108. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments

1. Sidonius, a missionary, once conferred baptism with muddy water, once with water simply blessed. Likewise, he consecrated the Eucharist once in kneaded flour, once in bread made from the tuberous nightshade; once in wine growing sour, once in wine to which carbonate of lime had been mixed. He once administered Extreme Unction with chrism, once with the oil of catechumens.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Baptism conferred with muddy water is valid, because muddy water is true water and can still serve for its own use of washing. Yet it is illicit outside a case of necessity. For water to be used for baptism must be pure and consecrated. — I. M. 396–398; Enchir. Moral. 396.

Baptism conferred with water simply blessed, and not consecrated, is also valid, because true water is not lacking; but it is gravely illicit outside a case of necessity, because a very grave prescribed ceremony is omitted. I. M. 432. But as regards the liceity of blessed water in place of consecrated water, in a case of necessity, these Decrees are had: “Concerning the doubt set forth by the Capuchin missionary in the diocese of Trebigne ... whether baptism is conferred licitly with the use of blessed water, this Supreme Inquisition has been of the opinion that it is conferred validly, but that, in the absence of the font of water prepared for baptism, natural water must be used.” S. O., 6 April 1741; S. C. de P. F., 17 April 1758. “If there is grave necessity, and if baptismal water cannot be consecrated, and if there is lack of holy oil, baptism can licitly be conferred even with blessed water alone. Nevertheless let missionaries beware lest they do this, unless there exists a true and grave cause to be discerned, as is altogether fitting, by the Ordinary of the place.” S. O., 11 December 1250. “When baptismal water is not had, there must be used, when it can be done, blessed water according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual; otherwise natural water must be used.” S. O., 22 June 1883. I. M. 432; Enchir. Moral. 432.

The Eucharist consecrated in kneaded flour is invalid. Kneaded flour, or raw bread, is neither bread in common acceptance, namely perfect bread, as bread is commonly understood, nor can it serve for the natural use of bread. Wherefore, although raw and baked bread have physically the same nature, nevertheless the common acceptance is not the same, nor is the use the same.

Likewise, the Eucharist consecrated in bread made from the tuberous nightshade, commonly potatoes, is invalid. For the bread which is the matter of the Eucharist is bread from wheat, namely common bread, as it is commonly accepted for common use.

But the Eucharist is validly consecrated in wine growing sour, if the wine has only some beginning of acridity; but it is lightly illicit. Likewise it is validly consecrated, but the consecration is gravely illicit, if the wine is already judged to have entered the limits of corruption, although it has not yet been substantially changed. But the consecration will be invalid if, for example, by contact with the air, it has already become vinegar, since then the wine is already substantially corrupted. I. M. 507.

Finally, the Eucharist consecrated from wine to which bicarbonate of lime has been mixed is invalidly consecrated if that carbonate has been mixed into the wine in such a quantity that the acids proper to the wine have been wholly destroyed by chemical composition. For then a substantial alteration of the wine is had. But it would have to be said otherwise if it had been mixed in slight quantity, so that acids still remain in the wine, especially tartaric, citric, acetic, and tannic acid.

Extreme Unction conferred with chrism and the oil of catechumens is indeed illicit outside a case of necessity; but it is only probably valid, and therefore, if conferred in a case of necessity, it must be repeated conditionally if this can be done. For in confirmation and extreme unction the matter must first be blessed, so that the sacrament may be valid; but it must be blessed by the proper minister, and each in its own rite. Nevertheless, if the matter has been blessed by the proper minister, but by another rite, to many it is probable that the sacrament is valid. Liguori, book 7, no. 163, doubt 2; no. 709, doubt 2; G. 146; I. M. 864; Enchir. Moral. 864.

It is worthwhile here to add what Benedict XIV has in Notification LXXVII concerning wine for Masses. “1. Once the better wine used to be kept for Masses: ‘With diligent care the best wine must be sought,’ said the great Pontiff Innocent III, book 4, chapter 30, Mysteries of the Mass ... And nowadays choice wines are used at tables and banquets, and the vilest wines are kept for the altar.

