Spiritual Relationship

602. Nature of the Impediment. 1. The impediment of spiritual relationship consists in this, that between persons who have contracted relationship from the conferral and reception of baptism, valid matrimony cannot be entered.

Spiritual relationship is the nearness of persons arising from spiritual regeneration in the sacrament of baptism. Since spiritual regeneration has a likeness with natural generation, those who have parts in it, the minister and sponsor, are considered as spiritual parents, to whom reverence is owed by spiritual children. But if spiritual relationship were a diriment impediment by natural law, reverence owed to spiritual parents would dirimently impede matrimony, as reverence owed to consanguineous persons dirimently impedes it.

2. This impediment is of merely ecclesiastical law: for it cannot be of natural law, because it arises from the conferral and reception of a sacrament; nor is it of divine law, because no argument of the divine will can be brought forward. Wherefore dispensation can be granted in this impediment, and indeed from any reasonable cause, since it is of lesser grade.

603. Declaration. 1. Only that spiritual relationship invalidates matrimony which intervenes:

a. between the baptized person and the baptizer;

b. between the baptized person and the sponsor.¹

From confirmation indeed spiritual relationship arises, but no impediment of matrimony. The reason for this seems to be the following. Relationship arises because the sponsor, by force of relationship, must take care for the Christian education of his spiritual child. But since the confirmed person and the sponsor must be of the same sex, the relationship intervening between them does not have an effect invalidating matrimony.

a. Spiritual relationship, which by the old law was extended much more widely, was restricted by the Council of Trent² and by the new Code is confined even more, so that it intervenes only a. between the baptized person and the baptizer; b. between the baptized person and the sponsor.

b. Spiritual relationship arises from solemn and private baptism.³

2. In order that spiritual relationship arise, it is required that the sacrament be conferred validly, and on the part of the sponsor, that he or she acted as sponsor validly, although illicitly.

a. One who exercises the office of sponsor through a proxy contracts the relationship himself, not the proxy.⁴

b. If an infidel baptizes the child of a faithful man, he himself does not contract spiritual relationship, because the infidel is incapable of it. But relationship cannot arise from one side only, since it is a relation which by its nature is between two. Hence if a civil sponsor receives baptism, no spiritual relationship exists.

3. Multiple spiritual relationship, which formerly could intervene in some cases, now scarcely ever exists. The one case which could be imagined is this: namely, if the same person were the baptizer and the sponsor, who exercised the office of sponsor through a proxy, a double spiritual relationship would be present between the baptized person and the baptizer. It was long ago declared that spiritual relationship is not multiplied if someone holds several children of the same parents in the same sacrament.⁵

4. If baptism is repeated under condition, spiritual relationship is not contracted unless the same sponsor was employed in each baptism. Therefore neither the sponsor who was present at the former nor the sponsor who was present at the later baptism contracts it.⁶

¹ Cn. 1079 and Cn. 768.

² Sess. 24, c. 2, De reform. matr.

³ Cf. Cn. 762, 2.

⁴ S. C. C., June 11, 1881.

⁵ Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, 368 s. Sanchez, l. 7, disp. 60.

⁶ S. Office, April 29, 1894. Cn. 763, 2.

The Council of Trent ordained, “that in accordance with the appointments of the sacred canons, one person only, whether male or female, or at most one male and one female, shall receive in Baptism the individual baptized; between whom and the baptized, and the father and mother thereof, as also between the person baptizing and the baptized, and the father and mother of the baptized, and these only, shall spiritual relationship be contracted. The parish priest, before he proceeds to confer Baptism, shall carefully inquire of those whom it may concern what person or persons they have chosen to receive from the sacred font the individual baptized; and he shall allow him or them only to receive the baptized; he shall register their names in the book, and teach them what relationship they have contracted, that they may have no excuse on the score of ignorance. And if any others besides those designated should touch the baptized, they shall not in any way contract a spiritual relationship, any constitutions that tend to the contrary notwithstanding.¹

Spiritual relationship between the sponsors and the parents of the baptized person and between the minister of Baptism and the parents was abolished by Canon 768.

In order to be sponsor validly a person must be: (1) Baptized, have the use of reason, and have the intention of being sponsor. (2) He must not belong to any heretical or schismatical body, nor be excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, nor infamous with the infamy of law, nor excluded from acts of law, nor a deposed or degraded cleric.

(3) He must not be the father, mother, or spouse of the person baptized. (4) He must be designated by the person to be baptized, or by his parents or guardians, or failing these by the minister of Baptism.

(5) He must physically hold or touch the baptized person in the act of Baptism, by himself or by his proctor, or immediately raise or receive him from the sacred font or from the hands of the person baptizing (Can. 765).

¹ Sess. xxiv, c, 2, de Ref.

For Confirmation there should presents one or two to be confirmed. be one sponsor who He himself should be confirmed, should have the use of reason, and should have the intention of fulfilling his office. He should not be a heretic or schismatic, or criminal, nor the father, mother or spouse of the person to be confirmed. He should be lawfully designated, and should physically touch the person confirmed by personal contact or by proxy.

That he may be lawfully admitted he should not be the same who acted as sponsor in Baptism, and he should be of the same sex as the person confirmed (Can. 794-796).

Spiritual relationship arises between him and the person confirmed (Can. 797). But it is not a diriment impediment of marriage (Can. 1079).

Spiritual relationship arises by ecclesiastical law from the administration of Baptism and Confirmation, but only that which arises from Baptism is a diriment impediment of marriage (Can. 1079). According to modern discipline, it annuls marriage between the minister of the sacrament and the recipient, and also between the sponsors and the recipient. As it has its origin in ecclesiastical law, it does not affect those who are not baptized, and the impediment is doubtful and consequently non-existent when Baptism is doubtful or only probable. The impediment, as far as it affects sponsors, does not arise if Baptism was administered privately without sponsors and afterward the ceremonies with sponsors are supplied in the Church.

I. Notion. Spiritual relationship is a certain relationship which comes from the ministration and reception of Baptism and Confirmation. Namely, since a human being is spiritually begotten in Baptism and spiritually perfected in Confirmation, therefore spiritual paternity is contracted by those who concur in these sacraments, i.e., by the minister of Baptism and by the sponsors in each sacrament, with respect to the baptized or confirmed person (canons 768, 769, 797).

II. Existence and scope of the impediment. Only spiritual relationship from Baptism diriments marriage, and indeed: 1° between the one baptizing and the baptized person; 2° between the sponsor of baptism and the baptized person (canon 1079). One who performs the office of sponsor through a procurator contracts the impediment himself alone, not the procurator. Therefore the impediment does not exist between the one baptizing and the sponsors, nor between the sponsors among themselves. Moreover, it is in force by ecclesiastical law alone.¹

III. The required conditions are:

1. On the part of baptism it is required that it be truly and validly conferred. Therefore it does not arise from ceremonies supplied later (canon 762, § 2), nor from Baptism invalidly conferred.

Question 1. Whether the impediment arises from private baptism.

Response. With regard to the one baptizing, all affirm. But there is dispute, or at least there was dispute, with regard to sponsors. Yet it seems that it must likewise be affirmed entirely. For: 1° the law does not distinguish between private and solemn baptism (canon 768). 2° The cited canon has these words: "From baptism only the baptizer and the sponsor contract spiritual relationship with the baptized person." But the words "from baptism," with respect to the baptizer, must be understood of both solemn and private baptism; therefore the same must be said with respect to the sponsor. 3° Canon 762, § 2 says thus: "Even in private baptism a sponsor, if he can easily be had, is to be employed; if he was not present, he is to be employed when the ceremonies of baptism are supplied, but in this case he contracts no spiritual relationship." Therefore, in the prior case, i.e., if the sponsor was present at private baptism, he contracts spiritual relationship. 4° Spiritual regeneration, which is the foundation of the impediment, also arises from private Baptism. The responses of the Sacred Congregation of the Council also concur.²

Question 2. Whether the impediment arises from baptism conferred doubtfully or doubtfully validly.

