92. On the Provincial Prefect, on Judges, on the Mayor

1. To Ferdinandus, a most pious man, prefect of a province, there was committed the execution of the Decree that religious families be expelled from that same province over which he presides. But if he refused to execute it, he himself would have to resign from office, and another prefect, altogether wicked, would be substituted in his place, who certainly will immediately, and more harshly, execute that Decree.

Q. Can Ferdinandus execute the aforesaid Decree, by commanding that even by military force, where there is need, religious be expelled from their own houses?

R. Negatively. For 1. it does not seem that, in circumstances of this sort, the Church yields its right, of the free existence of religious Orders and of ecclesiastical immunity. 2. It indeed does not appear how a most pious man can command the execution of so iniquitous and unjust a Decree without public scandal. 3. If that reason, which is the principal one, of resigning the office, were valid for a prefect on whom the burden of execution of the Decree falls, then it would also have to be said that the supreme minister of the Government himself, issuing such a Decree, would be excused, if otherwise he would have to yield his office. For if that mandate of execution is iniquitous, unjust, and scandalous, much more is the Decree itself iniquitous, unjust, and scandalous. Moreover there is no one who will ever excuse the supreme minister of the Government by that reason, that otherwise he would have to yield his office. Otherwise, now by similar Decrees he could with impunity attack any other right of the Church, which directly yields to public damage of Religion: for any minister who refused to sign Decrees of this sort would certainly be forced to resign his office. But that another is not lacking who would perform this evil and worse cannot render lawful that which is intrinsically illicit, by reason of scandal, by reason of hatred against Religion, by reason of injury against the legitimate liberty of the Church, the Church indeed being reasonably unwilling and contradicting.

2. Festus, a pastor, on account of a grave and urgent cause of death, joined in marriage Caius and Sempronia, concubinaries, although they had not previously contracted civil marriage before the civil magistrate. Festus is accused, as guilty of a violated law, before a judge, an excellent man and fervent Catholic. Hence the judge, very doubtful, approaches his confessor, asking from him whether he ought to resign his office, or whether he can render a condemnatory sentence against the pastor.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. The judge must first take care in every way to absolve the pastor in the case, and declare him innocent. For the pastor acted legitimately per se. Indeed he acted legitimately even with that law of precedence of civil marriage standing. For a law is subject to legitimate epikeia, and in the Case legitimate epikeia appears. If in no way can the judge render a sentence for the pastor, nor can he himself decline the judgment, he does not then seem to be held to yield his office. For although there is question of a law altogether harsh and unjust, nevertheless the matter is not intrinsically evil, and, where it cannot be done otherwise, it is tolerated; and so neither is it intrinsically evil to commit it to execution. Nor likewise is it intrinsically evil to condemn the pastor to some monetary fine, e.g., in the Case, precisely on account of the law not observed, prescinding from the aforesaid epikeia which civil law and the practice of the forum do not admit. For then one altogether innocent is not condemned, at least according to the appearance and form of the judgment, but one guilty of a violated law, namely according to the presumption of the external forum and according to the things brought forward and proved. But the pastor, on account of a greater harm both of the judge and of the community, if another wicked judge would have to be substituted, is reasonably judged to yield his own right as to the aforesaid fine to be paid. Wherefore in the Case the grave harm of the judge, who otherwise would have to resign office, and at the same time the grave harm of the community, which would certainly be present if a wicked judge were substituted, seems to prevail. But the judge must take care in the Case to decree as small a fine as possible, and in the preliminary considerations of the sentence to remove any insinuation injurious against the pastor, so that both every scandal may be removed, and the sentence itself may sufficiently be understood to yield only to the rigor of the law, which does not admit legitimate epikeia from elsewhere. — I. M. 19.

3. Augustinus and Dominicus, confessors, without any scruple absolve all judges who render a sentence of divorce, according to the more recent laws, in matrimonial causes. For they say that here there is no question of a thing intrinsically illicit, but only positively prohibited by the Church; and positive laws do not obligate with great inconvenience. Besides, the judge does nothing else except merely declare the law, which is an act indifferent of itself. Wherefore the cooperation of the judge toward the sin of the parties is merely material, which is lawful for a grave cause. Besides, the judge can well admonish the parties either privately, or even in the Considerations of the sentence, concerning the real indissolubility of marriage. Whence the aforesaid sentence will be nothing except a certain mere permission and denial of civil action; and in truth it regards nothing except the civil effects of marriage; and it in no way touches the sacrament of marriage itself, but only the civil contract of marriage.