“2 ... Wine ‘with the point,’ which means wine which is beginning to turn sour and has not become vinegar, is not unsuitable and insufficient matter ... but it is indecent, and it is not used without sin ... Only that priest remains exempt from sin who is obliged to celebrate, and who has no authority to have the wine changed, as happens among regulars; in which circumstances, provided the wine has not become vinegar, but is simply ‘with the point,’ the sin is charged to the superior or the minister who has the duty of providing the wine for Mass ...

“3. Passing to half-wine, it is known to everyone that a kind of half-wine is made by taking the pure wine from the vat, leaving in it the stalks with some little must, for example about half a corba, and adding to it water in greater quantity, such as a corba and a half, and letting it boil for about twenty-four hours. This liquor, which among us is called half-wine, and in other places small-water wine, and in the Latin language lora or lorea, is insufficient and unsuitable matter ...

“5. Then another kind of half-wine is made, which is also called long wine, when, after the pure wine has been drawn off, and a greater quantity of must has been left in the vat, such as three or four corbe, water is added to it either in equal or in somewhat greater quantity, and sometimes with some old wine put into it ... and this kind of half-wine, or long wine ... the authors commonly conclude in stronger terms, is not decent matter, and that there is no place for using it in Mass, except in a case of hard necessity ...”

But, as is drawn from many authors cited by Benedict XIV in the following numbers 6 and 8, concerning the sufficiency of this wine as regards the validity of the sacrifice, judgment will have to be made from the quantity of water mixed in, from the greater or lesser pressing made of the grapes, and from the greater or lesser substance of wine. Wherefore, since the matter is doubtful, it will be wholly illicit to use such wine in the sacrifice of the Mass. Hence in number 7 Benedict XIV continues thus:

“7. And therefore, consistently with the opinion of all the aforesaid theologians, we ordain and will that in the sacristies, for Masses, the first wine be given, excluding any second or half-wine, even though, according to the style of this our city and diocese, and of many others, in making the first wine a quantity of water is poured in; the first wine not ceasing by this infusion to be true wine and to be usual wine, as Passerini well notes in his Commentaries on the third part of St. Thomas, question 74, article 5, commentary 7, no. 10: If only so much water is used as is commonly accustomed to be used according to the custom of the country for this purpose, that it may be better boiled down or preserved, no sin is incurred from the use of such wine in consecration; and whatever may be the case about the reason alleged by him, for such a quantity is small and is converted into wine, certainly the other reason is good: and besides, such wine is the common and usual wine of the country. Quarti, on the Rubrics of the Missal, part 3, title 4, doubt 3: In some places wine is accustomed to be made with an infusion of water in the must, or in the clusters, before they are pressed out. It is asked whether it can validly and licitly be consecrated? I answer by distinguishing: if little water is poured into the must, it is certain that true wine is made; consequently it can be consecrated validly and licitly. It is proved, because it is usual wine, and in many places, where wine is customarily made in the said manner, scarcely any other is found. And speaking of these wines of ours of Bologna, Rosignoli notes in tome 15, de Euchar., question 4, article 2, no. 6, where, after he had said that the true matter is wine from the vine substantially not corrupted or notably changed, he adds: For if they were altered precisely in some manner, as if they were heated, and even if they were moderately cooked, as is customarily done in Piceno and Umbria, if they were mixed with a moderate amount of water, as is accustomed to be done at Bologna, etc., certainly they would not cease to be matter fit for consecration.”

The following decision of the Sacred Congregation also pertains to the matter: “In some regions of Spain there flourishes a very ancient custom by which many priests prepare for themselves wine for the sacrifice of the holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire, or by drying grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be honored by the declaration of the Holy Office of 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from raisins. — Whether it is licit, for confecting the sacrifice of the holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation has been condensed by fiery evaporation? — R. It is licit, provided that a boiling down of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and in fact is obtained.” S. O., 7 August 1896.

