On Matrimony

“Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.—The first parent of the human race, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, pronounced the perpetual and indissoluble bond of Matrimony when he said: ‘This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; wherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.’

“But that only two are coupled and joined by this bond Christ the Lord taught more openly when, referring to those latter words as having been uttered by God, He said: ‘Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh’; and immediately He confirmed the firmness of the same bond, pronounced so long before by Adam, with these words: ‘What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’

“But Christ Himself, the institutor and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited for us by His Passion the grace which would perfect that natural love, confirm the indissoluble unity, and sanctify the spouses. Paul the Apostle intimates this, saying: ‘Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it,’ immediately adding: ‘This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.’

“Since, therefore, Matrimony in the evangelical law excels the ancient marriages in grace through Christ, our holy Fathers, the Councils, and the tradition of the universal Church have always taught that it is deservedly to be numbered among the sacraments of the New Law. Raging against this tradition, the impious men of this age not only have judged perversely concerning this venerable Sacrament, but, after their custom, introducing freedom of the flesh under the pretext of the Gospel, have asserted in writing and word many things foreign to the mind of the Catholic Church and to the custom approved from the times of the Apostles, not without great loss to Christ’s faithful. Desiring to oppose their temerity, the holy and universal Synod judged that the more notable heresies and errors of the aforesaid schismatics were to be exterminated, lest their pernicious contagion draw more persons to itself, decreeing the following anathemas against the heretics themselves and their errors.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall say that Matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, but was invented by men in the Church, and does not confer grace: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is prohibited by no divine law: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall say that only those degrees of consanguinity and affinity which are expressed in Leviticus can impede Matrimony to be contracted and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot dispense in some of them or establish that more degrees impede and dissolve it: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that the Church could not establish impediments which dissolve Matrimony, or that in establishing them she erred: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say that the bond of Matrimony can be dissolved on account of heresy, troublesome cohabitation, or affected absence from a spouse: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that a ratified but non-consummated Matrimony is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of either spouse: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she has taught and teaches, according to evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, that the bond of Matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of either spouse; and that neither spouse, not even the innocent one who gave no cause for the adultery, can contract another Matrimony while the other spouse lives; and that he commits adultery who, having dismissed an adulteress, marries another, and she who, having dismissed an adulterer, marries another: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she decrees that for many causes separation between spouses, as regards the bed or as regards cohabitation, can be made for a definite or indefinite time: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract Matrimony, and that a Matrimony contracted is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or the vow; and that the contrary is nothing other than to condemn Matrimony; and that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have vowed it, can contract Matrimony: let him be anathema; since God does not deny that gift to those who rightly seek it, nor does He permit us to be tempted beyond that which we can bear.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in Matrimony: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that the prohibition of the solemnity of nuptials at certain times of the year is a tyrannical superstition, derived from the superstition of the pagans; or shall condemn the blessings and other ceremonies which the Church employs in them: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone shall say that matrimonial causes do not pertain to ecclesiastical judges: let him be anathema.”

“Betrothals contracted by infants, or by one of age with an infant, are null by the law itself and cannot engender the impediment of public propriety.... If it has been established that the betrothals were entered into while still of infant age, it will have to be investigated whether they were renewed after the seventh year or at least ratified. But if, as has sometimes happened, the betrothals were contracted by the parents ... if the children were still of infant age, it is certain that the contract was invalid; but if they were of age, the contract would be valid only if the children consented expressly, or at least tacitly, or afterwards ratified the betrothals entered into by the parents in their name.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1883, nos. 33, 34; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1883, no. 35; A. S. S., vol. 18, p. 355 ff.

“We hold it established, especially by canon law, that betrothals contracted either between infants or by one of age with an infant are to be regarded as not having been made, so that they do not even produce the impediment of public propriety. But those very betrothals which are celebrated between those below puberty, although canon law provides that they are valid and induce an obligation, nevertheless by the same law it is established, on account of weakness of judgment, that it is lawful to withdraw after puberty; nor is the one who first arrives at puberty bound to await the other, but he can, and indeed ought, to withdraw immediately if he does not wish to approve the betrothals, lest otherwise he should not be heard afterwards.” Holy Office, February 1779.

“Betrothals between one Catholic party and another schismatic or heretical party are unlawful and indeed invalid unless celebrated after a lawful dispensation has first been obtained.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 12 December 1888; M. E., vol. 6, part 2, p. 100 ff.

Can a bishop issue a law which, with respect to the validity of betrothals, prescribes a norm for entering into them that is foreign to the common law?—Response. Negative. This is established from the responses of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 8 July 1865 and 23 March 1878. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 529; vol. 7, p. 665; vol. 11, p. 230. Much less can a bishop invalidate Marriages to be contracted without prior banns by taking jurisdiction away from the parish priest for this effect. Sacred Congregation of the Council, apud Lugonem; Responsa Moralia, book 1, doubt 45.

“1. Are betrothals which are contracted in Spain without a public instrument valid? And insofar as the response is negative: 2. Can an instrument drawn up in the Curia for a dispensation from some impediments supply for the public instrument?—Response. To the first and second: Negative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 31 January 1880 and 11 April 1891. Cf. Paul Villada, Cases of Conscience Adapted Especially to These Times, part 2, Brussels, 1885, p. 74 ff.; A. S. S., vol. 13, p. 191; M. E., vol. 7, part 1, p. 97. In Latin America also, betrothals must be contracted by a public instrument in order to be valid. Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, 1 January 1890 [printed: 1990]; Plenary Council of Latin America, no. 592.

“Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, by the present Decree, declares and establishes that the aforesaid act, which is commonly called civil marriage, in places where the Decree of the Council of Trent, Session 24, chapter 1, On the Reformation of Matrimony, has been promulgated—whether the faithful performing that act intend, as is fitting, to perform a mere civil ceremony, an ecclesiastical Matrimony having already been duly celebrated or with the intention of celebrating it as soon as possible; or intend to enter into betrothals for the future; or finally, from ignorance or in contempt of ecclesiastical laws, intend to contract Matrimony in the present—the act does not produce the impediment of public propriety.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 13 March 1879.

“...For the resolution of the doubt proposed, the [Sacred Congregation] directed that the prescription received from Pope Gregory IX, in chapter He Who, 30, On Betrothals and Matrimony, drawn likewise from the pure sources of Pontifical law and promulgated for observance among all Catholics, be observed. For when the Pontiff was asked what must be done concerning a man who, after betrothals entered into with a woman against her will and after intercourse had with her, subsequently married another in the face of the Church and knew her, he gave a response of this kind: ‘He who gave his pledge to a woman that he wished to take her as wife, and if he afterwards knows her carnally and marries another in the face of the Church, is bound to return to the first, because, although the first Matrimony may appear presumed, nevertheless proof to the contrary is not admitted against such a presumption. Whence it follows that the Matrimony afterwards contracted in fact is not a true Matrimony, but null....’

“Set before your eyes those things which Father Pirhing, a most approved expositor of the sacred Canons, presents in elucidating chapter He Who. For he, in book 4 of the Decretals, title 1, section 1, § 5, after the aforesaid rule or prescription of Gregory IX, adds these things: ‘The reason is that, from carnal intercourse, the Church presumes conjugal consent in the betrothed parties so as to exclude sin—namely, that the betrothed man and woman wished to know one another not with a fornicatory but with a marital affection—because a delict is not to be presumed; and this is a presumption of law and by law, that is, altogether certain and indubitable, against which proof is not admitted. Consequently, the betrothed man would not be heard if he asserted that he had not known the betrothed woman with marital affection or with the intention of contracting Matrimony with her’ (Covarruvias, Epitome, book 4 of the Decretals, part 1, chapter 4, § 1, nos. 1 and 2). ‘It is confirmed, because carnal intercourse following betrothals for the future is a sufficient sign of present consent to Matrimony, and through it the betrothed parties are judged to deliver themselves to one another. This presumption has place only in the contentious and judicial forum, but not in the forum of conscience and of Penance. Hence, if the betrothed man truly had known the betrothed woman not with marital but with fornicatory affection, there would not be a true Matrimony in the penitential forum and before God, because the Pope cannot cause there to be a true Matrimony without express or tacit consent’ (Hostiensis, here, column 2 at the end; Fagnanus, here, nos. 6 and 7).

“Thus far Father Pirhing, who, in setting forth this doctrine, affirms that it is commonly received among all writers on the Canons. Stand here, therefore; adhere here. Namely, even in those regions in which the Tridentine Decree on Matrimony has not been promulgated, if the betrothed man and woman have had intercourse with one another not with marital but with fornicatory affection, their betrothals do not on that account pass into a true Matrimony before God; and therefore, before God or in the forum of conscience, the faculty of passing to other vows has not been taken away from them if a lawful occasion for dissolving the preceding betrothals presents itself.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 17 January 1821, to the bishops of the Apostolic Vicariates in the Empire of China and the kingdoms and provinces adjacent to it. Pius VII approved it and commanded it to be observed in every respect. Cf. no. 958.

“It is asked whether a Matrimony contracted by two Catholics who are minors in age, according to the forms prescribed by the Church but nevertheless against the will of their parents, is valid.

“Response. Affirmative; for neither the dissent of parents nor minor age can in any way be numbered among the impediments dissolving Matrimony in these our times. We do not linger over imperial laws and commands of rulers opposed to this opinion; for they are either to be understood only of civil effects, as eminent men hold concerning the edict of Henry III, Most Christian King, confirmed by Louis XIII—Loretus, a Counselor in the Parliament of Paris; Hubertus, Bishop of Vabres; Cabassutius; Gervasius; Natalis Alexander; and others—or, insofar as they establish something which exceeds the limits of secular power, they are to be rejected altogether. Concerning those things which pertain to the nature of the sacraments, the full power of defining belongs not to secular rulers but to the Church alone. She, moreover, not only held and declared Marriages of this kind ratified in chapter Although and chapter Your, On One Betrothed to Two, but also, lawfully assembled at Trent in the Holy Spirit, struck with anathema those who falsely affirm that Marriages contracted by children of a family without the consent of their parents are invalid and that parents can make them ratified or invalid. Therefore, no place for doubt remains concerning the validity of the aforesaid Matrimony.” Holy Office, 17 November 1835, Bishop of Quebec.

“The burden has likewise been enjoined upon the proper parish priest that, before the announcements of a Matrimony to be entered into are made publicly in the church during the solemnities of Masses, he should take care cautiously to examine both the bridegroom and the bride separately and, as it is said, in the ear, whether by their will, spontaneously and freely, and truly with the consent of the soul, they are mutually joined in Matrimony.” Apostolic Letter of Benedict XIV, 28 May 1743.

“...Equal, or perhaps even greater, vigilance must be employed by you lest, after the banns have been remitted, a Matrimony be celebrated before the parish priest, or another priest deputed by the parish priest himself or by you, in the presence of two or three trusted witnesses, so that no notice or rumor of the celebration should arise. For in order that this may lawfully be done according to the prescription of the sacred canons, not every ready and ordinary cause suffices, but a grave, urgent, and most urgent cause is required.... But after the Matrimony has been celebrated, a written document concerning it, with a notation of the place and time and of the witnesses who were present at the celebration, is to be presented without delay to the bishop by the parish priest or other priest before whom it was entered into. It will then be your duty diligently to ensure that, for the perpetual memory of the act performed, the aforesaid document is faithfully transcribed into a book wholly distinct from the other book in which publicly contracted Marriages are recorded. Such a book, suitably bound for secret Marriages, closed and sealed with seals, is to be cautiously kept in your episcopal chancery. And you shall permit it to be unsealed and opened, with your permission being given, only in the case in which other Marriages of this kind must be recorded, or the necessity of administering justice should claim this for itself, or finally persons having a true interest should request some document from it.” Etc., Benedict XIV, Constitution Satis vobis, 17 November 1741.

The norms to be observed in this matter are contained in the Constitution Cum alias of Clement X, 21 August 1670. Cf. Instruction of the Holy Office, 21 August 1670 and 29 August 1890; M. E., vol. 2, part 3, p. 163 ff.; vol. 7, part 1, p. 243 ff.; vol. 8, part 1, p. 219 ff.; vol. 12, p. 434 ff.; C. 1363, 1367, 1373–1376; Ferraris, Supplement, s.v. Proceedings in Matrimonial Causes.

“The orders issued most recently concerning Marriages to be contracted with foreigners provide, among other things, that Ordinaries command each and every parish priest existing in their dioceses not to make publications in their churches for Marriages to be contracted with foreigners unless, after the Ordinary a quo, or his vicar general, has been informed, they are first bound to bring back an authentic attestation that witnesses have been examined for such a Matrimony in their tribunal who prove the free state of those wishing to contract. Hence it is asked:

“1. Are those from neighboring dioceses also bound to make such proofs, or does the attestation of the banns made in their dioceses, with the authentication of the Ordinary, and proof of their state after departure from that diocese suffice?—Response. Persons of this kind are regarded as foreigners and consequently are bound to make the proofs.

“2. Likewise, are those wishing to contract who dwell at the borders of their dioceses and, because of proximity, are known by their rectors, bound to make the same proofs; or do proofs to be made by the rectors themselves suffice?—Response. They also are bound to make the proofs.

“3. Are those who, having departed from their own diocese before marriageable age, betook themselves to another and thereafter always dwelt in it, bound to make the same proofs?—Response. Those who were not outside the diocese during the time at which they were capable of contracting are not bound.

“4. In a city in which Spanish, Teutonic, and German soldiers, and soldiers of other distant nations, are accustomed to reside, is the same thing to be observed with them; or does it suffice to receive proofs concerning their state in that city from witnesses of their own regions who are informed about the matter?—Response. They are bound to make the proofs according to the form of the Instruction, because they more easily commit polygamy.

“5. When notice has been given by the parish priest to the Ordinary of the one wishing to contract, is the attestation of a state of this kind to be brought back by the same parish priest or by the one wishing to contract?—Response. He who wishes to contract Matrimony is bound to bring back the attestation and deliver it to the parish priest, but the parish priest is free to assume a burden of this kind himself.

“6. Are the same proofs to be observed in a case of necessity and by those existing in danger of death who wish to contract in this way?—Response. They are not to be observed at the point of death, within which, namely, there probably is not sufficient time for making the investigations; with this provision also, that if the sick person should happen to recover, the investigations must be made according to the Instruction before they come together.

“7. Is an attestation of the proper Ordinary required for foreigners who for ten years or more have acquired domicile in the place where they are to contract Matrimony, if their free state is proved by trustworthy witnesses both of origin and of domicile?—Response. It is required.

“8. Is the said attestation required for foreigners who married one wife or several, and these, in turn, died in the place where they desire to contract Matrimony, and they themselves did not depart farther from the said place after the death?—Response. It is likewise required.” Holy Office, 1819; M. E., vol. 4, part 1, p. 199.

“So that unity may stand firm in the nuptials of the Christian faithful and nullity may be avoided in contracting them, the Supreme Congregation of the Most Eminent Fathers, General Inquisitors ..., with the authorization of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, commanded the following Instruction to be drawn up and communicated to the Eastern bishops, which, amid the difficulties by which they are pressed on every side, would be of great use and assistance to them for proving the free state of those who desire to be joined in Matrimony.

“1. The free state can be discovered and juridically proved in three ways: 1. by publications to be made in the Church; 2. by documents; 3. by examination of witnesses.

“2. The publications are to be made in the place of domicile or quasi-domicile. It is also expedient that they be made in the place of origin, if the contracting parties dwelt there after attaining the age suitable for contracting Matrimony; and furthermore in places where they stayed for at least ten months, unless they have already established domicile for several years in the place where the Matrimony is to be contracted.

“3. If the examination of witnesses is made in the episcopal city, the vicar general is to preside; if in other places of the diocese, the parish priest. The questions and responses, however, are to be carefully committed to writing, after an oath to tell the truth has first been taken by each witness.

“4. Women also can be admitted to give testimony in this matter; and blood relatives, namely, parents, brothers, sisters, etc., are received in preference to outsiders because they are presumed to be better informed; and citizens in preference to foreigners.

“5. Attestations and other documents which are produced by the parties or concerning the parties are to be furnished with the seal not only of the parish priest, but especially of the Ordinary of that diocese whence they issued. Care must always be taken attentively, however, that the attestations or testimonies identify well and conclusively the persons under consideration.

“6. If, after the free state has been proved, two or three months pass without the Matrimony having been celebrated, a new process regularly ought to be made for this period of time; but, according to the variety of cases, the matter is left to the prudent judgment of the Ordinaries.

“7. If one of the contracting parties is at the point of death, within which there probably is not time to institute the necessary investigations, the prescribed process can be omitted, but in such a way that, if the sick person recovers, the investigations or process must be made before they come together.

“8. If the contracting parties are wanderers, permission to contract is not to be granted unless they demonstrate by documents of their Ordinaries that they are free; but if the attestation of each of the Ordinaries in whose dioceses they stayed for some period of time not exceeding one year cannot be obtained, the Ordinary of the place in which the Matrimony is to be contracted can admit them to a supplementary oath, only for those places from which an authentic attestation cannot be obtained. Nevertheless, it must always be insisted that the contracting parties bring forward trustworthy witnesses to be examined in the respective places. But if this can be done only with very great difficulty, trustworthy witnesses who conclusively prove the free state during the time of wandering can be admitted in the curia of the place where the Matrimony is contracted; and, if it seems opportune to the Ordinary, the bridegroom also can be admitted to a supplementary oath, provided, however, that he is established to be trustworthy.

“9. But if a doubt concerning the free state of the contracting parties arises either from a Matrimony celebrated by Catholics in the Catholic manner; or from a marriage contracted by heretics or schismatics according to the statutes of the diverse sects and afterwards dissolved by the sentence of such tribunals; or from one contracted between unbelievers which afterwards was rescinded or declared null, the Instruction of this Supreme Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition given on 20 September 1883, article 4, is to be followed.

“10. A witness to be examined is to be admonished concerning the gravity of the oath to be taken in this matter, and thereafter is to be questioned concerning his given name, surname, father, native place, age, condition, and habitation; then whether he is a citizen or a foreigner; and, insofar as he is a foreigner, from what time he has been in the place in which he gives testimony. Whether he approached the examination spontaneously or was summoned. If he says that he approached spontaneously, having been summoned by no one, he is to be dismissed, because he is presumed a liar; if summoned, he is to be asked by whom, or by whom jointly, where, when, how, before whom, and how many times he was summoned, and whether he knows that any impediment exists between those wishing to contract. Whether anything was given, promised, remitted, or offered to him for giving this testimony by those wishing to contract, or by another in their name. Whether he knows those wishing to contract, their disposition, morals, condition, and from what time, in what place, and on what occasion. If he responds negatively, the witness is to be dismissed; but if affirmatively, he is to be asked whether they are citizens or foreigners. If he responds that they are foreigners, permission to contract is to be withheld until their free state, for the time during which they stayed in his diocese, is demonstrated through letters of their Ordinary.

“11. But for proving their free state during the remaining time, namely, up to the time at which they wish to contract, suitable witnesses can be admitted who, if they prove it conclusively by giving the reason for their own knowledge, will make it unnecessary to bring the attestations of the Ordinaries of the places in which those about to contract resided. But if they respond that they are citizens, they are to be asked under which parish they have hitherto dwelt or now dwell; whether they know that either one or both had at some time been joined in Matrimony, or had made profession in some approved religious institute, or had received one of the orders to which the law of celibacy is attached, or were bound by another impediment dissolving Matrimony. If they respond negatively to these questions, they are to be asked the cause of their knowledge, and whether it is at least possible that either one had a wife or husband or another impediment unknown to the witnesses themselves. If they respond affirmatively, the matter is to be suspended unless the contrary is conclusively proved from other witnesses. But if they respond negatively, they are to be asked the cause of their knowledge, from which it will then be possible to gather whether credence is to be given to witnesses of this kind. If they respond that those about to marry had a wife or husband, but that they are dead, they are to be asked concerning the place and time at which they died and how and whence they know that those persons had been married and that their respective wife or husband is dead. If they respond that the persons died in some hospital, or that they saw them buried in some definite church or cemetery, permission to contract is not to be given unless authentic testimony has first been received from the rector of the hospital in which the aforesaid persons died, or from the rector of the church or cemetery in which their bodies were buried. If, however, testimonies of this kind cannot be obtained, other proofs which can be admitted by common law are not excluded, provided that they are lawful and sufficient. They are furthermore to be asked whether, after the death of either spouse, they passed to second vows; and insofar as the response is negative, whether it could have happened that one of them passed to second vows unknown to the witnesses themselves; and insofar as the response is affirmative, permission is to be withheld until witnesses are produced by whom the negative is conclusively restricted. But if the response is negative, they are to be asked the cause of their knowledge; after this has been weighed, the judge will be able to judge whether permission is to be granted or not.”

“I. Whether the bishop is obliged, before the banns, to ascertain by a process of witnesses the freedom of the spouses who contract Matrimony in his diocese, even though they have always had domicile in the same diocese?—Response. Generally speaking, affirmative.

“II. What greater breadth of meaning can be given to the designation of wanderers; and whether it is lawful for the bishop to admit to the oath, in place of the testimonials of the curias and the process concerning witnesses for Marriages to be celebrated in his own diocese, those persons who, although not truly wanderers, nevertheless have been in several different places and declare that they cannot provide witnesses to the curias for the attestations of free state; and, in general, whether they can be treated as wanderers insofar as the required testimonials of freedom cannot be obtained concerning them, by admitting them to the oath with respect to those places from which the testimonials cannot be obtained?—Response. Affirmative, while the indult of admitting to the supplementary oath remains in force, with all the clauses contained in the same indult being observed, and provided that the stay in each place of wandering did not exceed one year.

“III. Whether the testimonial of free state must always be made, besides upon the examination of witnesses, also upon the publications?—Response. Regularly speaking, affirmative, when the stay of the contracting parties was not continuous for several years in the place in which the Matrimony is contracted.

“IV. Whether the part of the Instruction, ‘If the contracting parties are wanderers, permission to contract is not to be granted unless they demonstrate by the attestation of their Ordinaries that they are free,’ etc., remains without force by reason of the faculty which the Holy See grants for admitting wanderers and soldiers to the supplementary oath; and whether for both the former and the latter, in addition to the supplementary oath, the publications are nevertheless required in the places in which they wandered or performed military service?—Response. The indult of admitting to the supplementary oath has place only when freedom of state cannot otherwise be lawfully proved.

“V. Whether, when witnesses are lacking, or when they are deficient in knowledge of the persons so that they are unable to respond to the questions prescribed by the above-cited Decree, and particularly to those which are expressed under nos. 9 and 13, as ordinarily happens, the bishop can permit the Matrimony while contenting himself with the publications in those places in which they can be carried out; and, when these also are lacking, whether wholly or partially, whether one can be admitted to the oath and whether this can be accepted as total proof of freedom, or as partial proof with respect to the regions in which neither the publications nor the process of witnesses can be made?—Response. Observance of the Instruction of Clement X, of holy memory, under Thursday, 21 August 1670, with the appended declarations given under Wednesday, 24 February 1847, is to be urged; and it is to be insisted that parish priests diligently inquire from the contracting parties about trustworthy witnesses to be examined in the respective places. If, however, this can be done only with very great difficulty, trustworthy witnesses who conclusively prove freedom of state during the time of wandering can be admitted in the curia of the place where the Matrimony is contracted; and, if it seems opportune to the Ordinary, the bridegroom also can be admitted to the supplementary oath, provided, however, that he is established to be trustworthy. But in particular and more difficult cases, let the Right Reverend Lord Bishop have recourse to the Sacred Congregation. But if the Matrimony is so urgent that there is no time for recourse, let the bishop take care to collect conclusive proofs concerning freedom of state in another manner, as he shall judge expedient.—Rome, 11 January 1865.” Holy Office, 30 November 1898.

Today, the faculty of receiving a supplementary oath from wanderers is customarily given by the Holy Office to bishops for two years, with the clause: “which faculty you shall also be able to subdelegate.” M. E., vol. 12, p. 435.

“Can the Ordinary, for a cause, dispense so that the banns may be made while Vespers are being sung, provided that it is on feast days?—Response. He can so dispense for a cause.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 25 October 1586.

“Can the banns of Marriages be made, in the case, on abrogated feast days?—Response. Negative, unless with the permission of the bishop, with the conditions according to the form of the decision of Brno, 5 July 1780, after consultation with His Holiness.” In the case of Todi, Banns of Matrimony, 19 April 1823. Moreover, the form of the decision of Brno, in addition to a grave cause, requires that “on those days which are not feast days, a frequent concourse of the people to the Church still continues.”

“Whether and at what time must the banns and the explanation of the Gospel be made in the case?—Response. Affirmative; as regards the explanation of the Gospel, in the parish Mass; and as regards the banns, in the same Mass or at another hour more frequented by the people.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 20 September 1828.

“A certain parish priest had sought from his Ordinariate the faculty of dispensing the bridegroom from a double occult impediment of affinity in the first degree, arising from illicit intercourse which the same man had had both with the mother and with the sister of his bride, when all things were already prepared for the nuptials and these could not be deferred without danger of great scandal so that a dispensation might be obtained from the Apostolic See. The Ordinariate granted the dispensation sought by virtue of the quinquennial faculties. It is asked whether the dispensation is valid or not.—Response. Affirmative; that is, the faculty of dispensing, for the forum of conscience only, in Marriages to be contracted, from the occult impediment of affinity arising from illicit intercourse, when all things are prepared for the nuptials and there is no time for recourse to the Apostolic See, is validly and lawfully exercised, even if the aforesaid impediment is multiple.” Sacred Penitentiary, 30 July 1873.

“...In the seventh place it follows that they condemn nuptials and abhor the procreation of offspring....” The fifteenth dogmatic Letter of Pope Leo to Turibius, Bishop of Astorga, on the errors of the Priscillianists, in which he approves the sixteen chapters of Turibius.

“If anyone shall say or believe that the unions of men which it is lawful to have according to divine law are execrable, let him be anathema.” Plenary Council of Spain and Portugal, anathema 16.

