Chapter VII — On clandestine matrimony, on the banns, and on the other things which ought to precede matrimony

I. QUESTION I. What is clandestine matrimony? ANSWER. It is that which is celebrated without the presence of the parish priest and of witnesses, as is gathered from Trent, session 24, chapter 1. Before Trent clandestine marriages were valid. Trent declared them invalid for most grave causes. For marriages of this kind fight with the fidelity to be preserved between spouses. For those who contract secretly and without witnesses can easily recede from the consent given; one party can with impunity desert the other, since no testimony can be adduced. The offspring also is subject to uncertainty. Lastly the dignity of the sacrament is violated, and its knot and bond.

II. The Church, in declaring clandestine marriages invalid, did not change the essence of the sacrament, but, that the sacrament might be worthily celebrated, appended conditions, which being lacking, she declared the contracting parties unfit for celebrating the sacrament. Clandestine matrimony has not even the force of betrothals, as the common opinion teaches.

III. QUESTION II. Whether in any case after Trent clandestine matrimony be valid? ANSWER. Unbelievers, even subject to the civil power of Catholic Princes, can enter upon matrimony without the solemnity prescribed by Trent. Similarly the clandestine marriages of the faithful, where Trent is not received, are valid. For a law not accepted does not annul a contract. But where Trent is received, there is given no case in which matrimony without the presence of the parish priest and of witnesses is valid. If the parish priest be lacking, although a hundred witnesses were present, the matrimony is null.

IV. Travellers passing through places where Trent has been promulgated are bound to contract before the parish priest and witnesses. Travellers departing from places where Trent has been promulgated, and passing through places where Trent has not been received, very many teach contract validly, yet affirm that these sin mortally. I should not dare to assert such matrimony valid, since it can be contracted before the parish priest and witnesses.

V. Does he opine truly who teaches that Catholics who in fraud go to those places where Trent has not been promulgated can validly celebrate matrimony?

VI. This opinion is to me utterly false and adverse to the Council of Trent. Catholics therefore will be able to pass over to the places of heretics or unbelievers, and there contract secretly, and, returning to their own country, publicly enter upon another matrimony. For this, among other things, is the absurdity which Trent warns follows upon clandestine marriages. He does not commit fraud, says Sánchez, who uses his own right. True. But whence has he it, that Catholics possess a right of circumventing the most grave law of Trent, which declares Catholics unfit for contracting occult marriages of this kind? It is denied that they possess this right.

VII. The faithful dwelling under the tyranny of unbelievers, if they can in no way have the presence of a parish priest, let them at least employ witnesses, that in the way they can they may observe the law. For in this way later adulterous marriages are hindered, which absurdity, among others, Trent intends to avoid.

VIII. Catholics subject to a heretical Prince, after matrimony celebrated according to the laws of Trent, cannot present themselves to a heretical minister assisting as a minister at an ecclesiastical sacred rite; but they can present themselves to him, if he assist as a political and civil minister, as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared on the 18th of November 1671, reported by Benedict XIV, Book 6 On the Synod, chapter 5, no. 4. Which declaration he confirms in constitution 49, § 1, at the end, Vol. I, where he forbids the faithful dwelling in the kingdom of Serbia and the neighbouring regions, after matrimony celebrated with the Catholic rite, to renew it before the Cadi, unless the ceremony of the nuptials to be performed before the Cadi were a merely civil act and contained no Mahometan superstition.

IX. QUESTION III. Who is the parish priest prescribed by Trent? ANSWER. He ought to be the proper parish priest at least of one of the contracting parties, or a priest with his licence. Usage obtains in several places that matrimony be celebrated in the parish of the woman, when the man is of another parish; this man nevertheless ought to have testimonial letters from his own parish priest concerning the accustomed banns. But the proper parish priest is not of origin, but of domicile. Who is the parish priest of domicile has been said elsewhere. Outside his own parish or diocese a parish priest can assist at the matrimony of his own parishioners; but he ought to seek licence from the parish priest of the place, as seems to me the more probable. Who is the parish priest of vagrants has been said elsewhere.

X. QUESTION IV. Who besides the parish priest, or a priest designated by him, can assist at matrimony? ANSWER. There can assist: bishops in their own dioceses; archbishops in the dioceses of suffragans when they are actually visiting; Cardinals in the Church of their own title; papal Legates in the province of their legation; the Chapter, the See being vacant, or its Vicar; Abbots of a Church subject to no bishop; the Vicar general of a bishop.

XI. Licences extorted by force, by grave fear falling upon a constant man, or by fraud, that a priest may assist at a matrimony, are null and make the matrimony null, whatever others say to the contrary. For this licence must needs be free and express.

XII. QUESTION V. Whether for the validity of matrimony two witnesses be required? ANSWER. All affirm it, and that matrimony contracted before the parish priest and one witness is null: because Trent besides the parish priest prescribes two witnesses, who ought to be present with physical and moral presence, and to perceive the consent of each spouse; they ought to be witnesses, and co-witnesses together with the parish priest.

