Matrimony

[Philip G.]

I initially wanted to discuss the three goods of matrimony, because they are so beautiful in my opinion.  And, as of late I have really enjoyed meditating on them.  And, I believe that I will, maybe even in this thread.  But, in doing some general study on the subject, it brought me to this topic, which I may have mentioned in the past in passing.  But, I want to just speak my mind on this matter.  Because, it is things like this, which are very revealing in my opinion.  And, they have consequences.

Denzinger 404 - "the form of the sacrament of matrimony", Innocent 3rd 1198 - "You have asked us whether the dumb and the deaf can be united to each other in marriage.  To this question we respond to your brotherhood thus: Since the edict of prohibition concerning the contracting of marriage is that whoever is not prohibited, is consequently permitted, and only the consent of those concerning whose marriages we are speaking is sufficient for marriage, it seems that, if such a one wishes to contract a marriage, it cannot and it ought not to be denied him, since what he cannot declare by words he can declare by signs."

My gut reaction to reading this is that something is wrong here.  Putting gut reactions aside, let us intellectually try to figure out what the aversion might be a result of. 

To begin, something that merely "seems" such is hardly authoritative.   

Just as the matter for the sacrament of the mass is bread and wine, which is supplied not by the priest, but by the faithful, so in matrimony, as the form is the consent of the spouses, should we like with the eucharist suspect that the matter be something other than that which relates to the spouses?  Might the matter have something to do with the priest?  In denzinger, and this is a red flag, it speaks of the form, in traditional matter, form, intention fashion, but then mysteriously mentions no "matter".  Instead it uses the words "the subject".  And, of course, the subject is the spouses.  But, what does "the subject" mean in traditional fashion?  It is novel language, hence the opportunity to change the meaning/intention.  This is indeed a red flag.  For, every sacrament has matter, form, and intention. 

In researching matter, form, and intention of marriage, what comes back for the matter is laughable.  The form is indeed the form, and the matter is yet again something which correlates to form.  Big red flag.  The immediate below is taken from ascension press, and it mirrors what I found elsewhere.  Notice how the matter and form are now both things which correspond to "form".  I will remind you that canon law is not dogmatic.  Just as +Lefebvre rejected the new code, which was codified by a successor of Peter, canon law, even past canon law, is not above scrutiny.

The form of matrimony, as implied above when discussing the ministers, is the consent of the marriage (Canon 1057). When the spouses give this consent publicly in front of the church, the marriage is presumed valid. The matter consists of this consent, along with the desire to live together in unity, as well as the consummation of the marriage (Canons 1056, 1061).

According to the above canonical logic, it is no wonder the modernists taboo the silent voice of the priest during the traditional latin mass.  For, if our confessing "lips" constitute the matter, then the whisper of the priest would likewise constitute the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist.  But, it does not.  The matter is the bread and the wine.  I am reminded of the old testament harlot whose "speech/lips drip like honey". 

If you were to ask me, contrary to what you will find elsewhere, and perhaps a "you heard it here moment", the matter of the sacrament, is surprisingly the priest.  And, the intention, just as the intention with the Eucharist is determined in a twofold fashion, by the minster, and what the church does.  So, with matrimony, the intention would be twofold.  Meaning, the priest and the couple are incumbent on satisfying the intention. 

If this is the case, which I believe it is, that has significant bearing on whether the deaf and dumb can "declare" their intention.  For, we all know that women has communication skills that man does not have.  Mothers know what their crying baby needs by the cry or the unintelligible sound made.  Men do not.  Eve communicated with the serpent, the most subtle of all creatures.  Perhaps woman believes she can communicate with a deaf and dumb man/spouse.  But, can a priest, or more importantly, can "every" priest comprehend the deaf and the dumb?  That, I refuse to believe. 

If the priest is incumbent on the matter and the intention of the sacrament of matrimony.  I refuse to believe that intention has been "declared" by the deaf and the dumb. 