Response. With regard to the sponsor, it must be denied, unless, when baptism is repeated under condition, the same sponsor was employed in each baptism. Outside this case neither the sponsor who was present at the former baptism, nor the one who was present at the later, contracts spiritual relationship (canon 763, § 2); and this holds even if afterward the nullity of one baptism and the validity of the other are established. The same, by analogy, seems to be said of the one baptizing, although the cited canon speaks only of the sponsor.

2. On the part of the one baptizing it is required that he himself be baptized; otherwise the ecclesiastical impediment does not affect him, nor does it seem to affect the other party. For since spiritual relationship is situated in a mutual relation, it seems to affect either each party or neither. Nor does the impediment arise if someone not yet baptized conferred Baptism on someone and afterward himself receives Baptism (n. 757).

3. On the part of the sponsors there are required those things which are necessary for the validity of sponsorship according to what was explained in n. 84.

IV. Multiplication of the impediment can arise only from the fact that someone both baptizes the same person and receives him as sponsor through a procurator.

V. Dispensation of the impediment. It suffices to note that the impediment of spiritual relationship is numbered among impediments of lesser degree (canon 1042).

Note. Spiritual relationship contracted before Pentecost of the year 1918 beyond the limits now defined by the new Code in canon 768 does not cease ipso facto from the aforesaid day of Pentecost with regard to all effects, but only ceases to be an impediment to marriage³ (cf. n. 86).

¹ Before the Code of Canon Law, the impediment was in force: 1° between the one baptizing or confirming and the baptized or confirmed person and the latter's parents; 2° between the sponsor of Baptism or Confirmation and the baptized or confirmed person and the latter's parents.

² April 17, 1603; May 28, 1677; March 5, 1678. The Council of Trent indeed speaks of those who receive from the sacred font; by this it seemed to some that only solemn Baptism was signified. But nothing prevents Baptism as such from being understood by that word, especially because the Council in the preceding words had spoken of those who receive from Baptism. But if you deny this, I would say that the adversaries insisted too much on the letter of the law, against the mind of the legislator, sufficiently clear from the arguments already adduced before the Code of Canon Law.

³ Pontifical Commission, June 2-3, 1918 (A.A.S. 1918).

Is incest between spiritual and legal relatives of a diverse species from that between blood relatives and relatives by affinity? "Absolutely one must affirm with the Salmanticenses and S. Thomas, who 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10 ad 2 teaches that through intercourse between spiritual relatives a sacrilege is committed after the manner of incest... Likewise incest between legal relatives, namely by reason of adoption, is of a diverse species from the others enunciated, and must be explained." L. 450, 469. Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 154, a. 9: "To the 2nd objection concerning spiritual and legal kinship, it is said that because such conjunction is not ordered to consanguinity as its proper and proximate end, but according to a certain assimilation, therefore violation of it is metaphorically called incest." But Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, n. 327 seqq.: "It must be admitted that it [incest between legal relatives] is properly incest; hence there is no reason why we should say it differs in species from incest between natural blood relatives and relatives by affinity... Hence... it will not be necessary to explain the difference of legal kinship from natural... But the circumstance of spiritual kinship is diverse in species from incest, because although it contains some malice of incest... nevertheless beyond this it adds the malice of sacrilege."

Sporer n. 612, 613, has these things: "He who sins carnally with a person joined by legal kinship, of which there is a fourfold degree, 1. between the adopting person and the adopted person and his descendants, 2. between the adopted person and the legitimate children of the adopter, 3. between the wife of the adopted and the adopter himself, 4. between the wife of the adopter and the adopted, without doubt commits a special sin of incest, necessarily to be confessed as such, since between the same persons, because of the often-mentioned reverence due to those joined, the Church establishes a diriment impediment of marriage. But whether this incest must be explained as a sin distinct from the other incests mentioned above, and whether also that diversity just mentioned of degrees or persons must be explained? Again, it is more probable and safer that yes; and sufficiently probable that no. But he who sins with a person joined by spiritual kinship contracted from the sacrament of baptism and confirmation, of which there is a twofold degree or species, spiritual paternity between the one baptizing and confirming, likewise between sponsors on one side, and the baptized and confirmed on the other side; and spiritual co-paternity between the same, the one baptizing and confirming, and sponsors on one side, and the parents of the baptized or confirmed on the other side; for spiritual fraternity between the baptized and confirmed and the children of the one baptizing or sponsors has become obsolete, altogether commits incest distinct from all the aforesaid in consanguinity, affinity, or legal kinship, and therefore to be specially explained in Confession, because it adds a special malice of irreverence by reason of the sacrament, by which it is reduced to a certain genus of sacrilege. But whether it must also be explained whether it was done from the sacrament of baptism or confirmation; likewise whether by paternity or co-paternity? It is most probable that no, because in all there is the same deformity, not much graver or lighter." So also Billuart Diss. 6, art. 6.

What is spiritual kinship? Spiritual kinship is a certain nearness of persons which arises from baptism and confirmation. It dirimently impedes marriage by ecclesiastical law: 1. between the minister of the sacrament and the subject, and the subject's parents; 2. between the godfather or godmother and the goddaughter or godson, and their parents. Trent, sess. 24, chap. 2, de R. M. Therefore it is contracted neither by the spouse of the one baptizing, nor by the spouse of the godfather, St. Pius V, Cum illius vicem, nor among the godparents themselves. Hence the godfather and godmother can enter marriage with each other.

For contracting kinship, baptism is a necessary condition as regards all; therefore if either the one baptizing or the parents of the baptized person are unbelievers, although catechumens, kinship is not contracted by them. Therefore both a believer who baptized the offspring of an unbeliever, and one who received that offspring from the sacred font, could contract marriage not indeed with the baptized offspring, but with that offspring's parents after they had been converted to the faith. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 11, nn. 32-35. But it is certain that this kinship is contracted even by a heretic, both if he baptizes and if he holds at the sacred font, and also if another baptized person, whether heretic or Catholic, either baptizes or holds his offspring. The reason is that whoever has the baptismal character is capable of this kinship and is subject to the laws of the Church. Sanchez, book 7, disp. 60, n. 2; Pirhing, book 4, tit. 11, n. 40. Likewise in confirmation, in order that sponsors contract kinship, it is necessary that they be confirmed. This kinship too can be multiple. It is multiplied from the sacraments, e.g., if someone held Caius in baptism and confirmation, but not if he held several sons of Titius in baptism or confirmation. Holy Office, April 29, 1894. Likewise it is multiplied from persons, if two have mutually held the other's children, etc. Reiffenstuel, book 4, tit. 21, app. de Disp., n. 201; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 16, n. 208; Sanchez, book 7, disp. 54, n. 17; De Iustis, book 1, chap. 4, n. 170; Corradus, book 8, chap. 8, n. 16. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 56. Cf. 442 ff.; E.M.

Note: Parents baptizing their children in necessity or in good faith contract no spiritual kinship by which they are prohibited from the use of marriage; for this prohibition has the nature of a penalty, which is not incurred without fault. Indeed, probably they do not seem to contract the same kinship even if, deliberately and apart from necessity, they baptized their offspring. Truly, the doctors disagree, and some affirm, others deny. Therefore, although they contract spiritual kinship, this nevertheless does not have the effect of depriving them of the right of demanding the debt. The reason is "because the cause for permitting the use of marriage in such a case to each spouse was most just, namely the evident and manifest danger of incontinence...; which danger rightly proves that the deprivation of the right of asking the debt in this case is not to be asserted without an open text of law, such as, however,... none is found." Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 11, n. 48. C. 2, de Cogn. spir.; La Croix, book 6, part 1, n. 358; L. 150; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 11, n. 42 ff.; E.M.