2. Sabbas, a priest in Spain, when conferring baptism, sometimes used this form: I have baptized thee in the name, etc.; judging it to be altogether the best in the Case, since, after the words I thee had been uttered, he had already through distraction poured all the water on the head of the infant.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. “Baptism conferred by a verb of the past tense to signify a past action, and not also the action which is exercised by the minister at the time when he baptizes with the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity and with washing, immersion, or sprinkling of natural water, is not true baptism. — If the one baptizing were to use a verb of the past tense to signify the act which is exercised by the minister himself when he baptizes, and the other requisites were present, it would be baptism, if among that nation or clergy there were a usage of taking that word of the past tense to signify a present action. — It is also baptism if, from ignorance of the language, by breaking the words, without the intention of introducing error or heresy, someone utters the word of the past tense for the present, if there is such likeness between the word of the past and of the present that there is an easy slip from one word into the other, and prudent men commonly judge that the one baptizing supposed the word of the past tense to be corruptly uttered for the present, and, when the word has been uttered, conceive that the present action is sufficiently signified.” S. C. de P. F., 27 March 1631, Collect. of the same Sacred Congregation, no. 519. Hence it is clear that the baptism conferred by Sabbas was invalid because of substantial corruption of the form. The action of pouring the water, already completed, when he was uttering the verb I baptize, was still, morally speaking, present, and it had to be signified by the present verb I baptize; otherwise, since according to the Roman Ritual the water is to be poured when the invocation of the three Persons is made, the minister ought not to say, I baptize thee, but I shall baptize thee. That is, the form essentially must signify the present action of baptizing, which is exercised here and now by the minister. I. M. 320, 413.

3. “The form of baptism of the schismatic Armenians having been reported, which is had in their Rituals as below, namely: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or: Now my hand baptizes in the name of the Father; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Son; now my hand baptizes in the name of the Holy Spirit; the Sacred Congregation declared the said form of baptism to be true and legitimate.” S. O., 8 September 1633, Collect. S. C. de P. F., no. 520. Certainly the form of baptism is valid when uttered in the present tense in a consecratory manner, whether indicative or imperative. — I. M. 326.

4. “Cornelius, a priest, was absolving a penitent after the confession had been completed. But after he had uttered the first words, I absolve thee, looking back he noticed that the penitent had already departed from the sacred tribunal; wherefore he called him back, saying: What is this? Why did you not wait? Return and kneel until I have absolved you. But when he had returned, the confessor added the remaining words, namely, from thy sins.

“Another time, when he was baptizing an infant, and had already said, I baptize thee, immediately turning to some boys who were talking, he interrupted the form, crying: Be silent, chatterers; be silent, worst boys, absurd boys! And afterward he proceeded: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spi (here suddenly he sneezes and coughs) rit Holy.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. Cornelius absolved validly, because the interruption of the words and the interposition were not so great that the following words, from thy sins, would not be judged, in the moral estimation of men, to be joined with the preceding words, I absolve thee. Nevertheless, if he had repeated the words of absolution as a precaution under condition, he would not have been condemned. But why under condition? Because according to many doctors the words I absolve thee probably suffice for the form of absolution. Therefore probably the penitent was absolved before the interruption; therefore, if the words had been repeated, this would have had to be done under condition. Elbel, no. 13.

2. Cornelius likewise baptized validly; for the interruption vitiated the form only accidentally, because the sense is not taken away where only a small interruption of words is interposed, since it removes neither the intention of the speaker nor the understanding of the words, as St. Thomas says, part 3, question 60, article 8, ad 3. But the interruption was indeed brief, whether in correcting and rebuking the boys, or even in coughing and sneezing. Therefore it can in no way stand in the way of the validity of baptism. Voit, no. 23.

