JAo W.
So.C<rQ.iMGv,'! -/

-Ad u ‘HUSH

THE SACRAMENTS

OF THE CHURCH

Part II

Confirmation, Penance,

Holy Orders, Matrimony

by

JOHN W. MORAN, S.J., S.T.D.

Professor of Dogmatic Theology

Weston College

A Queen’s Work Publication



Imprimi potest:

Daniel H. Conway, S.J.

Provincial
,
Missouri Province

Imprimatur

:

+ Joseph E. Ritter

Archbishop of St. Louis

December 10, 1954

Any financial profit made by The Queen's Work will

be used for the promotion of Sodalities of Our Lady and

the cause of Catholic Action.

Deaddifted

Copyright 1955

THE QUEEN’S WORK



wriv

CONFIRMATION

Our Lord once found Himself in a town of Samaria

called Sichar. He entered into a conversation with a

Samaritan woman. As a result “Many of the Samaritans

believed in Him” and confessed that He was “in truth the

Savior of the world” (John 4:39, 42). On another occa-

sion the Divine Physician cured 10 lepers; only 1 returned

to thank Him, “he fell on his face at His [Christ’s] feet,

giving thanks; and he was a Samaritan” (Luke 17:16).

We are not surprised, therefore, that there were con-
verted Samaritans in the early days of the Church. In

the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) we read:

“Now when the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Sa-

maria had received the word of God, they sent to them

Peter and John. On their arrival they prayed for them,

that they might receive the Holy Spirit
;
for as yet He had

not come upon any of them, but they had only been

baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 37 Then they laid

their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”

The Apostles conferred a sacrament. This was imposi-

tion of hands (matter)
,
prayer (form)

,
and as a result the

reception of the Holy Spirit.

This ceremony has been called at various times imposi-

tion of hands, or anointing. During the lifetime of St.

Patrick, a marauder from Britain carried off some of St.

Patrick’s converts who had been recently confirmed. The

saint thus describes the scene, “Dripping with blood, they

37. This means the Baptism instituted by Christ, in contradistinc-
tion to the baptism of John. Our Lord told His Apostles to baptize
“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
(Matt. 28:19).

— 3—



welter in the blood of innocent Christians, whom I have

begotten into the number for God, and confirmed in Christ.

The day after the newly baptized, anointed with chrism,

in white garments (had been slain), the fragrance was still

on their foreheads . . .”38 In our time, the bishop with

his thumb, anoints the forehead of the one to be confirmed.

He thus equivalently has his hand imposed over the fore-

head.

4s to the form. In the Latin Church the words are:

“I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee

with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The Greeks

employ this formula: “The seal of the gift of the Holy

Spirit.”
39

The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop, but

the Holy See can, and at times does, employ priests under

definite circumstances to confer it. Pope Pius XII granted

to all parish priests the faculty of administering this

sacrament to all those who are seriously ill when the bishop

cannot be had in time or very easily.

38. St. Patrick, “Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus,” Ancient

Christian Writers, Vol. 17 (The Works of St. Patrick . . .” et al.),

p. 41. Westminster, Md. : Newman Press, 1953. Newly baptized in
the early Church generally wore white garments, indicating their
sinlessness. St. Patrick confirmed in this case immediately after

Baptism. Catechumens were baptized at the Paschal Mass (Holy
Thursday), or at the Pentecost vigil. After the ceremony, for some
days they wore white garments. Those baptized on Holy Thursday
put off the white garments on Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis)

.

In England Pentecost was called Whitsunday.

39. This form is used by both the Greek (schismatic) Orthodox
Church and the Greek Church in union with Rome. The members
of this latter church are sometimes called Uniates. However, they
object to this term and refer to themselves as Catholics of the

Byzantine Rite. There are in the United States two dioceses which

belong to this rite. They are called the Byzantine Rite Apostolic

Exarchate of Philadelphia, and the Diocese of Pittsburg, Greek Rite.
There are parishes in various parts of the United States, and the

adherents number more than 625,000.

— 4—



Each sacrament produces sanctifying grace in the soul.

Now the sanctifying grace conferred by any sacrament is

the same in kind, not necessarily in degree, as that which

flows from any other. But in addition, each of these sacred

ceremonies instituted by Christ, gives the recipient the

right to the actual graces which he or she will need to

fulfill the obligations which arise from his or her new

status before God.

Thus in Confirmation, one assumes the duty to protect

and defend one’s faith. However, as is well known, this

sacrament, like Baptism and Holy Orders, cannot be re-

peated. What would be the case, therefore, of one who

deliberately and with full knowledge received it in the

state of mortal sin ? Is he forever deprived of the benefits

which Christ has attached to this sacred ceremony?

By no means. When he makes a good and sincere

confession, he not only receives absolution, and full par-

don of his sins, but there is conferred upon him the grace

and the title of God’s help, which he would have received

from Confirmation worthily received.

The same is true, if—which God avert—a priest should
receive Holy Orders in the state of mortal sin.

There are two other sacraments which cannot be re-

peated unless the circumstances change. A person can-
not remarry while the other party is alive. But he might

have contracted Matrimony in the state of mortal sin.

The latter is no bar to a valid marriage. Marriage, how-

ever, brings duties and responsibilities. God gives actual

graces to help one bear these burdens. These graces and

God’s blessing will come to the person whom we are dis-

cussing, once he again is in the state of grace.

Extreme Unction cannot be repeated during the same

sickness. What if one receives it after a bad or sacri-

legious confession?

— 5—



He should make a good one, and then he will receive all

the consolations and benefits which Christ attached to the

sacrament of the dying. The sacrament of Penance can

be received as often as one wishes.

(For a brief discussion of Confirmation and its effects,

see The Sacrament of Catholic Action, by Daniel A. Lord,

S.J. [St. Louis: The Queen’s Work, 1936] 40 pp.)

QUESTIONS

1. Is Confirmation in the Greek rite valid?

2. Is the reason why Our Lord instituted seven sacra-

ments, that each one confers a different kind of sanctifying

grace ?

3. What sacraments do not revive?

4. What is the meaning of the reference to white gar-

ments in the statement of St. Patrick?

— 6—



PENANCE

The Council of Trent says that the acts to be performed

by the penitent are contrition, confession, and atonement.

We shall consider first the subject of confession.

What sins must we confess? As a matter of obligation,

only mortal sins which we are sure that we committed

and which we are sure that we did not previously confess.

