MA&UAOl
711
MARRIAGl
opinion. In the ooiirae of the same chapter CanuB
defends, as a vital matter, the opinion that without
the priest and his blessing a valid marriage may take
Elace, but a sacramental form and valid sacrament are kcking. For this opinion he appeals to Petrus de Palude (In IV Sent., dist. V, ii) and also to St. Thomas (•*In IV Sent.", dist. I, i, 3 :**Summa contra gentiles'*, IV, Ixxviii), as well as to a number of Fathers and popes of the earliq^t centuries, who compared a mar- riage contracted without sacerdotal blessing to an adulterous marriage, and therefore could not have recognized a sacrament therein.
The appeal, however, to the above authorities is unfortunate. St. Thomas Aouinas, in the hrst article cited hy Canus, entitled *'Utrum consistant sacra- menta m verbis et rebus", raises the following diffi- culty: ** Penance and marriage belong to the sacra- ments: but for their vahdity, words are unnecessary; therefore it is not true that words belong to all the sacraments. " This diflSculty he answers at the end of the article : " Marriage taken as a natural function and penance as an act of virtue have no form of words: but in so far as both belong to the sacraments, which are to be conferred by the ministers of the Church, words are employed in both; in marriage the words which ex- press mutual consent, and also the blessings which were instituted by the Church, and in penance the words of absolution spoken by the priest. Although St. Thomas mentions the words of blessing along with the words of mutual consent, he expressly calls them an institution of the Church, and hence they do not constitute the essence of the sacrament instituted by Christ. Again, though he seems to understand that marriage, also, must be administered by the ministers of the Church, it cannot be denied that the contracting parties in Christian marriage must be guided by eccle- siastical regulations, and cannot act otherwise than as ministers sulyect to the Church or dispensers of the sacrament. If, however, St. Thomas in this passage attributes to the sacerdotal blessing too great an influ- ence on the essence of the sacrament of marriage, he manifestly corrects himself in his later work, " Summa contra gentiles", in which he undoubtedly places the whole essence of the sacrament in the mutual con- sent of the contracting parties: Marriage, therefore, inasmuch as it consists in the union of man and woman, who propose to beget and rear children for the glory ot God ^ is a sacrament of the Church; therefore the contractmg parties are blessed by the ministers of the Church. And as in the other sacraments some- thing spiritual is signified by an external ceremony, so here in this sacrament the union of Christ and the Church is typified by the union of man and woman according to the Apostle: *This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.' And as the sacraments effect what they signify, it is clear that the persons contracting marriage receive through this sacrament the grace by which they participate in the union of Christ and the Church." Hence the whole essence and grace-producing power of marriage con- sists, according to St. Thomas, in the union of man and woman (in presence of the priest), not in the additional blessing of the priest prescribed by the Church.
The same seems to be true of the passage from Petrus de Palude cited by Canus. As his work,
- Commentarium in IV Librum Sententiarum " is not
so readily accessible, we may state precisely the edi- tion used here: It bears as a final note the comment: Explicit scriptum in quartuin sententiarum Clarissimi et Acutissimi doctoris Petri de Palude patriarchse Hierosolyinitani, ordinis fratrum prsedicatorum per- quam diligcntissime Impressum Venetiis per Bonct- tum Locatellum Bergomensem mandato Nobilis viri Octaviani Scoti Civis Modcetiensis Anno a natali partu Intemerate Virginis nonagcsimotertio cum Quadrin- gentesimo suprii mille.siinum Xll Kalendas Octobris, "
Here it says expressly in dist. V., Q. xi (fol. 124, ooL
1) : " It seems tnat one who contracts marriage in the
state of sin does not sin although the essence of mar-
riage consists in the mutual consent, which the parties
mutually express; thb consent confers the sacrament
and not the priest by his blessing; he only confers
a sacramental." Further on, in dist. XXVI, Q. iv
(fol. 141^ col. 4), he says: "Marriage is such that its
efficacy is not based on the minister of the Church
(the priest). Its essence, therefore, can exist with-
out the priest, not because it is a necessary sacrament
— ^though it is indeed necessary for human society, just
as baptism is necessary for the individual — but be-
cause its efficacy does not come from the minister of
the Church. Perhaps, however, it is not lawful to con-
tract marriage except in the presence of the Church
and before the priest, if this is possible." These pas-
sages are clear. It is hard to see why Mclcliior Canus
tried to support his opinion by the opening words of
the first quotation. He supposes that from the words
'Mt seems that one who contract-s marriage in the state
of sin does not sin " the conclusion is to be drawn that
de Palude means in this case a marriage which is not a
sacrament; for to administer or receive a sacrament
in a state of sin is a grave sin, a sacrilege. But on the
other hand, it is to be noted that de Palude in unmis-
takable terms declares the mutual consent to be the
conferring of the sacrament. The words, ** it seems ",
merely introduce a difficulty: whether this expresses
his own view, he does not make clear, in so far as the
contracting of marriage means the reception of a sac-
rament; in so far as it is the administration of a
sacrament, he regards it as probable that the adminis-
tering of a sacrament in sin is an additional sin only in
the case of ministers ordained for the administration
of the sacraments, but the contracting parties in mar-
riage are not such ministers.
The opinion of Canus finds but little support in the expressions of the Fathers or in papal letters, which state that marriage without the priest is declared un- holy, wicked, or sacrilegious, tnat it does not bring the grace of God but provokes His HTath. This is noth- ing more than what the Council of Trent says in the chapter "Tametsi" (XXIV, i, de ref. Matr.), namely, that "the Holy Church of God has always detested and forbidden clandestine marriages". Such state- ments do not deny the sacramental character of mar- riage so contracted; but they do condemn as sacrile- gious that reception of the sacrament which indeed lays open the source of grace, yet places an obstacle in the way of the sacrament's emcacy.
For a long time, nevertheless, the opinion of Canus had its defenders among the post-Tndentine tlieolo- gians. Even Prosper Lambert ini, as Benedict XIV, did not set aside his pronouncement, given in his work "De synodo dioecesana", VIII, xiii, that Canus's view was "valde probabilis", although in his capacity as
Eope he taught the opposite clearly and distinctly in is letter to the ArchTbishop of Goa. To-day it must be rejected by all Catholic theologians and branded at least as false. The inferences not contemplated by the originators of this opinion, but deduced later and used in practice against the rights of the Church, con- stnuned succeeding popes repeatedly to condemn it f ormallv. Subservient Cathohcs and court theologians especially found it useful as warranting the secular power in making laws concerning validity and inval- idity, diriment impediments, and the like. For, if the sacrament consisted in the priestly blessing and the contract, as was never doubted, in the mutual consent of the parties, evidently then contract and sacrament must be separated; the former had to precede as a foundation; upon it, as matter, was founded the sac- rament, which took place through the blessing of the priest. But contracts, which affect social and civil life, are subject to state authority, so that this can make suph regulations and restrictions oven as to their