3. Cornelius acted illicitly in calling back the penitent in this way, with the latter’s annoyance and the scandal of others. It was by no means necessary to call him back, since he was certainly morally present. It would therefore have been enough to complete the form of absolution already begun, and no longer to think about the penitent.

4. He also acted illicitly in the baptism, and indeed of itself gravely, by reason of scandal or of grave injury inflicted upon the sacrament. For there was no such urgency that he should rebuke the boys in that way. Was there danger in delay, so that he could not first have completed the sacramental form? Voit, ibid.” Thus Gury, 154, 155.

“A great interruption of words,” says Lugo, d. 2, no. 111, “impedes the validity of the sacrament, because the sense of the sentence is taken away; but a moderate interruption does not impede it, because morally it is the same sentence, and this even if other words are interposed, as if someone says, I baptize thee, and, asking for water, says, give water, and immediately continues, in the name of the Father, etc. But how great and of what kind the interruption or interposition of words must be in order to take away the sense is a moral matter, and depends on the arbitration and judgment of prudent men.” That is, that is prudently judged a great interruption which is prudently judged to take away the sense of the sentence. And St. Thomas, loc. cit.: “If there is so great an interruption of words that the intention of the one pronouncing is intercepted, the sense of the sacrament is taken away, and consequently its truth; but it is not taken away when the interruption is small, which does not remove the intention of the one uttering and the understanding of the words.”

Now the resolution of Father Gury concerning absolution is not without difficulty. For first, if Cornelius absolved validly, as he simply affirms, because a small interruption was present and the understanding of the words remained entire with the intention of the one uttering them, how then could Cornelius repeat the absolution as a precaution? In order that it be said that Cornelius could have done this as a precaution, it is necessary that it be said that Cornelius probably did not absolve, and that probably the form was interrupted. Besides, if Cornelius ought to have repeated the absolution as a precaution, why is this same thing not asserted with more urgent reason concerning baptism? For the delay interposed between the words of the form of baptism and the words of absolution was almost the same. Therefore either in each case the form ought to have been repeated, or in neither. Finally, granted repetition of the form of absolution, it would then have had to be repeated under condition not only because the words I absolve thee alone probably suffice, but also because, since they probably do not suffice, the form in such an opinion would in the Case probably have been interrupted. Thus indeed it would have to be said consequently. But in truth, in each case, it plainly appears that the intention of the one pronouncing was not intercepted; on the contrary, it was continued by the continuation of the form, nor was the understanding of the words taken away in the Case; for any prudent man assisting at such an administration of the sacrament would well have understood the truth of the form. — I. M. 320, 748.

5. “Sidonius, a priest, while saying Mass, when he had come to the words of consecration of the bread, by a slip of the tongue or by distraction said: This is the Chalice, and immediately, noticing the error, mentally retracted the word Chalice, and uttered the remaining part of the form, namely, my Body. Afterward he doubted whether he ought to have repeated the form, and even now, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass for the stipend accepted.

Question. Was the consecration valid?

R. The matter can be subjected to controversy. At first sight, that form seems invalid, because these words convey no sense. It was not enough that the priest should correct the error mentally, or by intention remove the word Chalice, which had crept in by a slip of the tongue. For the words of the form must be taken materially, and they are worth only as much as they sound. But in the Case they sound nothing. Therefore they are worth nothing, that is, they signify nothing. Therefore the form had to be repeated.

“Nevertheless the reasons which can be adduced for the opposite opinion are by no means to be despised. For words are worth only as much as human usage bears. Now in human usage, if by a slip of the tongue an undue word flows from the mouth, it is immediately corrected by the change of the word alone, and the beginning of the sentence is not repeated. Therefore, when the undue word Chalice had been uttered, the form could sufficiently be corrected by the celebrant by changing only the undue word. Therefore the consecration was valid, at least probably, just as baptism conferred thus is valid: I baptize thee in honor ... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But because of the doubt, the priest ought to have repeated the form under condition. But when the sacred action had been completed, he ought not to have celebrated another for the stipend accepted. Indeed he would not have to celebrate another Mass even if that prior consecration were certainly invalid, because probably the consecration of one species suffices for the essence of the sacrifice. Thus La Croix, book 6, part 2, no. 15. Nevertheless the more common and more probable opinion holds that each consecration is required for the essence of the sacrifice. St. Liguori, 306.” Thus Father Gury, 148, 149, 254.