A scrupulous person often asks himself, did I ever confess
this sin which I committed 10 years ago? If the answer

is: I cannot remember, he is not obliged to confess it.

The obligation extends only to those sins which one is sure

he did not disclose in confession.

For a mortal sin, as everyone knows, three things are

required: (1) grave matter, (2) serious reflection, and

(3) full consent of the will.

Grave Matter

With full deliberation, one steals 5 cents. That is not

mortal sin. It is, however, a venial sin, and will be punished

in purgatory, if not on this earth. One’s conscience

should be kept clear on this point. Small thefts may

lead to larger. So one is advised to confess such sins;

in fact, it is well to confess all our venial sins as far as

we can, but it is not a point of grave obligation.

Would deliberate eating of one hamburger on Friday be

grave? Yes. What makes that small amount grave? The

Catholic Church, which has authority in this matter. The

eating of forbidden fruit by Adam was grave. Every
disaster and death that have occurred since that fatal act

are penalties of this sin.

But what if we eat meat on Friday, and do not realize

it is Friday ? That is no sin. For sin, we need advertence

— 7



to the fact that we are committing a sin. On occasions

it is allowable for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday. I

shall explain. The prohibition does not come directly

from God, as do the Ten Commandments, but from the

Catholic Church. Therefore the Church can grant a dis-

pensation when it sees fit. The Holy Father, for instance,

grants such a dispensation to all the faithful when a

holyday of obligation falls on Friday. A bishop may
dispense his subjects for whatever he considers a suitable

reason.

Sometimes a priest hears in confession, “Father, I did

not go to Mass for two Sundays.” “Why not?” he asks.

“I had pneumonia.” The penitent does not understand

the Church’s law. The Catholic Church commands its

faithful to attend Mass on Sunday, if there is not a grave

impediment. Pneumonia certainly is a grave impediment.

Serious Reflection and Full Consent of the Will

Some people are disturbed by what they term “bad

dreams.” Now if they were really asleep, there is no
sin at all. If they were not fully awake, at least they

did not commit a mortal sin. Therefore there is no obliga-

tion to disclose this in confession. However, if one thinks

that it would be for the peace of his soul, he may reveal

that he had bad thoughts, but that he does not know if

he gave full consent. He may say: “If to any extent I am
guilty in the sight of God, I confess this.”

Temptations Are Not Sins

This point is very important. We all have temptations

;

we do not sin every time we are tempted. We need con-
fess only sins.

Often one hears in confession, “Father, I had bad

thoughts.” That is no sin. Did you take deliberate

pleasure in them? Notice that I say “deliberate.” Did

— 8—



you consent to these thoughts? If not, there was no

mortal sin at least.

We can illustrate the difference between temptation and
sin in this way. Jones is very absent minded. He visits

Brown and leaves his umbrella. Brown doesn’t want the

umbrella. He never asked for it, he wishes the owner

would call for it. The umbrella is in his hallway, but

without his consent. That is temptation.

What is sin? Jim leaves his umbrella in Pete’s house.

Pete wants an umbrella, and hopes that Jim will forget

where he left it. He does. Pete takes the umbrella. Sin

means this. You want this bad thought. You deliberately

encourage it. You deliberately hold on to it.

Or we might illustrate this point by another example.

Mrs. Jones is looking out of her parlor window and sees

Mrs. Brown on the street. This person Mrs. Jones detests.

She hopes that the lady is not going to visit her. Her

hope proves vain. Now you can imagine what an un-
pleasant time Mrs. Jones has while her visitor is in the

house. She breathes a sigh of relief when the latter

departs. Mrs. Brown represents temptation. If we do

not wish bad thoughts, if we sincerely would like to be

rid of them if we only could, there is no sin.

But let us take another case. Mrs. A. sees Mrs. B.

passing her house. She calls her in. She chats, she rings

and asks the maid to bring tea for two. She really wishes

her guest to remain. So, if we willingly and deliberately

arouse bad thoughts, if we try to hold on to them, that

is sin.

Only sin need be confessed. However, if you think that

you were a bit negligent in rejecting, or at least in trying

to reject, bad thoughts, you may state to the priest, “If

I am in any way guilty in this matter, I confess it as it

is before God.” Some people find peace of soul in this

way.

— 9—



How Can One Get Rid of These Thoughts?

There is no rule that will guarantee 100% results. But

there are helps. Pictures in the imagination are removed

by inserting others, as slides in a projector.

An English girl saw English prisoners returning after

World War I. Some had spent years in captivity. There

was no gleam in their eye nor sprightliness in their step.

Right then she determined that if there should be another

war, she would send books and games to the prisoners.

Came World War II and the girl, now a woman, was

faithful to her decision. She sent books. And what kind

of books do you suppose these abandoned creatures wanted ?

Books on travel and on fishing. Enclosed behind barbed

wire, the prisoners wished to roam about in a world of

imagination.

So when bothered by bad thoughts, it is sometimes

helpful to conjure up a pleasant incident in one’s past life

or to compare the respective merits of two ball players.

Confession of Sins

This, strange to say, is not the most important part of

the sacrament. Absolution, at times, may be had without it.

For example, soldiers are about to go into battle. Because

of the large number of men and the lack of time, the

chaplain cannot hear their individual confessions. The

chaplain says, “Make an act of contrition and I shall give

you absolution.” The obligation to confess is this: one

must confess all the sins which he can and which have

not previously been disclosed to the (or a) priest. The

soldiers on this occasion confess all the sins they can,

i.e., none. If a man dies in battle after the general absolu-

tion, he will go to heaven.

What if he survives? The sins have been forgiven.

They never return to his soul. But he still has the obliga-

10 —



tion later to confess these sins. One must confess all the

sins which he can and which he is sure have not previously

been confessed.

Or a man had been seriously injured in an accident. He

is very weak from loss of blood. A priest rushes up, “Are
you sorry for your sins?” “Yes, Father,” the poor man

says weakly. “Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et

peccatis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”

Contrition

Contrition is not a matter of feeling. Often we do not

feel sorry; sorrow for sins is in the will. For the sake of

simplicity we shall confine our remarks to that attrition

which is based on fear of hell.

A Catholic has been away from the sacraments for years.
He attends a mission. He is scared stiff to enter the

confession box. This fear he feels. But he says to him-

self, “If I die as I am, I shall go to hell.” If he has enough

fear of hell to take the plunge, he has attrition.

