OCR Text |
Show I WHO MAY MARRY. I The Law of the Church Regarding ' Marriage Impediments. i neTs o? 'If on,eth,nS in the eternal fit-between fit-between S? Which makcs marriage on, ft atives abhorrent. The t..lt ffionihirnhhre,,5niMS a three-fold rJ- lauonsh p-bloud relationship, spirit- V Lt'a,VnShi-P, anfl leai relationship. ( e shall consider each in turn. L-hiniUral- r blo'1 "latienship is that JlS between persons' one of oi both of xvhom descend from a common com-mon progenitor or progenitress. In or-? or-? l. &ragP the full tearing of this imped.merit. we must distinguish and ,tn er 1,1 lernis- The -ommon pro-f; pro-f; t0rror t0,k- is the fountain- L,ilfr,h- rp,at,nhip: the line, or seues of persons who descend from the common stock: and the grade, or disl ,.f'e V Ch 0,10 or ,no othf- of 'h n?rC '"S ljartie stands from the pi imogenitor. .Theologians distinguish two kinds of ncs-the straight or direct line which indicates the descent of son from fa-tner, fa-tner, grandfather and so on: the transverse trans-verse or collateral line, which indicates tnose whese blood come indireetlv from the same font, such as brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, and cousins of whatever degree. When both parses par-ses to a marriage are equally distant 'torn the common progenitor, Ukv are said to be related in equal grade. When one is nearer to the stock than the other, they are said to be relaPd in unequal un-equal grade. Thus, first cousins are related re-lated in equal grade; uncle and-niece, in unequal grade, it niav not be unnecessary un-necessary to remark that the relationship relation-ship which gives rise to the impediment; may come through mother as well as father and through those who are not joined in lawful wedlock as well as through husband and wife. , The grade of consanguinity is casilv reckoned. FathT and daughter are related re-lated in the first degree, direct: grandfather grand-father and granddaughter, in the second sec-ond degree, direct, and so on. Brother and sister are related in the first degree collateral; first cousins, in the second degree: second cousins in the third degree; de-gree; and third cousins in the fourth degree, ond so on. In the direct line, there are therefore as many grades as persons eliminating always the primogenitor pri-mogenitor of the line. The same is true of collateral descendants who are both equally distant from the common stock. In collateral lines of unequal grade th" relationship is counted from the more remote. Thus, uncle and niece are related re-lated in the second degree, or more accurately ac-curately in the second degree touching the first. Thctv may be a manifold natural relationship re-lationship between the contracting parties, par-ties, that is. their blood may descend through various channels from the parent par-ent stream. Thus. Peter may desire to marry Mary, his third cousin. Rut Peter's parents were second cousins to each other, and also to Mary's father. Y-ii see at once that there is here a ''omplex relationship, and that matters fire becoming quite complicated. Then, again, there may be a two-fold common parent. Thus, John and James, brothers, marry, respectively, Mary and Clara, sisters. The relationship between the offspring of these two marriages would be multiple there being two common springs from which the blood descends. Again, if a man marries two sisters, his children by each union are related in the first degree because of their father, fa-ther, and in the second because of their mothers that is. the same person is at once thej; stepmother and their aunt, a complication which is counted disgraceful dis-graceful and reprobated most cordially by the church. It is now in order to sec how far these various relationships invalidate marriage. Iet it be said at .once that the .marriage "f relatives jn the direct line cin never take place. A father cannot take to wife his daughter or his granddaughter or his great-grand-daughtet. All . theologians agree that marriage between father and daughter, mother and son. is forbidden by the law of nature. The child is subject to his parent and not an equal. The learned dispute about the othn- grades. Kut you see that the question is purely academic. We often hear of the union of June and December, but such alliances alli-ances never occur between grandfathers and great-granddaughters and their budding posterity. In the collateral line, marriage is invalid in-valid to the fourth degree inclusively. Third ccusins are related in the fourth degree and they cannot, without a dispensation, dis-pensation, enter valid nuptials. This law was laid down by Tnnocent III in the Fourth Lateran council. Previous to his time, the impediment extended to the seventh degree. The reason of the law is. first to preserve chastity. Were it allowable for people under the same roof of people between whom custom permits the freest familiarity to cohabit, co-habit, there would be no end of disorder disor-der vice would stalk shamefaced throughout the land and the sacredness of home life would quickly vanish. Second, to promote friendship and not to confine the sphere of one's affections to those only who come from a common trunk Third, to prevent the gradual extinction ex-tinction of families. The children of consanguineous parents are often weak of body, and more often weak of mind. If you need a prcof of this, read the story of some of the proudest European Euro-pean houses. Marriage between persons related In the second and more remote degrees is made invalid by ecclesiastical law only. Theologians dispute as to whether the natural, the ecclesiastical or the positive posi-tive divine law invalidates marriage between brother and sister. The weight of opinion gives the honor to the .ast. You may settle the question to suit yourself." But. as you will never be tempted to marry your brother or your sister, you will have your pains for your pay. The spiritual relationship vyhich invalidates in-validates matrimony is concen rated in baptism and confirmation. These two sacraments imprint a the soul and. as it were, lift the tuber tub-er t or him to whom they are adm.n-- adm.n-- efed into a higher and more spin -ual existence. There is a new gene.