“But those who, feigning an appearance of religiosity, condemn the Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood, the Baptism of children, the priesthood and other ecclesiastical orders, and the bonds of lawful nuptials, we drive from the Church of God and condemn as heretics, and we command that they be restrained by the secular powers. We also bind their defenders with the bond of the same condemnation.” Second Lateran Council, year 1139, canon 23.

This canon is against Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, and it was taken word for word from the Council of Toulouse held in the year 1119 in the presence of Callistus II [printed: Callistus III].

Lucius III, chapter To Abolish, 9, On Heretics, numbers among these those who think otherwise concerning Matrimony and the other sacraments and teach otherwise than the Holy Roman Church.

“We do not deny, according to the Apostle, that carnal unions are to be contracted, but we altogether prohibit those duly contracted from being sundered. We also believe and confess that a man can be saved with his spouse, nor do we condemn second and subsequent Marriages.” Profession of Faith of the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III.

“Concerning Matrimony, [the Roman Church] holds that neither is one man permitted to have several wives at the same time, nor one woman several husbands. But when a lawful Matrimony has been dissolved by the death of the other spouse, she says that second and then third nuptials in succession are lawful, provided that no other canonical impediment stands in the way from some cause.” Confession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus.

“Mutual consent, whence just Marriages arise, can be manifested and declared not only by words but also by other outward signs. Therefore Alexander III (chapter Coming, On Betrothals), Innocent III (chapter You to Us, same title), and Gregory IX (chapter He Who Gave His Pledge, same title), Our Predecessors, deservedly decreed that carnal intercourse, if certain and valid betrothals for the future had preceded, was to be regarded as a true Marriage both in judgment and outside judgment, unless a canonical impediment stood in the way. And they willed that so much force should reside in this presumption of law that it would establish and sanction a firm right and would admit no proof whatsoever to the contrary. Then, however, clandestine Marriages—that is, those entered into without the parish priest and two or three witnesses—when the Council of Trent (session 24, chapter 1, On the Reformation of Matrimony) had commanded that they be invalid and void, that ancient law, as was necessary, ceased to have force wherever the Tridentine law was promulgated or received by custom and usage. But in those places in which that law is not in force, it was always the judgment of the Apostolic See that the canons which We have indicated remained ratified and firm. Yet, in the course of the ages, they gradually passed out of the consciousness and knowledge of Christians. For several bishops from those regions in which clandestine Marriages, although unlawfully entered into, are nevertheless judged valid, when asked not long ago what the people seemed to think concerning this matter, reported plainly that the canonical discipline concerning presumed Marriages had everywhere fallen into disuse, effaced by desuetude and oblivion; that, consequently, it hardly, or scarcely ever, happens that intercourse between betrothed persons is regarded as proceeding from marital rather than fornicatory affection; and that, in the common opinion of men, it is regarded not as the exercise of legitimate Matrimony but as the sin of fornication; indeed, that the people can scarcely be persuaded that betrothals for the future pass into Matrimony through carnal union.

“Therefore, for these reasons and causes, by the counsel of Our Venerable Brethren, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are General Inquisitors in matters of faith, by this Our Decree We repeal and abolish the above-mentioned canons and any other provisions whatsoever of canon law concerning this matter, even those worthy of special mention; and We will that they be regarded as abolished and repealed, just as if they had never been issued.

“At the same time, by these Our Letters We decree and command that henceforth, in those places in which clandestine unions are held to be valid, carnal intercourse supervening upon betrothals shall no longer, by presumption of law, be judged to be a conjugal contract, nor be recognized or declared to be a legitimate Marriage by any ecclesiastical judges before whose forum matrimonial causes of this kind may happen to be tried and adjudged. Nevertheless, by the authority of this Decree We do not will to introduce the necessity of observing the Tridentine form for the validity of Matrimony where that form is not now in force.

“Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 15 February 1892, in the fourteenth year of Our Pontificate.” Leo XIII, Pope.

“According to the laws, the consent alone of those whose union is in question suffices; and if this consent alone should happen to be lacking in the nuptials, all the other things performed, even together with intercourse itself, are rendered fruitless.” Nicholas I, from the Responses to the Consultations of the Bulgarians, chapter 3.

“A firm and valid Matrimony exists whenever nods or ceremonies performed before witnesses, according to the common estimation of the religion, sufficiently express the mutual present consent of the spouses, and when, moreover (if the question concerns places in which the Tridentine law has been published), a missionary cannot conveniently be had. But if the contracting parties, or either one of them, in ceremonies performed according to the custom of the country, truly did not have the intention or will of contracting in the present, the Matrimony is null.” Holy Office, 22 August 1860.

“Amalia, an unbaptized Protestant, married Giovanni, a Protestant; during the Marriage, Amalia was baptized in Protestantism and lived with her husband for some time. Subsequently, Amalia learned that Giovanni had illicit relations with a woman; she therefore abandoned him, and after some time obtained from the civil tribunal a divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. Now Amalia asks permission to contract a second Marriage with a Catholic.

“It should be noted that Protestants do not know that a Marriage between a baptized man and an unbaptized woman is null.

“These things having been stated, the Archbishop N. N., prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, humbly asks:

“Given the ignorance of the nullity of the Marriage on the ground of disparity of worship, did the marital life of Amalia with Giovanni revalidate the Marriage after Amalia’s baptism?

“Response. After an oath has first been taken by Amalia in the Curia of N. N., by which she declares that the Marriage contracted with Giovanni, after the baptism of Amalia herself, was not ratified by them with knowledge of its nullity, in a place where clandestine or mixed Marriages are held valid, and provided that the Most Reverend Lord Archbishop is morally certain concerning the asserted ignorance of the spouses about the impediment of disparity of worship, let a document of freedom on the ground of disparity of worship be given to the woman.” Holy Office, 8 March 1899.

“You consulted Us as to whether one who is mute and deaf can be joined matrimonially to another. To this We respond in this manner: since the edict concerning contracting Matrimony is prohibitory, so that anyone who is not prohibited is consequently admitted, and since the consent alone of those whose union is in question suffices, it appears that, if such a person wishes to contract, it cannot or ought not to be denied him, since he is able to declare by signs that which he cannot declare by words.” Chapter Cum apud, 23, On Betrothals and Matrimony. The same is established in chapter Tuae fraternitati, 25, same title.

“If conditions contrary to the substance of Matrimony are inserted—for example, if one says to the other: I contract with you if you avoid the generation of offspring, or until I find another richer in honor or possessions, or if you hand yourself over to adultery for gain—the contract of Matrimony, however favorable it may be, lacks effect. But other conditions appended to Matrimony, if they are base or impossible, ought, in favor of Matrimony, to be regarded as not appended.” Gregory IX, chapter Si conditiones, 7, On Conditions, etc.

The Holy Office, in response to the doubt of the Bishop of Bosnia, “Whether a Matrimony contracted between a Catholic woman and a schismatic with the intention of violating or dissolving the Matrimony is valid,” on 2 December 1680, responded: “If those things have been reduced to a pact, or the Marriages have been contracted with that condition, they are null; if otherwise, they are valid.” The same Congregation, by a solemn decision on 1 August 1748, declared two Marriages contracted in Transylvania between Calvinists under the condition, “as long as you remain in conjugal honor,” or, “if you preserve the fidelity of the marriage bed,” to be entirely null. Thus likewise several times elsewhere. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 23, p. 711 ff.; C. 128.

“Marriages entered into merely with the error of the contracting parties that the bond of a consummated Marriage can be dissolved in the case of adultery or for other causes are valid. But if they were entered into under this express condition, they are to be regarded as invalid.” Holy Office, 11 March 1868; 18 December 1872.

“We say nothing concerning that other decree in which, with the mystery, dignity, and sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony wholly despised, its institution and nature altogether ignored and overturned, and the power of the Church over this same Sacrament utterly spurned, it was proposed—according to the already condemned errors of heretics and contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church—that Matrimony should be regarded as merely a civil contract, that divorce properly so called should be sanctioned in various cases, and that all matrimonial causes should be brought before lay tribunals and judged by them; since no Catholic is ignorant, or can be ignorant, that Matrimony is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law instituted by Christ the Lord, and that consequently among the faithful there can be no Matrimony without its being at one and the same time a Sacrament; and that therefore any other union between a Christian man and woman apart from the Sacrament, even one made by force of any civil law whatsoever, is nothing other than a shameful and deadly concubinage so greatly condemned by the Church; and that consequently the Sacrament can never be separated from the conjugal covenant, and it belongs entirely to the power of the Church to decree all those things which can in any way pertain to this same Matrimony.” Pius IX, Allocution delivered in Secret Consistory, 27 September 1852.

“The Sacrament of Matrimony is only something accessory to the contract and separable from it, and the Sacrament itself consists solely in the nuptial blessing.” Proposition 16 of the Syllabus, condemned by Pius IX.

“Since Matrimony is sacred by its own force, its own nature, and of itself, it is fitting that it be governed and regulated not by the command of rulers but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone possesses the magisterium of sacred things. Next, the dignity of the Sacrament must be considered, by whose accession the Marriages of Christians became exceedingly noble. But concerning a Sacrament, the Church alone, by the will of Christ, can and ought to establish and command, so that it is plainly absurd to will that even the smallest part of her power be transferred to the governors of the civil commonwealth.” Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum, 10 February 1880.

“58. The proposition which establishes that betrothals properly so called contain a merely civil act which disposes toward the celebration of Matrimony, and that they are wholly subject to the prescription of civil laws; as though an act disposing toward a Sacrament were not, under this aspect, subject to the law of the Church: false; injurious to the right of the Church with respect also to the effects flowing from betrothals by force of canonical sanctions; derogatory to the discipline established by the Church.

“59. The doctrine of the Synod asserting that it belongs originally to the supreme civil power alone to append to the contract of Matrimony impediments of that kind which render it null and are called dissolving impediments; which original right, moreover, is said to be essentially connected with the right of dispensing; adding that, with the assent or connivance of rulers presupposed, the Church could justly establish impediments dissolving the contract of Matrimony itself; as though the Church had not always been able, and were not still able, by her own right to establish impediments in the Marriages of Christians which not only impede Matrimony but also render it null as regards the bond, by which Christians are held bound even in the lands of infidels, and to dispense in those same impediments: subversive of canons 3, 4, 9, and 12 of session 24 of the Council of Trent; heretical.

“60. Likewise, the petition of the Synod to the civil power that it remove from the number of impediments spiritual kinship and that which is called public propriety, whose origin is found in the collection of Justinian; and then that it restrict the impediment of affinity and consanguinity arising from any licit or illicit union whatsoever to the fourth degree according to civil computation through the collateral and oblique line, yet in such manner that no hope is left of obtaining a dispensation; insofar as it attributes to the civil power the right either to abolish or to restrict impediments established or approved by the authority of the Church; likewise, insofar as it supposes that the Church can be stripped by the civil power of her right of dispensing in impediments established or approved by herself: subversive of the liberty and power of the Church; contrary to Trent; proceeding from the heretical principle condemned above.” Propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“68. The Church does not have the power of introducing impediments which render Matrimony null; but that power belongs to the civil authority, by which existing impediments are to be removed.—69. In later centuries the Church began to introduce dissolving impediments, not by her own right, but by using that right which she had borrowed from the civil power.—70. The Tridentine canons which inflict the censure of anathema upon those who dare to deny to the Church the faculty of introducing dissolving impediments either are not dogmatic or are to be understood of this borrowed power.” Propositions of the Syllabus condemned by Pius IX.

“...But in carrying out the commands of the Holy Father, this Sacred Penitentiary thinks it superfluous to recall to the mind of each person that which is a most well-known dogma of our most holy religion, namely, that Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord, and that consequently its governance belongs exclusively to the Church herself, to whom the same Christ committed the dispensation of His divine mysteries; and it likewise thinks it superfluous to recall to the mind of each person the form prescribed by the holy Synod of Trent, session 24, chapter 1, On the Reformation of Matrimony, without the observance of which, in places where it was promulgated, Matrimony could by no means be validly contracted.

“3. But from these and other axioms and Catholic doctrines, pastors of souls ought to fashion practical instructions by which they may also persuade the faithful of that which our Most Holy Lord proclaimed in Secret Consistory on 27 September 1852, namely: Among the faithful there can be no Matrimony without its being at one and the same time a Sacrament; and that therefore any other union between a Christian man and woman apart from the Sacrament, even one made by force of civil law, is nothing other than a shameful and deadly concubinage.

“And from this they will easily be able to deduce that the civil act can in no manner be regarded before God and His Church, not merely as a Sacrament, but not even as a contract; and that, just as the civil power is incapable of binding any of the faithful in Matrimony, so also it is incapable of dissolving it. Therefore, as this Sacred Penitentiary has already declared elsewhere in several responses to particular doubts, every sentence of separation between spouses joined by a legitimate Marriage before the Church, pronounced by the lay power, is of no value; and a spouse who, abusing a sentence of this kind, should dare to unite himself to another person would be a true adulterer, just as he would be a true concubinarian who should presume to persist in Matrimony by force of the civil act alone; and both would be unworthy of absolution until they repent and, subjecting themselves to the prescriptions of the Church, are converted to penance.

“Although, moreover, a true Marriage of the faithful is contracted only when a man and a woman free from impediments manifest their mutual consent before the parish priest and witnesses, according to the cited form of the holy Council of Trent, and a Marriage thus contracted obtains all its force, nor is it necessary that it be held ratified or confirmed by the civil power, nevertheless, in order to avoid harassments and penalties, and for the good of the offspring—who otherwise would by no means be regarded as legitimate by the lay power—and also to avert the danger of polygamy, it seems opportune and expedient that the same faithful, after they have legitimately contracted Matrimony before the Church, present themselves to carry out the act decreed by law, yet with this intention (as Benedict XIV teaches in the Brief Redditae sunt Nobis of 17 September 1746), that in presenting themselves to an official of the government they do nothing other than carry out a civil ceremony.

“For the same reasons—but by no means in order to cooperate in the execution of the baneful law—parish priests should not easily and indiscriminately admit to the celebration of Matrimony before the Church those faithful who, because they are barred by law, would not afterwards be admitted to the civil act and consequently would not be regarded as legitimate spouses. In this matter they must employ much caution and prudence and seek the counsel of the Ordinary; and let him not be ready to give his assent, but in graver cases let him consult this sacred tribunal.

“But if it is opportune and expedient that the faithful, presenting themselves to perform the civil act, show themselves to be legitimate spouses before the law, nevertheless they ought by no means to perform this act before they have celebrated Matrimony before the Church. And if some coercion or absolute necessity—which is not to be admitted easily—should be the cause of inverting this order, then every diligence is to be employed so that Matrimony may be contracted before the Church as soon as possible and that, in the meantime, the contracting parties remain separated. Concerning this matter, this Sacred Penitentiary exhorts everyone to follow and hold the doctrine expounded by Benedict XIV in the Brief mentioned above, to which both Pius VI, in his Brief Laudabilem Maiorum suorum, given to the bishops of France on 20 September 1791, and Pius VII, in his Letters given to the bishops of Picenum on 11 June 1808, referred those same bishops for the sake of instruction when they had requested norms by which to direct the faithful in a similar contingency of the civil act. After all these things, it is easy to see that the practice hitherto observed concerning Matrimony, and especially concerning parish books, betrothals, and matrimonial impediments of every nature, whether established or admitted by the Church, is in no way altered.” Instruction of the Sacred Penitentiary, 15 January 1866.

The nuptial blessing consists in the prayers which are found in the Missal: Be propitious, O Lord, etc., and O God, Who by Thy power, etc., to be said before Deliver us, etc.; and also God of Abraham, etc., to be said before the blessing. This nuptial blessing cannot be separated from the Mass, so that it cannot be imparted outside it. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1893, Roman, responses to 3 and 4.

“The nuptial blessing which the Missal gives in the Mass for bridegroom and bride is always to be imparted in the Matrimony of Catholics, but within the celebration of Mass, according to the Rubrics, and outside the forbidden time, to all those spouses who, in contracting Matrimony, did not obtain it for any cause whatsoever, even if they ask for it after they have already lived in Matrimony for a long time, provided that the woman, if a widow, did not receive this blessing in other nuptials.—Moreover, those same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their Marriage are to be exhorted to seek it at the first opportunity. But it is to be explained to them, especially if they are neophytes or contracted validly before conversion, that the blessing pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity of the union.” Holy Office, 31 August 1881, General Decree.

“The Holy See exhorts the faithful to have supplied the parish priest’s nuptial blessing in Marriages celebrated clandestinely. It is asked whether only the solemn blessing which is found in the Missal is intended, or also the blessing of the ring?—Response. Affirmative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 February 1801.

“When the Vicar Apostolic of Sichuan asked that the response of the Sacred Congregation concerning the blessing to be supplied in clandestine Marriages be explained more clearly, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded that the blessing is to be given in all things and in every respect according to the form of the Roman Ritual, namely, also with the blessing of the ring.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 January 1805.

“1. Whether the prohibition of nuptials during the time of Advent and Lent is to be understood only of the Mass for the spouses and of the prayers placed in the Missal for the blessing of those marrying; or whether it also extends to the Marriage itself, which is celebrated with only the ceremonies and prayers that are found in the Ritual? 2. Whether, when the bishop grants permission to contract Matrimony during the times forbidden by the holy Council of Trent, the blessing of the spouses by the prayers and orations contained in the Mass for the spouses is also judged to be permitted? And insofar as the response is negative, whether the bishop can grant that faculty in a case?—Response. To 1: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second, provided the bishop’s permission is present. To 2: Negative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, Monte Albano.

“When several couples are joined at the same time, after the consent of each has first been received and each Marriage has been duly celebrated, and after the parish priest has said for each the form, I join you in Matrimony, etc., nothing prevents the blessings of the rings and the other blessings from being made in common by general words.” Holy Office, 1 September 1841.

“Whether, in nuptials which are called second nuptials, the blessing of the ring is to be omitted?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, response to 2.

“In the celebration of nuptials, outside a Sunday or another feast day of precept, or a day on which a double of the first or second class occurs, the Mass for bridegroom and bride, specially assigned at the end of the Missal after the other votive Masses, is to be said. But on Sundays and other feast days of precept, and also on days which exclude doubles, the Mass of the day is to be said with a commemoration of the Mass for bridegroom and bride, even on feasts of the first class, under a separate conclusion and in the first place after the other obligatory commemorations, if any are to be made.

“The Mass for the spouses, and in it the nuptial blessing, can be celebrated even in a case in which the spouses do not receive Holy Communion within this Mass.

“The same Mass, since it is a private votive Mass, is always to be celebrated, even if it is sung, without the Glory be to God on high and without the Creed, and with three prayers: namely, 1. the proper prayer of that votive Mass itself; 2. and 3. those of the occurring day, as in the Rubrics, title 7, no. 3, On Commemorations; and likewise at the end, Let us bless the Lord, and the Last Gospel of Saint John.

“But during forbidden times, nuptials can indeed be celebrated with the permission of the bishop, but without solemnity, and therefore privately, with the Mass and blessing omitted. Nor, during those same times, can a commemoration for the spouses be made in the occurring Mass.

“Yet, by virtue of the General Decree of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition given on 31 August 1881, the nuptial blessing is to be imparted outside the forbidden time to those spouses who did not obtain it for any cause whatsoever, and the Mass for bridegroom and bride is to be celebrated at the same time, on the days prescribed above.

“For the nuptial blessing placed in the Missal, if the spouses have requested it (otherwise they are not to be compelled to it, although they are to be duly exhorted), can never be separated from the Mass for bridegroom and bride itself, but must altogether be given within it.

“It is nevertheless to be noted that, if the woman is a widow and was blessed on another occasion, both the nuptial blessing and the proper Mass for bridegroom and bride are to be omitted.

“Notwithstanding any particular Decrees whatsoever to the contrary, which the Sacred Congregation of Rites declares by this General Decree to be revoked and to be regarded as of no force.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 June 1896, General Decree.

A priest is not bound to apply the Mass for the spouses unless he receives an alms from them. Holy Office, 1 September 1841.

“Whether the priest who blesses a Marriage, although he does not receive the alms, is obliged at the proper times to say the votive Mass designated for this purpose, or can say the Mass of the occurring Saint, adding the collect of that votive Mass.—Response. Let the prescription of the Rubric be observed as regards the kind of Mass, yet in such manner that the celebrant is free in his own mind to direct the spiritual fruit of the Mass in favor of the one furnishing the alms.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 January 1837.

“1. Outside the case of most grave illness in either of the contracting parties, can Matrimony be celebrated in a private house before an altar specially erected for this purpose? 2. Outside the said case, can it be celebrated in private oratories in which Mass is celebrated? 3. Can the nuptial Mass be celebrated in the said oratories?—Response. To 1: Provided for in the following. To 2: It is most fitting that Matrimony in the face of the Church be celebrated in a church. Nevertheless, it is not forbidden to local Ordinaries, if no danger threatens and praiseworthy causes concur, sometimes to permit it, according to their prudence, to be celebrated in private oratories in which Mass may be celebrated. To 3: Affirmative, the Rubrics being observed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1872, Barcelona.

“How is one to proceed when a member of the sect of Freemasons refuses to repudiate it and is joined in Matrimony with a Catholic woman? Can such a Marriage be blessed?

“Response. Let the decree already issued for a similar case on 28 June 1865 be given; it is of the following tenor: ‘As regards Marriages in which one of the contracting parties adheres to secret societies condemned by the Pontifical Constitutions, provided scandal is absent, the Ordinary, account being taken of the circumstances in particular cases, shall decree those things which he judges more expedient, every ecclesiastical rite, however, being excluded.’” Holy Office, 23 April 1873.

And concerning the same case, the same Holy Office responded on 21 February 1883: “The celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass is to be entirely excluded, unless the circumstances require otherwise.”

In the report on the state of the Church of Tabasco, submitted to the Sacred Congregation of the Council on 27 November 1897, the following is read under no. 1, Petition:

“In these regions it frequently happens that impious men, commonly called freethinkers, desiring to enter into Matrimony with Catholic women, refuse to make a previous confession because, as they explicitly admit, with an unbelieving heart they have rejected faith in the Sacrament of Penance and have denied the whole faith. I ask whether these men, worse than infidels, ought or can be admitted to contracting Matrimony, with great detriment and danger to the Catholic woman and the family.—Response. His Holiness is to be petitioned.—Then, in the Decree of 30 January 1867, His Holiness graciously granted the favor.” The cited Decree of 30 January 1867 reads as follows:

“1. What is to be done when a baptized man, but one who professes apostasy from the faith by word and heart and expressly asserts that he does not believe in the Sacraments of the Church, seeks Matrimony before the face of that same Church solely that he may satisfy the desire of the bride?

“2. What if the same man who seeks it is a member of the condemned sect of Masons or a similar sect, and although he has not wholly lost the faith, nevertheless refuses duly to renounce the sect?

“3. What if the same man who requests it has not cast off the faith, but refuses to profess it and to fulfill his Christian duties?

“The response was: To 1. Whenever the question concerns a Marriage between one Catholic party and another party who has so defected from the faith that he has enrolled himself in some false religion or sect, the customary and necessary dispensation is to be sought with the usual and known prescriptions and clauses. But if the question concerns a Marriage between one Catholic party and another who has cast off the faith but has not enrolled himself in any false religion or heretical sect, when the parish priest can in no manner impede a Marriage of this kind (which he is bound to strive with all his strength to do) and prudently fears that grave scandal or harm may arise from the denial of assistance at the Marriage, the matter is to be referred to the Most Reverend Lord Bishop, who, just as the opportune faculty is now granted to him, after examining all the circumstances of the case, will be able to permit the parish priest to be passively present at the Marriage as an authorized witness, provided that the Catholic education of all the offspring and other similar conditions have been wholly guaranteed.

“To 2. The Decree of 28 June 1865 is to be given, which is as follows: As regards Marriages in which one of the contracting parties adheres to secret societies condemned by the Pontifical Constitutions, provided scandal is absent, the Ordinary, account being taken of the circumstances in particular cases, shall decree those things which he judges more expedient.

“To 3. Let him consult approved authors, and especially Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 8, chapter 14, no. 5.” Holy Office, 25 May 1897. Cf. C. 1863.

“Can the words of the Decree of the Holy Office of 30 January 1867, ‘the matter is to be referred to the Most Reverend Lord Bishop, to whom, just as the opportune faculty is now granted,’ be extended to all bishops?—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Holy Office, 11 January 1899; M. E., vol. 11, p. 54.

“The Bishop of Bardstown explains that many Protestants, without any intention of embracing the Catholic religion, often solicit permission to give consent to contracting Matrimony either before one of his priests or before the bishop himself. It should be noted that in such circumstances the bishop and priests would act not as priests but as civil magistrates, which is permitted by the laws of the commonwealth. He now asks whether it is lawful for himself and his missionaries to preside over such Marriages.

“Response. If the question concerns a Marriage between two heretical parties, although intervention of this kind is not so reprobated that it can never be lawful, nevertheless it is commonly to be discouraged. But if one party is Catholic, after a dispensation has been obtained from the impediment of mixed religion and the usual clauses and conditions have been observed, it is lawful.” Holy Office, 20 December 1837.

“With what rite shall a priest assist at Marriages in which one party is non-Catholic? Is it lawful to pronounce the form, say the prayers, and bless the ring of the heretical bride?—Response. Negative.” Holy Office, 1 August 1821.

“The Sacred Congregation of Rites decrees that the blessing of a woman after childbirth ought to be given by the parish priest if he himself has been requested, but can be given by any priest if he likewise has been requested, in any church or public oratory, the superior of the church having been informed.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 13 June 1893, Roman.

“Whether, by force of the decree given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites itself on 12 September 1857, in the case of Moulins, response to 17, it is lawful to impart the blessing of a woman after childbirth, according to the Roman Ritual, to a woman in childbed whose offspring died without Baptism; or whether that blessing is to be withheld?—Response. The blessing is not to be denied.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 May 1895, Vicenza.

“The blessing after childbirth is not to be denied to a woman who seeks it because her offspring from a legitimate mixed Marriage was baptized among heretics, unless it is established that she consented or did not oppose it to the best of her ability.” Holy Office, 18 June 1873.