Now many people go to confession and often confess
the same sins, which may be no more than venial. But

they must have sorrow for them. Of course they do not

need to be as sorry as if they had been guilty of mortal

sin, but sorrow for even venial sin must be efficacious.

How can they obtain this sorrow? Here is a method

suggested. Pick out some sin of your past life for which

you have real sorrow. At the end of each confession

say, “For these sins and all the sins of my past life, and
especially for (here say a sin against the first, second,

or whatever commandment it is), I am sincerely sorry, beg
penance and absolution.”

Purpose of Amendment

A firm purpose of amendment is also essential for a
good confession. If a person intends to go right on sinning,

he certainly is not sorry for his sins.

— 11—



Does this mean that I must feel certain that I shall

not commit these sins again? No; a firm purpose of

amendment means that I am so sorry for my sins that,
with the help of God’s grace (which is not only helpful

but necessary) and as far as I can, I shall not commit

these sins or any other sins again. This purpose can be

firm even though we know from past experience that we

shall be tempted again. Yet we are sorry and are de-

termined to try to overcome any future temptations in

this line. It means, too, a determination not to run into

temptation, a determination to avoid the occasions of sin:

those persons, places, or things which may easily lead

us into sin.

The occasions of sin are different for each person. Those

things that are occasions of sin for me, I must avoid.

What causes me to sin, what has caused me to sin in the

past—these I must give up. If I do not mean to or do
not try very hard to give them up, I am not really sorry

for my sins
;
I have no firm purpose of amendment.

If, in spite of your determination, you do fall in the

future, do not be discouraged. A fall should make us
realize our weakness and induce us to call upon God to

assist us. If you sin again, once more enter the confes-

sional. Our Lord instituted the sacrament of Penance for

the forgiveness of sins.

(For two brief discussions of the sacrament of Penance,

see the two pamphlets by Daniel A. Lord, S.J. : When

We Go to Confession [St. Louis: The Queen’s Work, 1941]

40 pp. ; and Confession Is a Joy? [St. Louis: The Queen’s

Work, 1933] 40 pp.)

QUESTIONS

1. Why is it a mortal sin if one deliberately eats one
hamburger on Friday, but not if one deliberately steals

five cents?

— 12—



2. Is it ever allowed to eat meat on Friday?

3. Is it always a mortal sin not to be present at Mass

on Sunday?

4. Is it a sin to have bad thoughts?

5. Is it a mortal sin if we do not banish these thoughts

immediately ?

6. Why is the absolution given by a priest to a dying
man who cannot talk, effective? The man has not con-

fessed his sins.

7. What method is suggested to get rid of bad thoughts ?

— 13—



HOLY ORDERS OR ORDINATION

The ceremony by which one is constituted a bishop,

ordained a priest, or made a deacon is a sacrament, the

sacrament of Holy Orders.

A bishop has all the powers which a deacon or priest
possesses, and in addition he can ordain priests and con-

secrate other bishops. For this reason, the episcopate is

sometimes termed the fullness of the priesthood.

To a Catholic there is probably no more moving experi-

ence than to see a newly ordained priest at the end of

an ordination ceremony turn and give his first priestly

blessing to the mother who brought him into the world

and later gave him up to God.

Ordination to the priesthood takes place at a Mass

celebrated by a bishop. Each candidate is vested as a

deacon with amice, alb, cincture, stole, and maniple. He

carries a folded chasuble on his left arm, and holds a

candle in his right hand. He is furnished with a white

cloth for the binding of his hands. With his classmates

he goes before the bishop and kneels.

The bishop delivers a short address to the clergy and

the laity, and one to those to be ordained . 40 Litanies of

the saints are sung. In the midst of this the bishop wear-

ing a mitre and holding the pastoral staff in his right

hand
,

41
prays:

“That you may deign to bless these elect;

That you may deign to bless and sanctify these elect

;

That you may deign to bless, sanctify, and conse-

crate these elect.”

40. Ecclesiastically they are called ordinands.

41. This signifies that he is now acting fully in his capacity of
bishop.

— 14—



The litanies are then concluded.

There follows the ordination ceremony. The ordinands

kneel successively in pairs before the bishop. In silence

he lays both hands on the head of each ordinand. The

priests do likewise .42 The bishop and the priests keep

their right hand upraised. The imposition of the hand of

the bishop over each ordinand is the matter of the

sacrament.

The form consists of words in the first Preface
43 which

the bishop sings soon after: “Grant we implore thee,

almighty Father, to thy servants, the dignity of the priest-

hood, renew in their hearts the spirit of sanctity, that

they may obtain the office of the second merit44 which

they have received from thee, and by their conduct may

afford a pattern of holy living.”

Soon after, each ordinand kneels before the bishop, who

with the Oil of Catechumens anoints his opened hands in

the form of a cross. The bishop pronounces this prayer,

“Be pleased, O Lord, to consecrate and hallow these hands

by this anointing, and our blessing. Amen.”

Then follows a scene which is deeply affecting both to

the ordinands and to all present.

The bishop brings together the hands of each in suc-

cession so that their palms meet. One of the attendants

binds them together with a white cloth. The bishop there-

upon delivers to each ordinand the chalice containing wine

and water, with a paten upon it. Each ordinand takes the

chalice between the fore and middle fingers, so as to touch

42. This merely adds to the solemnity of the occasion. The bishop
is the minister of the sacrament.

43. There are two Prefaces in the Mass in which a. priest is

ordained. The second varies with the feast and the ecclesiastical
year.

44. The Latin word meriti could be translated importance.

— 15—



both the paten and the cup of the chalice. To each the

bishop says:

“Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to

celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the

name of the Lord.”

The Mass is resumed. There is a second Preface. Be-

ginning with the prayers of the Offertory, each priest

(they are now priests) says the rest of the prayers with

the bishop.

At the Communion they go to the altar and each receives

from the hand of the bishop one of the particles which he

has consecrated with the bishop during the Mass.

The newly ordained priests say the Apostles’ Creed,

their first profession of faith since ordination. Thereupon

the bishop lays both hands on the head of each of the

newly ordained priests, saying:

“Receive the Holy Ghost
;
whose sins thou shalt forgive,

they are forgiven them: and whose sins thou shalt retain,

they are retained.”