1. "A certain Christian was sponsor of a certain infant baptized at home because of danger of death; afterward he took the infant's mother as wife. Because of the diverse opinions of theologians concerning the impediment of spiritual relationship, what must be judged concerning this marriage?

"R. The Most Holy One must be consulted for a dispensation of the marriage, insofar as there is need, upon the impediment of spiritual relationship, and also for sanation in the root." S. C. de P. F., March 18, 1817; Collect. n. 1250; I. M. 459.

2. Laurianus acted as sponsor in the baptism of all the children of Iacobus. Iacobus having died, Laurianus thinks of taking his widow as wife.

It is asked: Is Laurianus bound to the aforesaid widow by a multiple spiritual relationship, or only by a single relationship?

R. Spiritual relationship can indeed be multiple, and this multiplicity must be expressed in the supplicatory petition, so that the dispensation may be valid. But, in the case, there is not had a multiple spiritual relationship. For it is not multiplied when someone acts as sponsor of several children of someone in the same sacrament; but when each one in turn receives or holds the offspring of the other, and when someone, which is illicit, both receives the same child, or another child of the same person, in baptism, and holds him in confirmation. I. M. 1009.

3. Amandus, an infidel, had promised nuptials to Amalia, a Catholic. For the marriage to be celebrated, a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult was awaited. Meanwhile Amandus falls gravely ill, and, now near death, is converted to the faith by Amalia. On a certain day, when danger of death was imminent, since the missionary was far away and no other Catholic was present, Amalia herself administered baptism to Amandus. Having received baptism, Amandus recovered; and, to the common joy of all, since no dispensation was now needed any longer, he celebrates marriage before the missionary and witnesses.

It is asked: What is to be said to the case?

R. The marriage of Amandus and Amalia is null because of the impediment of spiritual relationship. But it is most difficult that a dispensation can be obtained in the case.

For first, it is altogether undoubted that spiritual relationship is contracted even by a layperson privately baptizing, and in necessity, an outsider who is not his own child, as is clear from Trent, sess. 24, c. 2, de R. M., where it is affirmed that relationship arises from true baptism, between the one baptizing and the baptized, and no distinction is made between baptism conferred solemnly and not solemnly, by a layperson or by a priest. Schmalz., l. 4, t. 11, n. 50, 51; L. 149.

But an impediment of spiritual relationship of this sort between spiritual father and spiritual son is such that the Apostolic See is not accustomed to dispense in it. Ancient and more recent theologians and canonists report scarcely one example, which nevertheless is referred to a sponsor and a goddaughter. Cf. De Iustis, de Dispens. matr., l. 2, c. 5, n. 72; Sanchez, l. 8, d. 24, n. 15; Pont., l. 8, c. 17, § 5, n. 28. The reason is that spiritual regeneration, from which this relationship arises, is likened to carnal generation, which altogether does not admit dispensation in the direct line. And the Sacred Canons define that there must be greater abstaining from the marriage of those who are spiritual relatives to us than of those who are carnal blood-relatives to us. C. 1, 2, 3, q. 3, c. 30; Schmalz., l. c., n. 57.

Second, with attention to the exposition of the case, there is altogether lacking, for obtaining dispensation of such an impediment, a just and proportionate cause. For "a most grave and most urgent cause is required, such as would be danger of life threatening the petitioners because of their carnal commingling; or another public cause, as Sanch. teaches, l. 8, d. 24, n. 15, Fagnanus in cap. Ex litteris De Cognat. Spirit., n. 18, and the distinguished Fr. Schmalz., v. 9, tit. 16, n. 144. And here De Iustis adds, lib. 2, cap. 5, n. 79, that, where a dispensation of this sort is to be obtained in the form for the poor, the petitioner is also bound to go to the City, in order to contribute his labor to the Fabric, although he be lame and weak." Giovine, de Dispens. matrim., Consultat. Canonic., tom. 1, p. 2, § 217, p. 391 seq.

Third, which is the chief point, theologians and canonists who assert the very great difficulty of obtaining a dispensation upon spiritual paternity and filiation, who require for it a most grave and most urgent cause, and who affirm that a marriage of this sort is most unbecoming, and therefore that the Holy See is not accustomed to dispense in it, and bring forward one example of dispensation, in reality speak only of spiritual paternity and filiation which exists between a sponsor and a goddaughter; by no means, however, of the paternity and filiation which exists between the one baptizing and the baptized. Namely, the aforesaid doctors seem to suppose that such a dispensation has altogether never in fact been conceded and is never to be conceded. Indeed that unbecomingness is still far greater in the marriage of one baptizing and one baptized; and if the one baptizing is a woman, as in the case, and the baptized person a man, the irreverence of marriage between a spiritual mother and a spiritual son appears still graver. Cf. Sanchez, l. 8, d. 19, n. 7; d. 24, n. 15; De Iustis, l. 2, c. 5, n. 80; Reiffenstuel, Append. n. 136; Corrad., l. 8, c. 8, n. 15.

Notwithstanding these things, a dispensation has in reality been conceded in the internal forum by the Sacred Penitentiary in more recent times. Therefore, should the case occur, it can be set forth to the Sacred Penitentiary.

Besides, this too must be noted: that the present impediment is not found excepted in the faculty granted to Ordinaries of places of dispensing the sick in very grave danger of death upon diriment impediments of marriage by ecclesiastical law, by force of the Decree of the Holy Office, Feb. 20, 1888.

A threefold kind of relationship is distinguished, namely: first, natural; second, spiritual; third, legal. Concerning each separately.

799. • Natural relationship, or consanguinity, is the bond of persons descending from the same proximate stock through carnal generation, which arises from unity and participation in the same blood.

In consanguinity three things must be distinguished, namely: first, the stock, or the person from whom others derive their origin; second, the degree, or the measure of distance of one person from another; third, the line, or a series of persons descending from the same stock.

The line is twofold: one direct and the other collateral or transverse. The former is a series of persons of whom some descend from others, either immediately, as children from parents, or mediately, as grandchildren from grandparents or great-grandparents, etc. The latter, however, is a series of persons who, although they have a common stock, nevertheless do not descend from one another, as brothers, first cousins, etc.

A collateral line is equal or unequal according as the blood relatives are equally distant from the common stock.

800. Statements. - I. Consanguinity in the direct line, at least by positive law, invalidates matrimony indefinitely in any degree whatever. This is evident from Canon law in the Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, chapter 37.

II. Consanguinity in the collateral line invalidates matrimony through the fourth degree inclusively, and not beyond. This is established from the Fourth Lateran Council and several places of Canon law.

III. Consanguinity invalidates matrimony also between those who were born only of the same father or only of the same mother; likewise between blood relatives born of illegitimate unions. The reason is that diversity of father or mother, or illegitimacy, does not prevent carnal consanguinity from existing between them.

801. • I. Rule. In the direct line, as many degrees are counted as there are persons, with the stock omitted; or there are as many degrees as there are generations. Hence between father and son there is one degree, because there is one generation, or one person of the son, with the father excluded as the stock. Between a grandson and grandfather two degrees are counted, because there are two generations, although three persons intervene, namely, the grandfather, the father, and his son, or the grandson with respect to the grandfather. Likewise posit a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, and you will have three or four degrees.