“Response. Only women who have given birth from a legitimate Marriage have a right to the blessing after childbirth.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 18 June 1859.

Cf. nos. 919, 957, 979.

“And among other things, do not omit continually and accurately to hand down and inculcate to the faithful committed to your vigilance the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Sacrament of Matrimony and concerning the indissoluble bond of Matrimony. For none of you is unaware that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a ratified Marriage of the faithful before consummation can be dissolved by the solemn profession of either spouse in some approved religious institute, or by a canonical dispensation which can be granted only by the Roman Pontiff and which is granted most rarely and only for the gravest causes. And you also know very well that the same Church, according to evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, clearly teaches that the bond of Matrimony can never be dissolved on account of the adultery of either spouse, or on account of heresy, or troublesome cohabitation, or affected absence from a spouse, but remains perpetually firm and indissoluble according to the very well-known pronouncement of inspired Adam, the oracle of Christ the Lord, the words of the Apostle, and the tradition of the Church, all of which you know very well. Indeed, this perpetual and indissoluble firmness of the matrimonial bond, not flowing from ecclesiastical discipline, is so great in a consummated Marriage both by divine and by natural law that it can never be dissolved for any cause, not even by the Roman Pontiff himself, even if conjugal fidelity is broken by the adultery of either spouse.” Pius IX, Letter Verbis exprimere to the Archbishop of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia and the Suffragan Bishops, 15 August 1859.

“67. By the law of nature the bond of Matrimony is not indissoluble; in various cases divorce properly so called can be sanctioned by civil authority.” Proposition of the Syllabus condemned by Pius IX.

“Marriages of Protestants dissolved by Protestant consistories cannot be regarded as dissolved; a sentence of non-Catholic assemblies, by which especially the nullity of Marriages is declared and the dissolution of their bond is intended to be effected, can obtain no force and absolutely no effect before the Church.

“The party released cannot be joined to a Catholic in Matrimony.

“Parish priests cannot approve such nuptials by their presence and confirm them by their blessing.

“Catholic spouses who, by the authority of a non-Catholic consistory alone, having shaken off the bond of the prior Marriage, have hastened to second nuptials before a non-Catholic minister, can be admitted to participation in the Sacraments if, repenting of the crime committed, they humbly seek pardon and produce true fruits of penance, the first of which must be that they separate from the second spouse if the first is still living.” Pius VII, Brief of 8 October 1803 to Karl Theodor von Dalberg, Archbishop of Mainz; C. 1286.

“After legitimate present consent, it is lawful for either party, even against the opposition of the other, to choose a monastery (as certain saints were called from their nuptials), provided that carnal intercourse has not occurred between them; and it is lawful for the other who remains, if, after being admonished, he is unwilling to observe continence, to pass to second vows. For since they had not been made one flesh together, one can very well pass to God and the other remain in the world.” Chapter Verum, 2, On the Conversion of Married Persons.

“...Moreover, because, although the woman M. was espoused to the aforesaid man A., nevertheless, as she asserts, she is still unknown carnally by him, We command that, if the aforesaid man has not known her carnally and she wishes to pass to the religious life, after sufficient caution has been received from her that within the space of two months she must either pass to the religious life or return to her husband, you absolve her from the sentence of excommunication by which she is bound; but if each passes to the religious life, let each restore to the other what he or she is known to have received from the other. Certainly, that which the Lord says in the Gospel, that it is not lawful for a man to dismiss his wife except on account of fornication, is to be understood, according to the interpretation of the sacred utterance, of those whose Marriage has been consummated by carnal intercourse, without which it cannot be consummated.” Chapter Ex publico, 7, same title. Cf. chapter Ex parte, 14, same title, where it is established that Matrimony is dissolved by religious profession, not by a resolve to observe chastity in the world.

“Your Fraternity intimated that, when one spouse passes into heresy, the one who is left desires to hasten to second vows; and by your letters you led Us to be consulted as to whether this can be done. Therefore, responding to your consultation, We distinguish—although Our Predecessor indeed seems to have thought otherwise—whether one of two unbelievers is converted to the Catholic faith, or one of two faithful persons lapses into heresy or falls into the error of paganism. For if one of the unbelieving spouses is converted to the Catholic faith, while the other either is altogether unwilling to cohabit with the convert, or is willing to do so only with blasphemy of the divine name, or so as to draw the convert into mortal sin, the one who is left will pass, if willing, to second vows; and in this case We understand that which the Apostle says: ‘If the unbeliever departs, let him depart; for a brother or sister is not subject to servitude in such circumstances.’ And likewise the canon in which it is said: ‘An insult to the Creator dissolves the law of Matrimony with regard to the one who is left.’ But if one of the faithful spouses either lapses into heresy or passes into the error of paganism, We do not believe that in this case the one who is left can hasten to second nuptials while the other is living, although in this case a greater insult to the Creator appears. For although a true Marriage exists between unbelievers, it is nevertheless not ratified; but among the faithful it exists as true and ratified, because the Sacrament of faith, once received, is never lost, but makes the Sacrament of Matrimony ratified, so that it endures for the spouses while that Sacrament endures.” Chapter Quanto, 7, On Divorces.

“You sought to be instructed by an Apostolic writing whether pagans who take as wives women related to them in the second, third, or a more remote degree ought, thus joined, to remain together after their conversion or to be separated from one another. Concerning this We respond altogether that, since the Sacrament of Matrimony exists among the faithful and unbelievers, as the Apostle shows when he says, ‘If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her’; and since a Marriage in the aforesaid degrees was lawfully contracted by pagans so far as concerns them, who are not bound by canonical constitutions (‘For what is it to us,’ according to the same Apostle, ‘to judge those who are outside?’), especially in favor of the Christian religion and faith—from the reception of which men can easily be called back because they fear being abandoned by their wives—the faithful who were joined matrimonially in this manner can freely and lawfully remain united, since Marriages are not dissolved by the Sacrament of Baptism, but crimes are forgiven. But because pagans, with regard to several women at the same time divide conjugal affection, it is not undeservedly doubted whether after conversion they can retain all of them, or which one from among all. But this seems absurd and inimical to the Christian faith, since from the beginning one rib was changed into one woman; and divine Scripture testifies that for this reason a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh: it did not say three or more, but two; nor did it say that he shall cleave to wives, but to a wife. Nor was it ever lawful for anyone to have several wives at the same time, unless it was granted to him by divine revelation, which is sometimes reckoned as custom and at times even as divine right; by which, just as Jacob is excused from falsehood, the Israelites from theft, and Samson from homicide, so also the patriarchs and other just men, who are read to have had several wives at the same time, are excused from adultery. Certainly this truthful judgment is proved also by the testimony of the Truth, Who testifies in the Gospel: ‘Whoever dismisses his wife, except on account of fornication, and marries another commits adultery’ [the printed text omits “except”]. Therefore, if another cannot by law be married after the wife has been dismissed, much less while she is retained; from which it plainly appears that plurality in either sex is to be reproved, since they are not judged by unequal standards concerning Matrimony. But he who, according to his rite, repudiated his legitimate wife, since the Truth in the Gospel has reproved such repudiation, will never be able lawfully to have another while she lives, even after being converted to the faith of Christ, unless after his conversion she refuses to cohabit with him, or, even if she consents, does not consent without insult to the Creator or without drawing him into mortal sin. In this case, restitution would be denied to her if she sought it, although unjust dispossession were established, because, according to the Apostle, a brother or sister is not subject to servitude in circumstances of this kind. But if she follows him when he is converted to the faith and she too is converted, before he takes a legitimate wife for the aforesaid causes, he will be compelled to receive her. Moreover, although according to evangelical truth he who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery, nevertheless the one who dismissed her will not be able to object to the dismissed woman that she committed fornication because she married another after the repudiation, unless she had committed fornication otherwise.” Chapter Gaudemus, 8, On Divorces.

The Pauline privilege persists even if, after the conversion of either spouse, consent is renewed. Holy Office, 20 September 1848, Vicar Apostolic of New Zealand; Zitelli, p. 120.

“1. Whether, for the purpose of dissolving a Marriage according to the privilege in favor of the faith granted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by the Apostle, the interpellation of the party persevering in unbelief is of divine law and therefore so necessary that, if it is neglected, there is plainly no place for dissolving the Marriage? Or does it pertain only to the judicial form and is required only that the dissolution be made lawfully, especially when it is otherwise established by morally certain indications that the other spouse wishes neither to embrace the faith nor to cohabit without insult to the Creator?

“2. Supposing that the first part is answered affirmatively, it is asked whether the inquiry concerning embracing religion alone suffices, namely, whether the party remaining in unbelief wishes to be converted or not, as some of the missionaries, relying upon the authority of Thomas Sánchez, think; or whether rather the interpellation as to whether the party persevering in unbelief at least consents to cohabit without insult to the Creator is also essential and absolutely required, so that, if it is omitted, the Marriage can be dissolved not only unlawfully but also invalidly?

“3. Whether the solemn expulsion of a wife effected by her husband, namely, by giving a writ of repudiation before the leading men of the village according to the laws of the kingdom, can take the place of an interpellation and be regarded as such, since it is most certainly established concerning the will of that husband, namely, that henceforth he by no means wishes to have the aforesaid woman as wife; or whether rather, no account being taken of the repudiation, even in those circumstances the twofold interpellation prescribed in law is required for the validity of the dissolution of the Marriage?

“4. It is asked how the missionary ought to conduct himself toward an unbelieving woman who, without any cause of adultery, was repudiated by her husband, likewise an unbeliever, who married another, when she asks to be baptized and there is a suspicion whether she is disposed in soul to return to her husband if perhaps he should afterwards recall her and consent to cohabit without insult to the Creator. Ought he first to question her concerning this matter and meanwhile defer Baptism until she is better disposed, even with danger of dying without Baptism? But what if she consents, though only with this condition, namely, when the concubine shall have been expelled?

“5. It is asked whether adultery gives unbelieving spouses, as it does Christians, an occasion for effecting a perpetual divorce, so that it is entirely open to the innocent party, when washed in the sacred font, either to bid farewell to the world or to pass life in the state of widowhood, although the other party wishes to be reconciled and to cohabit without insult to the Creator?

“6. When an unbelieving husband indeed permits his wife, already washed in the waters of sacred Baptism, to observe her religion and does not formally command anything that is a mortal sin, but so importunately entices her in the use of Matrimony to many grave things contrary to conjugal chastity that the woman is always in grave danger of sinning mortally, it is asked whether, in this case, the aforesaid woman can leave him and pass to other vows. But what if the danger comes not from the other spouse, but from others who are in the same house, for example, from a father-in-law who solicits his daughter-in-law to incest, or from a mother-in-law who is a most quarrelsome woman and most addicted to superstitions?

“Response. To 1: There is no place for dissolution of a Marriage contracted in unbelief, in the case in question, unless an interpellation has first been made, or unless, for legitimate causes, an Apostolic dispensation from the interpellation has been obtained.

“To 2: The unbelieving spouse is to be interpellated not only as to whether he wishes to be converted, but also, in the event that he does not wish to be converted, whether he wishes to cohabit with the faithful spouse without insult to the Creator, according to the provision of Innocent III, chapter Quanto, On Divorces.

“To 3: The interpellation is to be made even in the case in question, if it can be made; otherwise recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See in order to obtain a dispensation.

“To 4: Nothing prevents Baptism from being conferred upon the woman in question, provided that she is otherwise sufficiently instructed.

“To 5: A spouse converted to the faith and baptized can make a divorce as regards the marriage bed from an unbelieving spouse on account of adultery committed by him, although he seeks pardon and wishes to cohabit without insult to the Creator.

“To 6: The converted woman can depart from the unbelieving husband and pass to other vows, in the event that he draws her into grave sins against conjugal chastity (chapter Quanto and chapter Gaudemus of Innocent III, On Divorces). But if the drawing of the converted woman into mortal sin proceeds not from her unbelieving husband but from others who dwell in his house—a father-in-law, for example, or a mother-in-law—the faithful woman can, when other means are not available, withdraw herself from that house where she is drawn into sinning gravely; but she cannot dissolve the Marriage and pass to another.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1816, to the Pro-Vicar General of Western Tonkin.

“If a Marriage with a Catholic party should occur after the reception of Baptism, it will have to be investigated whether the canonical interpellation of the still-unbelieving spouse preceded, or whether at least a dispensation from that interpellation was granted by legitimate authority. Insofar as it is established that the interpellation was made or that a dispensation from it was granted, the first Marriage can no longer constitute a bond invalidating the second union; but insofar as neither the interpellation nor its dispensation preceded, the first Marriage will indeed stand in the way of the second, but the Ordinary must suspend judgment and refer the case with all its circumstances to the Holy See.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1883, no. 44; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1883, no. 45.

“What is to be thought concerning the Marriage of the said man with a Christian maiden, contracted without interpellation and dispensation, and what is now to be done?—Response. From the things set forth, the first Marriage contracted by the man in paganism with a pagan woman subsists; therefore, let the Most Reverend Lord Vicar Apostolic, the petitioner, take care, in the more prudent manner in which it can be done, to summon the parties before himself to set forth their rights, and, if he finds nothing to the contrary, let him oblige them to return to the first union.” Holy Office, 20 June 1858; Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 1816.

“There are pagans who, for the sake of conducting commerce, leave their own place for a time in order to betake themselves to other provinces at a distance of ten or fifteen days’ journey, and sometimes more, and there marry other wives while the first are living. One of these was recently converted to the faith together with his second wife; then, receiving word that his first wife grieved over his conversion and indeed exhorted him not to embrace the faith, he requested Baptism, promising that, content with the second, he would abandon the first absolutely and would in no way cohabit with her when he returned to his own country. A certain Chinese missionary assented to his wishes, although the faculty of dispensing from the interpellation had in no way been granted to him by the Vicar Apostolic; and, thinking that in this circumstance there was no room for doubt, he baptized this Christian together with the second wife and, after obliging them to renew their consent, joined them in solemn Matrimony. Afterwards that Christian, having returned, found the first wife changed and disposed in every way to embrace the faith. It is asked whether, in the proposed case, the Marriage entered into with the second wife is valid. The reason for our doubt is, on the one hand, that this missionary had no faculty of dispensing from the interpellation; on the other hand, however, several missionaries protest, admitting indeed that in this case the Marriage with the second wife was celebrated unlawfully, but not so certainly invalidly: both because, when the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was questioned by us on 3 January 1777 as to whether certain Marriages of this kind, celebrated through ignorance without a dispensation, were invalid, it gave no response, although it responded to other things; and because, according to Benedict XIV of holy memory, book 13, On the Diocesan Synod, chapter 21, article 6, most theologians assert that a judicial interpellation can lawfully be omitted whenever it is judged that it will be of no utility; the Supreme Pontiff, however, did not reject this opinion as false, but declared it only not sufficiently safe in practice. But in the proposed case the interpellation seemed useless to them, since the will of the first wife was clearly established.—Response. In view of the circumstances concurring in the fact, the spouses in question are not to be disturbed; but let missionaries beware of granting a dispensation from the interpellation of a spouse if they lack such a faculty.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1787.

“Whether, when Matrimony has been delayed for a notable time on the part of the faithful party after the interpellation was made or after a dispensation from it was obtained, a new interpellation or a new dispensation is necessary? And insofar as the response is affirmative, what interval of time ought to intervene between the first and second interpellation, or between the first and second dispensation from it?—Response. Negative insofar as an interpellation was made; affirmative after a year in the case of a dispensation obtained at the beginning.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 June 1820, to D. Escodeca, Apostolic Missionary in Sichuan.

“The interpellation is to be made after Baptism.” Holy Office, 13 April 1859; 21 November 1883. For a grave cause, and with a special faculty obtained from the Apostolic See, it can also be made before Baptism. Holy Office, 3 June 1874.

“...We decree that those who before conversion had several wives according to their customs and do not remember which one they received first, after being converted to the faith, may take one of them whom they wish and contract Matrimony with her by words of the present tense, as is customary; but those who remember which one they received first, dismissing the others, shall retain her.” Paul III, Constitution Altitudo Divini consilii, 1537, for the West Indies.

“...Since therefore, as We have learned, the Indians while remaining in their unbelief are permitted several wives, whom they repudiate even for the slightest causes, it has consequently occurred that those receiving Baptism have been permitted to remain with that wife who is baptized together with her husband; and because it very often happens that she is not the first spouse, both ministers and bishops are consequently tormented by the gravest scruples, judging that this is not a true Marriage. But because it is most harsh to separate them from the wives with whom the Indians themselves received Baptism, especially because it would be most difficult to find the first spouse, therefore We, wishing benignly to provide for the state of the said Indians with paternal affection and to free the bishops and ministers themselves from scruples of this kind, by Our own motion, from Our certain knowledge, and from the fullness of Apostolic power, by Apostolic authority and the tenor of the present letters declare that Indians baptized in the manner set forth above and to be baptized in the future can remain with the wife who was or will be baptized with them as with a legitimate wife, the others being dismissed, and that a Marriage of this kind legitimately subsists between them, etc.” Pius V, Brief Romani Pontificis, 2 August 1571; A. S. S., vol. 26, p. 150.

“Therefore, since it often happens that many unbelievers of either sex, but especially of the male sex, after contracting Marriages according to a pagan rite, are captured by enemies from Angola, Ethiopia, Brazil, and other regions of the Indies and driven from the boundaries of their native lands and their own spouses into the most remote regions, to such an extent that neither they themselves nor the captives who remain in their native land, if they are afterwards converted to the faith, can, as is fitting, admonish the unbelieving spouses separated by so great a distance of places as to whether they wish to cohabit with them without insult to the Creator, either because sometimes access even for messengers is not open to hostile and barbarous provinces, or because they are altogether ignorant into which regions they were carried, or because the very length of the journey presents great difficulty; therefore We, considering that unions of this kind contracted between unbelievers are indeed judged true, yet not so ratified that, when necessity urges, they cannot be dissolved, and having compassion with paternal piety upon the infirmity of such peoples, by Apostolic authority and the tenor of the present letters grant full faculty to each and every Ordinary of the said places, and to parish priests of the Society of Jesus approved for hearing confessions by the superiors of that Society and sent to or admitted into the said regions for the time being, to dispense with any Christian faithful of either sex dwelling in the said regions and later converted to the faith who had contracted Matrimony before receiving Baptism, so that any one of them, while an unbelieving spouse survives and without the latter’s consent being sought or a response awaited, can lawfully contract Marriages with any faithful person, even one of another rite, solemnize them in the face of the Church, and, after they have subsequently been consummated by carnal intercourse, remain in them as long as they live; provided that it is established, even summarily and extrajudicially, that the spouse absent as stated above cannot lawfully be admonished, or that, having been admonished, did not signify his or her will within the time fixed in the same admonition. We decree that these Marriages, even if it afterwards becomes known that the prior unbelieving spouses were unable, being justly impeded, to declare their will and had even been converted to the faith at the time the second Marriage was contracted, must nevertheless never be rescinded, but shall be valid and firm, and that the offspring to be received therefrom shall be legitimate.” Gregory XIII, 25 January 1585. Cf. Constitution of Benedict XIV, In suprema catholicae Ecclesiae, 16 January 1745; C. 1309.

“...There are several among the Christians who, in the time of paganism, sold their own wives to pagans, afterwards embraced the faith, received sacred Baptism, and in good faith entered into a new Marriage with Christian women without any prior interpellation, whether because they were ignorant of its necessity, or because the wife who had been sold was too far distant, or because they did not know where she now dwelt, or finally because they feared that on account of the interpellation they would be ill-treated by the second husband and accused before the governors concerning the Christian religion. It is asked: 1. Is a Marriage made in these circumstances valid? 2. Whether and when does the right of dispensing from the aforesaid interpellation belong to the Vicars Apostolic of this region, especially if the Christian has received children from the second Christian wife? But if it does not belong to them, it is humbly requested. 3. When these women thus sold migrated to provinces in which the number of Christians abounds, but cannot be found and there is no word concerning them, ought ignorance of the fact whether perhaps they became Christians before the seller passed to second nuptials to impede the dispensation? 4. Finally, in the hypothesis in which these women can be admonished, does it suffice to exhort them once, either personally or through another, to become Christians, saying nothing concerning the Marriage, so that, if on this occasion the aforesaid women are unwilling to be converted, it is lawful for the faithful party to pass to new nuptials?—Response. To 1, 2, and 3: Petition is to be made to His Holiness for the granting of an Indult according to the Brief of Gregory XIII of the year 1585 and the Instruction of the Holy Office of the year 1760, which is to be transmitted; after this Indult has been obtained, the Vicar Apostolic can use the faculty of dispensing according to the form of the aforesaid Brief of Gregory XIII and the Instruction. To 4: Negative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 January 1777, to the Missionaries of the Province of Sichuan in China.

“1. Under the name of a legitimate impediment, by reason of which the faithful spouse is dispensed from the interpellation of the unbelieving spouse, does there fall the mere presumption of the husband’s shamelessness, namely, that just as he sold his wife the first time, it seems to be feared that, after recovering her, he would dare to sell her a second time also? 2. Does there fall the mere presumption that the unbelieving party is unwilling to return because, namely, during the preceding cohabitation, either on account of a difference of temperaments or for other causes, both disagreed with one another and were troubled by continual dissensions? 3. Does there fall the mere presumption that the unbelieving husband, because he has already passed to other nuptials, is unwilling to reject the second wife in order to cleave again to the first; or, if perhaps he wishes to receive the first again, is nevertheless unwilling to reject the second, but wishes to retain both at the same time? 4. Does there fall the mere fear of Christians, namely, that the unbelieving party, learning from the interpellation made to him that Christians are present in such a place, can consequently bring harassment upon the Christian religion?—Response. To 1, 2, and 3: Negative. To 4: In a case of this kind, let the Apostolic See be consulted.” Clement XIV in the Congregation of the Holy Office, 23 November 1769, to the Vicars Apostolic of Shaanxi and Shanxi.

“When Christians make the interpellations of a prior unbelieving spouse, if the unbelieving spouse responds that he wishes to receive his faithful consort, they then ask him whether he wishes to be converted and whether he at least consents to cohabit peacefully without insult to the Creator. But if the unbelieving party immediately responds that he is no longer willing to receive the prior faithful spouse or to return to that spouse, they then ask nothing further, because they fear that the pagans may become more indignant and blaspheme against the Christian religion. It is therefore asked whether the faithful party can be permitted to contract Matrimony with another faithful person, even if in the interpellation of the prior unbelieving spouse the question was omitted as to whether he wishes to be converted and whether he at least consents to cohabit together without insult to the Creator. But if Your Holiness should judge that the omission of the said questions—whether the unbelieving spouse wishes to be converted and whether he wishes at least to cohabit without insult to the Creator—renders the interpellation null or insufficient, so that by force of an interpellation of this kind the faithful party cannot validly contract another Marriage with some faithful person, then the aforesaid Vicar Apostolic humbly petitions that Your Holiness sanate in the root the many Marriages which were contracted in the Vicariate of Sichuan after an interpellation made without the said questions.—Response. Gregory XVI, having weighed the things set forth, benignly sanates in the root and convalidates the Marriages contracted as above in the Vicariate of Sichuan with omission of the questions, as is set forth in the supplicatory petition, just as if the interpellations had been made in the Marriages contracted.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 17 January 1836, Vicar Apostolic of Sichuan.

“Whether the inquiry concerning embracing religion alone suffices, namely, whether the party remaining in unbelief wishes to be converted or not, ... or whether rather the interpellation as to whether the party persevering in unbelief at least consents to cohabit without insult to the Creator is also essential and absolutely required, so that, if it is omitted, the Marriage can be dissolved not only unlawfully but also invalidly?—Response. The unbelieving spouse is to be interpellated not only as to whether he wishes to be converted but also, in the event that he does not wish to be converted, whether he wishes to cohabit with the faithful spouse without insult to the Creator, according to the provision of Innocent III, chapter Quanto, On Divorces.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 5 March 1816; Holy Office; Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 25 January 1886.

“Certain persons recently converted to the faith interpellate the unbelieving spouse as to whether she wishes to be converted or at least to dwell peacefully. She responds that she indeed wishes to do so but is detained by a second husband or by a creditor, who do not permit her to depart. It is asked whether in this case the converted spouse can pass to other nuptials.—Response. Affirmative: namely, the convert in question, if he has not legitimately been dispensed by the Apostolic See, is bound by a divine precept to make an interpellation once in the present case to the other spouse; but he can make it several times from mere charity. But after the convert has fulfilled this divinely enjoined condition, if the pagan wife has not returned to him within some just and reasonable space of time, the aforesaid convert can lawfully and validly enter into other nuptials, but with a Christian woman, provided that the man is not the cause of the impediment by which the woman is detained.” Holy Office, 12 June 1850, Vicar Apostolic of Western Cochinchina; C. 1320, 1333, 1362.

“It often happens that, of two unbelievers, one is converted to the faith, while the other indeed is then unwilling to be converted but consents to cohabit with the faithful person without insult to the Creator and without drawing him into mortal sin, and indeed promises that he too will afterwards embrace the faith, which for some special reason he judges it necessary to defer for some time. Therefore, the faithful person does not dismiss the unbeliever, but they continue to cohabit as spouses, and this for a long time and even for some years. But afterwards the unbeliever, having changed his will, not only is unwilling to be converted but attempts to draw the faithful person into the worship of idols, or departs and no longer consents to dwell with him, and indeed himself passes to other nuptials. It is asked:

“1. Whether, in this case, the faithful person who is abandoned can also depart and pass to other nuptials, and whether the privilege promulgated by the Apostle has place here: ‘If the unbeliever departs, let him depart’?

“2. Whether this has place only when the unbeliever departs in hatred of the faith, or also when he departs on account of discord or another cause diverse from the faith?

“3. Whether the faithful person can also pass to other nuptials when the unbeliever has departed from him for any cause whatsoever and it cannot be known whether he is still alive or not?