The Power to Forgive Sins

The priesthood is essentially an office instituted by

Christ to offer up the sacrifice of the body and blood of

Christ. The priest receives power over the 'physical body

of Christ. At Mass, the faithful assist. But to assist

most worthily, to share as fully as possible in the fruits of

the Mass, they should communicate. To do so, they must

be in the state of sanctifying grace. Therefore the priest

is given the power to forgive sins.

The priest sits in the confessional and acts as judge.

But there is a wide difference between a civil judge and

the priest. The former can only declare that so far as

the evidence shows, the accused is innocent. He cannot

make a guilty man really innocent. But a priest can.

— 16—



By the authority conferred upon him by Christ, he for-

gives sin and bestows sanctifying grace. Those who are

thus pardoned have become, to quote the Council of Trent,

“Innocent, spotless, pure, guiltless and sons beloved to

God, heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs of Christ, so

that absolutely nothing holds them back from entrance

into heaven.”45

The granting or withholding of absolution is a true

judicial act. In the confessional the priest sits as judge.

Now a judge cannot function unless he has subjects.

Ordination gives the priest the power to forgive sins,

but it does not designate his subjects. To exercise his

power, he needs faculties granted him, by either general

Church canon law or a bishop. Thus by canon law a pastor

has faculties to hear the confessions of his parishioners.

In this country, bishops give faculties to priests to hear

confessions of anyone in their dioceses. Special faculties

are needed to administer the sacrament of Penance to

members of religious orders or congregations of women.

A Catholic might be taking an ocean voyage and might
wish to go to confession. The Church has provided for

this contingency. If there is a priest on board, providing

that he has faculties from his owrn ordinary (bishop) or

the ordinary of the port where he embarked, or the ordi-

nary of any port which the ship touches on the route, he

has faculties. This is for the whole trip. The priest may

hear the confessions of his fellow travelers. If the ship

stops at a port, he may absolve all those who come aboard

45. The words quoted deal with the effects of the sacrament of

Baptism received by an adult, but they are also applicable to the

state of the soul of one who has received the sacrament of Penance.

But St. Paul advises us, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed
lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12); and the injunction of Our Lord to His

three Apostles, “Watch and pray, that you may not enter into
temptation” (Matt. 26:41) is applicable to all of us.

— 17—



and approach him in the tribunal of penance. The same

faculties, under similar conditions, are bestowed by the

Church to all priests traveling by plane. However, at the

destination, their faculties cease. Military chaplains have

faculties over all members of the armed forces anywhere

in the world.

Our Holy Mother, the Church, wishes to give every

chance of salvation to those dying in the state of mortal

sin. Therefore it gives to any priest, schismatic, heretic

or even excommunicated, faculties to absolve one who is

dying.

The Matter and Form of the Sacrament

We have seen that at one point in the Mass, the ordinand
touches the paten and the cup of the chalice. This is

called traditio instrumentorum
,

46
the handing over the

sacred vessel to be used in the holy sacrifice. Appropriate

words are read by the bishop. At one time, some theo-

logians considered this ceremony to be the matter and

form of the sacrament.

Others maintained that these consisted in the imposition

of hands by the bishop and a prayer or formula. This

was, as we might say, only a theoretical argument. For

theologians of both schools held that it was one or the

other, therefore there was no doubt that the priest was

ordained during the ordination Mass.

Those who held the second opinion argued that in the

Latin church the traditio instrumentorum was unknown

for at least seven centuries. Moreover it is not found in

the Eastern churches, the validity of whose sacraments

the Catholic Church has never questioned.

46. The Latin word instmmentum means a utensil or instrument.

In the ordination ceremony, the priest is presented with a chalice

to touch, for the function of the priest is to offer up the sacrifice

of the Mass.

— 18 —



This opinion is now certain. In an Apostolic Constitution

on the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Epis-

copate, Pope Pius XII decrees:

“In the priestly ordination the matter is the first imposi-

tion of hands of the bishop which takes place in silence,

but not the continuation of the imposition through extend-

ing of the right hand . . . The form consists of words of

the Preface, of which these are essential and therefore re-

quired for validity: Da quaesumus, Omnipotens Pater, in

hunc famulum tuum presbyterii dignitatem; innova in

visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te,

Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum

exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.” 47

Proof From Holy Scripture That Holy Orders

Is a Sacrament

St. Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy: “Do not neglect

the grace that is in thee, granted to thee by reason of

prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbyterate”

(1 Tim. 4:14) ; “I admonish thee to stir up the grace of

God which is in thee by the laying on of my hands”
(2 Tim. 1:6).

The word presbyter in the New Testament sometimes
means bishop. Thus St. Peter calls himself sumpresbuteros

(1 Peter 5:1). Now St. Peter was certainly a bishop. But
presbyter at other times signifies priest. Therefore we

do not argue from the first quotation, since the meaning

of the term presbyterate is not clear and definite. A bishop,
however, St. Paul certainly was.

He tells Timothy that grace is in Timothy’s soul by the

imposition of his (St. Paul’s) hands. Is, that means, still

47. A translation of the Apostolic Constitution and a commentary
on it is found in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 48 (1948),

pp. 691-694. A translation of the words of the form may be seen
above, in the description of the ceremonies of the ordination Mass.

— 19—



remains. Therefore he is not referring to actual grace.

For that is identified with an act of the intellect or will,

and is, consequently, by its nature, transitory. Sanctify-

ing grace, on the other hand, remains in the soul unless

expelled by mortal sin. Hence the grace conferred on

Timothy was sanctifying grace.

St. Paul tells us the matter of this religious rite. It was

the laying on of hands by a bishop. He does not mention

the form; he did not need to, as his purpose was to stir

up St. Timothy’s zeal. What more suitable for this purpose

than to recall to his disciple’s mind the remembrance of

a deeply moving ceremony?

(For a discussion of the invalidity of Anglican ordina-

tions, see Appendix I, page 31.)

QUESTIONS

1. Are Holy Orders one sacrament or three?

2. Since the bishop confers on the newly ordained priest

the power to forgive sins, can the latter start hearing

confessions immediately ?

3. If a priest is on shipboard, may he hear the confession

of a fellow passenger if the latter is not in danger of

death ?

4. What is the essential part of the ordination ceremony ?

5. What is meant by traditio instrumentorum‘1

6. How do you prove that Holy Orders or Ordination
is a sacrament?

7. Why is the episcopate sometimes called the fullness
of the priesthood?

8. What intention must a bishop have in order validly

to ordain a priest?