-" gene.-" ion The baptizer and the baptized X "onfirmer and the confirmed, s and SS liVm who receives the sacrament and with his parcntsas well. We mu-t carefully distinguish the .cope of the impediment The nim- Iniri'teVed impersonates the church Lnd so nlavs the role of mother. The fmnedim'ent, whether it comes from bTXSm or confirmation, makes mar-riage mar-riage nrinossible between the mlnn-ihp mlnn-ihp child, and the child's Parents. Thus if a boy gives private baptism te a girl- he can marry neither her not he, mother. The sponsor cannot mar--v the person baptized or her mother. JouMbo remembered that no in -raiment arises between the minibier and The sponsor or between the sponsors spon-sors themselves. Thus James and Alary are sponsors for Henrj. Ju are free to marry each other; but Tames cannot marry Henry's mother; and Mary" an marry neither Henry nor Henry's father. -. j' ; It sometimes happens : that a jvor acts merely as a proxy for an The question comes: A ho. in this ca.e iV affected by. the Impediment Th. r,nT,. i free and he .whom, he tepre-SaSaU tepre-SaSaU llUi Tb- Sacred Consrega- tion of the Council has twice declared i that the proxy who discharges the function of sponsor for another, i whether in ba inism or confirmation, 1 does not subject himself to the im- , pediment of spiritual ' affinity. The absentee, who is the real sponsor, may j not marry the child baptized or the , child's iiarent. I ' It is frequently aske 1 whether the impediment is contracted by those who j 'assist at conditional baptism. Theo- : logians maintain that everything de-j pends on the degree or kind of doubt. If the former baptism is in all probability prob-ability invalid, those who are identified with tho second or conditional baptism are considered bound by the impediment; impedi-ment; because we have no really solid foundation for believing that the sac-, sac-, lament was administered in the first case. On the contrary, when the doubt , i so slight that the first baotism , seems, in all probability, valid, the i conditional baptism is probably ad-j ad-j ministered without giving rise to the I impediment. P.ut should a marriage I be arranged between those who assist : at the ceremony or between them and others affected by the spiritual relationship, rela-tionship, the circumstance should be j made known to the pastor. j In private baptism, the participants j and the parents of the child, in all j Probability, contract the impediment, j So says a response of the Sacred f.'on-tgregation f.'on-tgregation of the Council. .Some main-i main-i tain, however, that this response has ; never been sufficiently promulgated. -M any rate, the duty of those con- ceined is quite plain. All who are connected con-nected with such a baptism should re-j re-j member that they are probably af-I af-I fected by the impediment and should I not think of intermarrying without i laying the whole matter before com-I com-I petent authority. But when the solemn ceremonies proper to the sacrament are supplied after private baptism, no spiritual relationship is contracted, bc-j bc-j cause no generation takes place. I T, ! J a rents who baptize their own illegitimate il-legitimate children contract the impediment. im-pediment. Thus, if Sara baptizes the child of her misfortune, and afterwards after-wards desires to marry its father, she cannot do so without first being dispensed dis-pensed from the impediment of spiritual spir-itual affinity. The impediment of spiritual affinity comes from the ecclesiastical law. The old Roman law made it impossible for the father to marry his adopted daughter, and for the mother to marry her adopted son. The reason of this legislation was to preserve purity in the family and to promote "public, honesty." which last term will be defined de-fined later on. The church, finding this legislation most excellent in its results, incorporated it into her own code and dignified it with her strongest sanction, that of diriment impediment. The Roman code distinguishes a two-fold adoption perfect and imperfect. im-perfect. The adoption is perfect when it receives the sanction and seal of the supreme magistrate. It is imperfect im-perfect when it is authorized by a lesser official only. It should be remembered, re-membered, however, that the person adopted should be sui juris and should pass into the family out of the legal parent and be reputed one of the children. chil-dren. All canonists agree that perfect adoption invalidates marriage. Most, on the other hand, argue that imperfect imper-fect adoption does not invalidate marriage. mar-riage. When the state recognizes legal adoption and when the adoption is made according to the civil statute the impediment seems to have place nowadays. At nry rate, the matter is