Cormac Burke, "The Theology of Marriage"

Every valid marriage between Christians has full religious value, in that it involves "marrying in Christ." The marriage of two protestants who exchange valid natural consent before a civil registrar is a religious marriage and a sacrament. Hence, while one can draw a contrast between "Christian" and "natural" marriage, one cannot in all propriety do so between "religious" and "civil" marriage -- nor are "religious" and "sacramental" marriage necessarily the same thing. Common parlance may understandably fall into looseness of expression in these points, but theological or canonical discourse should avoid it.

To suggest that, without the presence of witnesses, there is no sacrament because there is no essential reference to the church is to mistake the theological nature of marriage. I therefore cannot agree that "the presence of the priest and of the community in the celebration of marriage is the expression and the cause of the very presence and action of Christ," on the ground that while the spouses are ministers they are not such "independently of the apostolic function that links them to the risen Savior, nor separate from the fraternity into which they have been incorporated." To posit that the presence of the Christian community -- represented at least by the witnesses and by the officiating priest -- is necessary in order to achieve the "complete sacramental structure" of matrimony is an attempt to develop a theological thesis based on an accidental juridic requirement.

In short, then, with regard to marriage of Christians, one must distinguish between canonical (or liturgical form, and sacramental form. The sacramental form is the same as in natural marriage (the expression of consent), as is the essential rite (matter and form combined). Bellarmine criticizes Melchor Cano's error in this respect, which was precisely to claim that "if matrimony is truly a sacrament, then, besides the civil contract, it should have some sacred form, as well as an ecclesiastical minister." It is important to realize that the question of canonical form is completely irrelevant to the theological consideration of marriage and concretely of its sacramentality. Much of the confusion concerning this matter that has developed over the past few decades must be attributed to theologians allowing the question of form to be invoked as if it had theological relevance.

At times it has been suggested that the church should drop the requirement of canonical form and simply recognize marriages celebrated according to civil law. Where there are significant difficulties to this suggestion, they are of a merely socio-juridical or pastoral-practical nature. There are, in other words, no theological difficulties to be advanced against the possible legislation of such a change. Marriages thus celebrated between two Christians would be just as sacramental as those celebrated "in church." More accurately, to insist on what we have said, such civil marriages would -- in the theological, though not in the merely human-social sense -- be celebrated "in church."

(Msgr. Cormac Burke, "The Theology of Marriage," pp. 8-10)

One striking difference between matrimony and other sacraments should be noted. In other sacraments (apart from infant baptism), a specific sacramental intention is needed for their reception. In matrimony, the intention of receiving the sacrament is not required; it is enough if one intends the natural reality. Not even a religious intention is needed -- rather, simply the intention to marry. If this is the parties' intention, both being in Christ, they receive what they intended, raised (perhaps without their realizing it) to the sacramental and supernatural level, enriched and transformed by grace. What is needed is not a sacramental intention -- not even implicitly -- but a matrimonial intention. Regarding marriage itself, then, the parties must have full personal intention to marry; regarding sacramentality, no further intention is required of them.

(ibid. p. 11)