— 20



MATRIMONY
“Christ Our Lord raised the matrimonial contract be-

tween baptized persons to the dignity of a sacrament.

Hence there can be no valid matrimonial contract between

baptized persons that is not eo ipso a sacrament.”
48

It was God Himself who instituted Matrimony. The

matrimonial state was held sacred by the Jews. Tobias

prayed: “Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth,

and gavest him Eve for a helper. And now, Lord, thou

knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister 41’

to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy

name will be blessed forever and ever” (Tob. 8:8-9). St.

Paul tells us that every matrimonial union is a type of

that which exists between Christ and the Church. The

Church is the bride of Christ. 30

The union is entered into by the marriage ceremony or

contract. It is the ceremony which is the sacrament. This

ceremony, which had existed from the beginning, Christ

“raised to the dignity of a sacrament” when it is between

two baptized persons. Baptized Protestants, if there is

no impediment invalidating their marriage, receive this

sacrament. If baptized married Protestants are received

into the Catholic Church, the Church does not remarry

them. They are already married.

The ministers of this sacrament are the contracting

parties. The husband bestows the sacrament on the wife

who receives it; the wife confers it on the husband who

receives it.

Why then does the Church require that a priest assist
at, or as some people think, perform the marriage cere-

48. Code of Canon Law, Canon 1012.

49. Sara was not the sister of the younger Tobias as we under-
stand the term. She was the daughter of Raguel, while Tobias was

the son of a man of the same name.

50. Ephesians 5:21-24.

21



mony? First, because the Church has the right to pre-

scribe under what circumstances the sacraments may be

validly administered and received. Secondly, that the

sacred and religious element in the ceremony may be made

evident.

In many countries the religious ceremony is considered

invalid, and so the husband and wife must also go through

a civil ceremony of marriage. This is not true in this

country. Marriage before a priest is recognized as having

all the civil effects of a valid marriage. Of course no

priest automatically has the license to perform a marriage

everywhere in the United States, but for any marriage he

may obtain civil authorization if he does not already

possess it .
31

In some cases, Catholics are allowed by the Church to

marry without the assistance of a priest. “If without

serious inconvenience the pastor, ordinary, or delegated

priest cannot be had or approached to assist at the mar-

riage ... in danger of death, marriage contracted before

witnesses alone is valid and licit; and even outside of

danger of death, provided that it is prudently foreseen

that this condition of affairs will last a month.” 315 Very

51. This very definitely is a religious country. The Declaration

of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Cre-
ator with certaih inalienable rights.” There are chaplains in our

armed forces, and each day’s session of Congress is opened with

prayer. The words “In God We Trust” are found on our coins and
some of our postage stamps, and the name of God has been inserted
in our Pledge of Allegiance. Catholics enjoy full rights. In the Oregon

decision the Supreme Court ruled that the right of education rests

primarily with parents. Parents, therefore, may send their children
to Catholic schools. Catholic publications receive mailing privileges.

Catholic radio and television programs come freely into our homes.

Catholic colleges have Army, Navy, and Air Force training corps.

We Catholics are deeply grateful for the privilege of living in this
wonderful country. There are no Communists in our ranks.

52. Code of Canon Law, Canon 1098.

-22 —



likely some Catholics living behind the Iron Curtain have

availed themselves of this privilege.

Divorce

As will be readily admitted, Protestants allow divorce

and on many grounds.

Our Lord’s teaching on this subject is found in many

passages of the New Testament.

“And some Pharisees coming up asked Him, testing

Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ But

He answered and said to them, ‘What did Moses command

you?’ They said, ‘Moses permitted us to write a notice

of dismissal, and to put her away.’ But Jesus said to

them, ‘By reason of the hardness of your heart he wrote

you that commandment. But from the beginning of crea-

tion God made them male and female. For this cause a

man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his

wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ . . . ‘What there-

fore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.’

“And in the house, His disciples again asked Him con-

cerning this. And He said to them, ‘Whoever puts away

his wife and marries another, commits adultery against

her; and if a wife puts away her husband, and marries

another, she commits adultery’” (Mark 10:2-12).

Our Lord admits of no exceptional cases, even in His

answer to His disciples questioning Him on this subject.

His words also give the response to the often-heard argu-

ment that as marriage is a contract freely entered into

by the contracting parties, they may freely break the

contract; for the fact is that the nature of the contract

has been established by God. The union is indissoluble,

certainly in the sense that the contracting parties may not

break it. If there is any authority which can dissolve the

union, that authority must come from God Himself.

— 23—



St. Luke is equally clear and decisive: “Everyone who

puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery;

and he who marries a woman who has been put away from

her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).

To the Corinthians, St. Paul wrote: “To those who are

married, not I, but the Lord commands that a wife is not

to depart from her husband, and if she departs, that she

is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband”

(1 Cor. 7:10-11). Note that this is a command from

Christ Himself.
33

If the wife is to remain unmarried, that

is evidence that the marriage bond still holds, for the

Apostle permits second marriages after the death of a

partner. In the same letter he states: “I say to the un-

married and to widows, it is good for them if they so

remain, even as I. But if they do not have self-control,

let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn” 34

(1 Cor. 7:8-9). In this same seventh chapter the Apostle

states: “A woman is bound as long as her husband is

alive, but if her husband dies, she is free. Let her marry

whom she pleases, only let it be in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).

St. Matthew quotes Our Lord as teaching: “I say to

you that everyone who puts away his wife, save on ac-

count of immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and

he who marries a woman who has been put away commits

adultery” (Matt. 5:32). But one can commit adultery only

with one who is married. Hence a wife who is put away

for any cause except for immorality is still united by the

bonds of matrimony to her first and only husband. The

impression may be left with the reader that Our Lord

grants complete divorce and the privilege of remarrying,

53. Here we may quote two prominent non-Catholic writers.
“Divorce Paul did not permit at all. It is to be noted on this point

that he diverges both from Roman and from Jewish Law, but follows
and possibly quotes Jesus as the basis of his position”

—

Kirsopp Lake
and Sylva Lake, An Introduction to the New Testament

, p» 112.

New York: Harper, 1937.

54. To burn with the fire of concupiscence, with danger of in-

continence.

— 24—



to one whose wife was guilty of immorality. The same

impression might be gathered from Matthew 19:3-12. But

that interpretation contradicts the teaching of Christ as

found in St. Mark and in St. Luke, also the doctrine which

St. Paul testified that he had received from the Lord.

