Case XI: Disparity of Religion

Bertha is married to a man who does not know anything about his baptism. Bertha is a Catholic. The man was the son of a non- Catholic family, the mother being a Methodist, but the son has apparently no religion at all. I think therefore that I should procure for them a dispensation super impedimento disparitatis cultus. Now the man always runs away when I go there, as I have been attending his stepdaughter. I would hardly care to look to him for a renewal of consent, because he would not know what it was all about, and if they did renew their consent I would be uneasy about its being a valid consent. It would be hard enough to make the wife do the renewing, because she has lived with a man who was not her husband, before her present marriage, and is perfectly satisfied that the present marriage is all that it ought to be. I don’t know whether I ought to get a dispensation in radice, or whether to get an ordinary dispensation and take advantage of what Sabetti says, viz., that the opinion seems entirely certain that the party who is ignorant of the impediment need not renew the consent in this one case—that a Catholic marry an unbaptized person. I never met this man, but his wife tells me he is a very good man, and once I became acquainted with him he would be glad to see me; but he would not understand about the impediment and might think that I was unnecessarily interfering in his private concerns. Should I get a sanatio in radice, or the ordinary dispensation, and will it be sufficient in the second case to have the wife renew her consent?

Answer. The cause of the difficulty about this marriage is the uncertainty of the husband’s baptism. If he was never baptized, or if ever baptized, then never validly, there seems to have existed at the time of his marriage to a Catholic woman a diriment impediment disparitatis cultus, which was not removed by a dispensation, since we suppose that they were not married by a priest, and which rendered any marriage with a baptized woman invalid. That the man, and even the woman, were ignorant at the time of the impediment and its effect, did not stay its operation of invalidating the marriage. Their marriage consent may have been perfectly valid and sufficient—qua consensus—still it could not create a valid marriage contract, because it was vitiated or rendered inoperative by reason of the impediment.

In the present case the man’s consent was valid, because he knew nothing of the impediment. It would seem also that the woman was ignorant of any diriment impediment, and at the time of the marriage gave a valid consent. “In dubio standum est pro valore.” In case, therefore, that it be fully established that the man was never baptized, and it be impossible or extremely difficult to bring about a renewal of consent, a sanatio in radice may be procured and applied without renewal of consent on either part; or better still, application should be made to Rome, according to the Holy Office, if the parties were married without a dispensation super impedimento disparitatis cultus, and the baptism of one of the parties was in doubt at the time of the marriage, but afterward was proven to have been no baptism at all. In this case Rome will advise what course ought to be pursued in each instance. If the woman was aware, at the time of her marriage, or has become aware since, that her marriage was invalid on account of a diriment impediment, she must renew her consent, since the consent that she gave at her marriage was worthless on account of her knowledge of the impediment, or has become worthless since, owing to such knowledge, and therefore can not be said to endure, so that it might be healed, since it never existed or has ceased to exist. Therefore it must be renewed, i. e., a new consent must be given or there can be no valid contract. But all this reasoning has proceeded on the assumption that there existed from the beginning of this marriage a sufficient impediment to have invalidated the marriage. Now is such really the case? Is it certain that this man was never baptized? Is his baptism sufficiently doubtful to create a presumption against the validity of his marriage? No, by no means. It is not certain that he was never baptized. He himself does not know anything about his baptism, but his mother was a Methodist, and the Methodists as a religious body baptize validly. This fact alone creates a presumption, according to the decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office, in favor of the man’s baptism, with respect to the validity of a marriage contracted or to be contracted.

Only in cases where it is perfectly certain that one of the parties to a marriage contract was never validly baptized, can there be question of the impediment disparitatis cultus. In our case there is no such certainty. The whole question must, therefore, be solved on -other lines. There is well founded doubt whether this man was ever validly baptized. Upon investigation the doubt remains. It can not be said with certainty that he was baptized, and it can not be said with certainty that he was not baptized. It is a case of “baptismus dubius.” Now this man, only doubtfully baptized, marries a baptized woman, before a magistrate or a non-Catholic minister of the Gospel, without any dispensation super impedimento disparitatis cultus. Is such a marriage invalid, or is it valid, or is its validity doubtful.

“Whether the marriage is valid if a grave doubt arises concerning the baptism of one party?” The solution of this question is to be found in the decrees of the Holy Office, v. g., decrees Nov. 17, 1830; July 7, 1880; Sept 18, 1890, etc., etc.

According to these decrees, when the baptism of one of the parties to a marriage contract is doubtful, whether the doubt concern the fact of the baptism or its validity, “with respect both to a marriage to be contracted and to one already contracted, it is held valid by presumption.” It is only in cases where it is altogether certain that no baptism was ever conferred, or if conferred, then invalidly, that the impediment disparitatis cultus, invalidates the marriage. Now if a person, regarding whose baptism there exists grave doubt, but whose baptism is presumed to have been valid in ordine ad matrimonium, is married to a baptized person, without a dispensation, then theologians consider such a marriage valid, even though, in reality, the person thus married was never baptized; they hold that in such cases the Church dispenses super impedimento disparitatis cultus. If, however, in the same case, when a doubtful baptism has been presumed valid, and a marriage is contracted, and afterward it be established on incontrovertible evidence that the doubtful baptism, thus presumed valid, was in reality no baptism, then recourse must be had to the Holy See, which will decide what is to be done in each particular case.

For determining when a baptism may be presumed valid, in ordine ad matrimonium, the Holy Office lays down the following rules:

1. If the person, whose baptism is in doubt, belonged to a sect which does not insist, in its ritual, on the essential form and matter of baptism, then each case must be examined separately.

2. If the person belonged to a sect whose ritual does prescribe the essentials for a valid baptism, then the baptism of such a person is presumed to have been valid, and no further investigation is necessary.

3. If, upon examination, in either case, the baptism continues doubtful, then it is presumed valid, with respect to the validity of marriage,

A general rule of the Holy See in this matter is: A doubtful Baptism, with respect to a marriage to be contracted or one already contracted, must be held valid.

In conclusion, therefore, we say that this Catholic woman’s marriage to this doubtfully baptized man, although entered into without a dispensation, is to be presumed valid in the eyes of the Church until it is proven invalid.