“4. Whether a faithful person who, by dispensation, validly contracted Matrimony with an unbeliever can pass to other nuptials if the unbeliever departs, or is unwilling to cohabit, or draws him into mortal sin?

“5. Whether, and for how long a time, a faithful person can cohabit with an unbeliever after conversion without being deprived of the power of passing to other nuptials?

“Response. To 1: Affirmative in the case in question.

“To 2: Since the favor of the faith stands on the side of the converted spouse, he can use it for any cause whatsoever, provided that it is just, namely, provided that he did not give the other spouse a just and reasonable motive for departing (for example, adultery), yet in such manner that only then is the yoke of the matrimonial bond with the unbeliever understood to be dissolved when the converted spouse (the other refusing after the interpellation to be converted) passes to other vows with a faithful person.

“To 3: An interpellation is first to be made, by which the unbelieving spouse is notified as to whether he wishes to be converted; from this interpellation the Apostolic See dispenses for just causes.

“To 4: If a faithful person, after a previous dispensation, contracted Matrimony with an unbeliever, he is judged to have contracted it under the explicit condition, namely, provided that the unbeliever wishes to cohabit with him without insult to the Creator; therefore, if the unbeliever does not observe the aforesaid condition, the remedies of law are to be employed so that he may observe it; otherwise they must be separated as regards the marriage bed and cohabitation, but not as regards the bond. Consequently, in the case in question, while the unbelieving spouse survives, the faithful person cannot pass to other vows.

“To 5: One converted to the faith is not understood, at the very moment of conversion, to be freed from the bond of a Marriage contracted with an unbeliever who is still surviving, but at that time he merely acquires the right of passing to other nuptials—though with a faithful spouse—and this if the unbelieving spouse, after interpellation, refuses to be converted. Moreover, only then is the conjugal bond dissolved, when the converted spouse passes in effect to other nuptials. If a pagan convert before the reception of Baptism has several wives and the first refuses to embrace the faith, then he can legitimately retain any one of them, provided that she becomes faithful; but in this case the contracting parties must renew mutual consent before the parish priest and witnesses.” Clement XIII in the Congregation of the Holy Office, 5 August 1759, to the Bishop of Cochinchina; Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 January 1807, Vicar Apostolic of Sichuan.

“The refusal of the education of the offspring in the Catholic religion is equivalent to insult to the Creator.” Holy Office, 14 December 1848.

An unbeliever converted to the faith, when the unbelieving spouse departs after the interpellation, can marry an unbeliever by Apostolic dispensation. By it, when the impediment of disparity of worship ceases, one marrying in this manner “is to be said to be freed from the bond of the prior union just as if he had married a faithful person.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 28 May 1846.

“It is altogether forbidden for Christians to marry a pagan; but if, after a dispensation from disparity of worship has first been obtained from the Holy See, Marriages of this kind should sometimes happen to be made, it is known that such a Marriage will be indissoluble as regards the bond and can be dissolved only as regards the marriage bed, if canonical grounds acknowledged by the ecclesiastical judge are present. Therefore, while that unbelieving man lives, even if he is a concubinarian, a Christian woman will never be able to enter into a second Marriage. But if the question concerns the pagan wife of some pagan concubinarian who is converted, then, after the interpellation has been made as above, if he refuses to be converted or to cohabit without injury to the Creator and consequently to desist from concubinage—which certainly cannot be maintained without injury to the Creator—she will be able to use the privilege granted in favor of the faith. Generally, if the conversion of the spouse preceded the Marriage with the unbeliever entered into after an Apostolic dispensation, the converted party can in no manner enjoy that privilege granted in favor of the faith; but if the Marriage preceded the conversion, then the converted party will be able to use that privilege, those things which must be observed being observed, as has been said....” Holy Office, 4 July 1855.

“If a faithful person, having obtained a dispensation, contracted Matrimony with an unbeliever who, taking no account of the promise made in contracting the Marriage, after some time draws the faithful spouse into sin, or is unwilling to live with her except with insult to the Creator, or even departs, the remedies of law are to be employed so that he may keep the promise made; or, if he refuses to keep it, they must be separated as regards the marriage bed and habitation; but as long as he lives, the faithful party cannot pass to other vows.” Holy Office, 1 August 1755.

“...If a Marriage entered into with an unbeliever was convalidated by a dispensation, it must both be and be regarded as indissoluble, nor indeed will there be any power which can dissolve a Marriage of this kind; for this is a matter which surely admits no doubt, since it is a dogma of the Christian religion that the knot of a valid and consummated Marriage is indissoluble.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 15 February 1781.

“In the case of a Marriage to be dissolved by virtue of the privilege in favor of the faith promulgated by the Apostle, only these two things are to be regarded, concerning which the interpellation must be made: 1. Whether the unbelieving party wishes to be converted. 2. Whether he at least wishes to cohabit without insult to the Creator; no further account being taken of whether either adultery or repudiation preceded or not.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 January 1797.

“The responses or decrees, the one of the Supreme Inquisition dated 5 August 1759 and the other of this Sacred Congregation dated 17 January 1797, are by no means in conflict with one another.... For in the case proposed by the Bishop of Cochinchina in the year 1759 ... it was asked, moreover, whether the privilege of the faith likewise remained unimpaired for the faithful party even if the unbeliever departed from him for other causes independent of his conversion and faith; and a negative response was given if the faithful party, after a long time of peaceful cohabitation following conversion, furnished the unbelieving party a just and reasonable cause for departing—for example, by adultery—and for this reason it was added: ‘provided that the faithful party did not give a just and reasonable motive for departing.’

“Conversely, in the Decree of this Sacred Congregation of the year 1797, the question concerned a case in which the adultery of the faithful party had been perpetrated before his conversion, repudiation having followed from it, and it was asked whether the party who was already adulterous and repudiated, if he afterwards embraced the Christian faith and the unbelieving party refused to cohabit with him, could use the privilege granted in favor of the faith and pass to other nuptials. And it was rightly answered: affirmative, only the interpellation having first been made, and no further account being taken of whether either adultery or repudiation had preceded or not, since the preceding stain of adultery was to be judged removed by conversion and Baptism, and the unbelieving party persisted unreasonably and unjustly in the adopted resolution of by no means being reconciled to the faithful party. Therefore, if in this case the unbeliever, having received the interpellation, refuses to receive the faithful party and to dwell with that party without injury to the Creator, it is not just that on account of this unreasonable turning away the faithful party should remain in a state of voluntary continence with danger of sinning.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 January 1807.

“1. It is asked whether a dispensation from the bond of Matrimony, which the Church is accustomed to grant, the requisite conditions being posited, after the Baptism of one party, can be applied in a case in which, after the Baptism of one, the two parties did not cease to have intercourse and consummated the Marriage just as before the Baptism?

“2. Can a Marriage validly contracted before Baptism between two unbelievers be dissolved when, after the Baptism of one, the unbelieving party indeed promises not to trouble the baptized woman in the profession of Christianity, but he refuses to dismiss other illegitimate wives or is unwilling to promise that he will observe the laws of the Gospel concerning monogamy?

“3. In the preceding case, if the Marriage can be dissolved, is the baptized woman bound to have recourse to a dispensation for the dissolution of the Marriage?

“4. Can the baptized woman have recourse to a dispensation when she foreknows that, after the dissolution of the Marriage, the education of the offspring received will be entirely in the power of her unbelieving husband?

“5. If a dispensation cannot be given, can the legitimate wife who becomes a Christian, after conversion, cohabit with her unbelieving husband who at the same time retains other illegitimate wives in the same house?

“6. Can a Christian maiden, after obtaining a dispensation from disparity of worship, legitimately contract Matrimony with an unbeliever who does not promise that he will abstain from polygamy in the future?

“7. Bertha, while still an unbeliever, contracts Matrimony with an unbeliever as soon as she reaches the years of puberty; and after two years she leaves her husband, no offspring having been received, and both hasten to other nuptials; indeed, the man takes several wives and becomes a polygamist. But now the woman, advanced in age, having heard the missionary, wishes to be baptized: can that woman be dispensed from the bond of the Marriage contracted with the first husband, without his consent being sought, and thus remain with the second husband, by whom she received offspring?

“8. Among certain unbelievers there prevails a detestable custom according to which a man, after committing adultery with the wife of another, administers a remedy to the adulterous wife, the effect of which will be to bring death upon the legitimate husband by the very fact that he afterwards has intercourse with his wife. Hence it is asked whether the legitimate husband, who is unwilling to cohabit with his wife after the adultery has been committed, if he is converted to the faith, can be dispensed from the bond of his Marriage contracted in unbelief and marry another wife, even if the unbelieving adulterous wife herself also wished to be baptized?

“The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers responded to the several petitions in the following manner, these things nevertheless having first been noted: 1. The petitions written above are understood as concerning the privilege granted by Christ the Lord in favor of the faith and promulgated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12 ff. [printed: 8:12].—2. This divine privilege consists in this: that, while a Marriage legitimately contracted and consummated in unbelief stands, if one of the spouses embraces the Christian faith while the other, hardened in his unbelief, refuses to cohabit with the convert, or indeed is willing to cohabit, but not without insult to the Creator—that is, not without danger of subversion of the faithful spouse, or not without cursing the most holy name of Christ and contempt for the Christian religion—then it is entirely open to the convert to pass to other vows, after the unbeliever, having been interpellated, either absolutely refuses to cohabit with him or shows that he has the intention of cohabiting with him, but not without insult to the Creator.—3. According to the same divine privilege, the spouse converted to the faith is not understood at the very point of conversion to be freed from the bond of the Marriage contracted with the unbeliever who is still surviving; but then, if the unbelieving spouse refuses, he acquires the right of passing to other nuptials, though with a faithful spouse. Moreover, only then is the conjugal bond dissolved, when the converted spouse passes in effect to other nuptials.

“Hence: To 1. If it should ever happen that, while a Marriage of two unbelievers stands, one of the spouses, converted to the faith, receives Baptism and cohabits peacefully and without insult to the Creator with the unbelieving spouse, if afterwards the unbeliever, although the faithful party had not given a reasonable motive for departing, not only refused to be converted, but also, having broken faith concerning peaceful cohabitation, either departed out of hatred for religion, or was unwilling to cohabit without insult to the Creator, or attempted to draw the faithful person into mortal sin or unbelief, it will be entirely open to the faithful spouse to pass to other vows.

“To 2. If the question concerns the pagan wife of some pagan concubinarian who is converted, then, after the interpellation has been made, if he refuses to be converted or to cohabit without injury to the Creator, and consequently to desist from concubinage—which certainly cannot be maintained without injury to the Creator—she will be able to use the privilege granted in favor of the faith.

“To 3. When the unbelieving spouse, having been duly interpellated, either has absolutely refused to cohabit with the spouse converted to the faith, or has shown that he has the intention of cohabiting with the convert but not without insult to the Creator, or without being willing to abstain perpetually from concubinage, then the converted spouse, after the judgment of the ecclesiastical superior has first been obtained, must separate from the unbeliever and will be able, if willing, to use the privilege or divine dispensation granted in favor of the faith, and thus to pass to other vows with a faithful person.

“To 4. If it is altogether impossible for the converted spouse to withdraw the children from the power of the other spouse who is hardened in unbelief, and it is not lawful, after a juridical and formal interpellation has first been made, to cohabit with that spouse, either because that spouse is unwilling to cohabit or is willing to cohabit only with insult to the Creator, then, after the judgment of the ecclesiastical superior has first been obtained, it will be entirely open to the convert to pass to other vows; nevertheless, the obligation by which the convert is always bound to take care, if in any way possible, for the Catholic education of the children remains firm.

“To 5. Provided for in the preceding responses.

“To 6. Negative; and in similar cases let missionaries who, by Apostolic grant, possess the faculty of dispensing from disparity of worship beware lest they grant a dispensation unless the danger of polygamy has been removed.

“To 7. Since the question concerns, as is supposed, a legitimate Marriage contracted in unbelief, let the woman be separated from the second man altogether and in effect; and if, on account of the gravest causes and a real impossibility, she cannot be separated as regards habitation, let her at least be separated as regards the marriage bed and familiarity, having no further dealings or carnal commerce with the same man. Then let her be instructed in the customary manner, especially by making known to her that, upon receiving Baptism, she is not dispensed from the obligation which she has of returning to the first husband; and insofar as, after due instruction, it is established that she is moved to receive Baptism by a true motive of religion, let her be admitted to Baptism at once. After it has been conferred, let the first husband be interpellated in every respect and asked whether he wishes to be converted or whether he will lead his life with her without insult to the Creator; and let the Most Reverend Lord Vicar Apostolic inform the Sacred Congregation concerning all things resulting. But if it is established at least summarily and extrajudicially that the spouse left in unbelief is so absent that he cannot lawfully be admonished, or that, having been admonished, he did not signify his will within the time fixed in the admonition; or if the unbelieving spouse can indeed be approached but cannot be interpellated concerning the other party, who has now become Christian, without evident danger of grave harm being inflicted upon her or upon Christians, and these harms cannot be removed with necessary circumspection and caution, the Vicar Apostolic shall report all these things to the Apostolic See, expressing the names and setting forth the gravest causes for obtaining a dispensation from the dissolving impediment of disparity of worship, if the alleged second husband still persists in unbelief, and with all the circumstances of the matters, persons, and fact narrated, so that in a matter of such grave moment it may be possible to proceed safely.

“To 8. A Marriage contracted even in unbelief is indissoluble by its nature, and can be dissolved as regards the bond only by virtue of the privilege in favor of the faith granted by Christ the Lord and promulgated by the Apostle Paul, when one of the spouses embraces the Christian faith and the other not only utterly refuses to embrace the faith but also is unwilling to cohabit peacefully with the converted spouse without injury to the Creator. Therefore, there is no place for dissolution as regards the bond of a Marriage legitimately contracted in unbelief when both spouses have received Baptism or intend to receive it.” Holy Office, 11 July 1866, Vicar Apostolic of Natal.

“Whether the words of Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:15, ‘But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart,’ are also to be understood of catechumens; or rather, whether Titius, a catechumen, can marry Bertha, a catechumen repudiated by her unbelieving husband on account of religion?—Response. Negative, because the Marriage is not dissolved except through Baptism.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 January 1803.

“Likewise, the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and although separation of the marriage bed and cohabitation can be made between spouses on account of adultery, heresy, or other causes, nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another Marriage.” Profession of Faith for Orientals prescribed by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.

“A woman, separated from her husband as regards the marriage bed by force of a sentence, would wish to undertake a certain public office to sustain her life. But the government does not permit this unless she seeks a divorce. She would wish to seek it, but, in her intention, always with the bond remaining intact. The parish priest, who is also her confessor, asks whether she can be admitted to the Sacraments and seeks light or counsel concerning the remaining matters, as below.—Response. In the case, nothing else is to be counseled to the penitent woman except that she abstain, under grave obligation, from seeking the divorce.” Sacred Penitentiary, 5 January 1877, to a parish priest of France.

A certain woman suffered grave losses in monetary affairs and the goods of the family on the part of her husband, who fled away and abandoned her and their little daughter. She has already obtained a separation of goods, but she is bound to sustain several grave losses unless she seeks a divorce.

“The said woman expressly professes the doctrine of the Church concerning Matrimony and that matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges alone; she expressly promises that, after obtaining a civil divorce, she will never use it to attempt new nuptials. Can she with a safe conscience proceed before the civil judges to obtain a civil divorce, for the purpose of freeing herself from the aforementioned losses and disposing freely of her goods and affairs?

“Response. Negative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 14 January 1891.

“M. di C. married a young woman nine years ago, by whom he had three children.

“Unfortunately, the woman very soon adopted scandalous conduct. Having left her husband, she begot an adulterous child and attempted to conceal the fault. During the pregnancy she even entered the husband’s house for a short time, in order to render an action repudiating paternity impossible for him.

“In order to repudiate such paternity, to prevent the introduction of new bastards into his family, to safeguard his interests and those of the three children, the husband, in view of the state of civil legislation, has no other means whatever than to request a civil divorce.

“Meanwhile, being a fervent Catholic, he by no means intends that this rupture of the merely civil bond should be regarded as an injury to the religious bond which united him to that unfortunate woman. Much less does he think of suggesting that he can become free and contract a new union; he thinks only of using the means which the legislation in force allows him in order to secure a complete separation of life, body, and goods from his wife and to preserve his own interests, those of the family, and especially those of the three children.

“Under these conditions he asks whether it is lawful for him to introduce an action for civil divorce against that woman.

“Response. It is not lawful.” Sacred Penitentiary, 7 January 1892.

“Edward, on account of the notorious and scandalous adultery of his wife, from which spurious offspring also arose, obtained from the ecclesiastical judge a sentence for separation of the marriage bed.

“But in order that such a sentence of the ecclesiastical judge may obtain civil effects, especially as regards repudiation of paternity concerning adulterous children and their exclusion from the share and goods of the legitimate offspring, civil law supplies no other effective means than civil divorce.

“Therefore Edward, wishing to provide for the honor and good of his family, considers having recourse to an action for obtaining a civil divorce. Nevertheless, he by no means thinks of breaking the sacramental bond or claiming for himself or for the unworthy woman the freedom of new nuptials; he is, moreover, prepared to confirm and declare such an intention authentically before the parish priest or bishop.

“Since it has often been declared by the Holy See that civil marriage signifies nothing other than a mere and bare ceremony or form which can establish no bond or obligation of conscience, Edward likewise regards civil divorce as nothing other than such a bare ceremony, which civilly destroys the effects which the mere ceremony of the civil contract had previously established. Hence, by a similar right, civil divorce seems to him neither to add anything to nor to subtract anything from obligations of conscience. Consequently, since he has regard to the merely civil and external order, he expressly rejects and excludes any injury or violation of the sacramental bond when he seeks the effects of civil divorce.

“Since such is the disposition of his mind, and especially in view of the sentence of the ecclesiastical judge concerning separation of the marriage bed, Edward, in order to provide for the quiet of his conscience, earnestly asks whether it is lawful for him thus to approach a lay tribunal to obtain a civil divorce under the clauses and restrictions indicated above.

“Response. Let the petitioner consult approved authors.” Sacred Penitentiary, 30 June 1892; M. E., vol. 7, part 2, pp. 224–225.

“...We therefore must not depart from the uniform judgment of Our Predecessors and from ecclesiastical discipline, which do not approve Marriages between parties who are both heretics or between one Catholic party and another heretical party, and much less so in a case in which a dispensation in some degree is needed.... From the words of the letter of Benedict XIV cited above, you will certainly have understood that the discussion concerns dispensations which have place no less when the question concerns simple Marriages between a Catholic party and a heretical party than when it concerns degrees of relationship in which the contracting parties would stand to one another. And in fact, that case concerning which the Pontiff spoke with the Bishop of Breslau in the year 1750 concerned dispensations in degrees; concerning these, as We have related, he expressed his mind in terms of mere tolerance consequent upon those things which were previously known to him. But this is precisely what We cannot do, because, under the hypothesis then existing, the practice of dispensing in degrees for mixed Marriages was long-established in that place. Opposed to it is the rule adopted in other more recent cases by Our Predecessors and by Ourselves, namely: since a dispensation is a grace, it is reserved for the faithful who live under obedience to the Church; whence it ought not to be extended to heretics, who, by not acknowledging her authority, thereby render themselves unworthy of a similar indulgence. Or, at most, a dispensation in the degrees can be granted by bishops in some particular case which is not stricter than those contained in the formula and in which an urgent and public cause concurs, but not some private advantage or the unbridled impulse of the contracting parties....” Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechelen, and to the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

“...But indeed, you say, because heretics in Hungary contract Marriages among themselves even within prohibited degrees by force of royal permission alone, it seems to me that it can rightly be asked: what is to be pronounced concerning the validity of Marriages of this kind? But unless a legitimate dispensation from the impediments, introduced by the authority of the Church, has intervened, it is decreed clearly enough in the same declaration of Benedict XIV that they are invalid. For he establishes that, even in the Provinces of the Federated Netherlands themselves, Marriages between heretics, even if the form prescribed by Trent was not observed in their celebration, are to be regarded as valid, provided that no other canonical impediment stands in the way. By this exception he manifestly shows that, if some other canonical impediment is present, such as that which arises from prohibited degrees, Marriages of this kind are not valid....” Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council to the Bishop of Rožňava, 20 August 1780. Cf. Benedict XIV, Constitution Magna nobis, 29 June 1780; Constitution Ad tuas manus, 8 August 1748; Constitution Singularis nobis, 9 February 1750.

“Can the woman N. N., rendered sterile by the defect arising from the excision of both ovaries, be permitted lawfully to enter into Matrimony or not?—Response. The matter having been maturely and long considered, the Marriage of the woman in question is not to be impeded.” Holy Office, 3 February 1887.

“Can the woman N. N., whose two ovaries and uterus were removed by a surgical operation, be admitted to contracting Matrimony?—Response. The Marriage is not to be impeded.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

The prohibition which the Sacred Congregation places upon an impotent party, in causes of impotence, against contracting other nuptials without having obtained permission from the same Sacred Congregation, does not introduce an invalidating impediment. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 6, p. 518; vol. 11, p. 595.

“When spouses left in unbelief, the Marriage not yet having been consummated, are unwilling to embrace the faith, can their Marriages contracted below the age of puberty be regarded as mere betrothals for the future by a spouse not yet converted to the faith?—Response. Provided that it is established that no impediment of natural or divine law was present, and especially that the contracting parties gave their consent, they are not betrothals but true Marriages.” Holy Office; Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 25 January 1886.

“If all the circumstances concur in establishing the death of the prior spouse before the second nuptials whose validity is in question, the judge cannot pronounce a sentence against the second Marriage, for its nullity would not be established. But if the question concerns a Marriage to be contracted, it can never be permitted until the death of the prior spouse has been established with certainty.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1883, no. 42; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1883, no. 43. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 18, p. 363 ff.; vol. 24, p. 747 ff.; C. 1366.

“Whether, and with what precautions, a new Marriage is to be permitted to those husbands who, after ten or fourteen years, have been unable to obtain word of their own wife.—Response. The lapse of any length of time does not suffice for spouses to be permitted to enter into new nuptials, unless it has first been established with moral certainty that the prior spouse has died, according to chapter In praesentia, 19, On Betrothals.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 21 April 1788.

“Most Blessed Father.—The Bishop N. N., prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, explains that in his diocese, and also elsewhere, there are not a few young women ecclesiastically married to soldiers who took part in Africa in the Battle of Adwa and concerning whom no word has since been received, notwithstanding the minute searches made by the Italian Government; and therefore they are presumed dead. Now, since these women are in relations with other young men with whom they desire to be united in legitimate Matrimony, they seek a document of freedom. The undersigned Bishop, fearing grave disturbances from the denial of such a document, especially the danger of a merely civil contract, makes humble petition to know how he ought to proceed in this matter.—Response. Provided that the question concerns men who certainly took part in the Battle of Adwa, and, after suitable investigations have been carried out, it cannot be indubitably known whether the man actually fell dead, in view of the special circumstances occurring in the case set forth and of a valid presumption of death, the Ordinary will be able to permit passage to other nuptials.” Holy Office, 20 July 1898.

In this Rescript it is said, will be able to permit, because the question concerns a great probability; but the death of the man is not established with complete certainty.

“...Moreover, the Most Eminent Fathers observed that the missionaries, with respect to the Marriages of the unbelievers of that region, seem also to have come to this opinion: that in doubt one must stand for the invalidity of the Marriage, and indeed to such an extent that the party who seeks Baptism ought to be repelled from Baptism unless that party either separates from the other party or renews the Marriage with that party, even if the one who seeks Baptism is in good faith and it does not stand in that party’s way that the Marriage cannot be renewed. These things certainly cannot easily be approved. For you know that in Marriages the contrary principle is in force, namely: in doubt one must stand for the validity of the Marriage. Although it is sometimes equitable to depart from this principle—namely, when, as very often happens in Marriages of unbelievers, the question concerns a fact, whether the Marriage was ever contracted or not—nevertheless, even in this case one must not immediately hasten to the contrary principle. For first it must be seen whether the Marriage concerning whose existence the missionary doubts can deservedly claim possession in its favor. If this occurs, the missionary would judge wrongly that he ought to stand for invalidity, since the rights of possession are to be preserved until the contrary is clearly established. The Most Eminent Fathers wished this to be observed all the more because, from the things which you relate, it appears that cases of this kind are very frequent. For you say that it often happens that the woman who seeks Baptism is in good faith and therefore judges herself to be a true and legitimate wife; and likewise that the others suffer no scandal from her union with her husband, and therefore they too judge her to be in a just union; while the unbelieving man, although he says nothing openly, nevertheless neither contradicts the opinion of the woman nor that of the people, and deals with her as with a true wife. These things, moreover, are of such a kind that they seem to vindicate for their union the name and possession of Matrimony.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 18 December 1872; C. 1300.

“Moreover, in this matter let the judge know that Matrimony is of itself a certain solemn and public fact which must always be judged valid unless evident reasons demonstrate its nullity. Therefore, every effort and diligence must indeed be employed so that those reasons may be collected, but a judgment against a Marriage is never to be pronounced unless their totality excludes every prudent doubt concerning the existence of the impediment.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1883, no. 40; A. S. S., vol. 18, p. 381.

A doubt having been proposed concerning the Marriage of polygamous unbelievers—whether it was to be regarded as valid, since it was not sufficiently established that consent to a true Marriage had been given—the Holy Office responded on 17 August 1898: One must stand for the Marriage, whether consummated or non-consummated, which was celebrated first in time with those ceremonies employed according to the custom of the country which, according to the common estimation of the region, sufficiently express the mutual present consent of the spouses. But if, after suitable investigations have been made, it is not established that the contracting parties or the young women in question gave true present matrimonial consent, and therefore the validity of the Marriage celebrated first in time is prudently doubted, provision was made by the Decree of 18 May 1892, response to 2, which reads as follows:

“If, after a diligent examination has been instituted, the Marriage with the first woman, who has already been baptized, is found valid, the pagans in question are altogether bound to return to her. But if she has not been baptized, by force of article 2 of Formula I it will suffice to interpellate her as to whether she wishes to be converted. But where she is unwilling to be converted, or the validity of the Marriage with the first woman is seriously doubted, they can marry any woman, provided that she is baptized, consent having been renewed.”

