
Catholic party is in great danger of losing the faith, or at least of
becoming indifferent to it; that the religious training of the children is
defective, and sometimes altogether neglected; that the non-Catholic party
not considering matrimony a sacrament nor an indissoluble bond, the union
is not really what it ought to be, namely, an image of the intimate,
sacred, and inseparable union of Christ with His Church; finally, that the
happiness of the lives of both parties depends much on community of
belief. Even in the Old Testament mixed marriages were forbidden to the
Jews. When the Church does give assent to a mixed marriage she requires
the following conditions: 1. That the Catholic party be allowed to
practice his or her religion unmolested; 2. That there be a hope of
bringing about the conversion of the non-Catholic party through good
example and hones conviction (Deut. vii. 3).
It is never allowed to contract a
marriage if the religious training of the children is not guaranteed to be
Catholic. Such a marriage would be an injury to the Catholic Church and a
spiritual wrong to the children. Careless parents who seek such alliances
for their children incur a grave responsibility before God.
Divorce
THE
term divorce means an actual dissolution of the marriage bond, which is
very different from separation. In regard to the complete dissolution of
the marriage bond, the teaching of the Catholic Church has always been
uncompromisingly against it as has been set forth. Jesus Christ
declared: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt.
xix. 6).
Moses permitted, in certain cases, the
bill of divorce, and allowed second marriages. This concession was
acknowledged, however, as a distinct lowering of the dignity of marriage,
as is seen from the answer of the Savior Himself when the Pharisees said
to Him: "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put
away?" (Matt. xix. 7).
"He said to them: Because Moses by
reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives;
but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. x. 9).
The teaching of Christ is indeed
absolute on this point: "Man shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be
two in one flesh: God Himself has joined them, and let no man separate
them" (Mark xix. 2, etc; Luke xvi. 18.: Matt. xix. 4, etc: Rom. vii. 2,
etc.; 1 Cor. vii. 10, etc.). Mere separation of person and property, they
claim, is not sufficient to correct the great evils of an unhappy
marriage, but, on the contrary, has a much worse influence on the public
morals than the divorce itself.
The upholders of divorce are eloquent
in arguments in its favor, whether they approach the question from the
natural or the ecclesiastical viewpoint. They pretend that the
indissolubility of marriage is in no way founded on the natural right;
that the contrary is the case, when we consider the grievous moral and
physical injuries which sometimes result from the perpetuation of the
conjugal tie under repulsive and cruel conditions. They pretend that such
marriages are an unworthy bondage, degrading to the individual and to the
family; that marriage has for its principal basis the consent of the
parties to the contract; that when this consent is revoked the matrimonial
contract is dissolved. This engagement, they say, can be perpetual in the
intention of the parties contracting, but not by juridical reality,
because the individual liberty can never be alienated in an irrevocable
manner by any agreement whatsoever; the people that admit the divorce are
not less moral nor less prosperous than those who reject it.
It is even affirmed that the
possibility to break the marriage becomes its safeguard.
They point out that Moses permitted
divorce under the Old Law; and under the New Law Jesus Christ has admitted
it expressly in case of adultery (Matt. v. 32; xix. 9). St. Paul admits
it in case that one of the parties, both previously unbelievers, becomes
baptized (1 Cor. vii. 15).
In case of adultery, there may be a
separation, says Our Savior again (Matt. v. 31, etc.), but permission is
never given to contract another marriage. In vain do the Greek schismatic
Church and Protestant sects pretend that adultery is a legitimate cause
for absolute divorce. The tradition of the Fathers and the practice of
the Catholic Church maintain indissolubility even in this case. The
Council of Trent has anathematized the contradictors of the Church on this
point; and only a few years ago Leo XIII expounded the unchangeable
doctrine of the Holy See on this subject.
It may be granted that the natural
right is not essentially and absolutely opposed to every divorce. The
decisions of Moses and of St. Paul quoted above prove this. It is
possible, indeed, that the consequences of the divorce, like the divorce
itself, do not necessarily destroy completely the existence of the family
and of the civil society, their rights and their welfare. Yet while the
natural right does not absolutely proscribe the divorce, it tolerates it
only with great reluctance and in cases where the aggravation is extreme.
The honor of society, the purity of the individual and of general morals,
the care and good example due to the children, the peace of the families
and of nations, are promoted by the indissoluble marriage, and, as history
proves, are never so greatly threatened as in countries where divorce has
been freely practiced.