XIII. A parish priest is called by force, guile, or fear to assist at a matrimony: is this matrimony to be called valid? The more recent authors commonly affirm it, and adduce several declarations of the Congregation of Cardinals. To which, if they be authentic, I subscribe. But these being set aside, this matrimony would seem to me invalid, at which a parish priest compelled by guile, fraud, or fear falling upon a constant man should assist. For the wishes of the Council are that this sacrament be freely celebrated. Grave fear struck into the betrothed makes the matrimony null, as has been said above. Why not fear struck into the parish priest? That those sin mortally who contract matrimony before a parish priest held by force, or by guile, or assisting by chance in passing, all teach. What if the parish priest should close his eyes and stop his ears, and protest that he neither sees nor hears what is done? That even then the matrimony is valid the Salmanticenses and Leander affirm, and assert it out of Farinacius from the Declarations of the Cardinals. These declarations being set aside, which I with difficulty believe to be authentic, I should call such a matrimony null. One must nevertheless stand by the decisions, if they be authentic.

XIV. QUESTION VI. What ought a parish priest to perform in the celebration of matrimony? ANSWER. He ought first to question the contracting parties whether they wish mutually to join themselves. Their reciprocal consent being heard, he ought to join them, pronouncing the words prescribed by the Council: I join you together in matrimony, and so forth.

XV. Would a parish priest sin mortally who omitted these words I join you together, and so forth? Sánchez denies it. But the nuptial blessing, and the reported words, or like ones, by which parish priests join the contracting parties, are one of the chief moments of sacred tradition, by which Catholics evince against the heretics that matrimony is a sacrament. On what ground therefore does anyone call the aforesaid formula of words a light matter? Do they not bear a mystery of great signification, since they portend the conjunction of Christ with the Church? Besides, is not that opinion exceedingly probable which defends that those words are the form of the sacrament? Is not the safer opinion to be chosen in the performing of the sacraments?

XVI. QUESTION VII. Whether the banns of a future matrimony be necessary by the necessity of the sacrament, or of precept? ANSWER. That they are not necessary by the necessity of the sacrament all affirm; but that they are necessary by the necessity of precept is certain, as is established from Trent, session 24, chapter 1. If the spouses be of diverse parishes, the banns ought to be made in each parish on three feast days amid the solemnities of the Masses. That this precept obliges under mortal sin the common and true opinion teaches. From this precept supreme Princes are exempt. From this precept the bishop alone can dispense, as Trent decrees. For a just dispensation some cause is required. Bishops nevertheless ought to beware lest they be too easy in granting dispensations of this kind.

XVII. Whosoever knows any impediment which can be proved by witnesses is bound under grave fault to manifest it, as all teach. If it be occult, which cannot be proved by witnesses, some deny that anyone is bound to lay it open; but the affirmative opinion is common. For everyone is bound to obey a superior commanding. But a parish priest promulgating the banns lawfully commands that impediments between the future spouses be manifested. There is added that upon one revealing impediments the proof does not lie.

XVIII. QUESTION VIII. Do spouses sin if they consummate matrimony before the nuptial blessing? ANSWER. Some deny it. But the Council of Trent exhorts, session 24, chapter 1, that they dwell not in the same house before the sacred blessing to be received in the Church. Concerning this blessing Pope Siricius in his epistle to Himerius, chapter 4, writes thus: That blessing which a priest imposes upon those about to marry is among the faithful as it were the seal of a certain sacrilege, if it be violated by any transgression. Like things Pope Hormisdas writes; and the Fourth Council of Carthage, reported part 1, distinction 30, question 5, chapter 1, says: The bridegroom and bride, when they are to be blessed by the priest, are offered by their parents or by the paranymphs; and when they have received the blessing, on that same night, out of reverence for the blessing itself, let them remain in virginity. So speak all the Fathers: and from the tradition of the Fathers we evince against the heretics that matrimony is a sacrament, as has been indicated above.

XIX. That readers may on the occasion given understand how far the manner of opining of very many casuists differs from the doctrine of the holy Fathers, let them hear what after Fr. Sánchez Fr. Viva writes, question 4, article 4, no. 6, where he says: “The blessing of the nuptials does not seem to be a grave matter, nor greatly congruous to the progress of matrimony. For the nuptial blessing is not a sacrament, but a certain sacramental, nor of so great moment as the sacramentals which are sent before Baptism. But although it is not free from venial fault simply to omit it without any cause, against the use and custom of the Church, nevertheless it is probable that there is no fault, from a just cause — namely by reason of a forbidden season, in Advent or Lent — to consummate matrimony before the blessing of the Church; since it seems to be a counsel, not a precept, to send it before.”

XX. These things cannot be read and compared with the doctrine of the holy Fathers and of the Councils without the mind being kindled with zeal for Christian discipline. The sacred blessing of pastors does not seem to be a grave matter, nor greatly congruous to the progress of matrimony? The matrimony of Catholics is a sacrament, and the blessing of priests is not greatly congruous? Whether anything of offence to pious ears is contained in these words, let the wise judge. Those therefore sin, and indeed mortally, who consummate matrimony before the blessing.