“That only two can be coupled and joined by the bond of Matrimony, as Christ so teaches, and that, when either spouse has died, second and indeed subsequent nuptials are lawful, is the dogmatic doctrine of the Catholic Church.

“But as regards second and subsequent nuptials, since the matter in question is not rarely subject to difficulties and frauds, the Holy See has therefore diligently taken care—now by general Constitutions, but more often by responses given in particular cases—that freedom to enter into new nuptials should be so preserved for each person that the aforesaid unity of Matrimony would not be brought into danger.

“Hence the enactments of the sacred Canons by which, in order that one may lawfully pass to other vows, it is required that the death of the spouse be established with certainty, as in chapter Dominus, On Second Nuptials, or that certain news of the death be received, as in chapter In praesentia, On Betrothals and Marriages. Hence also those things which are handed down more fully in the Instruction Cum alias, sanctioned by Clement X on 21 August 1670 and inserted into the Roman Bullarium, concerning the examination of witnesses for Marriages to be contracted in the Curia of the Most Eminent Vicar of the City and of the other Ordinaries, especially those things more directly pertinent to the matter which are found there in nos. 12 and 13.

“And these things would indeed suffice abundantly if, in conducting causes of this kind, complete and absolute certainty concerning the death of the other spouse could always be had. But because the almost infinite vicissitudes of cases do not permit this—which was wisely observed in the praised Instruction by these words: ‘If, however, testimonies of this kind cannot be obtained, the Sacred Congregation does not intend to exclude other proofs which can be admitted by common law, provided that they are lawful and sufficient’—it follows that, even though the general principles established beforehand remain in force, cases not rarely occur in which the judgments of ecclesiastical superiors are accustomed to remain suspended in discerning and establishing true and just proof. Indeed, because of that very great facility which in our age has been created for traveling to even the most remote regions, men wander through almost every part of the world; and the multitude of cases of this kind has so increased that recourses concerning this matter are most frequently made to this Supreme Congregation, not without consequent inconvenience to the parties, for whom, amid the information and instructions which, as they say, must be sought and sent according to the occasion, much time passes without their being able to hasten to the desired vows.

“Therefore, this same Sacred Congregation, greatly desiring to meet necessities of this kind and at the same time considering that ecclesiastical superiors, especially in distant mission territories, lack suitable aids by which they can extricate themselves from grave difficulties, judged it expedient to issue a fuller Instruction in which, with those things already handed down in no way abrogated, rules should be indicated which this same Sacred Congregation is accustomed to follow in cases of this kind, so that by their help judgments can be rendered even without the necessity of recourse to the Holy See, or certainly, if recourse must be had, the state of the question may be set forth so clearly that the sentence need not be impeded by a longer delay. Therefore:

“1. When a question concerning the death of a spouse is instituted, it must be noted in the first place that an argument from his mere absence, however long—although it is admitted almost everywhere by civil laws—is by no means held by the sacred canons to be sufficient for a just proof. Hence Pius VI, of holy memory, wrote in rescript to the Archbishop of Prague on 11 July 1789 that the mere absence of a spouse and his complete silence are not a sufficient argument for proving death, not even when the absent spouse, having been summoned by a royal edict—and the same is further to be said if it was done through public newspapers—gave no indication of himself. For the fact that he did not appear, the same Pontiff says, could no more have had death as its cause than his contumacy.

“2. Hence, according to the prescription of the same sacred canons, an authentic document of death must altogether be sought with diligent effort, namely, one drawn from the registers of the parish, hospital, or military, or even, if it cannot be obtained from ecclesiastical authority, from the civil government of the place in which the person is supposed to have died.

“3. Moreover, sometimes this document cannot be obtained; in that case it will have to be supplied by the depositions of witnesses. There must be at least two witnesses, under oath and worthy of faith, who testify from a fact of their own, knew the deceased, and are in agreement with one another concerning the place and cause of death and the other substantial circumstances. Moreover, if they are relatives of the deceased or companions on a journey, in an occupation, or even in military service, their testimony is to be valued all the more highly.

“4. Sometimes only one witness is found to be examined; and although by every law the testimony of one is not admitted for full proof, nevertheless, lest the spouse who greatly desires to enter into other nuptials be compelled to lead a celibate life, the Supreme Congregation does not absolutely reject even the testimony of one in deciding cases of this kind, provided that the witness is endowed with the conditions enumerated, is liable to no exception, and, moreover, his deposition is supported by other and weighty corroborating evidence. And if other extrinsic corroborating evidence can by no means be collected, nevertheless it must be certain that nothing is found in his testimony which is not congruous and altogether probable.

“5. It also happens that witnesses altogether worthy of faith testify that, at a time not open to suspicion, they heard of the death of the spouse from the attestation of others, but these persons cannot be examined, either because they are absent, because they have died, or for some other reasonable cause. Then statements from the mouth of another, insofar as they correspond to all the other circumstances concurring in the case, or at least to the more urgent ones, are judged sufficient for a prudent judgment that death followed.

“6. But experience has shown more than once that not even one witness such as is described above is found. In this case proof of death will have to be sought from any conjectures, presumptions, indications, and circumstances whatsoever, certainly by diligent and very cautious investigation; namely, so that, after many have been collected from here and there and their nature weighed—according as they are more urgent or lighter, or are joined by a nearer or more remote connection with the truth of the death—the judgment of a prudent man can thereby be moved by the greatest probability, or moral certainty, to affirm the same death. Therefore, when in individual cases a just proof is had from conjectures of this kind must be left to the prudent judgment of the judge; nevertheless, here it will not be beside the point to indicate several sources from which those conjectures, whether more urgent or even lighter, can be collected and had.

“7. Therefore, first of all, those presumptions are to be investigated which regard the person of the one asserted to be dead and which can certainly be obtained easily from the relatives, friends, neighbors, and persons acquainted in any way with either spouse. In their examination, let it be asked, for example:

“Whether the one whose death is in question was imbued with good morals; whether he lived piously and religiously and loved his wife; whether he had no cause for concealing himself; whether he possessed stable goods or could hope for others from his relatives or from elsewhere.

“Whether he departed with the assent of his wife and relatives; what his age and health were at that time.

“Whether he ever wrote, and from what place; and whether he revealed his will to return as soon as possible; and let other indications of this kind be collected.

“Other indications can be collected from the circumstances of things according to the various cause of absence in the following manner.

“If he departed on account of military service, let the commander of the soldiers be asked what he knows concerning him; whether he took part in some battle; whether he was captured by enemies; whether he deserted the camp or had dangerous assignments, etc.

“If he undertook a journey for the sake of commerce, let it be investigated whether grave dangers had to be overcome by him during the journey; whether he set out alone or accompanied by several persons; whether seditions, wars, famines, and pestilences supervened in the region to which he betook himself, etc., etc.

“If he undertook a maritime journey, let diligent investigation be made as to the port from which he departed; who were his companions on the journey; where he went; the name of the ship which he boarded; who was the master of that ship; whether it suffered shipwreck; whether the company which perhaps insured the ship paid its price; and let other circumstances, if any, be weighed diligently.

“8. Report also, assisted by other corroborating evidence, constitutes an argument concerning death, but under these conditions, namely: that it be confirmed by at least two witnesses worthy of faith and under oath, who testify concerning a reasonable cause of the report; whether they received it from the greater and sounder part of the people, and whether they themselves judge rightly concerning the same report; and that there be no doubt that it was stirred up by those for whose advantage inquiry is being made.

“9. Finally, if there is need, investigation through public newspapers is not to be omitted, all necessary indications of the person being given to the editor, unless, on account of special circumstances, it is judged otherwise by sounder and more prudent counsel.

“10. This Sacred Congregation is accustomed to weigh all these things diligently according to the circumstances of the cases; and since the matter is most grave, after all things have been weighed in an equal balance and, moreover, after the votes of several theologians and jurists have been heard, it finally pronounces its judgment as to whether the death in question is sufficiently established and nothing prevents passage to other nuptials from being granted to the petitioner.

“11. From all these things ecclesiastical superiors can derive a certain norm which they may follow in judgments of this kind. But if, notwithstanding the rules noted thus far, the matter still seems uncertain and intricate to them, they must have recourse to the Holy See, all the acts being transmitted together with the recourse, or at least diligently set forth.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 1868.

“We prohibit unions of blood relatives from being made, because both divine and secular laws prohibit them. For the divine laws, treating of this matter, not only cast out those who proceed from such unions but call them accursed; while the laws call such persons infamous and repel them from inheritance. Therefore We, following Our Fathers, mark them with infamy and judge them to be infamous.” First Ecumenical Lateran Council, year 1123, canon 5.

This is against the heresy of the incestuous. Those were so called who contended that the unions of relatives were not unlawful and who reckoned the degrees of consanguinity according to the norm of civil law. Against them, Leo IX in the First Roman Synod and at Rheims, Nicholas II at Rome, Alexander II at Rome in 1063 and especially at Rome in 1065, in which he issued the Decretal which is found in cause 35, question 5, chapter 2, Urban II at the Synod of Troyes, and the Second Ecumenical Lateran Council, canon 17, defend the canonical law and doctrine: “We altogether prohibit unions of blood relatives from being made; for the statutes of the holy Fathers and the sacrosanct Church of God detest incest of this kind, which, at the instigation of the enemy of the human race, has almost passed into use.” But the Fourth Lateran Council reduced the prohibited degrees to the number four.

“In the case of an intermediate stock (of the second degree) constituted by two persons who are themselves blood relatives (in the second degree), whether there exists and must be declared in the supplicatory petition for a dispensation one impediment of consanguinity, namely, only that which proceeds from this nearer intermediate stock; or whether, in addition, there are and must be declared two other impediments arising from the more remote common stock (of the fourth degree) through the lines joined in the intermediate stock.—Response. Negative to 1; affirmative to 2.” Holy Office, 11 March 1896.

“1. When two betrothed persons stand in the equal second degree of consanguinity, and their grandfather and grandmother themselves had contracted Matrimony in the second degree of consanguinity, so that the betrothed persons are also bound in the fourth degree of consanguinity, must a dispensation necessarily be sought and obtained from a triple impediment, namely, in the second and in the double fourth degree? ... 3. When two brothers married two sisters, are their offspring bound by a double or quadruple bond of consanguinity in the equal second degree?—Response. To 1: Affirmative, as in the decision of 11 March 1896.—To 3: Only by a double impediment of consanguinity in the equal second degree.” Holy Office, 22 February 1899; M. E., vol. 1, p. 53.

Whether dispensations concerning affinity from licit or matrimonial intercourse in which no mention was made of illicit or anti-matrimonial intercourse are valid.—Response. “The dispensations in the cases set forth are valid.” Sacred Penitentiary, 7 June 1842. And this response was declared general by Letters of the same Penitentiary, 10 December 1874. Cf. C. 1236.

Clement XI, Brief Delata nuper, 9 April 1712, established that in this matter the Letters of Alexander VIII of 30 May 1690 were to be observed, and likewise his own Letters of 2 and 29 April and 11 June 1701 issued concerning the matter.

“There is no doubt concerning the power of the Pontiff to grant a dispensation in the first degree of affinity in the direct line, even from licit intercourse between a stepfather and stepdaughter; and, on the other hand, it is not expedient that dispensations of this kind be granted.” Holy Office, 4 September 1743.

“1. Can an unbelieving man who, while still situated in unbelief, carnally knew, whether publicly or privately but illicitly, a certain woman, whether faithful or unbelieving, after receiving Baptism validly and lawfully contract Matrimony with a blood relative of the same woman known by him, if that relative received Baptism either before or after the intercourse in question?—2. And insofar as the response is affirmative, concerning which there is grave doubt, can the same unbeliever converted to the faith, after the death of his legitimate unbelieving wife, contract Matrimony with a blood relative, up to and including the fourth degree, of the same deceased wife, whether that relative received Baptism before or after the death of the aforesaid unbelieving wife?—Response. To 1: Negative.—To 2: Negative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 August 1852.

“In these missions it often happens that a younger brother marries the wife of his deceased elder brother and is afterwards converted; they can be separated only with the greatest difficulty on account of offspring already received or the danger that they may be turned away from the faith. Nevertheless, their Marriage seems to be invalid, since it is altogether prohibited by law, even under penalty of death. But after Baptism, in order to convalidate their Marriage, does it suffice that they merely renew their consent?—Response. After a dispensation has first been granted from the impediments of disparity of worship and of the first degree of affinity, by means of the faculties which the missionaries enjoy, consent is to be renewed; but if evils that would supervene are detected, they are to be left in good faith.” Holy Office, 20 September 1854.

“Affinity which is naturally contracted in unbelief from both licit and illicit intercourse is not an impediment to Marriages entered into in unbelief; nevertheless, it becomes an impediment to Marriages which are entered into after Baptism, upon whose reception unbelievers become subjects of the Church and consequently subject to her laws.” Holy Office, 26 August 1891.

“Whether sodomy, of whatever species it may be, gives rise to impediments of consanguinity, affinity, or public propriety; and whether it must be expressed in the petition for a dispensation, whenever it occurs, and in the case of spiritual kinship?—Response. Negative to all.” Sacred Penitentiary, 2 July 1885.

“Whether the provision of the Council of Trent, chapter 2, session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony, decreeing that in the Sacrament of Baptism spiritual kinship is contracted between the sponsor and the father and mother of the one sponsored, has place in a Baptism which, on account of necessity, was performed without solemnities? “Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 5 March 1678. Cf. Marc, Alphonsian Moral Institutions, 2nd ed., no. 2022. Cf. no. 459.

“Sponsors who are employed in supplying the solemnities of Baptism do not contract the impediment of spiritual kinship.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 September 1779; Sacred Congregation of the Council, 13 April 1669; 2 October 1687.

An unconfirmed sponsor at Confirmation “does not contract spiritual kinship.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 13 June 1654; Lucidi, C. 2, § 3, no. 142.

Sponsors do not contract with the parents as many impediments invalidating Matrimony as the number of their children whom they sponsor in the same Sacrament; they are bound with them by only one impediment, unless they sponsored the same child, or several children, both in Baptism and in Confirmation. Sacred Penitentiary, 14 January 1881, according to the practice of the Curia; Holy Office, 29 April 1894.

“Whether, in the Formulas by which the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of spiritual kinship is customarily granted, the case of spiritual kinship between the baptizer and the baptized, not foreseen in those Formulas, is comprehended?—Response. Negative; that is, those who enjoy the faculty granted through the aforesaid Formulas cannot dispense from the impediment of spiritual kinship between the baptizer and the baptized; and this is to be communicated to all whom it may concern and henceforth expressly stated in the Formulas. But if any Marriages have perhaps hitherto been contracted with a dispensation of this kind granted by force of those same Formulas, in order to settle every question concerning their validity, petition is to be made to His Holiness that he may deign to declare those Marriages sanated in the root.” Holy Office, 3 December 1902.

“Is adoption to be regarded as a canonical impediment invalidating Matrimony in the kingdom of Tonkin, when, according to the laws and customs of that kingdom, a person not yet of his own right can adopt, nor is it required that the adopter be more than twenty-five years old, just as little account is taken of whether the person is male or female; eunuchs themselves also can adopt, and no account is taken of the age of the adopter relative to the person adopted; nor is the presence of the adopted person required, or that person’s consent in the adoption, so that even absent boys and girls incapable of true consent can be adopted as sons and daughters?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 January 1802.

“Since in the kingdom of France the right of adoption has now been legally received, it is asked whether the canonical impediment of adoption which renders Matrimony null ought also to have place?—Response. Affirmative, if the question concerns an adoption legitimately entered into.” Sacred Penitentiary, 17 May 1822.

The Holy Office judged the same on 23 February 1853 for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and the Sacred Penitentiary for France.

“Whether the impediment of public propriety is contracted from clandestine betrothals.—Response. Affirmative.” Sacred Penitentiary, 10 September 1834.

“Whether a ratified but non-consummated Marriage of pagans produces public propriety, or is judged to be an invalidating impediment after their conversion? For example, Titius, a pagan, married Maevia, a pagan, but did not consummate the Marriage; after the death of Maevia, Titius becomes a Christian: can he marry Bertha, the sister or female cousin of Maevia, who has become a Christian from being a pagan? And is the same true of the betrothals of pagans as of a ratified Marriage?—Response. The impediment does not subsist.” Holy Office, 19 April 1837.

“...A ratified and non-consummated Marriage is dissolved only by the solemn profession of vows, and not by the profession of simple vows. Therefore, in a case in which a man, according to the law issued on 19 March 1857 by the Sacred Congregation on the State of Regulars, must emit simple vows before solemn profession, either he or his spouse will be able to have recourse to the Apostolic See to obtain the faculty that solemn vows may be emitted at once.” The same Sacred Congregation, 25 January 1861.

“Are those dwelling in those Protestant places where Baptism is doubtful to be regarded as unbelievers, so that the invalidating impediment of disparity of worship is judged to exist between Catholics and them?—Response. 1. With regard to heretics whose sects’ Rituals prescribe the conferral of Baptism without the necessary use of the essential matter and form, the particular case must be examined.—2. With regard to others who baptize validly according to their Ritual, the Baptism is to be judged valid. But if doubt persists even in the first case, the Baptism is to be judged valid in relation to the validity of Matrimony.—3. But if it is known with certainty that there is no Baptism according to the present custom of that sect, the Marriage is null.” Holy Office, 17 November 1830.

“His Holiness Gregory XVI, in an audience held on 20 December 1831, ... ordered that the following be added concerning the third case of the aforesaid Decree of 17 November 1830, which regards the certain nullity of the Baptism of the heretical party: recourse is to be had in individual cases.” Cf. Francis Sentis, Decrees of Clement VIII, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870, p. 135; A. S. S., vol. 25, pp. 258, 260.

“The Marriage of those concerning whom it is certainly established that they were not validly baptized is to be regarded as the Marriage of two unbelievers. But the Marriage of those of whom only one party is known to have been validly baptized, while the other was baptized invalidly, is to be regarded as a Marriage affected by the invalidating impediment of disparity of worship, and therefore as null. Finally, if, after a diligent and accurate examination, the doubt concerning the valid reception of Baptism cannot be removed, and it is established as a fact that Baptism was received, Baptism of this kind is to be judged valid in relation to the validity of Matrimony, according to the Decree of 17 November 1830. But if it is known with certainty that there is no Baptism according to the present custom of that sect, the Marriage is null.” Holy Office, 3 April 1878; A. S. S., vol. 24, p. 574 ff.; C. 649.

“...1. I ask whether, in relation to the validity or nullity of a contracted Marriage, the conferral or non-conferral of Baptism, when it is unknown, is to be determined from the principle of presumption?...—2. When the conferral of Baptism is unknown, is the principle of presumption rightly applied, in relation to the validity of a contracted Marriage, in the following articles?

“1. If the non-Catholic party or parties had parents belonging to a sect which rejects Baptism, Baptism is not to be presumed.

“2. The same is to be resolved if they had parents belonging to a sect which does not admit the Baptism of infants, or in which it is not conferred except upon adults—for example, upon those who have already attained the thirtieth year of age—as is the case in the sect of the Baptists.

“3. The same is likewise to be resolved if they had parents who, while living, professed that they wished to belong to no sect and that they honored the Supreme Being, as they say, by upright morals rather than by any particular worship.

“4. If they had parents belonging to a sect which regards Baptism as necessary, or in which it is at least ordinarily administered, and if those parents were zealous in their sect, Baptism is to be presumed. But what if the parents were negligent in their sect, or belonged to a sect which indeed does not reject Baptism but does not regard it as necessary and in which it is not ordinarily administered? In either or both cases, is Baptism to be presumed or not?

“5. If, according to the sect of only one parent and that parent’s zealous disposition of mind as described above, the presumption favors Baptism, and that parent in fact and undoubtedly had the principal part in the education of the offspring, Baptism is to be presumed.

“Resolve the same if, after an inquiry has been made, it is unknown or is not sufficiently established whether that parent had the principal part; for Baptism is to be presumed in relation to Matrimony, since a union once entered into is to be judged valid so long as an obstacle does not disclose itself. But what if it is certainly established that the sect and disposition of mind of the parent who in fact and undoubtedly had the principal part in the education did not favor Baptism, while the sect and disposition of mind of the other parent favored it?

“6. In a case in which no presumption militates in favor of Baptism, the rule is to be applied: a fact is not presumed, but must be proved. The application of this rule in these United States, where among non-Catholics there are very many who care little or nothing about conferring Baptism upon their infants, ought perhaps with greater reason to have place than in many other regions.

“The aforesaid questions are proposed as principal ones for this reason: that from their solution there may be had a norm according to which it is possible to proceed safely, especially in these cases: 1. When, of two non-Catholic parties separated from each other as above, one requests to be received into the bosom of the Church and desires to pass to other nuptials. 2. When the Catholic party, separated as above from the non-Catholic party, requests to be joined to another, or, already joined to another, desires to be admitted to the Sacraments.

“Response. To 1: Affirmative, but after an investigation has been carried out in each case.

“To 2, namely: When the conferral of Baptism is unknown, is the principle of presumption rightly applied, in relation to the validity of a contracted Marriage, in the following articles? They responded: Affirmative with regard to the first, second, and third articles, and with regard to the first part of the fourth and the first part of the fifth number; but in this last article, after the words had the principal part, let there be added: and the other spouse is not known to have been positively opposed to the conferral of Baptism, Baptism is to be presumed. In the remaining cases noted in the second part of number five, recourse is to be had to the Holy See, with all the circumstances of things, places, and persons, and the other matters relevant to the affair, having been set forth. To 6: Provided for in the preceding responses.” Holy Office, 1 August 1883, to the Bishop of Savannah.

“...We judge that great ruin will be brought upon the Catholic Church by unions of this kind. For if the mother, with whom the first education of the offspring rests, is alien to our sacred rites, what is not to be feared concerning the religion of the children? For she, solicitously considering their eternal salvation according to her maternal love, will omit no occasion by which she may imbue them with the doctrine of her sect, which she regards as alone true. And if, as will very frequently happen, she mocks her husband as though he were pursuing empty things when he fasts and abstains from meat on vigils, or washes away the stains of his soul in the Sacrament of Penance, or approaches the sacred table of the Eucharist, it must certainly also happen little by little that contempt for the most sacred things will glide into the minds of the children. But the things which they seize upon from a tender age are most difficult to uproot from their minds.

“And conversely, if the mother indeed practices the Catholic religion but the father is attached to some heretical sect and playfully mocks, in the sight of the children, the words and deeds of his wife which pertain to religion, will not the childish mind of the children, for whom the authority of the father has very great weight, begin to doubt somewhat concerning the truth of the religion which the mother follows? What if a serious dispute about religion arises between husband and wife? Will not the children, whose mind is driven this way and that by the alternating arguments in their parents’ dispute, gradually fall into religious indifferentism, than which nothing is more deadly, nothing more hostile to religion, since it utterly destroys every religion, whether true or false? It is also evident that by these unions a wider field is opened to the Lutheran heresy in which it can spread itself more broadly. For girls imbued with Lutheran error, who now are permitted to establish a domicile with their husbands only in certain places, if they marry Catholic men, must follow them wherever it pleases them to dwell. Moreover, the newly married woman will admit more persons of her sect into the husband’s household; nor can the ministers of the false sect, who visit her for the sake of greeting her, be prohibited from his house. They surely will not fail in their ministry, by which they confirm their sheep in error and suggest to the mother the art by which the seeds of good doctrine may wither in the minds of the children from the very time when they begin to spring forth.

“Therefore, the effort hitherto employed by Catholics to eliminate from these regions which they hold the errors condemned by the Church will have been in vain, since it will thereafter be lawful with impunity to profess the same poisonous doctrine in the midst of those same Catholics. To this is added that if either spouse who is Catholic dies, leaving children in their earliest age, the other, heretical spouse will be free to infect those children with the poisonous opinions of that spouse’s sect. You see, therefore, Our beloved son, what the Catholic religion can promise itself concerning the offspring born of these unions, and whether it is not greatly to be feared that through the unions by which they intend to propagate the Catholic faith, heresy may be propagated more widely; and, what is worst of all, that religious indifferentism, by which an entrance is very often opened to impiety, may acquire greater strength day by day....” Clement XIII, 16 November 1763, to the Bishop of Argerota. Cf. C. 1426.

“But some of you have also petitioned Us that We grant them the power to impart dispensations or permissions for contracting between persons of whom one professes the Catholic faith and the other heresy.... The Apostolic See has been accustomed to impart this permission only with very great reluctance and much caution, in order to remove the aforesaid danger insofar as possible, and only when some grave and generally public cause intervenes. But it has never granted, especially in Europe, that bishops, even when they petition most insistently, may give the same permission.... Therefore, if We now had to respond to this petition, Our response certainly could not depart from the constant rule of this Holy See and from the example and manner of acting of Our Predecessors.” Brief of Pius VII, 17 February 1809, to the Bishops of France.

“Concerning this matter, only the following has been tolerated in some places: parish priests who, in order to avert graver injuries to the Catholic cause, were compelled to offer their presence at the contracting of these nuptials, might indeed permit them to be effected in their presence—provided, of course, that no other canonical impediment was present—so that, after hearing the consent of both parties, they might afterward, in accordance with their office, record in the book of Marriages the act validly performed; but they were always to beware of approving by any act of their own such unlawful Marriages, and much more of mingling sacred prayers or any ecclesiastical rite with them.” Pius VIII, 25 March 1830, to the Bishops of the Rhine Provinces.