"That the indissolubility of unhappy
unions has disagreeable features and entails unfortunate conditions
arising from the incompatibility of temperaments or interests, nobody
denies; but the question is to know whether the superior interests of the
religious and social order are not more grievously injured by the divorce
than by the indissoluble marriage. Now, simple common sense and the
history of all times answer with decided affirmation in favor of the
latter. Morality deteriorates more and more under the influence of
divorce. The delicacy of morals gives way to rudeness, to insensibility,
to brutality; the calculating and negotiating spirit penetrates freely
into the domestic hearth, and marriage becomes a simple contract of
society, a mere matter of speculation.
"The Catholic Church could never
uphold it, and she will always contest this obnoxious custom." (Thein,
"Ecclesiastical Dictionary.")
The modern increase in the number of
divorces is not, as pretended, a sign of progress, of liberty, and
independence. It is rather the result of a falling away from religion and
a relapse into pagan ideas of personal pleasure and self-gratification, a
relapse which is shown morally not only in the laxness of marital
relations, but in the growth of selfish and dishonest sentiments and
methods in business and social life. Materialism and loose marital
relations go hand in hand.
The blighting influence of divorce can
be seen in the moral and religious degradation among savage races. It is
true that the contract of marriage is constituted by the free will of the
engaging parties. The will of the Christian, however, confirms itself to
that of God, and thus forever pledges its liberty as to this point. When
it refuses to do this and pretends to contract only for a time, it
produces a compact which is no longer the sacred compact of marriage, but
the shameless compact of concubinage. The alienation of individual
liberty is so useful to the family, to the spouses, to the children, to
the entire social organism, that it would seem to justify itself in the
eyes of all except those whose undisciplined dispositions and selfish
passions balk at restraint.
When the nations who practice the
divorce are also prosperous and sometimes even more flourishing than
others, it is because the poison has not had time to produce its effects,
or because the practice has not become sufficiently general to reveal its
dreadful effects on the national welfare. The hideous corruptions of the
Roman Empire in its decline are an historical instance of the evils of
divorce.
It is true that the mere separation of
person and property is no remedy to all the inconveniences of unhappy
unions, especially since it includes the impossibility of forming new
marriages and may be the occasion of disorders and scandals. Divorce,
however, when it facilitates new unions, does by means of the corruption
and dissolution of which it is a perpetual provocation.
As to pagan marriages they had
certainly the force and stability of the primitive marriage established in
the beginning (Matt. xix. 4), but without that superaddition which the
sacramental dignity, among Christians, grants to marriages. And when it
happened that one of the married became converted to Christianity, and the
other refused, not only to do likewise, but even to live in peace with him
or her, without offending his or her God, and without grave danger to his
or her soul, the converted party, in virtue of the privilege uttered by
St. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 15), could contract a new union with a person
baptized, a Christian, and thus break the tie of the first marriage. This
privilege, however, can in no manner be put into practice when there is
question of invalidating sacramental marriage.
In epochs of ignorance, or of
corruption and weakness in high places there have been unfortunate lapses
in handling this question of divorce even in Catholic countries. History
proves, however, that it was always against the will of the Apostolic
See. The Pope never ceased to maintain the sacred indissolubility of the
family, not as subservient to his own fancies or interests, but according
to the laws and the rights which he received from God and the Apostles
through tradition. Indeed, the Roman Pontiff has the right to dissolve,
under certain circumstances, the marriage contracted in right but not
confirmed by fact: matrimonium non consummatum, and tradition
grants the same pontifical power to absolve from the solemn vows of
profession made in a Religious Order. These are very peculiar cases and
very rare, five or six perhaps, per year, in the entire world. There are
also cases of nullity which , duly established by ecclesiastical authority
after very rigorous inquiry, lead to sentences of separation, not of
divorce, because the marriage never did exist. Surely, if that were
her policy, she would have yielded to Henry VIII's importunities, power,
and persuasion, rather than permit the persecution of Catholics in
England, which followed her refusal to grant his iniquitous desire.
The Status of Woman
FROM
the last commandment of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's house, neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor
his handmaid, nor his ox, nor anything that is his" (Exod. xx. 17), we
gather that among the Jews a man's wife was regarded as one of his
chattels. In order to give the wife a better position, the Christian
Church divided this last commandment given on Mount Sinai into two parts.
Woman owes to Christianity the respect
in which she is held at the present day.
Among the heathen, woman was, and
still is, the slave of man. The Chinese, as well as other heathen
nations, do not believe that women have souls. For this reason they give
girls no mental, only bodily training, and when marriageable they sell
them as they would a bale of merchandise. She has no rights, she is
liable to be sent away or put to death for the most trifling cause. In
the East she is excluded from all appearance in public. Mohammedans
confine women closely in harems, and when a woman loses her beauty there
is no one to care any more about her. This contempt for the sex accounts
for many barbarous customs.
