The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1909-10-02
REFUSES ANOTHER DIVORCE

at Rome continues to make interesting
history. The latest case tried before 1t
and just published is, in many ways,
the most interesting of the series that
has so far filed the pages of the Acta
Apostolicae Sedis. The case was really
test one, for hundreds of others
might be made to depend on the solu-
ton of it. The facts are briefly these.
man and woman, who may be called
Werner and Eliza belonging to the
EYangelicals were engaged to be mar
ried, but the mans relatives worked
hard to dissuade him from the mar
rfage, alleging that his fiancee was not
all that she should be. His answer was
that he did not believe the stories
against her, but that it did not much
matter If they proved to be true, or if
she became unfaithful after the mar
riage, because in either case he could
get a divorce and marry again. Some
years afterward the divorce actually
came through his fault and he wished
to marry a Catholic woman named An
tonia. The divorced wife is still alive,
and Antonio applied to the local ecclesi-
astfcal Curia for a declaration that the
man was free to marry, so that she
could proceed to ask for a dispensation
from the impeachment miXtae religion
is. She pleaded that the first marriage
was really invalid for it was contracted
with the intention of securing a divorce
should that become advisable and &C
cording to her theory such a marriage
between Christians was really null as
being destitute of the substantial con-
sent necessary for a Christian marriage
which is by it's nature indissoluble. The
case was given against her by the Curia
of Munich, where the man lived, and
she appealed to the Congregation of the
Council against the decision The Coun-
Gil instructed the archbishop of Fret
bourg to draw up new case, and to
send the facts of it to Rome, but before
1t had time to study these the Rota was
instituted, and the matter passed into
its hands. The advocates of Antonio
and Werner strOve hard to show that
the first marriage had been contracted
with condition, fatal to the validity
of Christian marriage, viz, that under
certain circumstances a divorce would
be obtained. To prove this they al
legged certain declarations made by Wer-
ner to his relatives before the ceremo-
ny, e. g., that if misconduct preceded
or followed the marriage he would Sc
cure a divorce. They argued from this
that a pact subversive of the indissolu-
bility of the marriage had been entered
into between Werner and his relatives
before the ceremony, which thus became
null and void.
But on the other hand the evidence
clearly showed that Werner never made
any mention of the matter to Eliza, that
he lived peaceably with her for some
years after the marriage, that he had
entered into the marriage bond with the
intention of assuming the duties of a
Christian marriage according to the law
of matrimony instituted by Christ
Such being the facts of the case the
Auditors proceeded to eXpound the law
bearing on it. They quoted Benedict
XIV to Cardinal de Lugo to show that
If two parties enter on marriage with
the positive intention, expressed as a
past or condition before the ceremony,
that the marriage is dissolved in the
case of the infidelity of either of them,
such marriage is really null, "for this
positive intention destroys the marriage
on account of the defect of the matri-
monial mind toward it's. proper object,
that is, to an indissoluble marriage"
This same conclusion was clearly set
forth by declaration of the Holy Of
flee of Oct. 20, 1880. But did this dec
laration apply to the circumstances of
the present case? The Auditors decided
in the negative. Such an invalidating
pact or condition cannot be assumed in
foro externo, and must be proved. 1t
had not been proved in Werner's case
on the contrary, he admitted that he had
never spoken to his betrothed about the
possibility or probability of a divorce
following the marriage. Even had he
had the hypothetical intention of secur-
ing a divorce, it is to be presumed that
when he actually contracted the mar
riage with the positive intention of as
Stunning the duties of a Christian mar
riage, he must have abandoned the sup
posed hypothetical intention which
would have destroyed its validity. The
Auditors also quote Cardinal de Lugo
to show that even when 1T is doubtful
as to whether a person had that general
efficacious will of contracting a thor
oughly valid marriage, the decision
must be in favor of the validity of the
contract, on the ground that everybody
is to be presumed to wish to make a
valid contract unless the contrary is
proved. and this a fortiori in the case of
marriage, which is causa magis ia
vorabilis. The sentence, therefore, was
that the nullity of the first marriage is
not shown.
The general application of the decision
with regard to the validity of marriages
contracted by persons who think that
Christian marriage may be legitimately
dissolved for certain reasons, is briefly
this: If two persons get married ac-
cording to the rite of their respective
sect or sects, their marriage is regarded
as valid by the Catholic church unless
it can be shown that before the cere-
mony they enter into a positive agree
ment with one another that under GER
tain circumstances the marriage is to
be dissolved The mere fact that they
enormously believe that for these or
other reasons the marriage might after
ward be legitimately dissolved, does not
render the contract invalid, for the gen.
eral intention they are supposed to have
of contracting a true Christian mar
riage, which is really indissoluble, lab
CORDS the private error" 1t will be seen,
however, that this case covers only
marriages between Christians. Perhaps
some time the Rota may have a case