Moreover Our Lord, in Matthew 19:8, said that Moses

had permitted husbands, because of hardness of heart, to

put away their wives. He had already asserted, “What

therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder”

(Matt. 19:6).

The disciples understood Him to teach a strong doctrine.

“If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedi-

ent to marry” (Matt. 19:10). Our Lord admitted that His

doctrine was hard on human nature. “Not all can accept

this teaching; but those to whom it has been given”

(Matt. 19: 11).
55

55. A more detailed study of Matthew 5 and 19 must be left
to specialists in Holy Scripture. J. P. Haran in Theological Studies

2 (1941), pp. 198-220, holds that the limiting clause should read

"except in the case of adultery.” The Jews distinguished between
mere separation of husband and wife, and a bill of divorce which
broke the marriage bond. Our Lord establishes a principle that

a husband whose wife committed adultery could dismiss her "from

his bed and board.” A similar view is defended by C. Lattey, S.J.,
in Clergy Review 35 (1951), pp. 243-253.

R. Dyson and B. Leeming in Clergy Review 20 (1941), pp. 283-294

give a different interpretation. The word "immorality” in our Con-

fraternity edition, or fornicatio in the Vulgate, in the Greek is

porneia. The Hebrew word corresponding became among the

rabbis almost a technical term for illegitimate unions, that is mar-

riages which were invalid because contracted within the degrees

forbidden by Mosaic Law. In such cases, a husband can divorce

his wife (actually she is not his wife) and marry. This view has

been defended also by the celebrated Pauline scholar, F. Prat, S.J.

The permission of divorce permitted by Moses is found in Deu-
teronomy (24:1) : "If a man takes a wife, and have her, and she shall
not find favor in his eyes, for some uncleanness [porneia]

,
he shall

write a bill of divorce” etc. Complete and full separation of the

marriage bond is allowed in this case. B. Vawter in The Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 16 (1954), pp. 155-157, has another interpreta-

tion of Our Lord’s words. Equivalently they were "I say to you,

whoever dismisses his wife, Deut. 24:1 notwithstanding, and mar-

ries another, commits adultery.”

— 25—



The best interpretation of Christ’s doctrine, of course,

is the teaching of the early Church. One of the most

highly esteemed writers of the second century was Hermas,

brother of Pope Pius II. His work Pastor (“Shepherd”)

was held in great esteem, especially in the East. Written

140-154, it dealt especially with penance and forgiveness

of sins. I quote a dialogue:

“
‘Sir,’ I said, ‘if a man has a wife who believes in the

Lord, and surprises her in adultery, does he commit a sin

if he lives with her?’ ‘Before he finds out,’ he said, ‘he

does not. But if her husband knows the sin and she does

not repent, but persists in her fornication, he becomes

guilty of her sin.’ ‘Sir,’ I said, ‘what is he to do, if the

wife continues in this passion?’ ‘Let him divorce her,’

he said, ‘and remain single. But, if he divorces her and

marries another, he himself commits adultery’.’
m

[Italics

mine.]

(For a discussion of the Pauline Privilege, see Appendix

II, page 35. For a discussion of annulment, see Appendix

III, page 38.)

QUESTIONS

1. The ceremony of Extreme Unction and the cere-

mony of Baptism, at least with the words prescribed by

Our Lord, did not exist before His time, but the marriage

ceremony did. How then can we say that Christ instituted
the sacrament of Matrimony?

2. Since the contracting parties entered the matrimonial

union by mutual consent, why can they not dissolve the

union by mutual consent?

56. Hermas, “Shepherd,” Mandate 4; Apostolic Fathers (The
Fathers of the Church Series), p. 262. New York: CIMA Publishing
Co., 1947.

— 26—



3. What was the Oregon decision and in what connec-

tion was it mentioned in this chapter?

4. What is meant by “defect of form”?

5. May Catholics ever marry without the presence of a

priest ?



SEVEN SACRAMENTS

The Council of Trent decreed: “If anyone says that the

sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by
Jesus Christ Our Lord, or that they are more or fewer

than seven, namely: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist,

Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders and Matrimony
;

or

that any one of these is not truly and properly a sacra-

ment; let him be anathema.”37

The Council employs the word “sacrament” according to

the signification which had been attached to it in Catholic

theological circles, i.e., a sacred rite or ceremony in-

stituted by Christ which confers sanctifying grace ex

opere operato. This means that the ceremony itself is a

subordinate, though very real cause of grace .58 If a

sacred rite can produce such an effect, Christ Himself

gave it that power. He it was, therefore, who instituted

the sacraments.

The word “sacrament” had been used in a fixed sense

for at least three centuries. Before that, it had been

employed to designate a mystery, the external sign of a

mystery, or what we now term a sacramental. Thus St.

Bernard refers to the washing of the feet as a sacra-

ment . 39

Though it was only after a long lapse of time that

Catholic theologians began to use the term “sacrament”

in the sense now universally accepted in the Catholic

Church, the doctrine contained in the decree of the Council

57. The Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 1. The expression

“Let him be anathema” is equivalent to “this is an heretical view.”

58. God, of course, is the principal (efficient) cause of sanctifying

grace.

59. Fourth Sermon on the Lord’s Supper.

— 28—



of Trent, cited above, had always been taught by the

Catholic Church. We may mention the decrees and state-
ments of the Councils of Florence (1438-1445), Constance

(1414-1418),
60 and Lyons (1274).

Ecumenical61 councils are generally held to condemn

errors prevalent at the time. The Council of Trent in

the canon mentioned above, had in mind Luther, Calvin,

and Zwingli, who taught that there are only two sacra-

ments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Most Protestants

agree with this view.62

The scope of the Councils of Florence and Lyons, how-

ever, was not precisely to condemn errors. It was rather

to bring about, if possible, reunion with the Orthodox

(schismatic) Greeks. The former council also attempted

to bring about the submission of the Monophysite Ar-

menians and Jacobites. 63

In the discussions it became clear that there was no

fundamental difference between the Catholic and the other

churches on the number and nature of the sacraments.

Differences were only on minor points, e.g., the Greeks

insisted on leavened bread for the celebration of the

Eucharist.

From this we can draw a striking conclusion. The

doctrine of the seven sacraments (not of course necessarily

the name) was universally taught and believed before any

60. In its condemnation of Wyclif and Hus.

61. The term “ecumenical” is from a Greek word and means

world-wide or universal.