II. Rule. In an EQUAL collateral line, there are as many degrees as there are persons on one side, with the stock omitted. Hence a brother and sister are in the first degree, because if the common stock or father is set aside, one person remains on each side; and since each is distant by one degree from the stock, they also are distant from each other by one degree. Likewise paternal first cousins, or the children of two brothers, are each distant by two degrees from the common stock or grandfather, and therefore are blood relatives to each other in the second degree. The same must be said of others.

III. Rule. In an UNEQUAL collateral line, there are as many degrees as there are persons on the more remote side, always with the stock omitted. Hence if one is distant from the common stock by two degrees and his blood relative by three, they will be blood relatives to each other in the third degree, according to the saying: The more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Therefore Berta will be related in the second degree to her paternal uncle, or her father's brother, because she is distant by two degrees from the common stock, namely, her grandfather, although the paternal uncle himself is separated by one degree from the same stock, since he is the son of the stock, or the brother of Berta's father. The same must be established concerning all others.

For computing degrees according to civil law, the number, or sum, of all the persons in each line is taken, with the stock omitted. Therefore in the direct line they are computed in the same manner as canonical degrees; in an equal collateral line, the canonical degrees are doubled; in an unequal collateral line, the lesser line is doubled and the excess of the greater is added.

802. Questions. - QUESTION 1. By what law does consanguinity in the aforesaid degrees invalidate matrimony?

Reply 1. It is certain that consanguinity in the direct line invalidates matrimony in the first degree by natural law and, more probably according to the opinion of certain Theologians ¹, indefinitely also in the other degrees. But the case, as is evident, is most remote from practice.

¹ Others, however, think differently; and omitting for now the various opinions - in Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 14, no. 30 - which extend the force of this impediment to more or fewer degrees, there are those who, with St. Thomas, think that only the first degree renders nuptials invalid by natural law. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 470) holds this opinion equally probable with the one which the Author reports, and several others with Schmalzgrueber (ibid., no. 31) judge it preferable to the others. But, as the Author well observes, these things contribute nothing to practice.

Reply 2. As regards the collateral line, in the first degree it more probably ² invalidates by natural law, or at least by positive divine law, since the Church never dispenses so that brothers and sisters may be joined, and infidels themselves detest nuptials of this kind; in the other degrees, according to all, it invalidates by ecclesiastical law ³, as is deduced from the practice of the Church, which dispenses from them.

² The Doctors disagree whether matrimony between brother and sister is invalid by natural law, and some call the affirmative opinion more probable, others the negative. Some contend that the Roman Pontiffs never dispensed as regards this degree, others that they sometimes dispensed. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 14, nos. 45-46. And, as St. Alphonsus also observes (book 6, no. 470), St. Thomas also stands for the opinion which judges this union valid by natural law. It would indeed be useless to review the arguments of each side and the replies to the contrary reasons, which can be seen everywhere among the Doctors. See St. Alphonsus, l.c., and Schmalzgrueber, l.c., nos. 45-48. Meanwhile observe how much prejudice spontaneously flows from this against the opinion which, while denying to princes the power of establishing diriment impediments for infidel subjects, contends that natural law alone has force for them. For if this is presupposed, a matrimony contracted in infidelity between a brother and sister could not be held certainly invalid, however much it might be condemned by their laws; and since in a doubt, according to the general principle, one must stand for the validity of the matrimony, if both of them were converted to the faith they consequently could not be separated, even if that union were a scandal at once to infidels and to the faithful.

³ Hence follows a consequence of the greatest importance. For since the laws of the Church do not bind those who are not baptized, marriages contracted between infidels who are joined in these degrees of consanguinity must therefore be held valid, considering natural law; and consequently, if they are converted to the faith, they are neither to be separated nor do they need a dispensation in order to remain in the union contracted. What is said concerning the impediment of consanguinity must also be said concerning the other impediments of merely ecclesiastical law.

The Doctors disagree whether marriages which heretics enter with an impediment of merely ecclesiastical law are to be held valid. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 1, nos. 378-380, who, after bringing forward the reasons of each opinion, appears to incline toward the affirmative side.

QUESTION 2. How can degrees of consanguinity be found easily?

Reply 1. If the common stock is known, write that person's name on a sheet, and below it set down the generations and names of the persons descending on this side and that until you arrive at the persons to be joined in matrimony; from this you will easily compute the degrees.

Reply 2. If the stock is unknown, proceed thus: Write in the lower part of the sheet or table the name of the bridegroom on one side and the name of the bride on the other. Then above the name of the bridegroom note the names of those blood relatives who perhaps can be the cause why some relationship exists with the bride; do the same with respect to the bride. When this notation has been made, ascend on one side and see whether they meet in a common origin or stock from which the bridegroom and bride were mediately generated. Hence, after you have found it and at the same time observed whether the spouses are in an equal or unequal line, finally apply the rules to be proposed below, and the resolution of the doubt will be evident. Let the following be an example of these things:

Great-great-grandfather: Didacus Noel

In this example Petrus Pascal and Maria Noel are blood relatives in the equal fourth degree. But if Maria Noel descended immediately from Maurus Noel, Arthur Noel would be her grandfather and Didacus Noel her great-grandfather, and therefore they would be blood relatives in the fourth degree, but touching the third.

803. • Another method is also indicated for recognizing degrees of relationship, namely, with a genealogical table or tree of consanguinity. Inspect the table and see in what line and in what cells you find the persons concerning whose relationship inquiry is made, and attend to how many degrees they are distant from the common stock. Example: You ask, for example, in what degree Titius the bridegroom is related by blood to Berta the bride, since you already know that the grandfather of the former was the brother of the great-grandfather of the latter. Place Titius in the middle cell N. Ascend to his grandfather; the latter's brother on the right side, in the cell where paternal uncle is marked, will be Berta's great-grandfather. Descend through his direct line by counting the grandfather, the father, and the bride herself; hence the common stock will be the one who is found in the third cell above the middle line. Thus you will count three degrees on the bridegroom's side and four on the bride's side; hence you will conclude that they are blood relatives in the fourth degree touching the third.

Imagine any other similar examples, placing either of the spouses in any cell, whether the middle one or one at the side, and ascending to the common stock so that from there you may descend to the other spouse; but pay no attention to the names which you find in the various cells encountered, because all of them will vary according to the cell selected, as is evident.

Consanguinity between the same persons can arise from a double or even multiple source, and then there is a double or multiple relationship, or an impediment to be disclosed in the petition for a dispensation. Thus, for example, if two brothers marry two women related by blood to each other, the children proceeding from each matrimony will be doubly related by blood to one another ⁴, and this circumstance must necessarily be declared.

⁴ See several examples both of doubled and of tripled consanguinity in de Justis (On Matrimonial Dispensations, book 2, chapter 6, no. 61 and following).

Note. First, persons joined by a drawn line are among themselves in the direct line and with the others in the collateral line. Second, where the lines are joined, there the stock is found.

804. • QUESTION 3. Who are collateral blood relatives?

Reply. They are the following:

• PROPATRUUS, or the brother of one's great-grandfather (great-uncle).
• PROAMITA, or the sister of one's great-grandfather (great-aunt).
• PATRUUS MAGNUS, the brother of one's grandfather (grand-uncle).
• PROAMITA, the sister of one's grandfather (grand-aunt).
• PATRUUS, the brother of one's father (paternal uncle).
• AMITA, the sister of one's father (paternal aunt).
• PATRUELES, the children of brothers on the father's side (paternal first cousins).

• PROAVUNCULUS, the brother of one's great-grandmother (great-uncle).
• PROMATERTERA, the sister of one's great-grandmother (great-aunt).
• AVUNCULUS MAGNUS, the brother of one's grandmother (maternal grand-uncle).
• MATERTERA MAGNA, the sister of one's grandmother (maternal grand-aunt).
• AVUNCULUS, the brother of one's mother (maternal uncle).
• MATERTERA, the sister of one's mother (maternal aunt).
• CONSOBRINI, the children of brothers on the mother's side (maternal first cousins).
• AMITINI, the children of brothers (first cousins).
• SOBRINI, their children (children of first cousins).
• NEPOTES, the children of brothers (nephews).
• PRONEPOTES, their children (great-nephews).

