Now this last takes different forms for different sacraments. With the Eucharist, it is bread and wine, with Baptism water, and with Extreme Unction, oil. In Matrimony, it is actually the couple themselves who are the matter of the Sacrament. What an annulment proceeding sets out to prove, is that by virtue of a defect with either of the first two, or of the third (for reason of state in life, health, vows taken, or whatever, either party were not in essence valid matter for the sacrament), there was no marriage---in the same sense that any of the other six might be invalid. So where does this leave our Jim? He has valid intent, but neither form nor the entirety of the matter (the lack of an actual woman would leave him, as it were, like a priest with bread but no wine). Surely he must be unmarried?

Not so! For in reality, neither form nor matter are required for a sacrament. The notion of Baptism of Desire is helpful here. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the Summa how a catechumen on his way to be Baptized, yet slain "by some ill chance" en route, nevertheless receives the graces of the Sacrament. The catechumen has had neither valid form (the words), nor valid matter (the water), yet nevertheless, by his intent, possesses the Sacrament! In similar wise, Jim is already married, despite the same two elements lacking. It might be objected, at this point, that Matrimony of Desire does not allow of the privileges of Matrimony of the Flesh: there is no impressive ceremony in Church, no Best Man nor Maid of Honor, no groomsmen nor bridesmaids, no engagement party, bachelor dinner, bridal shower nor reception. There is no honeymoon, no housewarming, no wife by one's side, no children. Further, there are no tax breaks. Yet reflect for a moment---neither will Baptism of Desire gain you the appurtenances of Baptism: none of the privileges of Church membership (try asking a priest to marry a coup le, or confirm a child, explaining that the party concerned has no record of Baptism because it was by desire), nor access to the other sacraments. Yet we are solemnly assured over and over, that it is just as good as water Baptism. A learned Traditionalist prelate once wrote, "Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, 'Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to Hell. ' I told him, 'No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.'" In retrospect, a paraphrase of this, reworked to deal with Matrimony, is what I should have told Jim.

But Jim is, admittedly, a relatively rare case. He desires to lead a married life in accordance with the Church's teaching; he may be said to have an explicit desire for Matrimony. A large number of unmarried, (this writer included) feel no great urge to leave the single state. What about us? Are we to be denied the graces of Matrimony simply because of a lack of motivation? By no means! Again, analogy is helpful here. The same Bishop just quoted, has also written (indeed, in the same place): "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. Ah, what blessed teaching! For the same applies to Matrimony. What is its essence after all, save the striving for union, for community? Do not single people do this? Do they not all have circles of close friends, often all the more precious to them because of the lack of a spouse? See how many are active in organizational or in Church work, or at least have pets! Even the hermits amongst us tend to commune with nature! Thus, we may be all said in this way to have an implicit desire for Matrimony. "We receive the grace of Matrimony without knowing it, but in an effective way!" In this way, we all become married.

But what about clergy and religious? By virtue of their Ordinations or Professions, have they not explicitly given up the graces of Matrimony? Not at all! The male religious, priests, and bishops are "married" to the Church, even as Nuns are "Brides of Christ," complete with wedding dresses and rings. Indeed, because of their explicit renunciation of connubial bliss, such folk's action may be likened to the idea of "Baptism of Blood."

Now in the time of the prelate we have been quoting, alternative verbiage about Baptism was used which led one to think it was exclusive---indeed, it appeared to contradict what he said. People spoke of the "necessity of Baptism," and "No Salvation Outside the Church,"---entrance to which, of course, was explicitly said to be water baptism---hence its necessity. Fortunately, we have traveled further along this road, thanks in no small part to a worthy Jesuit, Fr. Karl Rahner.
Taking his start at the Bishop's implicit desire for Baptism, Fr. Rahner extended this course of reasoning further yet. He declared that such folk were "Anonymous Christians." An Anonymous Christian, as he described him in his inimitable style, is an individual "who even though he is a non-Christian is justified through the grace of Christ and through a faith, hope, and love for God and mankind which are to be qualified as specifically Christian in a special sense, even though this triad, constituting the single way to salvation and possession of salvation, is something of which they are not objectively aware in the sense of having consciously explicitated their specifically Christian dimension to themselves. Merely in passing it may be remarked that we might apply the term 'anonymous Christian' to every individual who, in virtue of God's universal will to save, and thereby in virtue of the 'supernatural existential,' is inescapably confronted with the offering of God's self-bestowal and is totally unable to escape from his situation. In other words, according to this terminology, absolutely every man is an 'anonymous Christian.'"

Now much as Fr. Rahner and the Bishop cited might disagree on other things, here they are virtually as one. Of course, His Lordship would no doubt not like the final conclusion Rahner proposes, but having ridden with him most of the way, he is not in a position to dismount. But what does this do for our problem? The answer is obvious: in precisely the same manner, and no matter what the appearances---every man and woman, from the moment of conception, is already married! We are all 'anonymous newlyweds!' Regardless of our outward state in life, we are all, spiritually, wedded---if only to ourselves. Armed with this knowledge, we may safely forget about courtship, the future, or even our appearances---there is no need to attract a mate. At last, the endless worry about dates will be banished forever from teen-age life! With this new understanding, the whole panoply of the wedding industry, Marriage Encounter, pre-Cana, spousal exemptions, two-fly for-one deals, and the rest of it will wither just as gradually and as naturally as Catholic Missionary efforts and evangelisation have in the wake of the new Baptismal theology. Now if we can only find someone to apply these same principles to the remaining five sacraments!

Back to Articles