62. In a preceding chapter we have referred to the Thirty-Nine

Articles. Baptists, Congregationalists, and Disciples of Christ hold

two sacraments. R. A. Ashworth in Christendom 5 (1940), p. 487.

Quakers do not admit any sacraments.

63. The word Monophysite is from the Greek and means one

nature. Monophysites hold that there is only one nature in Christ.

Their members are Armenians, Copts in Egypt, and Syrians. There

are also Catholic Armenians, Copts, and Syrians.

— 29—



of the other churches broke from Rome.64 For these sects

have ever held tenaciously to the points on which they

differ from the Catholic Church. They neither are, nor

have been in the past, prone to accept dogmas from the

Catholic Church. But from the liturgical books of these

sects at this very day, we can deduce the doctrine of the
seven sacraments. 65

QUESTIONS

1. Does it not seem strange to prove the truth of a

Catholic doctrine by asserting that it is also held by

heretics ?

64. The Monophysites were condemned in the (ecumenical) Council
of Chalcedon, 451.

65. An excellent work on the subject of the separated churches
is D. Attwater, The Dissident Eastern Churches. Milwaukee: Bruce,

1937. It has a good index. In 1930, Mar Ivanios, a Jacobite Bishop
in Malabar, southern India, was received into the Catholic Church,
and was followed by thousands of his subjects. The Holy Father,
Pope Pius XI, sent him the pallium, and thus attested to the validity

of his orders. On Mar Ivanios see The Catholic World, 142 (1936),
pp. 604-609.

— 30—



Appendix I

ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS

Anglican ordinations are invalid.

Such is the authoritative decision promulgated by Pope

Leo XIII in his brief Apostolicae Curae issued on Sep-

tember 13, 1896. This pronouncement was issued only after

a thorough and impartial investigation by a specially ap-

pointed committee.

Of the members of the committee, the Abbe Duchesne

and Father DeAugustinis, S.J., held at the beginning that

Anglican ordinations are certainly valid. Monsignor (later

Cardinal) Gasparri was inclined to maintain that they are

probably valid. There was one American citizen on the

board, Cardinal Mazzella, formerly Father Mazzella, S.J.,

for many years professor of dogmatic theology at Wood-

stock College. He differed sharply in view with his Jesuit

fellow member. Of the five remaining members two may

be mentioned, Monsignor Merry del Val, later Cardinal and

Secretary of State to St. Pius X; and the celebrated

authority on the Protestant Reformation in England,

Abbot Gasquet, O.S.B., who was afterward created a

Cardinal. As. can be readily seen, the committee was

composed of men of profound scholarship. They searched

the Vatican archives and held 12 sessions.

The minutes of all their meetings and all the papers

were laid before the Suprema, or highest committee of

Cardinals, over which the Pope presides in person.

The Suprema voted unanimously against the validity of

Anglican orders. After long hours of prayer the Holy

Father confirmed their decision.

31



As a matter of fact, ever since 1550, the Catholic Church

had ordained (not reordained) Anglican clergymen who

were converted to it, and wished to become priests. The

Roman archives have the complete story of many of these

cases.

Anglican orders have been and are invalid for two

reasons: defect of form and defect of intention.

Defect of form. In every sacrament, the form must

express the effect produced, e.g., I baptize thee; I confirm

thee; I absolve the; this is my body; by this holy unction
. . . may the Lord pardon you; I take thee as my wife; I
take thee as my husband.

A study of all the ordinations admitted as valid by
Rome shows that the form must express the effect; that

is, either the order (diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate)

or its main power. If the main power is not only left out

but positively and designedly left out, the ordination is

invalid.

In 1550 under Edward VI the Roman Missal was set

aside for the new Communion Service, and also the Ordinal

of Edward VI was substituted for the Roman Pontifical.

The main power of a true priest is to offer a true

sacrifice; and one of the main powers of a bishop is to

ordain priests, which he cannot do if he is .not a true

priest himself. An ordinal, we repeat, that positively

excludes the true sacrifice cannot ordain a true priest or

bishop.

In the Edwardine Ordinal the form does not express the

grace produced. In it the words of the form are : “Receive

the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are

forgiven, whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.”

Now the power to forgive sins is not the main power of

the priest. The main power is to offer sacrifice. If one

— 32



has not this power, he is a layman ; he cannot forgive

sins.

The form for consecrating a bishop in the Edwardine

Ordinal is: “Receive the Holy Ghost, and remember that

thou stir up the grace of God which is given to thee by

the imposition of our hands
;
for God has not given us the

spirit of fear but of power and love and soberness.”

These words, as may be well seen, might be used in

Confirmation, or in ordination of a deacon or a priest.

They do not definitely state that as a result of this cere-

mony, the one consecrated may now ordain priests.

The Edwardine Ordinal was drawn up, as we have seen,

in 1550. In 1662, the forms were changed. After the

words, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” there were added, re-

spectively “For the office and work of a priest” and “For

the office and work of a bishop.”

This addition may be said to have corrected the defect

in the form. But it came one hundred years too late.

Those who recited the words while imposing hands, had

never been bishops, or even priests.

Defect of intention. From what has been said above,

there is not even the slightest probability that Anglican

orders are valid. But the commission also ruled that there

was lacking in Anglican ordination ceremonies a defect

of intention.

It is sufficient and necessary that the minister of a

sacrament have the serious intention of doing what the

Church does. As has been pointed out, a pagan baptizing

might have an intention which would fulfill the requisite

that the effect be produced. However, as Pope Leo XIII

says, “If the rite is changed for the express purpose of

bringing in another not received by the Church, and of

changing what the Church does and what belongs to the

— 33—



nature of the sacrament by the institution of Christ, then

manifestly not only is the intention requisite for a sacra-

ment absent, but a contrary and repugnant intention is

present.”

The authors of the Edwardine Ordinal did not believe

that Holy Orders is a sacrament. The twenty-fifth of the

Thirty-Nine Articles66 states: “There are two sacraments

of Christ Our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism

and Supper of the Lord. The five commonly called sacra-

ments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders

[italics mine], Matrimony and Extreme Unction, are not

to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as

have grown partly from the corrupt following of the

apostles, partly as states allowed in the Scripture, but yet

have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the

Lord’s Supper for they have not any visible sign or cere-

mony ordained of God.” [Italics mine.]