“...And to this matter altogether pertain the most ancient canons severely prohibiting mixed unions themselves and the more recent enactments of the Supreme Pontiffs, concerning which Benedict XIV, of immortal memory, speaks in his Encyclical Letters to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Poland and in the most celebrated work entitled On the Diocesan Synod. Hence, moreover, it has come about that this Apostolic See, to which alone belongs the power of dispensing from an impediment of mixed religion of this kind, if, relaxing something of the severity of the canons, it has sometimes permitted these mixed unions, has done this with very great reluctance and only for grave causes, and always under the express condition that the necessary and suitable cautions be given beforehand: namely, that not only could the Catholic spouse not be perverted by the non-Catholic spouse, and indeed that the Catholic spouse should know himself bound to withdraw the non-Catholic from error according to his powers, but also that all offspring of either sex to be procreated from these mixed Marriages must be educated altogether in the holiness of the Catholic religion. These cautions can never be remitted or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with all effort to preserve safe and intact, and against which those undoubtedly sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these mixed nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion. Moreover, in granting dispensations of this kind, in addition to the stated cautions, which must always be premised and from which dispensation can never in any way be given, conditions were also added that these mixed unions must be celebrated outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without any other ecclesiastical rite. These conditions principally have this purpose: that there may never be effaced from the minds of Catholics the memory both of the canons which detest mixed Marriages of this kind and of that most constant solicitude by which Holy Mother Church has never ceased to turn and deter her children from contracting those same mixed unions to the ruin of themselves and of their future offspring.... Our same Most Holy Lord established that, in granting these dispensations, the formula of that Rescript is to be used in which, although the aforesaid conditions concerning the celebration of these mixed unions outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without another ecclesiastical rite are not expressly declared, they are nevertheless implicitly contained. And His Holiness earnestly admonishes, exhorts, and urges in the Lord all archbishops, bishops, and other Ordinaries of places, and commands them that when in the future they obtain from this Holy See, through the formula of this Rescript, the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of mixed religion, they never cease, in executing the same faculty, to watch with every care and diligence that the conditions concerning the celebration of these mixed Marriages outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without another ecclesiastical rite are also diligently fulfilled. But if in some places the sacred Prelates should recognize that the same conditions cannot be fulfilled without graver injuries and evils arising therefrom, in this case alone, in order to avoid greater injuries and evils of this kind, His Holiness entrusts it to the prudent judgment of those same sacred Prelates that they themselves—provided that the cautions concerning removal of the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse, the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse to be procured according to his powers by the Catholic spouse, and the complete education of all offspring of either sex in the holiness of the Catholic religion are always preserved safe and firm and observed with the greatest diligence—judge when the aforementioned conditions concerning contracting these mixed nuptials outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest cannot be fulfilled at all, and when, in entering these mixed unions, the custom of employing the rite legitimately prescribed in the diocesan Ritual for contracting Marriages can be tolerated, the celebration of Mass nevertheless always being excluded, and all the circumstances of things, places, and persons being most diligently weighed, and the conscience of the Prelates themselves being burdened concerning the truth and gravity of all the circumstances. His Holiness, however, greatly desires that those same sacred Prelates preserve with the greatest possible silence and secrecy an indulgence—or rather a tolerance—of this kind, committed altogether to their judgment and conscience.” Instruction of the Secretariat of State to all Ordinaries of places, 15 November 1858. Cf. C. 1428.

“...Therefore, the following matters seemed to you worthy of explanation. And first, you ask what is to be understood by the words upon which, in the praised Instruction, the faculty or tolerance of blessing mixed Marriages rests and, as it were, is bound, namely, for avoiding graver evils and injuries. Without doubt, graver evils and injuries arise therefrom: 1. Whenever, because a blessing has been denied to mixed Marriages, the complaints and hatred of heretics against the faithful and the ecclesiastical laws would easily be stirred up.—2. Whenever, after the blessing has been denied by the Catholic parish priest, the betrothed parties, before or after the Marriage celebrated before him, approach a petty minister, or even come together in a church of the heterodox to obtain a sacrilegious blessing, the Catholic parish priest being altogether set aside.—3. Whenever, moreover, it would have to be feared that, if the blessing sought by them were refused, either the necessary cautions concerning removal of the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse and the education of all the offspring in the Catholic religion would not be observed, or, what would be more detestable, the Catholic party might pass over to the camp of the heretics, to the eternal ruin of that party and of the future offspring. Evidently, these and similar things are those grave injuries and evils for avoiding which the Supreme Pontiff declared that it could be granted or tolerated that the nuptial blessing be imparted in mixed Marriages. Through these things, therefore, an easy and correct interpretation and practice of the Instruction offers itself to all Vicars Apostolic.

“Hence the response to the second matter is also evident from what has been said. For immediately, by attending to the things said above, anxieties and doubts will vanish concerning an incorrect and therefore discordant interpretation of the Instruction and its application to practical cases or events. But whenever, on account of the considerable distance of places, the Prelates cannot by themselves ascertain the gravity and truth of the causes and circumstances concerning mixed Marriages to be honored with a priestly blessing, they will be able to accomplish these same things through missionaries subject to them, who nevertheless are to be excellently instructed concerning the aforesaid causes and Instruction and endowed with prudence and zeal according to knowledge.

“The matters which in the third place made you anxious concerning the silence and secrecy inculcated in the praised Instruction insofar as possible do not seem to be understood so strictly that this indulgence—or rather tolerance—of the Holy See in blessing mixed nuptials is to become known to no one. For you ought to know that His Holiness wished the Prelates to be admonished that the blessing should not be imparted indiscriminately and without discretion to mixed Marriages, nor should they use such a faculty through public instructions as though by way of a rule, but very prudently and cautiously, lest the most salutary conditions of the Church, which are always understood to be implicitly joined to such dispensations, be handed over to oblivion. Certainly it will be clear to Your Amplitude and to the other Vicars Apostolic that the mind of the Supreme Pontiff is no other, if you attend to the things contained in the Apostolic Letter in the form of a Brief given to the Bishop of Trier on 3 October 1853 concerning this matter. After the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX granted to the Ordinary of Trier that, when the causes already mentioned above concurred, a blessing could be imparted to mixed Marriages, he continued in this manner: These conditions (outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest) principally have this purpose: that there may never be effaced from the minds of Catholics the memory of the canons which detest these unions and of that most constant solicitude by which Holy Mother Church has been accustomed to turn her children from contracting those same nuptials to the ruin of their future offspring.

“From what has been said, therefore, a certain norm is proposed to you and to the other Vicars Apostolic for rightly interpreting and reducing to practice the things handed down in the Instruction of Cardinal Antonelli concerning the blessing to be given to mixed nuptials.

“Finally, to the questions which Your Amplitude also proposed as though consequential ones to be resolved, the Sacred Congregation judged that response should be made as follows: The practice of missionaries is by no means to be disapproved, whereby, in order to uncover the fraud of heretics who, after rejecting their own wife, might presume to unite with a Catholic woman, among the other investigations their banns are published, but without any mention being made of the religion of those who are to contract the nuptials.

“But with regard to the doubt: Can the Sacraments be given to the Catholic party who is disposed in mind to contract before a Protestant minister, either before or after the Catholic Marriage?—It will have to be considered whether the betrothed parties approach the Protestant minister merely in order to satisfy civil law, or rather in order to communicate in sacred rites. If the latter, since the heterodox minister assists in his capacity as one devoted to sacred rites, and the Catholic party persists in that party’s depraved intention, the Catholic party cannot be admitted to participation in the Sacraments until, by withdrawing from the depraved purpose, that party truly comes to repentance. Concerning this matter it will be useful to consult Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 7, § 2.

“Lastly, it was asked: Is the Catholic party who contracted Marriage with a heretic and before a petty minister—validly, however, by virtue of the extension granted by Benedict XIV for Holland—to be admitted to a renewal of mutual consent before the Catholic parish priest or missionary, who might also recite the formula: I join you together...? Moreover, can spouses converted from heresy who urgently request it be admitted to the same renewal of consent?—In places in which Marriages contracted either between heretics themselves or between one Catholic party and another heterodox party are valid even when the Tridentine form has not been observed—provided that no other canonical impediment has stood in the way—the spouses cannot be admitted to a Marriage, already indissoluble of itself, as though it were to be contracted anew through words expressing mutual present consent, nor is the formula, I join you together in Matrimony, to be recited by the priest. Nevertheless, if the question concerns mixed Marriages already contracted before a heretical minister, insofar as the cautions necessary by law were given and the Catholic party, repenting of the deed, requests the blessing, it can be imparted to that party after absolution from censures has first been given and salutary penances imposed, but the celebration of Mass must always be excluded. Likewise, the nuptial blessing is also to be imparted in Mass to spouses converted from heresy, provided that they request it. But in every case let the parish priest thoroughly instruct the spouses that a blessing of this kind pertains only to the rite, not to the validity of the union.” Holy Office and Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 4 December 1862.

The Bishop M. proposed these doubts: “1. Can a faculty issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith be employed rightly and validly together with another faculty issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office or not, namely, when the question concerns mixed unions?

“2. And if, which would affect me with no small sorrow, this question were to be decided negatively, I further petition that Your Holiness deign most graciously to take counsel for me and to grant those remedies by which that which has hitherto been done less rightly in this diocese can best be remedied.

“3. And for the future, if a special faculty is needed for this, most graciously to grant that, by delegated power, I may also dispense in mixed Marriages when there concur impediments of the third and fourth degrees, simple and mixed only, of consanguinity and affinity; then of public propriety arising from valid betrothals, and of crime, provided that neither spouse plotted it; and finally of spiritual kinship, except between the sponsor and the person sponsored.

“Response. To 1: Negative.—To 2: Let the Most Reverend Lord Bishop remain silent and leave the spouses in good faith.—To 3: Petition is to be made to His Holiness for the grace.” Holy Office, 12 September 1866.

“But because it has been reported to the Sacred Congregation that several of the Prelates of the East Indies have hitherto used faculties which concern dispensations from impediments invalidating Matrimony even when it happens that two different impediments are cumulated in the same person, thinking that the faculties granted to them extend to this—which, however, cannot be admitted—it has been provided that, with regard to past Marriages in which, when several impediments concurred, dispensation was given in this manner, the Vicars Apostolic are to remain silent and leave the spouses in good faith. But with regard to the future, they are to have recourse in individual cases; and if they foresee that time for having recourse to the Holy See will be difficult to obtain, they are to petition for a faculty for a number of cases, which will be granted to them by the Supreme Pontiff if indeed it shall seem opportune. By the same reasoning, if some invalidating impediment has place when the discussion concerns mixed Marriages, in this case likewise the Vicars Apostolic cannot grant dispensations, even though they have a separate faculty of dispensing in mixed unions. Therefore, as regards dispensations given in this manner in the past, the bishops are to remain silent, as above, and leave the spouses in good faith. But as regards the future, Our Most Holy Lord will likewise grant, at the petition of the Vicars Apostolic, a faculty for the more urgent cases in which it is evident that there will be no time for having recourse to the Holy See; concerning this, the conscience of the Vicars Apostolic is gravely burdened.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 8 September 1869.

“On 4 May 1887 the Holy Office decreed that, with regard to the faculty of dispensing from impediments either of mixed religion or of disparity of worship, the following clause is to be removed from the formulas: Except Italians concerning whom it is not established that they have altogether abandoned an Italian domicile.”

The Bishop of Southwark consulted the Holy See concerning these four questions which follow. 1. “In the second formula it is declared that a bishop who has been endowed with these faculties by the Pontiff can in no way use them outside the boundaries of his diocese. But he is accustomed to obtain from the Holy See other faculties to which this limitation is not attached—for example, that he can dispense for the contracting of mixed Marriages. It seems to me that whenever the Supreme Pontiff, having been petitioned, grants to anyone the faculty of some matter, this limitation is implicitly attached; so that I could not grant by dispensation to two persons subject to the Diocese of Southwark who perhaps are staying at Plymouth that they may there enter a mixed Marriage. I ask you, Holy Father, to explain whether this opinion is true; that is, whenever an indult does not expressly bear the words in no way use, etc., whether these words are always to be understood therein.

“2. It frequently happens that either a man or a woman, bound by some invalidating or prohibitive impediment from which we have the faculty of dispensing, wishes to go, for example, to Liverpool in order to enter Marriage there with another woman or man dwelling there. I ask whether I can free the person departing from my diocese from every impediment by dispensing directly and thus, after the impediment has been removed, send the person to Liverpool, where the other betrothed party dwells, to enter Marriage there.

“3. If two persons subject to my diocese who are related by consanguinity or affinity wish, after being absolved from every impediment, to proceed to Liverpool for the purpose of entering nuptials there, I ask whether I can use the Apostolic indult by granting permission for a Marriage which will be entered outside the boundaries of my diocese.

“4. Since, in dispensing with regard to mixed Marriages, the Church is accustomed to permit a Catholic man or woman to enter nuptials with an Anglican woman or man—upon whom the benefits of the Church ought not to fall directly—by which bishop can the dispensation be granted when the Catholic man or woman comes to enter Marriage outside his or her own diocese?

“Response. To 1: The clause, can in no way use them outside the boundaries of his diocese, must be so understood that the faculties comprehended under it can be exercised only with the bishop’s own subjects actually present in the diocese at the time when the grace is granted. Nevertheless, the same clause is not to be understood as implicit in faculties which are granted to bishops by the Apostolic See, unless it has been expressed, or the mind of the Supreme Pontiff is otherwise established, or the subject matter requires it. But the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of mixed religion is granted with the clause, that he may dispense within the boundaries of his diocese; it therefore cannot be exercised except with subjects actually present within the boundaries of their own diocese, while observing, moreover, those things which are handed down in the response to the fourth question.

“To 2 and 3: Affirmative, unless the tenor of the Apostolic concession stands in the way, provided, however, that permission for the celebration of the Marriage is obtained from the bishop of the place where the Marriage itself is contracted.

“To 4: Catholic men or women, when just causes are present, can be dispensed from the impediment of mixed religion by the bishop possessing this faculty whose subjects they are by reason of a domicile or quasi-domicile acquired in his diocese, provided that they are actually present in that same diocese when they receive the dispensation. But a dispensation thus obtained can be put into execution wherever mixed unions are permitted to be contracted, unless something else stands in the way in the judgment of the Ordinary of the place in which the Marriage is contracted; otherwise, recourse must be had to the Apostolic See for the dispensation.” Holy Office, 22 November 1865.

“...What priestly zeal had already suggested to the sacred Prelates of Hungary, let it now, after the enactment of this law, be attended to with all the greater effort and with all their strength: that the faithful be turned away and altogether deterred from contracting mixed nuptials. For with regard to the remedy proposed by Your Eminence—namely, obtaining from the Holy Apostolic See a faculty by which it would be lawful for you to dispense with a Catholic bridegroom or bride who is to marry under the prohibition of mixed religion, and even to impart the nuptial blessing at least in those cases of mixed Marriages to be entered in which, from a rightly known disposition of the mind and will of the Catholic party, indeed of both betrothed parties, it can be hoped that, insofar as possible, a Catholic education will be given even to that offspring which, by force of civil law, would not be educated as Catholic, although the offspring would not be received into the bosom of the Church either through the form of Baptism imparted with this intention or through another external act—the Most Eminent Fathers judged this to be such that it can never be permitted, nor even tolerated, by the same Holy Apostolic See. Your Eminence certainly knows that the Church can never permit the celebration of mixed nuptials unless grave canonical causes concur and unless suitable cautions are furnished, by virtue of which the danger of perversion is removed from the Catholic spouse and provision is made for the Catholic instruction and education of all the offspring. This Catholic doctrine has very frequently been enunciated by the Supreme Pontiffs and declared even in those concessions in which they professed that they had reached those limits of indulgence beyond which it would be altogether unlawful to proceed. Passing over the other Pontiffs, Pius VIII, of holy memory, most gravely inculcates in the Apostolic Letter given to the Archbishop of Cologne and his suffragans on 25 March 1830: “You know, Venerable Brothers, that all those cautions have this purpose: that in this matter the natural and divine laws may be preserved safe and intact; since it is established that Catholic persons, whether men or women, who contract nuptials with non-Catholics in such a manner that they rashly commit themselves or their future offspring to the danger of perversion, not only violate the canonical enactments, but also sin directly and most gravely against the natural and divine law. And from this you now understand that We too would be guilty of a most grave crime before God and the Church if, concerning nuptials of this kind to be contracted in those regions, We consented to those things being done by you or by the parish priests of your dioceses by which, if not in words, nevertheless by the deeds themselves, they would indiscriminately be approved.” Moreover, Gregory XVI, of holy memory, in the Letter to those same Bishops of Hungary, your Predecessors, by which he extended to that kingdom an equal indulgence at the extreme limits, asserted altogether the same divine law concerning cautions founded in the divine and natural law itself, against which anyone who rashly commits himself or his future offspring to the danger of perversion undoubtedly sins most gravely. And finally, by command of Pius IX, of holy memory, it was declared in express words to all archbishops, bishops, and Ordinaries on 15 November 1858: “These cautions can never be remitted or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with all effort to preserve safe and intact, and against which those undoubtedly sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these mixed nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion.” In accordance with this doctrine, the Holy Apostolic See has always constantly maintained and still maintains that it is in no way lawful to dispense from the prohibition of mixed religion unless, in each case, in addition to the canonical causes, the following three conditions concur at the same time, namely: 1. That the parties, and especially the heretical party, have furnished true cautions by which they bind themselves before the Church to those things which the same Church requires from them; among these, the Catholic education of absolutely all the offspring without any exception or restriction holds the principal place. 2. That the ecclesiastical superior possess moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of the cautions for the present and concerning their fulfillment for the future. 3. That the furnishing of the caution be notorious, or at least be capable of being such, for removing every scandal.

“Since these things are so, it is in no way possible that that hope which rests solely upon the good disposition of the will of the contracting parties can take the place of true cautions: both because the contracting parties would in fact assume no obligation before the Church, and because this hope, in the present condition of affairs as described by Your Eminence, does not exclude, but rather supposes, that the offspring to be born which follows the sex of the heretical parent is to be baptized by the minister of the sect and assigned to instruction in the same sect. This would not only subvert the whole purpose of the cautions on behalf of the Church, but would constitute a caution on behalf of heresy. From these things it follows necessarily that it is not lawful, in the circumstances of affairs set forth, to impart the nuptial blessing. For if without the customary cautions it is never lawful to dispense from the prohibition of mixed religion, much less can it be lawful to honor with the sacred rite of blessing such Marriages as, according to the unshaken doctrine of the Church, are altogether contrary not only to ecclesiastical law but also to natural and divine law....” Holy Office, 21 July 1880, to the Cardinal Primate and Archbishop of Esztergom; M. E., vol. 5, part 1, p. 198.

“...Passing now to another point concerning the assistance at mixed Marriages imposed upon parish priests, We say that if, after the above-mentioned admonition has first been given in order to call the Catholic party away from the unlawful Marriage, that party nevertheless persists in the will to contract it and it is foreseen that the Marriage will infallibly follow, the Catholic parish priest will then be able to offer his material presence, but in such a manner that he is bound to observe the following precautions: 1. That he not assist at such a Marriage in a sacred place, nor be clothed in any vestment displaying a sacred rite, nor recite any ecclesiastical prayers over the contracting parties, and in no way bless them. 2. That he require and receive from the heretical contracting party a written declaration by which, under oath and in the presence of two witnesses who must themselves also subscribe it, that party binds himself or herself to permit the other party the free exercise of the Catholic religion and to educate in it all children to be born, without any distinction of sex.... 3. That the Catholic contracting party also issue a declaration subscribed by that party and two witnesses, in which, under oath, the party promises not only never to apostatize from the Catholic religion, but also to educate in it all offspring to be born and to procure efficaciously the conversion of the other, non-Catholic contracting party. 4. With regard to the proclamations commanded by the Imperial Decree, which the bishops object are civil rather than sacred acts, We respond: since they are preordained to the future celebration of the Marriage and consequently contain positive cooperation in it—which certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance—We cannot consent that they be made....” Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechelen, and to the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

“If, therefore, on account of the condition of times, places, and persons, the Marriage of a non-Catholic man with a Catholic woman, and conversely, can in no way be prevented without danger of greater evil and scandal to the detriment of religion, then indeed, in order to prevent greater injuries and scandals, one must abstain from correcting the Catholic spouse by censures expressly pronounced against that spouse by name. Indeed, it must be tolerated both that the customary banns be made by the Catholic parish priest, but with all mention of the religion of those who are to contract the nuptials omitted, and also that merely testimonial letters concerning the banns made be granted, in which, if no invalidating impediment is present, it is declared only that ‘nothing besides the prohibition of the Church on account of the impediment of mixed religion stands in the way of the Marriage to be contracted,’ with no word added from which even a slight suspicion of consent or approval might arise. But if it is recognized that it can conduce to the utility of the Church and the common good of souls that nuptials of this kind, however unlawful and prohibited, be celebrated before a Catholic parish priest rather than before a heretical minister, to whom the parties might easily have recourse, then the Catholic parish priest himself, or another priest acting in his place, will be able to be present at those nuptials by material presence alone, every ecclesiastical rite being excluded, just as if he acted the part of a mere witness commonly called qualified or authorized; namely, so that, after hearing the consent of each spouse, he may afterward, in accordance with his office, record in the book of Marriages the act validly performed.” Instruction to the Bishops of Bavaria, 12 September 1834. Cf. C. 1429.

“The required cautions formerly had to be confirmed in writing or even by oath; but today ‘such a promise suffices as, having been brought into an agreement, furnishes a moral foundation concerning the truth of its execution, so that an execution of this kind can prudently be expected,’ from the Decision of the Holy Office, 30 June 1842.” Marc, Alphonsian Moral Institutions, 2nd ed., no. 1987; Holy Office, 17 February 1875; C. 1437, 1439; M. E., vol. 12, p. 438.

“If, in some extraordinary case, such circumstances concur that the bishop can acquire for himself moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of cautions of this kind for the present and concerning their fulfillment for the future, and altogether special reasons are present which prevent the cautions from being given in the customary manner, the matter is entrusted to his conscience and prudence. Otherwise, notwithstanding the royal Decree, suitable cautions are to be furnished in writing, as has been done hitherto; nor is a dispensation to be given unless the bishop is morally certain that they will be fulfilled.” Holy Office, 10 December 1902; M. E., vol. 15, p. 247; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 165.

“With regard to the first article concerning banns or proclamations, it can be tolerated that they be made not only outside the church, as is permitted in the aforesaid royal letters, but also altogether outside a sacred place. And this will be the first public sign of the disapproval of these Marriages. But in order that the disapproval itself may become more manifest and may indicate on the part of the parish priest that his cooperation will be a purely material and compelled concurrence, it is preferable to add to the customary formula of the banns some expression indicating that Marriages of this kind are to be detested.” Rescript of Pius VI, 31 May 1783, to the Archbishop of Mechelen. Cf. Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechelen, and to the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

“...Let them beware, moreover, lest in publishing mixed Marriages they express the religion of the non-Catholic contracting party; rather, let them announce only the names and surnames of the contracting parties....” Pius VI, Extension of the Declaration of Benedict XIV to the Duchy of Cleves, 19 June 1793.

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith declared on 4 July 1874 that proclamations can be made in mixed unions when they seem necessary and suitable in the judgment of the Ordinary for discovering impediments, with mention of the religion of those who are to contract the nuptials omitted. C. 1223.

“...And indeed, with regard to the blessing, as you know very well, this Apostolic See has been accustomed to prohibit it even in those Marriages which are entered between Catholics and non-Catholics after permission from the same See has been obtained and the cautions prescribed by it have been employed. And even if it could thereafter be tolerated that the custom introduced in some regions of blessing mixed Marriages entered with the permission of the Church and the aforesaid cautions be observed, nevertheless the same blessing must never be tolerated in those cases in which, with no permission of the Church intervening and without the necessary cautions having first been given, a manifest and most grave crime is committed in the very entering of the matrimonial covenant.... And these things accord with the precepts and admonitions which you know, Venerable Brother, to have been recorded either in Our Letters or in those of Our Predecessor Pius VIII to various archbishops and bishops, or in Instructions issued either by his command or by Ours. Nor indeed does it matter if those Instructions were given only to certain Prelates who had consulted this Apostolic See, as though others were free not to follow their judgment.... Although those Letters and Instructions, insofar as they grant or tolerate something new, refer only to the places for which they were given, nevertheless their rationale is circumscribed by no limits insofar as they announce the immutable doctrine of the Church, inculcate the judgment of the canons, and proscribe depraved customs which may have become prevalent somewhere....” Gregory XVI, Letter of 23 May 1846, to the Archbishop of Freiburg. Cf. C. 1423, 1433.

“Whether, in mixed Marriages, the priest must also abstain from pronouncing the words: I join you together in Matrimony.—Response. Let the parish priest assisting at a Marriage of mixed religion abstain.” Holy Office, 26 November 1835; C. 1427.

“It remains now to speak about one further point concerning which, although We have not been expressly questioned, We nevertheless do not believe that it ought to be passed over in silence, since it can occur all too frequently in practice, namely: whether a Catholic contracting party who afterward wishes to become a participant in the Sacraments ought to be admitted to them? To this We say that, when that same person demonstrates that he repents of his sinful union, this can be granted to him, provided that before the concession he sincerely declares that he will procure the conversion of his heretical spouse, renews his promise concerning the education of the offspring in the orthodox religion, and will repair the scandal given to the other faithful. If such conditions concur, We do not object to the Catholic party becoming a participant in the Sacraments.” Rescript of Pius VI, 13 July 1782, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen.

“...The aforesaid spouses must make satisfaction to the Church, whose most holy law has been violated, and must furnish to the same Church, even in the external forum, cautions concerning the removal from themselves and their offspring of the danger to eternal salvation; and for this purpose recourse to the bishop is to be required.” Holy Office, 12 March 1881, to a Vicar Apostolic; A. S. S., vol. 16, p. 235.

“It is not unknown that in certain places a heretical minister acts in the capacity of a merely civil magistrate, before whom spouses are accustomed, or even bound, to present themselves for a political purpose, namely, that they may be regarded civilly as honorable spouses and that their offspring may be judged legitimate. Then, when the heretics insist or the civil law commands, it is not disapproved that the Catholic party together with the heretical party present themselves, before or after the Marriage contracted according to the Tridentine form, even before a minister attached to heresy, solely to fulfill the civil act. For to the doubt once expressed in these terms: Whether a Catholic contracting with a heretic before his own Catholic parish priest can lawfully, when the heretics insist, ratify this Marriage before a heretical minister, if no profession of the heretical rite is thereby had or inferred, and whatever the heretical minister does in the case is merely a civil and political demand and is so regarded, this Sacred Congregation responded affirmatively.