The consanguinity tree exhibits the following persons and canonical degrees from the person marked N:

Spiritual relationship is a certain proximity which, from the statute of the Church, arises from the administration and reception of Baptism and Confirmation between certain persons determined in Canon law.

805. Principles. - I. Spiritual relationship invalidates matrimony by ecclesiastical law: first, between the minister of the Sacrament and the subject and the latter's parents; second, between the godfather or godmother and the goddaughter or godson and their parents. Thus from the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 2, On Reformation.

II. Several conditions are required for sponsors to contract spiritual relationship, namely: first, that they are baptized ⁵, for otherwise they are not subject to the Church; second, that they have the use of reason, because otherwise they are not capable of the office of sponsor; third, that they were designated by the parents, or even by the Pastor in their place or in their absence ⁶; fourth, that the Baptism was valid ⁷.

⁵ For contracting the relationship, Baptism is a necessary condition as regards all. Therefore, if either the one baptizing or the parents of the baptized child are infidels, even catechumens, the relationship is not contracted by them. Consequently, both a faithful person who baptized the child of an infidel and one who received that child from the sacred font could contract matrimony, not indeed with the baptized child, but with the child's parents after they had been converted to the faith. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 11, nos. 62-65.

It is certain, however, that this relationship is contracted even by a heretic, whether the heretic baptizes, or holds the child at the sacred font, or another baptized person, whether heretic or Catholic, either baptizes or holds the heretic's child. The reason is that whoever has the baptismal character is capable of this relationship and is subject to the laws of the Church. Sanchez, book 7, disputation 60, no. 2; Pirhing, book 4, title 11, no. 40. Moreover, the decrees of the Sacred Congregations are already known by which it is forbidden either that a Catholic lift the children of heretics in Baptism or that a heretic be admitted to this office in the Baptism of a Catholic.

⁶ It is not actually necessary that someone be designated by the parents or by the Pastor; rather, it suffices that one who presents himself be admitted. See St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 154, and the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in Gallemart's note to chapter 2, session 24 of the Council of Trent, no. 7, or in Rebellus at the end of book 4, part 2, section 4, no. 95. It is generally necessary, however, that someone not merely assist materially and hold the infant, but have the intention or purpose of receiving the child or exercising the office of sponsor. Nevertheless, it is not further required that the sponsor have the intention of contracting spiritual relationship, because this is a consequence in no way dependent upon the sponsor's will, but upon the statute of the Church, and therefore it is contracted even by one ignorant of it. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 11, no. 66.

⁷ Namely, if Baptism, which is the principal thing, does not subsist, neither can the accessory, namely, the relationship, subsist. Hence argue that if Baptism is conferred again conditionally and it is afterward discovered that the infant had previously been validly baptized, no relationship will be present. But so long as this is not established, the Church presumes the relationship. Understand this, however, when a true doubt is present, which St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 151) calls a negative doubt, namely, when no solid reason favors the validity of the prior Baptism; for if the doubt is positive, namely, if probability is present on either side, anyone can resolve the doubt as he pleases, and, as St. Alphonsus has it, l.c., matrimony can be contracted as though no impediment existed, because no certain impediment is present.

The same must be said in two other cases, namely: first, if someone through error holds one infant for another; second, if someone holds an infant in private Baptism. For since in each case the Doctors disagree - see St. Alphonsus, book 6, nos. 149 and 151 - it must finally be admitted that the matter is doubtful. But if the relationship is doubtful, the impediment also will be doubtful; and a doubtful impediment, as St. Alphonsus himself observes, no. 151, is not an impediment of matrimony.

806. Resolutions. - 1. A godfather and godmother can enter matrimony with each other, but not with the father or mother of the baptized person.

2. Those who exercise the office of godfather and godmother when the solemnities of Baptism are supplied do not contract spiritual relationship, nor do those who receive the baptized person from the sacred font merely in the name of another ⁸.

⁸ The latter point is confirmed by decrees of the Sacred Congregation, one of which Barbosa reports (Collection of Apostolic Decisions 177, no. 9), and two others Benedict XIV reports (Canonical Question 227). From another declaration of the Sacred Congregation, which Gallemart reports in the note to chapter 2, session 24 of the Council of Trent, no. 4, a man can exercise the office of proxy for a woman and conversely; in this case it is not forbidden that two men or two women actually lift the child from the sacred font.

3. Sponsors designated by the parents and unjustly rejected by the Pastor contract true spiritual relationship if they actually hold the infant; it is otherwise if they are justly rejected by the Pastor ⁹. - St. Ligorius, no. 154.

⁹ Although the Council of Trent, session 24, chapter 2, On the Reformation of Matrimony, decreed that only one person, either a man or a woman, or at most one man and one woman, should receive the baptized person from Baptism, nevertheless, it is established from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in the case of Aix, March 10, 1631 - Barbosa reports it in Collection of Apostolic Decisions 177, no. 10 - that this decree is not invalidating, provided that the third or fourth person was also designated, who will therefore contract the relationship.

4. A man who baptized a girl privately in a case of necessity can marry neither her nor her mother ¹⁰. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, On Baptism, no. 149.

¹⁰ The same must evidently be said of a woman who privately baptized a little boy.

5. More probably, however, sponsors employed in private Baptism do not appear to contract this relationship. The reason is that in the Council of Trent there is question only of those sponsors who are employed in solemn Baptism, since none are required for private Baptism. - Thus more commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 149.

“Whether the provision of the Council of Trent, chapter 2, session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony, decreeing that in the Sacrament of Baptism spiritual kinship is contracted between the sponsor and the father and mother of the one sponsored, has place in a Baptism which, on account of necessity, was performed without solemnities? “Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1678. Cf. Marc, Alphonsian Moral Institutions, 2nd ed., no. 2022. Cf. no. 459.

“Sponsors who are employed in supplying the solemnities of Baptism do not contract the impediment of spiritual kinship.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1779; Sacred Congregation of the Council, 13 April 1669; 2 October 1687.

An unconfirmed sponsor at Confirmation “does not contract spiritual kinship.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 13 June 1654; Lucidi, C. 2, § 3, no. 142.

Sponsors do not contract with the parents as many impediments invalidating Matrimony as the number of their children whom they sponsor in the same Sacrament; they are bound with them by only one impediment, unless they sponsored the same child, or several children, both in Baptism and in Confirmation. Sacred Penitentiary, 14 January 1881, according to the practice of the Curia; Holy Office, 29 April 1894.

“Whether, in the Formulas by which the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of spiritual kinship is customarily granted, the case of spiritual kinship between the baptizer and the baptized, not foreseen in those Formulas, is comprehended?—Response. Negative; that is, those who enjoy the faculty granted through the aforesaid Formulas cannot dispense from the impediment of spiritual kinship between the baptizer and the baptized; and this is to be communicated to all whom it may concern and henceforth expressly stated in the Formulas. But if any Marriages have perhaps hitherto been contracted with a dispensation of this kind granted by force of those same Formulas, in order to settle every question concerning their validity, petition is to be made to His Holiness that he may deign to declare those Marriages sanated in the root.” Holy Office, 3 December 1902.

"By the words of the Ritual, the sponsor holding the infant, absolute taking up is by no means required, since to hold is equally understood and it suffices if the Sponsor, as is customary, joins himself with the infant by physical contact, together with the one in whose hands he is held, and accompanies the carrier to the infusion of the water, without there being need that the Sponsor or the Sponsor-woman only, with the carrier removed, receiving the infant into his or her own hands, present him to the Priest to be baptized." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1856.