Moreover, the Anglicans did not hold the Mass to be

a sacrifice. Far from it. The thirty-first of the Thirty-

Nine Articles states: “The sacrifice of Masses, in which it

was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for

the quick and the dead, for the remission of pain or guilt,

were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”67

66. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church were drawn

up in 1562 and became the norm of. the religious creed of the
church. The Roman Catholic Missal and the Pontifical which were
abandoned mentioned the sacrificing priest or the sacrifice by the

priest in 50 places. Not once is reference made to either in the

Ordinal or Communion Service.

67. On Anglican orders, see H. Semple, Anglican Ordinations,
New York, 1906; and B. Grimley, Six Sacraments, pp. 204-224,
London, 1930. In England before the Reformation there were the
following liturgies: Sarum, York, Hereford, Bangor, and Roman.

In each of these during the celebration of Mass, the words “sacrifice”

and “oblation” occurred frequently. See F. J. Zwierlein, Reforma-

tion Studies pp. 153-159. Rochester (N. Y.) : Art Print Shop, 1938.

— 34 —



Appendix II

THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE

“A legitimate marriage between non-baptized persons,

even though consummated, is dissolved in favor of the

faith by the Pauline privilege. This privilege does not

obtain in a marriage between a baptized party and a non-

baptized party entered into with a dispensation from the

impediment of disparity of worship .68

“Before the converted and baptized spouse may validly

contract a new marriage, he (or she) ought ... to ask the

non-baptized party,

“Whether she (or he) wishes to be converted and to

receive baptism,

“Or at least wishes to live together peacefully without

contumely of the Creator.

“These questions [interpellationes ] ought always to be

had, unless (in a particular case) the Holy See declares

otherwise.”69

This is the Pauline Privilege, based on a passage of St.

Paul. In regard to the terminology above, a valid mar-

riage entered into by non-baptized persons is called legiti-

mate. Consummated means that there has been sexual

intercourse between the husband and wife.

To avoid confusion we shall not explain disparity of

cult or the impediment derived therefrom. The Pauline

Privilege applies only to the case of two now-baptized per-

sons who were married, of whom one is converted to the
Catholic faith.

68 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1120.

69. Ibid., Canon 1121.

— 35—



Let us now examine a passage in St. Paul’s First Epistle

to the Corinthians, Chapter 7 : “But I say to the unmarried

and to widows, it is good for them if they so remain,

even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them

marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. But to

those who are married, not I, but the Lord commands that

a wife is not to depart from her husband. And if she

departs, that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled

to her husband. And let not a husband put away his

wife” (1 Cor. 7:8-11).

So far the Apostle speaks of marriage among Christians.

No divorce is possible. But he continues: “To the others

I say, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving

wife and she consents to live with him, let him not put

her away. And if any woman has an unbelieving husband,

and he consents to live with her, let her not put away

her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by

the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified

by the believing husband; otherwise your children would

be unclean, but, as it is, they are holy. But if the un-

believer departs, let him depart. For a brother or sister

is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called

us to peace. For how dost thou know, O wife, whether

thou wilt save thy husband? Or how dost thou know, O

husband, whether thou wilt save thy wife?” (1 Cor.

7:12-16).

It must be borne in mind that all the Christians in

Corinth (except infants) were converts, and most of these

from paganism. Brother is a term which the apostle uses

to designate a Christian.

The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing

wife, etc. That is, he receives external sanctification; in

other words, is united to one who by prayer and example

can influence him for the good, and even perhaps bring

— 36



about his conversion. These parties should not separate,

but should live together.

If the unbeliever departs, let him depart. For a brother

or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has

called us to peace.

Bondage. Marriage is a bondage. Generally it can be

broken only by the death of one of the contracting parties.

“For the married woman is bound by the Law while her

husband is alive; but if her husband die, she is set free

from the law of the husband” (Rom. 7:2). The case is

different here. The Christian party, the Apostle declares,

is now free. He or she is entitled to peace. He or she

does not have to remain unmarried in the vain hope of

once more being united to the pagan spouse, and converting

her or him.

This is the Pauline Privilege, but the Catholic Church

does not allow anyone to make use of it, until she has

gone through an intensive and detailed study of the case.
70

The Pauline Privilege is handled first on the diocesan

level, then reviewed by the Congregation of the Rota in

Rome. The Holy Father then grants the divorce personally

on the advice of the Congregation.

70. On 1 Cor. 7:8-16 see F. Prat, S.J., The Theology of St. Paul
(translated by John L. Stoddard), Vol. I, pp. 112-115. New York,
] 926.

— 37



Appendix III

ANNULMENT

It is sometimes said by non-Catholics, “The Catholic

Church does not grant divorces, but it grants annulments,

which are the same thing, to people who are sufficiently

rich or powerful.”

Annulment is not the same thing as divorce. Divorce

is had between married persons. The decree of annulment

means an authoritative decision that the two parties never

really have been married.

The Catholic Church has the right to declare what con-

ditions must be fulfilled in order for her subjects validly

to receive the sacraments. With the exception noted above,

where a priest with authority to marry is not available

and as far as can be foreseen will not be available for a

month, Catholics must marry in the presence of a priest.

Catholics know that. They realize that if they go

through a marriage ceremony before a Protestant minister

or a justice of the peace, they are not married in the eyes

of God. Some of these seek an annulment. Marriages not

before a priest, to use ecclesiastical terminology, suffers

from “defect of form.” Cases of annulment on grounds

of defect of form do not require a court trial, and are

handled by diocesan courts. Many of these are granted

without fee.

Cases on other grounds are first discussed by diocesan

matrimonial courts and the decisions are sent to Rome for

approval or rejection. In 1951, Rota cases concerning

topics other than defect of form totaled 180. In these the

final decisions were, 123 non constat de nullitate, no an-

nulment; 57 constat de nullitate.

— 38—



In the case of those who can afford it, a fee is charged.

This is to cover costs, i.e., collecting evidence, typing

copies of statements of witnesses, services of technical

experts such as doctors, psychiatrists, etc. In Rota cases

where the parties may (if they wish) engage canon lawyers

to handle their interests, they have to pay these lawyers.

Two persons who were never able to secure a decree of

annulment from the Catholic Church were Henry VIII

and Napoleon.

39—



•s

- . •

V \

' .-V

^«Nre0

O.S.A-

n