But it must be noted first that if Sidonius only mentally retracted the word Chalice, so that externally the slip of the tongue and error could not be noted, then it seems absolutely more probable that the consecration was not valid. For when someone errs in some word and then corrects the word erroneously uttered, this appears externally, and the right sense of the proposition is understood by the hearers. But if someone, disguising the error committed, seriously continues the sentence by correcting the mistaken word, then the correction is not understood, and the erroneous or equivocal sentence remains among the hearers. Besides, it is indeed to be feared lest in the Case it be valid to say that the sacrifice probably was valid for excusing Sidonius from celebrating another Mass. For it does not appear clearly enough here that there is question of the right use of probabilism, since there is not question merely of the subjective liceity of an action, but also of the objective truth of the thing, namely, of the certain fruit of the sacrifice. This can be confirmed by the Response of the Holy Office, 27 January 1897. Cf. I. M., vol. 1, no. 116; A. S. S., vol. 32, p. 562.

6. “Henry, a priest, driven by scruples even to madness, seems to himself never to express the words of consecration sufficiently. Wherefore he is accustomed to say them aloud, while those assisting at the sacred action wonder and are stunned, and he repeats the individual words three or four times in the following manner: This, this, this is, is, is Body, Body, Body my, my, my.

Question. What is to be judged concerning Henry?

R. Henry sinned of itself gravely by treating the form of the Eucharist so injuriously; by accident, however, by reason of madness, he will easily be excused from grave sin.” Thus Father Gury, 158, saying nothing about the validity of such a form. But it is valid. “Thus Clericatus, de Sacram. in gen., decision 8, no. 8. The reason is that that repetition of individual words did not take away the substantial sense of the form, as will easily appear to one weighing it well.” Elbel, 14.

7. To Bishop Titius, after the solemn blessing of the baptismal font had been completed on Holy Saturday, an infant was brought to be baptized. But in conferring baptism it happened by chance that the bishop indeed uttered the words, I baptize thee, etc., yet did not at the same time pour the water, because through the forgetfulness of the sacristan it had not yet been put into the vessel. As soon as the master of ceremonies noticed this, he immediately filled the vessel with water taken from the sacred font, which the bishop poured on the head of the infant, the words of the form not having been repeated.

Another time the same Titius, when through the days of Pentecost in the same cathedral church he was administering the sacrament of confirmation to a multitude of boys, was so disturbed by the noise which the fall of a certain little boy caused, while he was in the act of anointing one of them with chrism, that he completed the anointing on his forehead, yet without uttering the words of the form. At the same time, having turned his face, he asked what had happened; and after he had received notice of the matter and had learned that the crowd excited by that noise had quieted down, he uttered the sacramental words, the anointing not having been repeated, then proceeding to confirm the others.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Concerning the validity of the baptism there does not seem to be room for doubt. For from the common and morally certain opinion, between the matter and form of baptism there suffices that moral union, namely that union by force of which the form truly signifies the present baptism or washing. Now this moral union is most certainly had when the minister pronounces the words of the form, I baptize thee, and yet has not yet poured the water, but will soon pour it at the invocation of the three Persons. Therefore by parity moral union is also had when that pouring immediately follows the very utterance of the form, or soon follows it, since any prudent man present well understands that that washing then corresponds to the form already uttered, I baptize thee, that it is done by force of this uttered form, and that it renders the same form objectively true. But now, since as soon as the master of ceremonies, in the Case, noticed the defect of the pouring of water, he immediately filled the vessel with water from the sacred font, which consequently the bishop poured on the head of the infant after the form had already been uttered, it is well gathered from this series of facts that between the said utterance of the form and the pouring of the water either no delay was interposed, or only a very brief delay; and that delay, if it was present, was certainly no other intermediate action which separated the matter from the form, but was only this action, which rather was a certain continuation between form and matter, namely, to take water from the sacred font, which then immediately the bishop poured on the head of the infant.