Spiritual relationship is not contracted by the procurator but by the mandator. S. C. C. 20 Apr. 1586; 15 March 1631; 15 Sept. 1721; 11 June 1881. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 411 ff.

"Whether the disposition of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 2, de R. M., decreeing that in the Sacrament of Baptism spiritual relationship is contracted between the one receiving and the father and mother of the one received, has place in Baptism performed without solemnities because of necessity? Resp. Affirmatively." S. C. C. 5 March 1678. Cf. Marc, Inst. Mor. Alph., ed. 2, n. 2022.

"Sponsors who are employed in supplying the solemnities of Baptism do not contract the impediment of spiritual relationship." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 11 Sept. 1779; S. C. C. 13 Apr. 1669; 2 Oct. 1687.

"Titius baptized his own son; he did it ignorantly; fearing, but with vain fear, lest he should die; whom he baptized in the presence of some women. The Confessor rebuked the same man, but absolved him. He now asks from the Sacred Penitentiary, with Titius unaware, whom he left in good faith, dispensation from the impediment of spiritual relationship, so that he can ask for and render the debt." Year 1869.

Resp. "The Sacred Penitentiary grants to the Ordinary of the orator the faculty, either by himself or through the proper Parish Priest of the orator, of absolving the orator himself, if it is so, his sacramental Confession having been heard, from ecclesiastical censures and penalties if he has incurred any on account of the premises, and from the guilt of incest, if perhaps after the contracted spiritual relationship he has not abstained from the use of marriage, by apostolic authority, with salutary penance. And of declaring that the same orator, if no other canonical impediment stands in the way, can remain in his marriage, and can and must render the conjugal debt. And of mercifully dispensing with the same man, over the recounted supervening impediment of spiritual relationship, so that notwithstanding it he can licitly and freely demand the conjugal debt from his wife, by apostolic special and express authority. For the forum of conscience; so that the present grace, if and when there shall be need, may avail the orator and his wife also for the external forum." Cf. Scavini, l. 3, n. 850.

A sponsor in confirmation "if not confirmed does not contract spiritual relationship." S. C. C. 13 June 1654. Lucidi, ch. 2, § 3, n. 142.

848. Notion. Spiritual relationship is the proximity of persons arising from the conferral and reception of baptism or confirmation. For since in baptism we are born spiritually, and this birth receives, as it were, its final completion in confirmation, those persons who concur in these sacraments, namely, the minister and sponsors, are regarded as the spiritual parents of the baptized person. But spiritual relationship arising from confirmation no longer causes an impediment of matrimony.

849. Origin and extent of this impediment. In the first times of the Christian era this impediment seems to have been unknown. Nevertheless, explicit mention of it is already found in the Code of Justinian around A.D. 534.²²⁰ Statutes concerning spiritual relationship are found both in the Decree of Gratian,²²¹ in the Decretals of Gregory IX,²²² and in the sixth book of Boniface VIII;²²³ likewise in the Council of Trent.²²⁴ Finally, Benedict XV limited this impediment, establishing in the Code of Canon Law, cann. 768 and 1079: "From baptism only the baptizer and the sponsor contract spiritual relationship with the baptized person." But a sponsor does not contract this spiritual relationship if he was employed a) in supplying the ceremonies of baptism, b) in a conditional repetition of baptism (unless, however, the same sponsor was present at the first baptism and at the second conditionally repeated baptism).²²⁵

²²⁰ L. 26 (C. de nupt.) V, 4.

²²¹ C. 30, q. 1, 2, 3.

²²² Bk. 4, tit. 11.

²²³ Bk. 4, tit. 3.

²²⁴ Sess. 24, c. 2, De reform. matrim.

²²⁵ Code of Canon Law, can. 762, § 2; can. 763, § 2.

850. The conditions required for this impediment to be present are the following:

1. The true and valid administration of baptism (whether private or solemn). From the supplying of sacramental ceremonies or from the invalid administration of this sacrament, spiritual relationship is in no way contracted; on the contrary, it seems to arise even from private baptism, and that not only between the baptized person and the baptizer, but also between the baptized person and a sponsor who perhaps was employed. For the law establishes without any distinction that spiritual relationship arises from baptism between the persons indicated. But if the law does not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish.²²⁶ For the rest, sponsors are not wont to be employed in private baptism because of lack of time or other causes.

Figure 7. Spiritual Relationship from Baptism

Male sponsor ─────────────┐
Baptizer ─────────────────┼── Baptized person
Female sponsor ───────────┘

2. The minister of baptism and the sponsors must be baptized.

Therefore, non-baptized unbelievers assumed for such a function, since they are not subject to ecclesiastical laws, do not contract spiritual relationship,²²⁷ even if they themselves are afterward baptized. But if a validly baptized heretic were the minister of baptism, he would not be free from this impediment. The reason is that heretics are subject to ecclesiastical laws unless they are specially exempted. There is no reason for us to note again that a heretic or unbeliever is to be employed as minister of private baptism only in a case of urgent necessity, but never as a sponsor, who cannot even validly exercise this function and therefore does not contract the impediment of spiritual relationship either.

3. The sponsor must knowingly and freely exercise his function and have the other conditions required by law under pain of nullity.²²⁸

Hence, if someone lacks the actual use of reason, or if, compelled by force or fear or without the intention, he exercises the function of sponsor, or if he is only an honorary witness or a proxy acting in the place of another,²²⁹ or if he is not duly designated, he does not contract this impediment. Moreover, since the sponsor is said to receive or take up, hold or lift the baptized person, it is altogether required that he physically touch the baptized person (over the clothing, however) at the moment in which the essential form of the sacrament is pronounced; or at least that the sponsor receive the baptized person from the hands of the minister. If more than two sponsors were illicitly designated at baptism, were admitted, and truly wished knowingly and freely to undertake the office of sponsor and physically touched the baptized person, all seem to have contracted the impediment of spiritual relationship.²³⁰

4. Spouses baptizing or holding their own offspring do not contract spiritual relationship and therefore do not lose the right of seeking the debt.²³¹

²²⁶ Thus also Vlaming, Prael. iur. matr., 3rd ed., I, 377; Cappello, De sacr. III, n. 559 ff.; Wernz-Vidal, Ius can. V, 393.

²²⁷ Cf. De Smet, De sponsal. et matrim., 3rd ed., n. 642.

²²⁸ Code of Canon Law, can. 765. Cf. above in the treatise on baptism, n. 145.

²²⁹ Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 11, 1881.

²³⁰ Cf. Leitner, Lehrb. d. kirchl. Eherechtes, § 33, p. 241; Vlaming, loc. cit., n. 379.

²³¹ c. 2, X, 4, 11. Thus also De Smet, loc. cit., n. 234; Cappello, loc. cit., n. 565.

851. Cessation of this impediment is obtained through a dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. In the petition the existing impediment must be described clearly and distinctly, namely, whether the spiritual relationship is simple or double. Nevertheless, double spiritual relationship (if the baptizer and sponsor are the same person) scarcely occurs. Since spiritual relationship is now numbered among those impediments which are removed by a dispensation of the lesser degree, a dispensation from it is always valid as though it had been imparted "of his own motion and from certain knowledge." Therefore, such a dispensation is now never invalid because of a defect of obreption or subreption.²³² - In grave danger of death and in other more urgent cases, the parish priest or confessor can grant a dispensation from this impediment according to cann. 1043 and 1044.

²³² Code of Canon Law, can. 1042, § 2, and can. 1054.

167. • I. Notion.