“But indeed, whenever the heretical minister is regarded as one devoted to sacred rites and as though exercising the office of parish priest, it is not lawful for the Catholic party together with the heretical party to give matrimonial consent before such a petty minister, because he would be employed to complete a certain religious ceremony and the Catholic party would associate himself with the heretical rite. Hence there would arise a certain implicit adherence to heresy, and consequently communication in sacred things with heretics would be regarded as altogether unlawful. Therefore, although this pernicious custom may have become established in such a way that it cannot easily be corrected by the clergy, it must nevertheless be uprooted with every effort and zeal. And indeed Benedict XIV openly teaches that it is not lawful for the contracting parties to present themselves before a heretical minister insofar as he assists as a minister devoted to sacred rites, that the contracting parties sin mortally, and that they are to be admonished.

“Therefore, parish priests and missionaries, suitably instructed and admonished by you, are to teach the faithful, both by public catechetical instructions in the churches and by private instructions, concerning the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, so that they may be salutarily turned away, insofar as possible, from contracting mixed nuptials; but if not, let them utterly shrink from celebrating Marriage before a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites, which is altogether unlawful and sacrilegious. Thus response was made to the Ordinary of Trier on Wednesday, 21 April 1847.

“Let parish priests know, moreover, that if they are questioned by the contracting parties, or if they know with certainty that they are going to a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites in order to give matrimonial consent, they cannot remain silent, but must admonish those same betrothed parties concerning the most grave sin which they commit and the censures which they incur. Nevertheless, in order to prevent grave evils, if in some particular case the parish priest has not been asked by the betrothed parties whether it is lawful or not to go to a heretical minister, and no explicit declaration is made by those betrothed parties that they are going to the heretical minister, but he nevertheless foresees that they will perhaps go to renew matrimonial consent, and moreover foresees from the circumstances concurring in the case that an admonition will certainly not be profitable but rather harmful, and that the material sin will thereby be turned into formal guilt, then let him remain silent, scandal nevertheless having been removed, and provided that the other conditions and cautions required by the Church have been duly given, especially concerning the granting of the free exercise of religion to the Catholic party and the education of all the offspring in the Catholic religion. But if, finally, consent is to be renewed before the parish priest after it has already been given before a heretical minister, and this is publicly known or is reported to the parish priest by the parties themselves, the parish priest shall not assist at this Marriage unless, the other things to be observed being observed as is supposed, the Catholic party, repenting of the deed, has first duly obtained absolution from the censures contracted, after salutary penances have been imposed. Therefore, the Sacred Congregation greatly trusts in the Lord that you, prudently and firmly adhering to the foregoing, will bring it about that the deposit of inviolable doctrine is preserved safe and intact, that the morals of Catholics correspond to the faith, that the feared injuries are warded off, and that the faithful, strengthened by doctrine and example, walk in the paths of justice.” Decree of the Holy Office, 17 February 1864, to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Hanover; 29 November 1672, to Dom Luke Wadding, Vicar General in Ireland.

“1. Can it be tolerated that Catholic parish priests obey the precept imposed upon them by a circular letter, that they report to heterodox ministers the Baptisms of infants who are born of mixed Marriages? “2. After the same circular letter, is it lawful for the Bishops of Hungary to use the faculty granted to them by the Holy See of dispensing from the impediment of mixed religion?—Response. To the first: Negative.—To the second: Likewise negative, unless these two conditions exist together. The first is that both the Catholic and the non-Catholic party formally furnish all the cautions which are required by nature and divine law in mixed Marriages. The second is that the bishops be morally certain concerning the sincerity of the promises and their fulfillment, notwithstanding the circular letters given by the Government.” Cardinal Mariano Rampolla to the Archbishop of Esztergom, 7 July 1890.

“...The well-known law enacted in the year 1868 must altogether be revoked or changed as soon as the circumstances of the times permit, since it is contrary to one of the principal conditions which the Church requires when she grants dispensations for entering mixed unions. Plainly the same must be said of the circular letter of Minister Csáky, which not only pertains to the execution of that law but also imposes upon the Catholic clergy the most severe obligation of reporting to heterodox ministers the Baptisms of infants born of mixed unions, lest anyone of those whom the said law assigns to the heretical communion be able to avoid being educated in heresy. Now the change proposed by the Government does not avert these injuries; for although it somewhat lightens the burden imposed by the letter of Count Csáky, it nevertheless does not change its inward force and purpose. For whether the parish priests report the Baptism to the heterodox ministers or to the civil magistrates, they always contribute their effort toward attaining the end at which the circular letter aims, with this one difference introduced: that in the first hypothesis they would contribute their effort directly, but in the other through an intermediary.” Cardinal Mariano Rampolla to the Archbishop of Esztergom, 26 September 1890.

“As Pickler explains according to the sacred canons, book 4 of the Decretals, title 7, in order that adultery may induce an invalidating impediment, it is required that there be joined to it either a promise of future Marriage or a contract of present Marriage with the adulteress or adulterer while the prior spouse is still living. But to contract, or attempt, a present Marriage is to enter nuptials—invalidly, of course—through words of the present tense or through some other sign which includes a promise of consent. It makes no difference, however, whether the adultery preceded the attempted Marriage or followed it.... In order that the taking of a concubine—or rather, an adulteress—may be regarded in the case as a true attempted Marriage, it is necessary that it include a promise of Marriage, whether in the present or in the future.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 January 1844.

“When a certain I., bearer of the present letter, had a lawful wife named A., he committed adultery with M.; and when he had been summoned to law concerning this, he forswore the adulteress, and afterward, having despised his oath, while his lawful wife was still living, he presumed to contract Marriage with the adulteress and to cohabit with her for a long time. Finally, after the aforesaid A. was taken from the present light, the aforementioned I. remained with the adulteress for ten years and begot ten sons by her. We therefore give this response to your consultation: let them be altogether separated and, penance having been imposed upon them, let perpetual continence be enjoined, especially since both have advanced in years and, knowingly persisting for so long publicly in adultery and perjury, they have disturbed the Church with grave scandal. For you know that Pope Leo established that no one is to take in Marriage a woman whom he has defiled by adultery; and that here matters proceeded further than if a pledge had merely been given to the adulteress that, after the lawful wife had died, he would take her as his wife, since the same man presumed, even while the first wife was living, to adhere to the adulteress almost matrimonially as an adulterer and rashly to violate his oath. This union—which both Pope Gregory and the Synod of Tribur detest, even where no sacred obligation of an oath intervened—they command that each person joined in this manner be subjected to public penance and remain perpetually without any hope of Marriage,” etc. Chapter Cum haberet, 5, On Him Who Took in Marriage, etc.

“1. Can an unbelieving man who before Baptism had intercourse with the unbelieving wife of another man, whom he killed with the woman assenting and accepting a pledge of future Marriage, enter Marriage with the said woman after the Baptism of both?—2. Can they contract this Marriage if, when they perpetrated these crimes, one party was Christian?—Response. To 1: Affirmative.—To 2: Negative.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 23 August 1852.

“You asked concerning Saracens who, while in captivity, killed the husbands of certain Christian women through the plots and machinations of those women: whether, because they afterward were converted by those women to the Christian faith, they can by law take them as wives, or whether, if they have married them, their union stands. Here We are content with the rule of the Council of Tribur, which declares that if the women maliciously plotted the death of their husbands, although the Saracens came to the faith through their effort, they nevertheless ought not to adhere to the women, nor, if they have adhered to them, are they to be tolerated, since the Church does not wish to compensate such a loss with such a gain. In connection with this, certain Saracens are reported to have killed Christians in war, and Christians likewise Saracens; but afterward the Saracens converted to the faith joined to themselves matrimonially the wives of those whom they had killed in the contest of war, and Christians are known to have done the same concerning Saracen women converted to the faith. After learning the truth concerning the death of their prior husbands, these women steadfastly demand a divorce. In these cases, therefore, We respond that, since such men did not procure the death of the deceased husbands, Marriage can lawfully be contracted between persons of this kind, and those thus joined cannot seek a divorce.” Chapter Laudabilem, 1, On the Conversion of Unbelievers.

“No one is admitted by law to challenge a Marriage under this title—force and fear—except the person who is said to have suffered violence and coercion; but a person who has lived in the Marriage for a long time is rejected, provided that freedom and opportunity to protest were not lacking to that person; so that, if, now free from fear, that person remained of his own accord in the conjugal home and did not refuse the matrimonial duties, he ought no longer to be heard.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1883, no. 35; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1883, no. 36.

“Already from the year 1895 the petitions of Your Lordships, assembled in the Third Provincial Synod of Shkodër, were remitted by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to this Supreme Tribunal of the Holy Office. In these petitions the wish was expressed that, by a benign interpretation of chapter 6, session 24, of the Most Holy Council of Trent, it should be authentically declared sufficient for the validity of a Marriage between the abducted woman and the abductor if the abducted woman, although not altogether separated from the abductor nor placed in a safe and free place, affirms under oath that she freely consents to have him as husband. “The matter has been referred again and again to the judgment of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinals who, together with me, are Inquisitors General. After weighing all things with the diligence and maturity which were fitting, they always and unanimously came to the judgment that it is not expedient to grant the requested relaxation of the Tridentine law in a general and absolute manner—for the matter comes down to this, and not to a simple interpretation, however broad.

“Your Lordships will easily understand this resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers if you briefly call to mind that, in violent abductions of women of this kind, a twofold impediment is for the most part to be distinguished: the one, namely, under the title of force and fear, which actually affects consent and consequently has its foundation in the natural law itself; the other from the positive Tridentine law, or abduction simply considered, which invalidates the Marriage both from the presumption of non-consent and in hatred of so great a crime.

“Now since, with respect to the former whenever it is present, there is no place for dispensation, the entire hinge of the question turns upon whether, on account of the peculiar circumstances of those places, it is expedient that the Tridentine law be relaxed insofar as the former is absent; namely, whenever, as is expressed in the petitions, the abducted woman, although not restored to a safe place, gives assurance under oath concerning her own free consent.

“And indeed, the things which Your Lordships related are truly horrible to read: concerning the frequency of abductions in those regions, the atrocious circumstances of their consummation, and the most grave injuries and even the proximate danger to life into which the unhappy abducted woman and her relatives very often fall unless she herself, while still placed under the immediate or mediate power of the abductor, consents to Marriage with him. Nevertheless, if the matter is inspected more subtly, all these things counsel the confirmation of the Tridentine law rather than its relaxation. For it is established that the Most Holy Council introduced an impediment of this kind precisely in order to destroy these abuses and uproot these barbarous customs. Therefore, generally to derogate now from the impediment itself for those regions would be the same as indirectly confirming in some manner the abuses which are deplored, paving a broader road for them, and calling into doubt the efficacy of this remedy recognized by the holy Fathers of Trent.

“But the remedy which is proposed by Your Lordships—an oath on the part of the abducted woman while still placed under the power of the abductor—would not in some cases furnish an indubitable argument concerning the absence of force and fear and concerning the truly free consent of the woman herself. For if it is reasonably feared that force and fear can induce the abducted woman to express outwardly her consent to Marriage with the abductor while her will inwardly resists, why should it not equally reasonably be feared that it compels her to confirm even her own assertion by oath? Therefore, while on the one hand the woman would manifestly be exposed to the danger of perjury, on the other a certain wound would be inflicted upon the Tridentine law.

“Nevertheless, let all these things be understood as said concerning a normal and, so to speak, theoretical derogation from the Tridentine law; for with regard to practical cases, nothing prevents aid from being given to the woman by dispensation if both her truly free consent is established with certainty in any manner whatever and sufficient motives for dispensing are at hand. But in a matter of such moment, especially lest the most holy Tridentine law become cheapened by excessive facility in obtaining a dispensation of this kind, it is fitting that judgment be altogether reserved to the Holy See. Therefore, as often as necessary, Your Lordships will not disdain to have recourse to it after all the circumstances of the case have been set forth.

“Meanwhile, the Holy See plainly trusts that Your Lordships, according to the pastoral solicitude and zeal for souls in which you excel, will employ every effort and every care so that, whether in catechetical conferences, in sermons to be given to the people, through extraordinary sacred missions, or in any other more suitable manner, the faithful may be instructed concerning not only the moral but also the material foulness of this unspeakable crime and concerning the most grave and equally most just penalties enacted against the guilty by both ecclesiastical and civil laws. For no one of sound mind fails to see that it is not only most shameful before God but also most disgraceful before human society both that parents betroth their own daughters, without seeking their consent and indeed not rarely when they object, under barbarous sanctions and for an agreed price, as though the question concerned cheap beasts of burden, and that abductors abuse their own strength against defenseless young women destitute of every human aid.

“For this purpose it is also judged very opportune that a public edict be issued in each parish, by which both the shameful commerce of the parents and the unbridled audacity of abductors are branded with a worthy stigma, and the penalties decreed against them, not excluding public excommunication, are solemnly proclaimed.” Holy Office, 15 February 1901; M. E., vol. 12, p. 530 ff.

“Those who attempt to contract Marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of another priest with the permission of the parish priest or Ordinary, and of two or three witnesses, the holy Synod renders altogether incapable of contracting in this manner, and decrees that contracts of this kind are invalid and null.... It declares, moreover, that a decree of this kind shall begin to have its force in each parish after thirty days, to be counted from the day of the first publication made in that parish.” Council of Trent, loc. cit.

“71. The Tridentine form does not bind under pain of invalidity where the civil law establishes another form and wills the Marriage to be valid when this new form intervenes.” Proposition of the Syllabus condemned by Pius IX.

For Matrimony, it does not suffice, in order that the parish priest may assist validly at the Marriage, or at least that the Ordinary may be able to give parish priests permission to assist validly at the Marriage, that domicile be possessed in the diocese without a domicile or quasi-domicile being possessed in any parish thereof, unless the question concerns wanderers who have no domicile elsewhere. Holy Office, 9 November 1898; 18 March 1893.

In the general faculty of administering all the Sacraments which do not require the episcopal order, the faculty of assisting at all Marriages of the faithful of the diocese is not included. Holy Office, 7 September 1898.

The mutual and general delegation of parish priests to assist at Marriage in some city is valid. Holy Office, 18 March 1893; M. E., vol. 8, part 1, p. 49 ff.; vol. 7, part 2, p. 218.

“The Tridentine law concerning clandestine Marriages must indeed be promulgated in each parish according to its tenor; but, once promulgation has been made and its observance remains, the law affects the territory and, speaking adequately, it is confessed by all to be both local and personal: insofar as it is local, it affects the territory and obliges those who are to be joined there in Marriage; but insofar as it is personal, it obliges those who, possessing a domicile or quasi-domicile in a place where the Tridentine decree has been promulgated and is in force, might wish to contract in another place where it is not in force. Nor, by a subsequent division of the aforesaid territory, could either the parts divided into other parishes within it or a recently erected parish be declared free from the law already possessing the territory. Likewise, that the legitimate promulgation of the Tridentine decree is most justly inferred from its continued observance is similarly the common opinion.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 14 December 1859.

“1. What is to be said concerning a Marriage contracted before a civil magistrate between two persons baptized in the Catholic Church, but of whom one or both here and now profess a Protestant sect or affirm that they are no longer Catholics?—2. What if both parties are Catholic, but the man belongs to the society of Freemasons or to another secret society condemned by the Church?—Response. The Marriages in question in the first question are to be regarded as valid when one or both parties professed a heretical sect before the Marriage, or when it is in some manner publicly established that the one or both abandoned the Catholic religion. But the Marriages of Freemasons in question in the second question are generally to be regarded as null when they were contracted before a civil magistrate without the form of the Council having been observed. But insofar as a grave difficulty occurs, let the Most Reverend Lord Bishop have recourse in the particular cases after accurately setting forth all the circumstances of each case.” Holy Office, 15 February 1865.

“1. Where the decree of the Council of Trent, chapter 1, session 24, On the Reformation of Matrimony, has not been published in a parish, Marriages contracted without observance of the form prescribed by the Council are valid.—2. Publication is presumed where that decree was at some time observed in the parish as a decree of the Council.—3. Heretics also, where the decree of the said first chapter has been published, are bound to observe such a form, and therefore even their Marriages without the form of the Council, although contracted before a heretical minister or the magistrate of the place, are null and invalid.—4. Even where it is established that the decree of the Council was published, or was at some time observed in the parish as a decree of the Council, but the parish church, being vacant, lacks its own parish priest, and the cathedral likewise lacks a bishop and chapter possessing from the Council the faculty of delegating another priest for this purpose, and there is no one else there who supplies the place of the parish priest or bishop, the Marriage is valid without the presence of the parish priest, provided nevertheless that the form of the Council is observed in that respect in which it can be, namely, by employing at least two witnesses.—5. If a parish priest and bishop indeed exist, but, no vicar having been appointed, both lie hidden through fear of the heretics so that it is truly unknown where they are, or they are absent through the same fear and there is no safe access to either of them, a Marriage contracted without the form is valid, provided nevertheless, as was said, that two witnesses are employed.” Sacred Congregation of the Council, 18 January 1663; C. 1388.

“How much time is required so that from the observance of chapter Tametsi in a place its publication can be presumed?—Response. The decree of the Council of Trent, On the Reformation of Matrimony, session 24, is said to have been observed for a long time as a decree of the same Council when it is established that it has possessed the force of law in the parish from a time which exceeds human memory, so that Marriages contracted outside the form prescribed by Trent have always been regarded as invalid.” Holy Office, 10 January 1866.

“No length of time suffices for the Tridentine law to be judged to have lost its binding force in some place through the mere non-observance of heretics.” Holy Office, 7 July 1892; A. S. S., vol. 25, p. 117 ff.

“Bertha, a Catholic woman, entered Marriage in Italy, in the domicile of the Legation of the English Nation, with a certain man of that nation and according to the rite and form of the Protestant religion or sect. This woman established a domicile in this diocese twenty years ago and always presented herself as a widow, but without being able to obtain trustworthy documents confirming the death of her spouse. Now, however, she desires to enter a Catholic union and to emerge from the concubinage in which she lives most wretchedly. And since she cannot prove the state of widowhood, because according to presumptions her spouse died in the city of London and no one is present who can give testimony concerning this, she most urgently petitions that she be regarded as free, because she entered the Marriage described above in a place where the Tridentine decree had been published and the Holy See declared the Marriages of heretics or mixed Marriages invalid, and therefore it ought to be regarded as null. Is the Marriage described above to be regarded as invalid, so that the woman in question can have recourse to other nuptials even though the death of the prior spouse is not established?—Response. Affirmative.” Holy Office, 1 August 1900.

“...It is indeed certain that the Marriages in question here would be very rare if the canonical prescriptions concerning quasi-domicile happened to be diligently and accurately observed by those who, having departed from a place where the Tridentine law concerning clandestinity is in force, proceed to a place where it is not in force. For it is clear and established to you that which was long ago defined by the Sacred Congregation of the Council and confirmed by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff Urban VIII in the Brief which begins Exponi nobis and which was issued at the request of the Archbishop of Cologne on 14 August 1627. According to the things enacted in this decree, those who have and retain a domicile in a place where the Tridentine law is in force cannot validly enter Marriage in a place where it is not in force unless they establish there not merely a habitation but also a true domicile, by which they must altogether purge any fraud that may have intervened. But for the establishing of a quasi-domicile, which in these cases must necessarily be acquired, these two things are required at the same time: namely, habitation in the place where the Marriage is contracted, and the intention of remaining there for the greater part of the year. Therefore, if it is legitimately established that either both or one of the betrothed parties has the intention of remaining for the greater part of the year, from the first day on which these two things concur together—namely, both an intention of this kind and actual habitation—it is to be judged that quasi-domicile was acquired and that the Marriage consequently contracted is valid. Nevertheless, if the aforesaid intention is not established, recourse must be had to such indications as are at hand and produce moral certainty. But in a hidden and internal matter it is difficult to have indications of this kind which render the judge secure. Hence the rule confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV in the Constitution Paucis, 12 March 1758, must especially be applied, so that it is considered whether, before the Marriage, either both or one of the parties dwelt in the place of the Marriage for a period of at least one month. If it is found that this was done, it is to be judged from the presumption of law that the intention of remaining for the greater part of the year existed and that quasi-domicile was acquired, and consequently that the Marriage is valid. But if this presumption of law, which arises from a month’s habitation, is overthrown by contrary proofs through which it is certainly and clearly established that the aforesaid intention in no way existed, then it is manifest that the contrary judgment must be rendered, because presumption must yield to truth. Moreover, it is also manifest that actual habitation is inept for producing a quasi-domicile if someone stays in that region in the manner of a wanderer and traveler, and not truly and properly as an inhabitant, namely, as others are accustomed who have in the same place a true domicile properly so called....” Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, 7 June 1867; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 320 ff.; Benedict XIV, Instruction 33.

“Those going to the city N. from another place or parish, provided that they have stayed there in some parish for six months, are to be judged to have a quasi-domicile there in relation to Matrimony, without an inquiry having to be made concerning the intention of remaining there for the greater part of the year, the matter having been discussed with His Holiness.” Holy Office, 9 November 1898. Cf. A. S. S., vol. 31, p. 402 ff.

“The Supreme Universal Inquisition, on Wednesday, 6 May 1886, decreed, at the petition of the Council of Baltimore, that petition should be made to His Holiness that he deign to decree that, in the United States of America, those transferring themselves from a place where chapter Tametsi is in force to another place, provided that they have continuously stayed there for the period of at least one full month and have proved the freedom of their state as required by law, are to be judged to have a quasi-domicile there in relation to Matrimony, without an inquiry having to be made concerning the intention of remaining there for the greater part of the year. But on Wednesday, 12 December, His Holiness deigned by his supreme authority to ratify and confirm the aforesaid decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The decree Tametsi is in force in the places of East St. Louis, Contreville Station, etc. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 15 April 1901; M. E., vol. 13, p. 299.

“...While Urban VIII, of happy memory, was Supreme Pontiff, the Elector Archbishop of Cologne proposed these three doubts before the Congregation of the Council. It is humbly asked of the Sacred Congregation: 1. Whether inhabitants, both male and female, of a place in which the Council of Trent has been promulgated and accepted on the point of Matrimony, while passing through a place in which the said Council has not been promulgated and retaining the same domicile, can validly contract Marriage in that place without the parish priest and witnesses?—2. What if the aforesaid inhabitants, both male and female, transfer themselves there with the sole intention of contracting without the parish priest and witnesses, without changing their habitation?—3. What if the same inhabitants, both male and female, transfer their habitation there with the sole intention of contracting without the parish priest and witnesses? But on 5 September 1626 this Congregation—the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals for the Interpretation of the Council of Trent—gave the following response. To 1 and 2 it responded that a lawful Marriage does not exist between persons thus transferring themselves and passing through with fraud.—To 3 he responded that, unless the domicile is truly transferred, the Marriage is not valid....

“When the context has been well considered, it is easily understood that the Marriages set forth in the first and second places are decreed invalid and null by the same Congregation because fraud intervened; but the Marriage set forth in the third place is judged valid, in which, although fraud intervened, nevertheless the one who contracted the Marriage, before entering it, had acquired a domicile or quasi-domicile in the place where he entered the Marriage: unless the domicile is truly transferred. For it is neither new nor unusual that a person have a domicile in one place and acquire a quasi-domicile in another. If he is in this state of affairs, then it will be free to him to contract Marriage before that parish priest within the boundaries of whose parish he then dwells when he is joined in Marriage, according to the common opinion related by Us and sanctioned in Our above-mentioned Ecclesiastical Institution 33 of the Latin edition....

“The same Congregation judged valid a Marriage contracted by one who had departed from the place of his proper domicile in order to escape the difficulties which he would have encountered if he had wished to enter Marriage before the parish priest of that place, and who entered it before the parish priest of another place, but only after he had acquired a legitimate quasi-domicile there and had remained in the same place for some time even after the Marriage was contracted....” Benedict XIV, Paucis abhinc, to the Archbishop of Goa, 19 March 1758.

“Our Most Holy Lord, after taking some time to weigh the matter within himself, recently ordered this declaration and instruction to be drawn up, which henceforth all the Prelates and parish priests of Belgium, and the missionaries and Vicars Apostolic of those regions, must employ in affairs of this kind as a certain rule and norm.

“First, namely, with regard to Marriages celebrated between heretics themselves in places subject to the dominion of the Federated States without the form prescribed by Trent having been observed: although His Holiness is not ignorant that at other times, in certain particular cases and in view of the circumstances then set forth, the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded in favor of their invalidity, nevertheless, being equally assured that nothing had hitherto been defined generally and universally by the Apostolic See concerning Marriages of this kind, and that, in order to provide for all the faithful dwelling in those places and to avert many most grave inconveniences, it was altogether necessary to declare what was generally to be judged concerning these Marriages, after maturely weighing the affair and diligently balancing all the considerations on either side, he declared and established that Marriages hitherto contracted between heretics in the said Federated Provinces of Belgium, and those which will be contracted in the future, even if the form prescribed by Trent was not observed in their celebration, are to be regarded as valid, provided that no other canonical impediment stood in the way. Accordingly, if it should happen that both spouses are received into the bosom of the Catholic Church, they are altogether bound by the same conjugal bond as before, even if mutual consent is not renewed by them before the Catholic parish priest; but if only one of the spouses, whether the man or the woman, is converted, neither can pass to other nuptials so long as the other survives.