But the validity of the confirmation seems doubtful. For it does not seem that so brief a delay was interposed between matter and form as in the preceding case of baptism. For since the bishop, while chrismating the boy, was disturbed by the sudden noise that had been made, whence he had not pronounced the form over him, and then, having turned toward the people, asked what had happened, and the fact was explained to him, and finally he learned that the crowd also, excited by that noise, had quieted down, and only after all these things uttered the words of the form, it appears more than sufficiently that between matter and form there was not an altogether brief delay, but on the contrary a rather notable one. Wherefore the sacrament in the Case seems to have been doubtful, and therefore to have had to be repeated under condition. — I. M. 322, 327.

8. “Parmenio, a parish priest, while baptizing an infant, distracted by the noise and tumult of some boys and by the cries of the one to be baptized, first pours the water in silence, and afterward hastens to utter the words of the form. Thereupon, anxious, he does not know whether he can or ought to repeat the baptism. Finally he resolves to omit the repetition; but not for this reason is he free from every anxiety.

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. Parmenio baptized validly according to the common opinion in St. Liguori, no. 9. The reason is that in baptism moral union seems to suffice, consisting in this: that the form at once follows the application of the matter, or immediately precedes it. Nevertheless, in practice, since several grave theologians contend that some simultaneity is required between matter and form, or that the pouring of the water is not completed before the form has been begun, or the form is not completed before the pouring has begun, baptism must be repeated if the matter was not carried out in this way. Hence Parmenio ought to have repeated the baptism, and he still ought to repeat it, under condition.” Thus Father Gury, 142.

But this resolution does not seem to be free from some difficulty concerning the necessity and obligation which Father Gury asserts in the Case, of repeating baptism under condition. For from the Roman Ritual, On the Baptism of Adults, all indeed are to be baptized “concerning whom there is probable doubt whether they have been baptized.” Likewise, from the Holy Office, 6 April 1859, no one is to be baptized again “unless there is probable doubt concerning the invalidity of baptism.” Now probable doubt does not seem to be had in the Case. For there is question of a doctrine commonly admitted as morally certain, and admitted as such by Father Gury himself without any doubt in the preceding number 141, namely, concerning moral union between matter and form. For that union is required for this, that the signification of the matter be completed by the form, and that the form be altogether true when it is uttered. But this is had without physical union, by moral union only, namely when immediately after the matter has been applied the form is uttered; since then, when after the use of the matter the action of the minister still continues by the utterance of the form, the unity of the sacramental action appears altogether, and it is clear that the immediately following utterance of the form is referred to the preceding use of the matter. Otherwise it would be altogether necessary not only to pour the water while the form is pronounced, but to pour the water when that word of the form I baptize, which signifies that pouring, is pronounced. Wherefore, just as that pouring is morally united with the whole form in whatever part of the form it is made, so also it is still morally united with the whole form if it is made immediately before or immediately after, by reason of the continuation of one and the same action, considered according to its moral being, since that whole action is one only morally; physically, however, it is multiple. Nor indeed does St. Alphonsus, no. 9, cited by Father Gury, insert any doubt about this matter. Although he explicitly mentions the opinion of some who require physical simultaneity between matter and form, nevertheless the holy Doctor himself simply affirms that moral simultaneity suffices from the common opinion, and he brings forward for this not a probable but a certain reason, because in a moral composite, such as a sacrament is, moral unity suffices. The holy Doctor feels and acknowledges the force of this reason, immediately saying: “and concerning this it seems one cannot doubt; for, as we just said concerning baptism, whenever the washing is not done while the word I baptize is actually uttered, the washing is not verified except through moral union. But this union will be just as moral if the washing is done immediately before the form is completed, as if it is done immediately after.” Suarez, d. 2, s. 2, par. Hinc, asserts the same thing without doubt; he holds the opposite opinion as false and improbable. Nor indeed does an opinion become probable from the fact that some even grave theologian defends it, if he does not defend it by a grave reason. But the foundation of the opposite opinion, that for the truth of the form a greater simultaneity than merely moral is required, as is abundantly clear from what has been said, has no serious probability. There is added also that the opposite opinion “without cause casts great scruple upon the truth and certainty of the sacraments ... Whence Soto rightly objects that when a great multitude is to be baptized, as for example when the Apostles baptized three thousand men in one day, they did not so metaphysically attend that part of the matter should coexist with part of the form, but they did each morally.” Suarez, ibid. Wherefore in no way does Parmenio seem to be bound to the reiteration of baptism, if it is truly established for him that he uttered the words of the form immediately after the pouring of the water.