It is the propinquity of persons arising from the reception of baptism or confirmation.

168. • II. Scope of the impediment.

a) In the new law only spiritual kinship arising from baptism received constitutes an impediment of matrimony.

b) That impediment is present between the baptizer and the baptized, and between the sponsor and the baptized. (Can. 1079 - Can. 768.)

169. • III. Conditions required for producing the impediment.

a) On the part of baptism: it must be valid. But even from private baptism the impediment is begotten, since the law does not distinguish.

b) on the part of the minister: he himself must be baptized.

c) on the part of the sponsor (or sponsress): it is required that he or she fulfill all the conditions which can. 765 requires for undertaking that office validly.

170. • IV. By what law that impediment exists.

a) It is of merely ecclesiastical law.

b) Consequently it is contracted only by the baptized.

171. • V. Multiplication of the impediment.

It is never multiplied, unless the minister is at the same time, through himself or through a procurator, the sponsor.

172. • VI. Dispensation.

It is the only means of removing that impediment, which is of the lesser grade. (Can. 1042.)¹

¹ Cfr. above n. 97.

173. • VII. Law before the Code.

a) Not only baptism but also confirmation generated a diriment impediment.

b) The impediment was in force:

1. Between the minister and the subject of the sacrament.

2. Between the sponsor (or sponsress) and the subject.

3. Between the sponsor (or sponsress) and the parents of the subject.

4. Between the minister and the parents of the subject.

907. Spiritual kinship (parenté spirituelle; geestelijke verwantschap) is the propinquity or conjunction of persons arising from the conferral and reception of the sacrament of Baptism, by which a man is spiritually generated. Hence the Church establishes a diriment impediment between spiritual parents and spiritual children, namely, between the minister and sponsor of the sacrament on one side, and the receiving subject on the other side.

From Confirmation also spiritual kinship arises, because it is the sacrament of perfect spiritual nativity; but in the new law from this sacrament there no longer arises an impediment of matrimony.

908. Principle III. Only that spiritual kinship invalidates matrimony which the baptizer and sponsor contract with the baptized. - Thus can. 1079 and 768.

The impediment is of ecclesiastical law, which therefore is contracted by baptized persons alone. Unbelievers themselves are subject to it in no way, nor indirectly, because kinship, since it is a mutual relation, cannot arise from one baptized party; nor if they are afterward baptized, because spiritual kinship did not exist, and therefore cannot revive.

The conditions required for contracting the impediment are:

A. On the part of the sacrament, that Baptism be validly conferred.

Hence a) it also arises from private Baptism without solemnities (can. 762, § 2);

b) it does not arise from mere supplied solemnities (ibid.);

c) if Baptism is repeated conditionally, it arises only if the same person functions in both Baptisms 1 (can. 763, § 2).

B. On the part of the minister, that he not only baptize validly, but also himself be baptized.

Parents who baptize their offspring, even outside a case of necessity, no longer incur the impediment of kinship impeding the use of marriage.

C. On the part of the sponsor, that all the conditions required be present for his having validly acted as sponsor, as we said, n. 171 (can. 765).

Hence a) if the office of sponsor is exercised through a proxy, only the principal is affected by the impediment, not the mandatary;

b) if someone through error has received one infant for another, he is not judged to contract kinship, unless he had the intention of receiving anyone whatever;

c) all and only those holding who are designated contract kinship; beyond those designated, no one does, even if in the act of Baptism he held the infant.

After the new code of law, no impediment any longer arises between the baptizer or sponsor and the parents of the baptized.

St. Thomas shows the fittingness of the impediment:

"1° The holier some bond is, the more it is to be guarded. But a spiritual bond is holier than a bodily one. Therefore, since the bond of bodily propinquity impedes matrimony, it seems also that spiritual kinship does the same.

"2° Just as through carnal propagation a man receives the being of nature, so through the sacraments he receives the being of spiritual grace. Hence, just as the bond which is contracted from the propagation of flesh is natural to man insofar as he is a certain thing of nature, so the bond which is contracted from the reception of the sacraments is in some way natural to someone insofar as he is a member of the Church. And therefore, just as carnal kinship impedes matrimony, so does spiritual kinship, from the statute of the Church," q. 56, a. 1.

"Just as in carnal generation someone is born from father and mother, so in spiritual generation someone is born a son of God as father and of the Church as mother. But just as he who confers the sacrament bears the person of God, whose instrument and minister he is, so he who receives the baptized person from the sacred font... bears the person of the Church. Hence spiritual kinship is contracted toward each," a. 3.

The impediment can be multiplied, its foundation being multiplied: in the case in which the same person is baptizer and sponsor, namely, who would exercise the office of sponsor through a proxy, there would be a double spiritual kinship between the baptizer and the baptized. Yet it is not multiplied from the fact that someone holds several children of the same parents in Baptism (S. Off., April 29, 1894); much more so because now no impediment at all arises with the parents.

1. This is certain for the sponsor, on account of can. 763, § 2. Concerning the minister nothing is explicitly established in the law, and therefore it can be disputed in law. Some say that the prior law subsists, and therefore that a doubtful impediment subsists; and because this is a doubt of fact, a dispensation is to be sought concerning it for caution, according to the norm of can. 15. Others conclude from analogy that, as for the sponsor, kinship has not arisen. Hence, with a doubt of law standing, the impediment does not urge, as the same can. 15 says.

A co-mother is the wife of a godfather already known.

Response I. You took care to ask us whether it is lawful for a son whose father received another man's daughter from sacred baptism, that is, as spiritual father (perhaps "the spiritual father"), to take in marriage the daughter of the same (namely, other) father, which it is cruel to say, which you disclosed had happened enormously among you (namely, whether the son of him who received some woman from the sacred font could lead this woman as wife). But your fraternity well knows what the Lord commands through Moses, saying: You shall not reveal the shame of your father; for the daughter of your father is your shame. For the shame is said not to be revealed when it is commanded that one abstain from one's own consanguinity. Much more therefore does it befit us, with every occasion or argument set aside, to beware entirely, under excessive detestation, of the daughter of our spiritual father.

Others read thus: "It is not fitting at any time to hand over in marriage to one's own man (perhaps, son) the daughter whom one has received from the sacred font; because in divine knowledge they are found to be full siblings (cf. above, the cited sayings of Zacharias from the Vatican codex). If anyone, mixed in such a crime, has not at all restrained the reins of luxury, he will be abominated by the Catholic Church. But if he has been converted, after separation let him perform penance for seven years. Let this condition be for those aware, together with the author: that is, together with the cooperators and consenters, let him do penance."

Vatican Codex 1343, 1.169, has these things: "These are sayings of Pope Zacharias concerning the fact that no blood-relative ought to be coupled: since it is not fitting to accept as wife the widow of a cousin or one's own female cousin, nor to hand over in marriage to one's son the daughter whom he lifts from the sacred font (cf. Response I to Theodore); because in divine knowledge he is found to be a full brother (the son of the one receiving is held as the brother of the received girl according to the rules of divine doctrine). For concerning the generation of these we speak thus: that in no way shall one accept as wife one from his own kinship, unless the seventh generation has been completed and passed. In the Acts of the Apostles, in the fourth chapter, we are admonished of this: abstain from fornication and corruption of kinship, on account of which the tradition (read: wrath of God) comes upon the sons of unbelief. Whence blessed Augustine, writing in his epistle to Constantine Augustus concerning this chapter, says: thus it is read in the book of Genesis: in six days the Lord made heaven and earth; on the seventh he rested from every work which he had completed. Thus also through six thousand years this world is enclosed; but on the seventh our Lord is to judge the age by fire.

"If anyone has associated to himself in marriage a sister from the sacred font or chrism, let them be divided and do penance for five years. If she has committed fornication with a man, let her do penance for seven years, and let each one go into exile."