Q. What as to the Case?

R. Augustinus and Dominicus are deceived. For there is question of a thing intrinsically illicit, by natural and divine right, and not only by ecclesiastical right. For divorce from the bond of matrimony, according to the more recent laws, is opposed to natural and divine right. Besides, the judge rendering sentence does not merely declare the law, but declares authoritatively and practically, so that from that sen- tence civil rights and civil obligations flow, which, speaking per se, have force also in the forum of conscience, namely when that sentence is legitimate and just. Therefore the cooperation of the judge toward the aforesaid divorce in the Case is not merely material, but formal; nor remote, but proximate, since it itself is what gives the parties the faculty of divorce. But that the judge admonishes the parties privately, or even in the Considerations of the following sentence, does not change the intrinsic nature of that sentence, but rather shows its illicitness more. A sentence of this sort is not a mere permission and denial of civil action, since that sentence makes a civil right or civil power, namely according to that iniquitous law of divorce, of contracting other marriages, so that he who is bound by this second marriage must be held by the judge himself, not as an adulterer, but as one legitimately bound by civil marriage. Lastly, it is altogether most false that that sentence regards only the civil effects of marriage, since otherwise the law of divorce would have been altogether useless; for those effects were already governed by the law of civil marriage. Therefore, as that law of divorce regards divorce itself from the bond, so consequently does the sentence of divorce delivered by the judge by force of that law. It is one thing indeed that that sentence regards only civil effects, which is false; another, that the civil effects, where that law now prevails, depend on that sentence, so that unless the sentence of divorce is first obtained, there cannot be had separation of bodies and goods. Lastly, it is plain that, since the aforesaid law and sentence touches divorce from the bond itself, in reality they do not touch only the civil contract of marriage, but most truly the sacrament of marriage itself.

And indeed, if what is asserted were true, namely that that sentence of divorce regards only the civil effects of marriage, then either the Holy Office or the Sacred Penitentiary, from whom it has been sought very often, would have permitted at least spouses to invoke that sentence of civil divorce, in the case of avoiding very grave damage; and, on the contrary, the response has always been: It is not lawful. Cf. Ferraris, Supplementum, v. Divortium, Commentary on the Sentence of Divorce to be rendered by a lay judge as to the bond of matrimony.

4. Armandus and Armanda, spouses, since they could not obtain a sentence of divorce in Italy because of the absence of such a law in Italy, go to France; there they first obtain naturalization, or civil status, and then in court they obtain a sentence of divorce. Having returned to Italy, they ask in court that the judge in Italy confirm the sentence rendered in France. — Can the aforesaid judge in Italy confirm that French sentence?

R. In the negative. In no way can the judge in Italy furnish this, either by natural law or by positive civil law. Concerning natural law, cf. here n. 3.

As regards civil law, it is easily proved, because from C. I. 56, 148, one bound by marriage cannot contract another marriage, and marriage ceases only by the death of the spouse. But one independent State cannot impose upon another State, likewise independent, its own law permitting an act prohibited in that State, when that act regards natural and public honesty, good morals, and public order, as the indissolubility of marriage is. Hence it is that whether Armandus and Armanda are Italians, or are also French, that sentence of divorce pronounced by a French judge cannot be held ratified by an Italian judge. It is added in the Case that there is open fraud against the law, and no one’s own fraud ought to patronize him.

5. The ship William Brown, directed from the port of Liverpool to Philadelphia, suffered shipwreck in the month of June in the year 1841. Many sailors and many travelers were saved in a small boat. But since the sea was stormy, in order to lighten the boat, which otherwise they feared would sink, the sailors cast the travelers into the sea. The matter then having been brought before a judge, the accused were acquitted in court, since otherwise all would certainly have perished.

It is asked: What must be judged concerning the sentence of the judge in the Case?

R. It was certainly in no way lawful for the sailors to cast the travelers into the sea. For this in fact was nothing else than to kill innocent men by private authority. But the fact that all otherwise would have perished does not make their homicide honorable, since the death of all would then have happened only by a natural misfortune, which certainly they could not prevent by the death of some. Therefore the sentence of the judge, wholly absolving the sailors as not guilty of homicide, was not legitimate. In the Case the judge ought indeed to have condemned the sailors as true homicides, but to a punishment milder than the ordinary one, on account of the grave circumstance of the shipwreck of all, which in the case certainly attenuated the offense. It would certainly have been wholly another thing if, in that danger, lest all should perish, some should have cast themselves into the sea, lest the boat be sunk by the multitude. For this “is not directly to kill oneself, but to expose oneself to danger, so as to be overcome by the weight of the body pressed down by the waves.” Thus Lessius writes about one who permits to another the plank occupied by himself, de Iust. et Iur. l. 2, c. 9, d. 6, n. 31: “In a shipwreck,” he says, “you can permit to another a plank not yet occupied by you, indeed even one occupied, and commit yourself to the waves, even if there is no hope of escaping, as Victoria and Peter Navarrus teach; for this is not directly to kill oneself, but to expose oneself to danger, so as to be overcome by the weight of the body pressed down by the waves. Here note that he who first occupied the thing in such an event is not held to admit another, but can hinder him, unless it is sufficient for both; if they occupied it at the same time, it must be decided by lot, unless one wishes voluntarily to yield to the other.” Kenrick, Theol. Mor., Mechlin, 1890, tr. 3, c. 9, nn. 111, 134.

