Christian Marriage: A Theological Argument Analysis

Introduction

In the 1983 _Code of Canon Law_, canon 1055 §2 states very clearly that a valid marriage between two baptized individuals is always a sacrament: “For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that that fact a sacrament.” In “Faith, Contract, and Sacrament in Christian Marriage: A Theological Approach,” Michael Lawler takes issue with this position. He argues that it is not supported by the theological tradition of the Church and argues that without an active, personal Christian faith the sacrament of matrimony is not received, even if a valid rite is celebrated by two baptized persons. He states “The active faith of the participants is an essential prerequisite not just for

Marital contract and marital sacrament…are separable in marriages between baptized nonbelievers…^4^

He contends that these are questions that “have troubled the…Church for the past two centuries” and “have not as yet received genuine _theological_” solutions. Lawler then posits that canon law has “difficulty dealing with the theological fact of Christian faith” because it is “impossible to make clear beyond doubt” the “theological fact of Christian faith.”^5^ Lawler states, “The reality of faith will be central in this study…”^6^ and then goes on to develop a definition by reviewing the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the teachings of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, and summarizes by quote Juan Alfaro. At that point he offers his working definition: “The faith that is obedience and self-surrender to God, the traditional _fides qua creditor_, is a free, and at least a minimally conscious and explicit,

To support his argument, Lawler reviews New Testament scriptures emphasizing “the necessity of faith for salvation.”^8^ He also references the Council of Trent, summarizing its position of faith: “There is not the slightest doubt that the Fathers of Trent wished to affirm the primacy of active personal faith for salvation” but going on to acknowledge that the minimalism (and even nominalism) of the Counter-Reformation theologians was detrimental “in understanding the role of personal faith in the sacraments.”^9^ He then critiques this approach by a review of the writings of the