9. “Callixtus, assistant to the parish priest, hearing the confession of Titius, who is gravely ill in bed, understands that he has offspring from a putative marriage with Bertha. In order to bring an efficacious remedy to so great an evil, he judges that that marriage must be renewed. Wherefore he asks Titius whether he accepts Bertha as true wife. Titius assents, and has his consent ratified before two witnesses who have been called. Bertha is called; Callixtus, with the witnesses, goes out to meet her as she comes, and says: Titius accepts thee as true wife; do not thou also accept him as husband? Bertha responds: I accept. When these things have been done, they hasten to go to Titius, but alas! they find him already destitute of his senses.”

Question. What is to be said to the Case?

R. 1. As regards liceity, “both spouses and the witnesses ought to be present before the priest ... Nevertheless the priest does not seem to be condemnable, if he in reality feared that the time for waiting for Bertha’s arrival would fail, as in reality it did fail.”

2. But as regards validity, “the marriage of Titius and Bertha is valid, because sufficient moral union was present between the consent of each. For the consent of Titius was legitimately given before the vicar of the parish priest and suitable witnesses; and a little afterward the consent of Bertha also acceded before the same priest and the same witnesses. Therefore nothing is lacking for the validity of the marriage. For in marriage even a broad moral union suffices between the consent of the spouses, because marriage is entered into by way of contract. But in a contract it is by no means required that the consent of each contracting party be placed simultaneously. Nevertheless for the validity of this marriage, it must be supposed that Titius preserved the use of reason up to the time when Bertha herself gave consent; otherwise the required union would be lacking, since the consent of the man would not morally persevere.” Thus Father Gury, 143, 144.

But there is difficulty in this resolution. For in bilateral contracts, from the nature of the matter itself, it is required that the consent given be mutually known and accepted. Lugo, de Iust. et Iur., d. 22, no. 27; I. M., vol. 1, no. 940. Nevertheless theologians are not lacking who think otherwise, and it can probably be maintained that reciprocal acceptance is not absolutely required in bilateral contracts. For by the very fact that someone gives his own consent to a contract, he also accepts the consent of the other if that other truly consents. Hence, when the other truly consents, the consent and acceptance of each are now had. Therefore the marriage of Titius with Bertha is probably valid; and consequently in practice one must stand in favor of the marriage, namely, in favor of the surviving widow and of the offspring received.

10. “Whether baptism conferred on infants with this condition is valid: If thou wishest to be baptized, I baptize thee, etc.; and what must be done toward those who, with such a condition having been attached, were baptized by certain women; namely, whether they are to be baptized again, either absolutely or conditionally?

R. That baptism conferred under the stated condition is valid; nevertheless, that condition must in the future be altogether omitted.” S. O., 12 June 1850, Collect. S. C. de P. F., no. 527. — I. M. 327.