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".
