Case V: Impediment of Spiritual Relationship

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: Case V, Quest. 1.—The spiritual relationship as a diriment impediment to marriage is limited by the Code, Canons 768 and 1079, and exists only between the one baptizing, and the sponsor, with the one baptized. There is no longer any impediment between the sponsors and the parents nor between the minister of baptism and the parents. Therefore in this case there is no impediment of spiritual relationship.

As regards Question 2, page 27, it may be remarked that the witnesses are required in every Catholic marriage and the New Code does not alter this rule. In danger of death when a priest, authorized to assist at marriages, cannot be had two witnesses suffice. Outside the case of danger of death, if the priest cannot be had and the parties cannot go to him without great inconvenience and it can be foreseen that this condition will last for a month, the parties can contract a valid marriage in presence of two witnesses. Canon 1098. In this Canon there is an important modification of the "Ne Temere" in as much as according to the "Ne Temere" the parties could not marry without an authorized priest unless the difficulty of getting the priest had actually lasted for a month, while the New Code allows marriage without a priest when it can be foreseen that the great inconvenience of getting a priest for the marriage will last a month.

“I have secured a dispensation from the banns for a marriage case, the reason being for ending concubinage and legitimating the offspring. Now I find that the woman in the case gave private Baptism to one of the children, who was at the point of death. Do I have to get a dispensation super impedimento cognationis spiritualis? Furthermore, is it of obligation to have witnesses at this marriage? The contracting parties have lived together nearly twenty years. Would one witness suffice, or may not the priest act as a witness?

“Thirdly, the man has asthma and, I believe, rheumatism or dropsy; he can not, or at least only with great difficulty, get to the church. The statutes of the diocese forbid marriage in the house without permission. The man is not confined to his bed. Must I get permission to marry them in the house?”

Answer. The first question proposed above is one of spiritual relationship arising from the administration of private Baptism. Baptism, being a regeneration or new birth, begets relationship, in the Spiritual order, in the same way that generation in the order of nature begets blood relationship. The Church has made this spiritual relationship a diriment impediment to marriage. As nature abhors marriages between close blood relations, so does grace abominate marriages between the spiritually related. Such marriages are looked upon by the Church as forbidden by the Christian sense of decency, of filial piety and mutual respect engendered by the grace of God. In the interests of religion, therefore, the Church forbids such marriages.

According to the Council of Trent (ss. 24), marriage is void between the following persons, spiritually related by Baptism: 1. Between the minister and the baptized; 2. Between the minister and the parents of the baptized; 3. Between the godparents and the baptized; 4. Between the godparents and the parents of the baptized.

To contract this impediment, the Baptism must be validly even though illicitly administered. A priest who merely supplies the solemn ceremonies of Baptism, but who does not actually baptize, does not contract any spiritual relationship, because no spiritual regeneration has taken place. Again, this impediment is by its very nature reciprocal; it can not, therefore, be contracted by one person, - unless it is contracted at the same time by the others, and since it is juris ecclesiastici, and does not affect the unbaptized, therefore if a baptized person administer Baptism to the child of unbaptized parents, he does not thereby contract spiritual relationship with the parents. This opinion is supported by Lacroix, Bonacina, Ledesma, Sanchez, and others against equally grave theologians.

In like manner, if a baptized mother baptized her own child by an unbaptized man, she would not thereby contract any spiritual relationship with him, and might be married to him later on, without the need of any dispensation super impedimento cognationis spiritualis. Again, if a Catholic man marries a convert who is baptized sub conditione on joining the Church, and for whom the Catholic man acts as sponsor, a dispensation is needed, because the presumption is against the validity of the non-Catholic Baptism, the probable validity of which could hardly be established.

We come now to the question whether spiritual relationship arises from private Baptism administered in danger of death. As regards the minister of the Sacrament, all are agreed that he contracts spiritual relationship both with the person baptized and with his or her parents, whether it be a case of necessity or not. A valid Baptism, whether solemn or private, is a new birth, and as such creates spiritual relationship.

Godparents are not required for private Baptism, hence there seems to be some doubt whether they contract spiritual relationship with the natural parents of the child. St. Alphonsus says that more probably they do not contract such relationship. However, the Congregation of the Council, in 1678, in answer to the question, replied that godparents, even in private Baptism, do contract spiritual relationship with the baptized, and his or her parents.

A mother baptizing her illegitimate offspring in danger of death, thereby contracts spiritual relationship with the father of the child, provided the father is baptized, and she can not marry the father later on, unless a dispensation from the diriment impediment of spiritual relationship be first procured. But if a father or mother baptize their legitimate offspring, whether in a case of necessity or outside of it, they do not contract any relationship, and are not deprived of the jus petendi debitum, because such a deprivation is by nature penal, and is not stated in the law.

The second question asked above is whether witnesses are required for this marriage?

Before the decree of “Ne temere’ went into effect, that is before Easter Sunday, 1908, in those places where the “Tametsi” of the Council of Trent was never published, no witnesses were required for the validity of the marriage, though two witnesses were required by the law of the Church for the licit performance of this marriage. However, since Easter, 1908, an important change has been made in this most important matter. According to the present regulation of the Church, as laid down in the recent decree (August, 1907) Ne temere, two witnesses are required in every case for the valid celebration of any marriage. Section III of this decree reads as follows:

“Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of these and at least Two WITNESSES.”

Section VII further adds: “When danger of death is imminent and where the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of these can not be had, in order to provide for the relief of conscience (and, should the case require it), for the legitimatization of offspring, marriage may be contracted validly and licitly, before any priest and Two WITNESSES.” Again, Section VIII reads: “Should it happen that in any district the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of them, before whom marriage can be celebrated, is not to be had, and that this condition of things has lasted for a month, marriage may be validly and licitly entered upon by the formal declaration of consent made by the spouses in the presence of TWO WITNESSES.”

Hence it is clear that in every case of marriage witnesses are required, and therefore in the case before us the marriage would not be valid unless contracted in the presence of two witnesses.

The third question to which an answer is desired regards marrying the parties in their homes, which is forbidden by the statutes of the diocese.

The statutes of the diocese, forbidding “home weddings,” evidently do not contemplate a case like this one. The purpose of the statute is to discourage home weddings, where there is no grave reason why the parties should not be married in the church. There is a grave reason here, in fact several grave reasons, why these people should be married at home, and the priest may, in the present instance, declare the statute suspended.

If there be any real hardship in approaching the bishop for a dispensation, for some particular reason, and if it be seriously difficult to provide prudent witnesses, then the law of having witnesses ceases to bind. But as this does not appear to be the case in the present instance, it would be better to procure a dispensation.