Section 4. Disparity of Cult.

578. Nature of the Impediment. The impediment of disparity of cult consists in this, that matrimony cannot be validly entered between one baptized in the Catholic Church or converted to it and one not baptized. But if one converted from heresy or schism afterward defects again from the Catholic Church, he is held as Catholic, and therefore is bound by this impediment.

Disparity of cult between spouses is called perfect if one party is baptized and the other not baptized; it is called imperfect if one party is Catholic and the other acatholic, that is, heretical or schismatic. The former, in the proper and strict sense, is called disparity of cult; the latter is properly called by the name mixed religion.

1. This impediment, insofar as it is diriment, is of ecclesiastical law. For although no testimony of ancient law establishing this impediment exists, nevertheless by the long use of the Church, which obtained the force of law, it is certain that disparity of cult dirimently impedes matrimony;¹ moreover, it is expressly established by the new Code.²

a. This impediment was established lest, from close familiarity with infidels, the faithful spouse, together with offspring, undergo danger of losing the faith; and then also lest matrimony, which among the baptized is a sacrament, be contracted by a baptized person with an unbaptized person; but especially because nothing is more opposed to matrimony, which by its nature involves an intimate union of minds, than disparity of cult and therefore disparity in the supreme principles of moral and religious life.

b. Therefore the Church can dispense in this impediment, and in regions of infidels indeed it dispenses more easily from an urgent cause; but in our regions a dispensation is granted with great difficulty, and much more difficultly if the matter concerns the matrimony of a Christian with a Jew. But if the Church for a grave cause dispenses in this impediment, this is done only under the same conditions under which mixed marriages are permitted.³ If these conditions are not furnished, dispensation is never granted. Moreover, a dispensation imparted by one having power from the Holy See, when the prescribed cautions have not been required or have been denied, is invalid. And the ordinary himself can declare the nullity of the matrimony, if it is evidently established concerning it because of this cause, nor is recourse to the Holy See necessary.⁴

c. For convalidating a matrimony invalid because of the impediment of disparity of cult, dispensation is granted more easily. Thus to American bishops there has been granted the faculty of convalidating by sanation in the root even marriages invalid because of disparity of cult; only if it is a matter of matrimony entered with a Jew must they recur to the Holy See in individual cases, all circumstances being accurately set forth.

2. This impediment, insofar as it is prohibiting, is of natural and divine law; the reason of the first is the danger of perversion which threatens both the faithful spouse and future offspring; the reason of the second is the prohibition which is had in the sacred Scriptures: "Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers,"⁵ that is, do not enter conjugal union with unbelievers.

Therefore matrimony between a baptized and an unbaptized person is also gravely illicit, and it can become licit only if the proximate danger of perversion becomes remote, and if there exists a grave cause of seeking and granting dispensation from this impediment.

3. Heretics and schismatics are not held by this impediment. Therefore matrimony between a validly baptized heretic or schismatic and an infidel is now valid.

a. Apostates from the true Catholic faith, likewise converted heretics or schismatics who afterward defect again from the true faith, are bound by this impediment.

b. A great difference intervenes between the ancient impediment of disparity of cult and the modern one. For hitherto disparity of cult dirimently impeded matrimony between any baptized person whatever and a non-baptized person; but now only between one baptized in the Catholic Church (to whom converted heretics or schismatics are equated) and a non-baptized person. Therefore matrimony between a validly baptized heretic and an infidel is valid, which formerly was invalid.

c. Because in this time there is often deserved doubt concerning the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, several marriages of heretics were invalid because of disparity of cult. Perhaps for this reason the Church restricted this impediment, lest many marriages of heretics be invalid.

d. Therefore marriages of heretics and schismatics contracted up to May 19, 1918, must be judged according to the former law.

¹ Cf. constitution of Benedict XIV, Singulari nobis (February 9, 1749), n. 10. At the beginning of the thirteenth century disparity of cult is already a diriment impediment of matrimony.

² No matrimony exists contracted by a non-baptized person with a person baptized in the Catholic Church or converted to the same from heresy or schism. Cn. 1070, 1.

³ What has been prescribed concerning mixed marriages (n. 540) must also be applied to marriages which the impediment of disparity of cult opposes. Cn. 1071.

⁴ S. Office, June 21, 1912.

⁵ 2 Cor. 6, 14; the same is also prohibited in 1 Cor. 7, 39.

579. In Doubt Concerning Baptism. Here there is no discussion except of the question whether doubtful baptism in a case of disparity of cult between those about to marry suffices for contracting valid matrimony. Now from several decrees and declarations of the Holy Office and from the new Code,¹ the following rule must be observed:

1. Doubtful baptism, whether there is doubt concerning its conferral or concerning the validity of the baptism conferred, in order to a matrimony both to be contracted and already contracted, is held as valid from presumption; and only if it is certain that baptism either was not conferred or was conferred invalidly is there present the simple impediment of disparity of cult.

a. A Catholic who truly doubts concerning the validity of the baptism received, whether in the case of entering matrimony or outside this case, must be rebaptized under condition: for the matter concerns a sacrament necessary for the salvation of the soul.

b. The practice of administering baptism under condition to an acatholic party who declares that he or she remains in heresy is illicit and to be reproved, if before entering matrimony a doubt arises concerning its validity. But when a doubt of this sort has arisen, investigations must first be instituted; if they have been useless, the doubt must be removed from presumption and the matrimony, whether to be contracted or already contracted, must be held as valid.

c. If doubtful baptism, which is presumed valid, was in reality null, some authors thought that the matrimony, although disparity of cult opposed it, was nevertheless valid, either because the Church had implicitly dispensed, or because it had exempted this case from the law of the impediment from the beginning. But in reality, from Cn. 1070, 2, it is invalid.

2. If doubtful baptism, which is presumed valid, is afterward discovered with certainty to be null, recourse must be had to the Holy See, which will prescribe what must be done.

In order that it may be known when the validity of baptism can duly be presumed, the Holy Office established these things:

With regard to heretics whose rituals prescribe the conferral of baptism without the necessary use of essential matter and form, the particular case must be examined.

With regard to others who according to their rituals baptize validly, the baptism must be judged valid, nor is further examination required in particular cases.

But if doubt persists, even in the first case baptism must be judged valid in order to the validity of matrimony. Hence the general principle which the Holy See holds in this matter is gathered: doubtful baptism, in order to matrimony to be contracted or already contracted, must be held as valid.

¹ S. Office, November 17, 1830; July 7, 1880; September 9, 1868; September 18, 1872; September 18, 1890. Cn. 1070, 2.