grave enough to be brought before the ecclesiastical tribunal, where alone it can be adequately judged. The impediment of legal affinity is three-fold and is euphoniously described de-scribed as arising from paternity, fraternity fra-ternity and affinity. The first or that which arises from paternity, invalidates invali-dates marriage between the adopter and the adopted, and the offspring of the latter, and that, too, in perpetuity, even though the bond of adoption be severed. The second, or that which comes from fraternity, invalidates marriage mar-riage between the person adopted and the other children of the adopter. In this case the impediment ceases when the bond of adoption is severed, or when the person adopted passes from the jurisdiction of his legal parent. The third, or that which comes from affinity, invalidates marriage between the person adopted and the wife of his adopter: also between the wife of the adopted party and the father who j adopted him. In this case the impediment impedi-ment is perpetual. Pro Tern in Hart- 1 ford Catholic Transcript. One must possess a great deal of true charity to bring oneself to believe in the good faith of those who periodically period-ically resurrect and launch against the church slanders that have time and time again been shown to be without a shadow of truth. If the good faith of the accusers be actually admitted, it can only be at the expense ex-pense of their scholarship or their intelligence. in-telligence. Take, for instance, the comments on the Holy See's "annulling" "annul-ling" certain marriages comments made of late in a number of European journals, and quite likely to be reproduced re-produced in American papers of similar sim-ilar tastes and proclivities. The theme is discussed, of course, in connection with the recent scandal in the royal house of Saxony; and the statement is made that there have been instances in which Rome has really granted a divorce in the full sense of the word that is, has dissolved the bond of a genuine and consummated marriage I and allowed the husband or wife, or j both, to contract forthwith another ! marriage. J It need not be said that the statement state-ment i? an untruth, no matter by whom asserted; as made by a good many, ijt is in all probability , a lie as well. The. church for sufficient reasons rea-sons has authorized, does authorize, and doubtless will continue to authorize, author-ize, separation from "bed and board" in the case of Catholics really married: mar-ried: but she does not declare that the bond of marriage has ceased to bind: she does not permit either parly to marry again within the lifetime of the other. This species of separation is not. however, what the slanderers have in view when they charge the church with having granted divorces. They refer to the infrequent cases in which the Hoiv See has pronounced a marriage mar-riage null and void to the annulment of the marriage bond. Now, the church has been in existence for some nineteen hundred years. Her practice regarding the sacrament of matrimony matri-mony has ever been uniform through the centuries. That practice has been so repeatedly explained and thoroughly thorough-ly justified that it ' might reasonably be "hoped by Catholics that misrepresentation misrepre-sentation on this point, ait least, should cease. Since it has not ceased, let it be reiterated yet once more. that. when ! the Holy See annuls a marriage, it idoes not break or dissolve the marriage mar-riage bond or tie, but simply declares that such bond or tie never existed between be-tween the parties concerned. , Canon Law mentions the specific cases in which a marriage contract is invalid, is null and void; and any annulments ever oronounced . by Rome have been the result, not of caprice.- arbitrary exercise of power, or expediency, but purely of the. application of laws preexisting pre-existing in a regular and elaborate code. ; Some months ago the American press noted at considerable length the cose of a woman who had lived in New-York for a number .of years as a man,; and a married man the late-Murray Hall. It will probably be granted by even the most irreconcilable enemy of Catholicism' Ca-tholicism' that, the ceremony by. which this woman was contracted to. another woman as' her' '"wife,". was -not a, real marriage, and that to call the separa-tio separa-tio nof the two, had it taken place, a divorce in the real sense of the word, would be nonsense. Just as nonsensical, nonsen-sical, in its ultimate analysis, is the charge that annulled marriages are tru? divorces. Another charge against the church in connection with this matter is the insinuation that she is apt to be complaisant com-plaisant in the cao of royal or princely prince-ly sinners. The Saxon scandal had hardly become public before the om-j om-j niscient editor had it that proceedings for th annulment of the crown prin-; prin-; ce'g marri-age would be at once instituted insti-tuted at Rome. Only crass ignorance or history can acquit of foul caiumny : those who make this insinuation. As often as kings and emperors have asked Rome to sanction their divorces I or adulteries, they have been met by Ian absolute non possumus "we cannot can-not do it." Nicholas I said so to L,o-thaire. L,o-thaire. king of Lorraine; Urban II and Paschal II said so to Philip of France: I Clement VII and Paul III said so to I Henry VI II: and Pius VII. repeated ! the declaration to a greater ruler than j any of these sovereigns Napoleon. j Ave Maria. |