This is not to say that the deaf and the dumb cannot constitute/satisfy a clandestine marriage.  But, the church does not perform clandestine marriages.  The church simply doesn't invalidate them.  The current and past 1000 year old policy of presuming validity in marriages outside the church is simply a prudential decision.  It has no doctrinal consequence per say.   "Since the edict of prohibition concerning the contracting of marriage is that whoever is not prohibited, is consequently permitted, and only the consent of those concerning whose marriages we are speaking is sufficient for marriage".   

[Philip G.]

The form of matrimony, as implied above when discussing the ministers, is the consent of the marriage (Canon 1057). When the spouses give this consent publicly in front of the church, the marriage is presumed valid. The matter consists of this consent, along with the desire to live together in unity, as well as the consummation of the marriage (Canons 1056, 1061).

Is it not strange that "presumption" of validity is the language for a sacrament, which occurs before a priest and the faithful?  Fr. Hesse mentioned Innocent 11th condemning the proposition "for pastoral reasons you may approach sacraments as to the probability of their validity".  Presumption of validity seems a word proximate to probability.  You would think there would be confession of belief as to validity.  Also, does it not seem false that "desire" is the considered the matter of this sacrament?  Who is to judge the desire?  Who is to judge whether the consent was legitimate?  Who is to judge whether there is an intention to consummate the marriage?   I will tell you.  The priest is to judge.  And, that makes the priest the actual "matter" of this sacrament.  The priest is the physical substance.

Just as in the mass, when the words are spoken, which is the form, the bread/body is raised and the faithful are encouraged to adore.  Yet, the words have not yet been spoken over the chalice, and neither has yet been consumed, which is required for validity.  Yet, we adore.  These are many separate moments, yet they make one heavenly moment.  Likewise, in matrimony, the form can be the words from the spouses, while the physical matter is the priest.  And, the intention is dependent on all of these parties. 

My guess is that the role of the priest(being the actual matter) is undermined as a result of the policy of presuming validity of non catholics and non christians for the sake of political expediency.   You know, we gotta preserve that holy roman emperor figure we hatched up.

[Jacob]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

[Philip G.]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

Trolling is not allowed on the forum. 

[Philip G.]

The church doesn't have its act together. 

Looking at the three goods of matrimony: children, faith, and indivisibility.  The priesthood is fundamental to all of these.  The priest instructs the couple as to the end of matrimony, which is corporal increase, and all that is required as a result of, which is not so straight forward/simple.  The priest requires that both must be believers, practicing catholics, because faith cannot be a guaranteed "good" if one of the spouses is a converso/false convert.  And, indivisibility is not guaranteed without a sacred person/sacrament by which the threat of sacrilege is present if one of the parties is not genuine as to the vows.  It is common for people to flee from holiness and the reception of the sacraments.  It is not common for someone to willingly commit sacrilege.  The prospect of having to commit a sacrilege in order to get married against a sacred person/priest as a result of participating in the rite does serve to separate the sheep from the goats.  That is important.  The priest/the sacrament plays a vital role.  But, we are led to believe that the sacrament of matrimony rests entirely in the hands of the spouses.  It is simply not true. 

In the same respect, but on the subject of orders, prospective candidates to the priesthood are held hostage by their superiors as the sacrament is dangled over them until they get out of the seminarian exactly what type of candidate/character they want.  And, most of the time it is the wrong type of candidate with the wrong type of character.   With that said, should a deaf person be admitted to the priesthood?  Should a dumb person be admitted to the priesthood?  I think we know the answer.  But, when it comes to matrimony, there is no apprehension at all.

[Philip G.]

The end of matrimony is the corporal increase of the church.  The deaf community is and it seems desires to be just that, its own community.  If we are going to promote the deaf and dumb marrying each other, it is inevitable going to result in a deaf/dumb culture.  And, that has occurred.  Die hard deaf people, and I say die hard, because Jesus does heal the blind, the deaf, and the dumb, are proud of their deaf culture, and they don't want to be a part of a christendom where they have to read the lips of those that knows not sign language, .  They want a martha's vineyard island utopia.  I wonder if there is not also some "quietism" present as well.   