In Christian countries woman, although
subject to her husband and bound to yield him lawful obedience, is not
considered his inferior. She is his companion, his equal in many things,
and men today are not ashamed or afraid to acknowledge that in matters
pertaining even to their daily business life they often consult their
wives and abide by their judgment. St. Paul asserts that in Christ there
is no difference between the sexes. The Christian religion declares
marriage indissoluble, and forbids plurality of wives or the divorce of a
lawful wife. It is plain to the observer that the veneration of the
Mother of God—a maid, a mother, a woman—has contributed to this elevation
of woman, and this increase of the esteem in which she is held.
Many will assert that in the present
day the social position of woman has retrograded. If this is so, it is
due chiefly to the non-observance of Christian principles, particularly to
the avarice of many who employ labor, and to the hatred of restraint and
love of idleness evinced by many women. Woman's labor is much cheaper
than that of men, and some employers will not engage men when the work can
be performed by the weaker sex. In some instances young women "go to
business" in order to earn money to spend upon dress or pleasure. In most
cases, however, necessity compels—and it must be remembered, also, that a
great deal of the work done in the household—spinning, weaving, knitting,
etc., is now done by machinery. Women no longer find the occupations at
home which once they found there. Again, outside employments have been
created for women which did not exist even a quarter of a century ago.
Yet the constant, ceaseless, daily
grind of outside business life is not a good thing for woman, the
home-maker. Some there are, strong physically and mentally, blessed with
perfect health. Ask even these exceptional women, and they will tell you
that times come when they question their own fitness for the profession
they have adopted. When the home comes to be looked upon merely as a
place to sleep in, then family life is in danger. The education of those
children who leave home for work at a tender age, is neglected. Young
girls grow up undeveloped and unfit to be mothers. The next generation is
sickly and often stunted. A disposition to avoid marriage is fostered
both in man and woman, for fewer men feel that they are able to support a
wife and family.
Yet motherhood is essentially the
vocation of woman. The Jews considered it a disgrace for a woman to be
unmarried or childless. Not only is woman fitted physically for
maternity, but she has received mental gifts fitting her to fulfill it.
She possesses the same mental faculty as men, but certain faculties are
more developed and others less in her than in him. This is principally to
be attributed to the fact that the physical organization of man and woman
is different as regards the muscular and nervous systems. The woman is
more sensitive than the man, generally more sympathetic, kinder, gentler,
more pious, more cheerful and vivacious. Women are more patient than
men. They can bear bodily pain and other sufferings with greater
fortitude.
All these natural dispositions qualify
them for bearing and bringing up children.
Yet there is no rule without its
exception. It often happens that maidens are called by God to a life of
virginity. Many have refused a conjugal union with kings and
rulers—witness St. Agatha, St. Agnes, St. Lucy, and others. Christianity
considers virginity preferable to the married state (1 Cor. vii. 25, 40).
Again, owing to the altered
circumstances of modern times a woman cannot always attain her true
vocation, and the means of maintenance attached to it. She is justified
therefore in seeking some other calling. In Europe there are more women
than men—in itself a reason why many women cannot marry, yet it is
computed that there are 16,000,000 more men than women on the earth.
The claim to be placed on a footing of
perfect equality with man was demanded first by woman at the time of the
French Revolution, when people were frenzied with the ideas of liberty.
The movement began again in the nineteenth century, when the introduction
of machinery brought about an altered state of affairs. After the Civil
War the endeavor to ameliorate the lot of women of all classes reached its
most aggressive stage. On the whole, this movement is conducted in a much
more sober and sensible spirit now than it was formerly, and consequently
meets with more substantial encouragement.
In the training of girls the fact is
often overlooked that motherhood is their real vocation. Much precious
time is lost in teaching them superficial accomplishments. Where a girl
has real talent it is a different thing—but how many women touch the piano
after they marry—and yet how many hours have they spent laboring over
exercises! Where is the course in household duties—the "home" education,
which will fit a woman to be a good house mother, grounded in the
management of a household as well as the care of her health and that of
her family? Do not think this is meant as a criticism on the intellectual
training of woman—far from it. The more her mind is cultivated the more
ably will she fulfill her duty as a wife and mother. In the present day,
when the American spirit makes such wiseacres of our growing children it
is well for mothers to remember that much is expected of them. As
necessary, you mothers, as the food you give their bodies is the food you
give their souls, and if the mother is not grounded in spiritual things,
her children will feel the lack, society will feel it, the future
generation will feel it. Still the ability to play the piano,
acquaintance with modern languages, bright conversational powers, will not
compensate a man for a mismanaged and extravagant household, nor a woman's
children for inability to explain the reason of the faith that is their
noblest inheritance.
|