6. Gerulfas, a mayor, assists at the civil marriage of two betrothed persons who both are bound by a previous marriage, but have already been separated from their own spouses by sentence of divorce according to the law in force. Gerulfas contends that he himself can licitly do this, because his assistance is merely a certain civil ceremony.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Gerulfas acts wholly illicitly. For his presence is not a merely civil ceremony; but it is a certain solemnity of law, furnishing civil authority, in the particular Case set forth, to legal adultery, or to adultery contracted according to the norm of civil laws. This is further established from the Responses of the S. C. and of the S. Penitentiary. Cf. Enchir. Mor. 19. And, since the mayor, in the aforesaid Case, not only posits an intrinsically illicit act, but also one unjust against the prior legitimate wife and legitimate children, he is held to compensation for damages if the adulterer refuses to compensate them. For by that unjust act the mayor effectively influences those damages.

Nor indeed does it avail to object that civil marriage in the Case is not intrinsically illicit; whence it could at least be permitted in some very grave and very rare case. For civil marriage, since it is not true marriage, of itself does not hinder a man from fulfilling the obligations of the prior legitimate marriage. This is not true; for in order that in fact a man, for example, may return after a civil marriage to his legitimate wife, the consent of the other party is necessary. Therefore that civil marriage is an act of itself and by its nature legally sanctioning adultery against ecclesiastical and legitimate marriage. — Of a mayor of this sort it cannot be said, as is prescribed by the S. Penitentiary on 20 March 1855, that he does nothing against the sanctity of marriage and the necessity of contracting it before the Church. Of a mayor of this sort it cannot be said, as is held from the same S. Penitentiary, that he removes scandal, since on the contrary he confirms it by his own act.

7. Torquatus, a mayor, a fervent Catholic, assists at the civil marriage of Tullius and Tullia, whom he knows neither to have contracted canonical marriage previously, nor to wish to contract it afterwards. Torquatus cannot deny his assistance; for otherwise he will be liable both to a grave fine and to deposition from office.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Torquatus, in the Case, can assist at the aforesaid marriage. For to the aforesaid case the S. Penitentiary, 20 March 1855, responded: “That it can be tolerated, provided that civil officials in drawing up acts of this sort intend to exercise a merely civil ceremony, and do nothing or advise nothing against the sanctity of marriage and the necessity of contracting it before the Church; rather, that they exhort them to contract it before the Church itself; having before their eyes the most holy laws of our Religion, and the letters of Benedict XIV, Redditae sunt nobis, concerning which, for removing scandal, they should admonish the contracting parties. But as regards cases in which it appears that the faithful, approaching the civil ceremony, are ill-disposed, and will not celebrate before the Church the marriage which regularly ought to have been premised, but will remain in concubinage under the pretext of a civil contract, the officials themselves are to be directed according to the rules handed down by approved authors, and especially by St. Alphonsus, l. 2, tr. 3, c. 2, dub. 5, art. 3, concerning cooperation.” Moreover in the aforesaid letters Benedict XIV teaches that, when Catholics present themselves to the civil magistrate, they exercise a merely civil act, and that marriage must be celebrated before a Catholic minister and two witnesses; otherwise they will never be legitimate spouses, nor ever legitimate offspring.

Now St. Alphonsus teaches this concerning cooperation in the place cited: “It must be said that that cooperation is formal which concurs with the evil will of another and cannot be without sin; but that is material which concurs only with the evil action of another, apart from the intention of the cooperator. And this is licit when the action of itself is good and indifferent, and when there is present a just cause proportionate to the gravity of the sin of the other and to the proximity of the concurrence which is furnished for the execution of the sin.” Cf. I. M. v. 1, 440. Moreover Torquatus the mayor does not cooperate formally in the case with the depraved will of Tullius and Tullia, either by intention, as is supposed, or by action; for the act of the mayor is, in the Case, a merely civil ceremony, furnishing of itself force to a marriage contracted or to be contracted, as to civil effects. For by civil law those things can be ordered and administered which marriages of themselves bring in the civil order, the marriage itself being left untouched, which among Christians is governed by the laws of the Church. But that Tullius and Tullia have neither previously contracted marriage, nor wish afterwards to contract marriage, is only from their depraved will. The cooperation of the mayor is merely material, by an act, as appears, not only indifferent, but of itself honorable and licit, which the aforesaid betrothed persons abuse only from their own malice. Nor indeed is a just and proportionate cause lacking, such as certainly is both the grave fine to which the mayor would otherwise be subjected, and his deposition from office, which would redound to the grave private harm of the mayor himself and to the common harm of society itself; because otherwise honorable and religious public officials would, to the public harm, be replaced by depraved and unjust officials.