Proverbs 6:13 says "A man that is an apostate, an uprofitable man, walketh with a perverse mouth.  He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger."  The deaf sign language community sees recommendations to learn to at the very least read lips as a death sentence. 

I am not at all seeking the church invalidate such marriages.  But, I don't see it serving our Lord to open up a lane for such marriages within the church.  And, that is what it appears Pope Innocent 3rd here does.   I don't see it as a corporal increase. 

[Lynne]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

Trolling is not allowed on the forum.

Given that Jacob is, I believe, deaf, it seems like a valid question.

[paul14]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

Trolling is not allowed on the forum.

Given that Jacob is, I believe, deaf, it seems like a valid question.

Touche!

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFYW5Px8LwM[/yt]

[Jacob]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

Trolling is not allowed on the forum.

Given that Jacob is, I believe, deaf, it seems like a valid question.

I am, yes.  English is my first language as I lost my hearing and suffered paralysis of my throat muscles as a young adult.  I have never picked up lip reading for various reasons, not because I view it as a death sentence.

Philip, if you have a valid point to make on if deaf people are not able to contract marriage because you think marriage has to be uttered (I would certainly agree with you that deaf priests "saying" Mass is a problematic concept at the very least), I am more than willing to entertain it, but your broad generalizations don't do anything to help your argument.

[Philip G.]

Are you just making a point about "deaf and dumb" people or are they just an example for a larger point you are making regarding matrimony?

Trolling is not allowed on the forum.

Given that Jacob is, I believe, deaf, it seems like a valid question.

No offense, but it is more like a valid example.  I was concise, thorough, yet broad enough so as not to not leave much to the imagination.  I certainly welcome discussion, but this is posted in the sacred sciences serious semi scholarly debate subforum.  I expect a serious, semi scholarly response. 

[Philip G.]

Here is an interesting little fact.  The ASL community is utilizing/employing their own interpreters to communicate with the english speaking sign language interpreter.  Apparently one interpreter is not sufficient; there must be an interpreter to interpret the interpreter.  It appears there is more than one degree of separation between these communities.

[Philip G.]

The crux of the issue is this.  From pope Innocent 3rd "and only the consent of those concerning whose marriages we are speaking is sufficient for marriage".   I reject this, just as I reject the possibility of valid consecration outside of mass.  Such a policy turns matrimony on its head.  Instead of faith and indivisibility being guaranteed goods and means to the end, which is children.  Children become the means for the minority, and faith and indivisibility become the ends for the majority.   And, guess what, that is exactly what has occurred.   We don't recognize it as such is because casti connubii introduced novel language in their regard.  Woe unto us.

[Philip G.]

We are guilty of the same sins of the israelites, only multiplied.  God gave us a sign, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and he will be called emmanuel.  God is merciful.  He gives us one sign, which the israelites inevitably ignore, and instead abstract to the man with many wives who cannot produce an heir.  Liberalism is one thing.  Modernism is another.  Speaking of modernism, the pope gives us two signs.  The pope gives us the double standard.  One sacrament of matrimony for catholics, a separate sacrament of matrimony for non catholics.  Yet, both be the same sacrament, presumed valid.  Modernism didn't begin in the 1960s.  We have been modernists for a thousand years.  Build your house on rock.  Just as Dante had to descend before he could ascend, it is no different for us.

[james03]

You , pio, and daniel need to get together.  Make sure to write down what you come up with.

Deaf people can communicate.  Therefore they can give their consent.  I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

[Philip G.]

You , pio, and daniel need to get together.  Make sure to write down what you come up with.

Deaf people can communicate.  Therefore they can give their consent.  I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Solemnity is the spirit of the liturgy.