Canon VI. Let no one receive his own son or daughter from the font of baptism; nor let him lead as wife his goddaughter or the mother, nor her whose son or daughter he has held for confirmation. But where this has been done, let them be separated (from the same).

Response IV. Let no one have his spiritual co-mother, either from the sacred font or from confirmation, nor one secretly associated to himself in marriage in neither part. But if they have been joined, let them be separated.

Capitulum I. If a man has committed incest in these causes: with one consecrated to God, or with his co-mother, or with his spiritual stepmother from the font and the confirmation of the Bishop (cf. Zacharias, Response XXII), or with a mother and daughter, or the daughter of a sister, or a niece, or with a female cousin or niece (cf. Canon XXX from the Synod of Auxerre), or with a paternal aunt or maternal aunt: for these crimes let him lose his money, if he has any; and if he is unwilling to amend himself, let no one receive him nor give him food.

Canon LV. Let no one receive his own daughter or son from the font of baptism; nor lead as wife a goddaughter or co-mother, nor her whose son or daughter he has led to confirmation. But where this has been done, let it be separated.

Likewise: "If anyone has fornicated with a spiritual mother, he is struck, as you know, by blows of anathema. In similar manner we promulgate that he also is to be struck who has perpetrated the crime of fornication with her whom he received from the sacred font of baptism, or with her whom he held before the bishop when she was anointed with sacred chrism; nevertheless, if he has a legitimate wife, let him not dismiss her."

Response II. Thus ought a man to love him who received him from the sacred font, as a father; indeed, by as much as the spirit is more precious than flesh, because that is a spiritual patronage and adoption according to God, by so much more is a spiritual father to be loved in all things by a spiritual son.

Chapter I. After a spiritual son or daughter has been received from the font, those who have been born from the co-father or co-mother cannot be joined in matrimony (with that son or daughter), because the laws of the age prohibit those not emancipated from being coupled to adoptive persons.

Canon VIII. Let it never be permitted that one imbued with the faith of Christ lead a wife within the space (of the sixth man) of his consanguinity, that is, within the fourth degree or little knee; nor the widow of anyone who had been of equal nearness in worldly cognation; nor the niece or near relative of the wife whom he had previously had; nor any holy nun; nor his sponsor from the sacred font; nor let any Christian have a repudiated woman as wife; nor let him take another wife while he has one, but as long as she lives, let her be the only one.

Chapter I. (The same, ibid.). It seems more tolerable to us that sons or daughters, even those born after compaternity, can be coupled together, except for that person through whom the compaternity is contracted.

If a man or woman, knowingly or ignorantly, shall have received his or her own child from the sacred font, and because you wished to consult us whether on account of this they ought to be separated from one another and coupled to others, we respond to your consultation in this manner: although it has generally been instituted that they ought to be separated, nevertheless certain persons, judging more humanely and more rightly, have established otherwise. Therefore it seems to us that, whether they have done this from ignorance or from malice, they are not to be separated from one another, nor ought either to subtract the debt from the other, unless they can be induced to observe continence; because if this was done from ignorance, ignorance seems to excuse them; if from malice, their fraud or deceit ought not to support them.

Malice, namely, consists in this, that a spouse knowingly receives his own child from the sacred font to this end, that he may be separated from the other spouse. The Pontiff does not wish this fraud to support the same one; accordingly he denies that they are to be separated.

Decree II. Let them firmly prohibit, by excommunication, sorceries from being done among the laity; let sorcerers also and those concealing consanguinity and the other impediments of marriage - vow, order, consanguinity, affinity, disparity of worship, compaternity, which excludes from marriage only four persons: the co-father, the co-mother, the godchild, and his spiritual brother and sister, namely the son and daughter of the sponsor - be publicly announced as excommunicated.

I say. Only that spiritual kinship invalidates marriage concerning which there is question in can. 768 (Can. 1079). From baptism only the baptizer and the sponsor contract spiritual kinship with the baptized person (Can. 768).

And therefore neither the baptizer nor the sponsor can validly enter with the baptized woman. Any other kinship no longer constitutes an impediment.

XIII. Spiritual kinship, as has been indicated, is called a nearness of persons introduced by ecclesiastical right. This induces an impediment between godparents and the one baptized or confirmed, and the father and mother of the one baptized or confirmed. For this kinship nevertheless solemn Baptism is required. If a child be baptized privately at home, very many teach that this kinship is not contracted between the godparents and the one baptized and the father and mother of the one baptized, but only with the one baptizing.

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.

Case.—Eugene, a Catholic layman and professor, is godfather for Raymond, a young collegian, who is brought into the true Church through Eugene’s efforts. Two years later Eulalie, the widowed mother of Raymond, also enters the fold through the influence of Eugene. The year following she accepts the proposal of her son’s godfather to wed him. Her Baptism was unconditional as it was clearly proven she had never been baptized. The priest applies for a dispensation from the impediment of spiritual affinity but is told none is necessary. So he marries Eugene and Eulalie without the dispensation.

Question.—Is the marriage valid?

Solution.—It is beyond dispute that this impediment is of ecclesiastical origin only. The first traces of it are found in the Council of Trullo (692), then in the Council of Rome (721). The Council of Trent had in mind the abolition of this impediment, but in the end merely modified and restricted its extension. The foundation of the impediment is the Sacrament of regeneration, completed by Confirmation, whence arises the spiritual relationship analogous to the natural relationship begotten by generation. In accordance with the present-day legislation of the Church this impediment affects only those who come under the jurisdiction of the Church, and as this is accomplished by the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, only the baptized meet the requirements for the development of this relationship. It is held to be absurd to admit a relationship in the spiritual order when one or both of the parties to the relationship have not yet been born into that order; that is, have not yet been baptized. Where the relationship does not exist the impediment which it begets cannot exist. Hence in the case before us, when Eugene stood sponsor for the child of Eulalie by her first husband, he did not acquire the usual spiritual relationship, because Eulalie was not at that time under the jurisdiction of the Church, as she had not been baptized. It follows, then, that at that time there was no bar to the union of Eugene and Eulalie. But after the lapse of two years, Raymond’s mother, now a widow, submits herself to the jurisdiction of the Church by voluntarily seeking and receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. The question that confronts us now is, does the spiritual relationship which did not exist between Eugene and Eulalie on the day of her son’s baptism, spring into existence on the day of her own baptism by virtue of the baptism of Raymond? Does the relationship revive? On this point theologians are divided. Some are of the opinion that the impediment in question does not revive under the given conditions. They assert that this propinquity arises at the time of the baptism (Raymond’s) or it does not arise at all. That which by law does not subsist from the beginning is not strengthened by the passage of time. According to this opinion the contracting parties were validly married without a dispensation, since no impediment ever existed. According to the second opinion the relationship did arise fundamentaliter at the time of the child’s baptism, but by reason of the presence of an obex it could not have its effects. The effect is the impediment. When, then, the obex was removed, by the baptism of the mother, the effect of the relationship was in full force, and the impediment would invalidate the marriage unless first removed by the necessary dispensation. Gasparri holds that this opinion “is not to be despised.” All told, then, we must conclude that the existence of said impediment can be held to be doubtful. Since, however, a doubtful impediment is treated as non-existent, the parties interested could be validly married without a dispensation. We think, nevertheless, that in practice a dispensation ad cautelam should have been obtained and thus all cause for anxiety removed.

Under the new Code of Canon Law the impediment of spiritual relationship arising from Baptism has been limited to the person baptized, the one baptizing and the sponsor or sponsors (Canon 768). Hence it does away with the relationship of the sponsors and the one baptizing to the parents of the baptized.