“But as regards those unions which likewise are contracted in the same Federated Provinces of Belgium without the form established by Trent between Catholics and heretics, whether a Catholic man takes a heretical woman in Marriage or a Catholic woman marries a heretical man: His Holiness, first grieving most greatly that there are among Catholics those who, shamefully maddened by an insane love, do not abhor from the heart these detestable unions which Holy Mother Church has perpetually condemned and prohibited, and do not judge that they must altogether abstain from them, and greatly praising the zeal of those Prelates who strive to restrain Catholics by proposing more severe spiritual penalties lest they join themselves to heretics by this sacrilegious bond, earnestly and gravely exhorts and admonishes all bishops, Vicars Apostolic, parish priests, missionaries, and all other faithful ministers of God and the Church dwelling in those regions that, insofar as they can, they deter Catholics of either sex from entering nuptials of this kind to the ruin of their own souls, and that they endeavor by every better means to avert those same nuptials and efficaciously impede them. But if perhaps some Marriage of this kind, without the Tridentine form having been observed, has already been contracted there, or should happen to be contracted in the future—which may God avert—His Holiness declares that a Marriage of this kind, provided that no other canonical impediment concurs, is to be regarded as valid, and that neither spouse, so long as the other survives, can in any way enter a new Marriage under the pretext that the said form was not observed. But the Catholic spouse, whether man or woman, must especially impress this upon his or her mind: that he or she do penance for the most grave crime committed, seek pardon from God, and strive according to his or her powers to draw the other spouse, wandering from the true faith, to the bosom of the Catholic Church and to gain that spouse’s soul. This, moreover, would be most suitable for obtaining pardon for the perpetrated crime, while knowing otherwise, as was just said, that he or she will be perpetually bound by the bond of this Marriage.

“In addition, His Holiness declares that whatever has hitherto been enacted and said concerning Marriages entered either between heretics themselves or between Catholics and heretics in places in Belgium subject to the dominion of the Federated States is to be understood as enacted and said also concerning similar Marriages contracted outside the boundaries of the dominion of those same Federated States by those who are attached to the legions or military forces which the same Federated States are accustomed to send to guard and fortify the neighboring strongholds commonly called barrier fortresses. Thus, Marriages entered outside the Tridentine form, whether between heretics on both sides or between Catholics and heretics, retain their validity, provided that each spouse belongs to the same forces or legions. His Holiness also wills this declaration to comprehend the city of Maastricht, possessed by the Republic of the Federated States, although not by right of dominion but only under the title of pledge, as they say.

“Finally, concerning unions which are contracted either in the regions of Catholic Princes by those who have domicile in the Federated Provinces, or in the Federated Provinces by those who have domicile in the regions of Catholic Princes, His Holiness judged that nothing new was to be decreed or declared, willing that, if a dispute should occur, they be decided according to the canonical principles of the common law and the approved resolutions issued on other occasions by the Sacred Congregation of the Council in similar cases; and thus he declared and established, and commanded that it be observed by all hereafter.” Benedict XIV, 4 November 1741.

This declaration was made for special reasons, not because the Marriages were those of heretics. Cf. Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 6; Cavalchini, Archbishop of Philippi, On Marriages between Heretics, Rome, 1741; Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Declarations and Resolutions of the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals for the Interpretation of the Council of Trent Added, Leipzig, 1855, p. 290 ff.; Naples edition of Joseph Pelella, 1859, p. 305 ff.—Hence, when the Vicars Capitular of Poitiers in 1818 had asked: “Are the clandestine Marriages of Protestants in France valid, since today they have civil status there and constitute a religious society distinct from Catholic society, which has its own ministers and customs?” the Holy Office responded: “The Decree of Benedict XIV issued in 1741 concerning the Marriages of Holland is judged to regard only Marriages contracted or to be contracted in those provinces, and not other Marriages entered or to be entered in other places, to which it therefore cannot be applied without a new and special Declaration of the Apostolic See.” And the Sacred Penitentiary on 28 March 1838 responded to the Bishop of Grenoble, who asked: “Are Marriages entered between heretics themselves or with Catholics, according to the civil laws alone or before a heretical minister without the presence of a Catholic parish priest, valid in France and in other regions where Protestants and all heretics have their own ministers, churches, and legal status approved by the government?”—“Negative, excepting the regions concerning which Benedict XIV speaks in the Declaration of 4 November 1741 and to which that same declaration was extended by his successors.”

The following are comprehended by the Benedictine declaration: “1. Those who, baptized as Catholics, are educated in heresy from childhood before completing their seventh year and profess heresy. 2. Those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, namely, having received no instruction, or scarcely any, in heretical doctrine and not frequenting its worship, although sometimes participating in it. 3. Those who, while still children, fall into the hands of heretics and are joined to a heretical sect. 4. Apostates passing from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect. 5. Those who, born and baptized by heretics, have grown up without making any solemn profession of heresy and are, as it were, of no religion,” etc. Holy Office, 6 April 1859. Marriages between Catholics themselves, however, are by no means comprehended. Letter of 17 September 1746 to Simon, missionary in Holland, § 3; Bullarium, vol. 3, supplement, no. 3. Cf. also On the Synod, book 6, chapter 7.

The following doubts were proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Council: “1. Are Marriages contracted between Catholics and non-Catholics before non-Catholic petty ministers of the Duchy of Cleves valid and lawful?—2. Whether and in what manner can Catholic parish priests of the same duchy lawfully grant dismissorial letters for contracting them?—3. Is the declaration of Benedict XIV concerning Holland and Belgium to be extended to the aforesaid duchy?—Response. To 1: The Sacred Congregation stands for validity, but nevertheless says that they are unlawful; they can, however, be made lawful by a dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff.—To 2: This cannot be done lawfully; it can, however, be made lawful by a dispensation with a just cause, and such a cause is present here.—To 3: It responds affirmatively.” The Sacred Congregation having been consulted, Pius VI on 19 June consented to the extension of the declaration of Benedict XIV to the Duchy of Cleves according in all things to the form of the resolution of the Sacred Congregation. The Instruction contains the following:

“Before all things, let the parish priests admonish the Catholic man or woman that, by contracting Marriage with a non-Catholic woman or man, they contract validly indeed but unlawfully. And hence it follows that they cannot by any positive act approve these Marriages or confirm them by their express consent and authority. Therefore, if under the present condition of the times and on account of the laws prescribed in the religious settlement of the year 1673 they are compelled to assist at Marriages of Catholic men with a non-Catholic woman, let them strive to conduct themselves merely passively and, as though unwilling, merely hear the consent of each party. Nevertheless, let them abstain altogether from reciting prayers, imparting a blessing, and employing every other rite of the Church. Let them beware, moreover, lest in publishing mixed Marriages they express the religion of the non-Catholic contracting party; rather, let them announce only the names and surnames of the contracting parties. Let them abstain from granting dismissorial letters where, according to the canons of the Catholic Church, some canonical impediment exists between the contracting parties. In the dismissorial letters let them omit the words with my permission, which seem to convey consent to an unlawful Marriage.”

“Although in the countries of ancient Turkish dominion the cited Decree of Trent is regarded as having been published in the Catholic churches and societies, or at least among the Latin and Greek Catholics domiciled there, and consequently Marriages contracted there between Catholics and Catholics without the presence of the proper priest of one of the contracting parties are null, nevertheless it was neither ever published nor ever observed in those dominions among the schismatic or heretical societies formed and established there long ago. Therefore, Marriages celebrated there either among schismatics and heretics themselves, or between a Catholic party and another heretical or schismatic party before a heretical or schismatic pastor, are to be regarded as ratified and valid; for in this second case—which is the case under discussion—the rule established by Benedict XIV in On the Diocesan Synod, book 6, chapter 6, § 12, where the Marriages of Holland are discussed, has place: ‘Since one of the spouses is exempt from the law of the Council of Trent both by reason of the place in which that spouse dwells and by reason of the society in which that spouse lives, the exemption which that spouse enjoys remains communicated to the other party on account of the indivisibility of the contract; by force of this, an exemption which belongs to one of the parties is extended and communicated to the other, even according to the civil laws.’ Founded upon this principle, when the Sacred Congregation of the Supreme Universal Inquisition was questioned by the Vicars Apostolic and Prefects of the missions of Constantinople, Pera, Saint John of Acre, Sofia, and Wallachia concerning similar Marriages contracted without the presence of the Catholic parish priest between Catholics and heretics or schismatics before a heretical or schismatic pastor or minister, it always declared what I have related above: namely, that similar Marriages must be regarded as valid although unlawful, provided that there was no other invalidating impediment between the contracting parties.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 11 January 1817; C. 1399.

“The Bishop of Saint-Hyacinthe, in the region of Canada, explains to the Congregation of the Holy Office that doubts now arise concerning the validity of certain Marriages contracted in the missions or quasi-parishes of this diocese without the solemnity required by the decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent. For before the year 1872, many places of the Diocese of Saint-Hyacinthe, commonly called cantons or townships, had not yet been canonically divided into parishes. In these places there were: 1. missions properly so called, namely, without a resident priest but visited at both fixed and unequal times during the year by a missionary delegated for this purpose; 2. quasi-parishes, by which is to be understood territory which, in its external appearance, approached more or less to the likeness of a parish, inasmuch as it had a church near which a priest ordinarily, or at least principally, resided, and boundaries designated by the bishop.

“Nevertheless, in these missions and quasi-parishes, as also in parishes properly so called, the decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent had been published annually by the priests placed in charge of them.

“...Was the promulgation of the decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent valid in the aforesaid missions and quasi-parishes?...

“Response. According to the things set forth: Affirmative, and according to the mind. The mind is that, in places where a parish priest cannot be had, a Marriage celebrated before witnesses is valid; but the contracting parties are bound to receive the nuptial blessing as soon as they conveniently can and to take care that their Marriage is inscribed in the sacramental register of the mission or of the nearest church upon which they depend.” Holy Office, 14 November 1883.

“In those places in which the Vicars Apostolic, after mature counsel has been employed, judge it expedient, let them take care that the decree of the Council of Trent, chapter 1, session 24, On Matrimony, is duly promulgated. Consequently, in order that Marriages which may happen to be celebrated hereafter in those same places may be named and be valid, they must be entered before a parish priest or missionary or any priest legitimately designated, and before two or three witnesses, who, if they can be had, are to be Christians. But in those places in which the complete decree cannot be observed because the parish priest or another person designated for this office is absent and easy access to him does not lie open, unions must indeed be entered before at least two witnesses, who, insofar as possible, are to be Christians. Nevertheless, lest the dignity of the Sacrament become cheapened, the contracting parties are to be bound by the law of presenting themselves before the parish priest or missionary whenever he returns, so that they may duly receive the blessing from him. But when the missionary or parish priest returns, after the consent of the spouses has been established to him, let him instruct the spouses that a blessing of this kind pertains only to the rite and not to the validity of the union.... Since after the recent Instruction concerning clandestine Marriages, sent at the beginning of the year 1821 also to the Siamese, the decree of the Council of Trent may already have been duly promulgated in some places, either the complete decree must be observed or one nearly complete according to the condition of places and persons, as was explained a little above. In this case, if any Catholic women, in contempt of the decree which they were bound to observe, attempted to enter an unlawful union with heretical men before a petty minister, the Sacred Congregation judges that such unions are invalid and are to be declared as having no force in the sight of the Church. But if, finally, it is doubted whether the Tridentine decree has hitherto been duly promulgated in some places, and meanwhile similar nuptials have been contracted and some prudent doubt arises concerning their validity, in this case the Most Eminent Fathers judge that Marriages of this kind are to be sanated in the root, insofar as there is need.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to the Vicar Apostolic of Siam, 9 December 1822.

“...Even if that law of Trent had been promulgated, nevertheless Marriages in the presence of only two witnesses are valid whenever, in the place where the Marriage is contracted or nearby where one can go without danger, there is no parish priest or other secular or regular priest deputed by the bishop. The Apostolic See likewise responded this many times when questioned. Moreover, lest the dignity of the Sacrament become cheapened, His Holiness willed that the faithful be exhorted to present themselves to the missionary when he returns and to seek the blessing from him, but after a declaration has first been made by the missionary that a blessing of this kind in no way pertains to the validity of the Marriage.” Holy Office, 15 February 1779, to the Vicar Apostolic of Sichuan.

“Marriages contracted before a secular magistrate or before a foreign priest, when the contracting parties can in no way, or only with the greatest difficulty or danger, have recourse to the parish priest or legitimate superior, are valid whenever at least two witnesses were present, according to the resolutions of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in the cause of Belgium on 27 March 1832, in another on 30 March 1669, and according to the resolution of the Congregation of the Holy Office in the cause of the Province of Malabar on 8 May 1669, to which this particular Congregation adhered in the resolution of 2 June of this year in the response to the Bishop of Luçon. Nevertheless, the contracting parties are to be admonished to take counsel for their conscience, because Marriages contracted before schismatics or those adhering to schism, although valid in the aforesaid circumstances, are nevertheless unlawful. The spouses are also to be exhorted to receive the blessing from the legitimate parish priest insofar as this can be done without danger.—But whenever at least two witnesses were not present, the Marriages are invalid and, insofar as possible, are to be revalidated; yet in such a manner that, if some impediment of ecclesiastical law stands in the way, it is to be dispensed by the bishop whenever he possesses the faculty of dispensing by concession of the Apostolic See. Recourse must be had to that See if the question concerns impediments from which he does not have the faculty of dispensing by delegation of the same Apostolic See.—But Marriages contracted before a secular magistrate or before a foreign priest, when the contracting parties can approach no one other than a parish priest guilty of the oath or of schismatic communion, are likewise valid whenever at least two witnesses were present and the proper parish priest has adhered to schism either on account of the oath or for any other cause; nevertheless, the spouses are to be admonished and exhorted as above.” Response of Pius VI, Letter Intelleximus, 5 October 1793, to the Bishop of Geneva, to be communicated to the Bishops of Savoy with respect to civil Marriages.

“When access is difficult and unsafe, and it is unknown when a parish priest can be had, and it is foreseen that he will be absent from the place for a period of at least one month, and there is no one else who supplies the place of the parish priest, the Marriage is valid without the presence of the parish priest, provided that the form of the Council is observed insofar as it can be, namely, by employing at least two witnesses.” Holy Office, 1 July 1863; 15 May 1861.

“In these most difficult and distant regions there frequently occur Christians who, whether for the sake of avoiding persecution, on account of necessity for money, or even for another cause, being for the most part rather imprudent, as the Chinese commonly are, depart from the places of the Christians where they themselves dwell or were born and proceed to distant places, forty or fifty or more days’ journey away, together with wife and children. In these places there are no Christians, nor can any be found, nor has there ever been any report of the Christian religion in the surrounding region. When the sons and daughters have grown older, they marry pagans without a possible dispensation. According to the customs of the nation, the daughters especially, and very often the sons also, are under an absolute impossibility of migrating to the places of Christians, and thus they must altogether either marry pagans or remain unmarried or celibate. What is the law in this case? Are they bound by the impediment of disparity of worship? What is the law where their faith is safe, as happens sometimes, and where they are in good faith, as happens for the most part?—Response. In the circumstances proposed, they are not to be disturbed, the matter having been discussed with His Holiness.—His Holiness approved.” Holy Office, 4 June 1851, to the Vicar Apostolic of Manchuria.

“I judge that you are not ignorant of whatever has been enacted by the sacred canons concerning this matter—second nuptials. For in chapter 2, On Second Nuptials, everyone is prohibited from passing to second nuptials unless it is established with firm certainty that his or her spouse has departed from this life. In chapter In praesentia, On Betrothals, it is commanded that no one can contract second nuptials by the authority of the Church until certain news is received concerning the death of the prior husband. And indeed with the best right; for since by divine law the bond of Marriage is dissolved by no cause other than the death of one of the spouses, so that one who takes another while the first spouse is living is defiled by the crime of adultery, it follows that certain news concerning the death of the prior spouse must be awaited before new nuptials are permitted. Nor does an uncertain report, or the prolonged absence of a spouse, or probable arguments that he has died suffice; rather, there must either be a witness above every exception who confirms under the sacred obligation of an oath that he saw the prior spouse dead, or there must intervene such conjectures concerning the death of that spouse as altogether persuade a prudent man of it with a certain moral certainty. The calamities of war, famine, captivity, and other things of this kind adduced by you, which brought devastation to the region and death to very many, are not of such weight that men or women who have lost their spouses can indiscriminately be permitted to seek new nuptials. Therefore, if any have already contracted new unions, and indeed in good faith, judging themselves absolved from the prior bond of union through the death of the spouse, they are to be left in good faith, because a possessor in good faith ought not to be disturbed from possession. If one of them is doubtful and uncertain, that party can indeed render the debt, but cannot seek it. Finally, if each contracted in bad faith, they are now to be altogether separated. Moreover, care must also be taken that, if perhaps it should happen that the prior spouse whom they thought dead is still among the living, then the second nuptials are to be altogether invalidated and, the later spouse having been dismissed, each is bound to return to the prior spouse. Saint Leo the Great to Nicetas of Aquileia can be consulted concerning this matter.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1792; C. 1366.

Cf. nos. 7, 8, p. 170.

“56. The doctrine which establishes that, in canonical impediments which arise from offenses expressed in law, it seems fitting that no dispensation whatsoever is ever to be granted or admitted, is injurious to the equity and canonical moderation approved by the Sacred Council of Trent, and derogates from the authority and rights of the Church.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“Since a dispensation is a relaxation of the common law, with knowledge of the cause, made by one who has power, it is established for all that dispensations from matrimonial impediments are not to be granted unless a legitimate and grave cause intervenes. Indeed, everyone easily understands that a cause is required to be so much graver as the impediment opposed to the celebration of the nuptials is graver. But not rarely do supplicatory letters reach the Holy See for obtaining some dispensation of this kind which are supported by no canonical reason. It also sometimes happens that in supplications of this kind those things are omitted which must necessarily be expressed lest the dispensation labor under the defect of nullity. Therefore, it seemed opportune in the present Instruction to touch briefly upon those principal causes which, according to canonical enactments and the prudent judgment of ecclesiastical provision, are customarily regarded as sufficient for obtaining matrimonial dispensations, and then to indicate those things which must be expressed in petitioning for the dispensation itself.

“And, to begin with the causes of dispensations, it will first be worthwhile to observe that sometimes one cause taken separately is insufficient, but, joined to another, is judged sufficient; for things which do not avail singly assist when they are many (argument from law 5, Code, On Proofs). Causes of this kind are the following:

“1. Narrowness of the place, whether absolute or relative—with respect only to the female petitioner—namely, when, in the place of origin or even of domicile, the kindred of the woman is so propagated that she cannot find another of equal condition whom she may marry unless he is a blood relative or relative by affinity, while it would be hard for her to leave her homeland.

“2. The over-advanced age of the woman, namely, if, having already passed the twenty-fourth year of age, she has hitherto not found a man of equal condition whom she can marry. But this cause does not favor a widow who desires to pass to other nuptials.

“3. The lack or insufficiency of a dowry, namely, if the woman does not actually possess so great a dowry that she can marry, in the place where she dwells, a stranger of equal condition who is neither a blood relative nor related by affinity. This cause is more urgent if the woman is altogether without a dowry and a blood relative or relative by affinity is prepared to take her as wife or even suitably to endow her wholly.

“4. Lawsuits concerning the succession of goods already arisen, or a grave or imminent danger of them. If a woman sustains a grave lawsuit concerning the succession of goods of great importance, and no other person is present who would undertake a lawsuit of this kind and pursue it at his own expense besides the one who wishes to take her as wife, a dispensation is customarily granted; for it concerns the commonwealth that lawsuits be extinguished. Another cause closely approaches this, namely, a dowry involved in litigation, when the woman is destitute of another man by whose aid she can recover her goods. But a cause of this kind suffices only for more remote degrees.

“5. The poverty of a widow who is burdened with numerous offspring and whom a man promises to support. But sometimes a widow is aided by the remedy of a dispensation for this reason alone: that she is younger and is situated in danger of incontinence.

“6. The good of peace, under which name come not only treaties between kingdoms and princes but also the extinction of grave enmities, quarrels, and civil hatreds. This cause is adduced either to extinguish grave enmities which have arisen between the blood relatives or relatives by affinity of the contracting parties and which would be altogether settled by the celebration of the Marriage; or when grave enmities have flourished between the blood relatives and relatives by affinity of the contracting parties and, although peace has already been entered between them, nevertheless the celebration of the Marriage would conduce very greatly to the confirmation of that peace.

“7. Excessive, suspect, and dangerous familiarity, and likewise cohabitation under the same roof, which cannot easily be prevented.

“8. Prior intercourse with a blood relative, a relative by affinity, or another person laboring under an impediment, and pregnancy and therefore the legitimation of offspring, namely, so that provision may be made for the good of the offspring itself and for the honor of the woman, who otherwise would remain unmarried. This is certainly one of the more urgent causes on account of which a dispensation is customarily given even to common people, provided that the intercourse was not perpetrated in the hope of an easier dispensation; this circumstance would have to be expressed in the supplication.

“9. The infamy of the woman arising from suspicion that she, being excessively familiar with her blood relative or relative by affinity, was carnally known by him, although the suspicion is false, when, namely, unless the Marriage is contracted, the woman, gravely defamed, would either remain unmarried, have to marry a man of unequal condition, or grave injuries would arise.

“10. The revalidation of a Marriage which was contracted in good faith and publicly, with the Tridentine form observed; because its dissolution can scarcely occur without public scandal and grave harm, especially to the woman (chapter 7, On Consanguinity). But if the betrothed parties entered the nuptials in bad faith, they by no means merit the grace of a dispensation, as the Council of Trent disposes, session 24, chapter 5, On the Reformation of Matrimony.

“11. The danger of a mixed Marriage or of one to be celebrated before a non-Catholic minister. When there is danger that those wishing to contract Marriage even in one of the greater degrees, upon denial of the dispensation, will approach a non-Catholic minister to celebrate the nuptials, in contempt of the authority of the Church, a just cause for dispensing is found, because there is present not only the most grave scandal of the faithful but also fear of the perversion and defection from the faith of those acting in this manner and despising the impediments of Matrimony, especially in regions where heresies rage with impunity. This Sacred Congregation taught this in the Instruction given to the Archbishop of Quebec on 17 April 1820. Likewise, when the Vicar Apostolic of Bosnia asked whether he could grant a dispensation to those Catholics who allege no other motive than insane love, and at the same time it is foreseen that, if the dispensation is denied, they will enter a union before an unbelieving judge, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on Wednesday, 14 August 1822, decreed: ‘Response is to be made to the petitioner that in the case set forth he may use the faculties committed to him in Formula II according as he shall judge expedient in the Lord.’ The same is to be said concerning the danger that a Catholic party may dare to celebrate Marriage with a non-Catholic.

“12. The danger of incestuous concubinage. From the Instruction of the year 1822 mentioned above, it is clear that the remedy of a dispensation is to be employed lest anyone grow filthy in concubinage with public scandal and evident danger to eternal salvation.

“13. The danger of civil Marriage. From what has been said, it follows that the probable danger that those who seek a dispensation, if they do not obtain it, will celebrate only a civil Marriage, as they say, is a legitimate cause for dispensing.

“14. The removal of grave scandals.

“15. The cessation of public concubinage.

“16. Excellence of merits, when someone has deserved exceedingly well of religion, whether by fighting against the enemies of the Catholic faith, by liberality toward the Church, by learning, virtue, or in another manner.

“These are the more common and principal causes which are customarily adduced for obtaining matrimonial dispensations. Theologians and interpreters of the sacred canons treat them copiously. Among others, Pyrrhus Corradus, Practice of Apostolic Dispensations, books 7 and 8, and Vincent De Iustis, On Matrimonial Dispensations, book 3, are to be consulted.

“But now the Instruction turns to those things which, besides the causes, must be expressed by law, custom, or the style of the Curia in supplicatory letters for obtaining a dispensation, so that if the truth is concealed even through ignorance, or a falsehood is narrated, the dispensation is rendered null. These are:

“1. The first and last names of the petitioners, each to be written distinctly and clearly and without any abbreviation of letters.

“2. The diocese of origin or of actual domicile. When the petitioners have domicile outside the diocese of origin, they can, if they wish, request that the dispensation be sent to the Ordinary of the diocese in which they now dwell.

“3. Even the lowest species of the impediment: whether it is consanguinity, or affinity arising from licit or illicit intercourse; public propriety deriving its origin from betrothals or from a ratified Marriage; in the impediment of crime, whether it arose from the killing of a spouse with a promise of Marriage, or from the killing of a spouse with adultery, or from adultery alone with a promise of Marriage; in spiritual kinship, whether it is between the sponsor and the person sponsored, or between the sponsor and a parent of the person sponsored.

“4. The degree of consanguinity, affinity, or propriety from a ratified Marriage, and whether it is simple or mixed, not only the more remote but also the nearer degree; and likewise the line, whether direct or collateral; likewise, whether the petitioners are joined by a double bond of consanguinity, both on the father’s side and on the mother’s side.

“5. The number of impediments; for example, if there is double or multiple consanguinity or affinity, or if, besides kinship, there is also affinity or any other impediment, whether invalidating or prohibitive.

“6. The various circumstances: namely, whether the Marriage is to be contracted or has been contracted; if already contracted, it must be disclosed whether in good faith, at least on the part of one, or with knowledge of the impediment; likewise, whether after the banns had first been made and according to the Tridentine form, or whether in the hope of obtaining a dispensation more easily; finally, whether it has been consummated; if in bad faith, at least on the part of one, or with knowledge of the impediment.

“7. Incestuous intercourse, etc. Cf. no. 1038.

These things must be kept before their eyes not only by those who have recourse to the Holy See in order to obtain some matrimonial dispensation, but also by those who are themselves able to dispense by virtue of a Pontifical delegation, so that they may duly use, as is proper, the faculties with which they are endowed." Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 9 May 1877.

When is the narrowness of a place such that it may be adduced as a legitimate cause for obtaining a matrimonial dispensation? - Response. The norm is given by Pius IX through a circular letter of His Eminence Cardinal Spinola, Pro-Datary, sent to the archbishops on 30 August 1847. In it, moreover, those places are declared narrow in which the number of households does not exceed three hundred, or the inhabitants are not more than one thousand five hundred. - The Sacred Congregation of the Council, on 16 December 1876, gave this response: "The narrowness of a place is not to be derived from the number of households of each parish, but from the number of households of each place, or even of several places, if they are not more than one mile distant from one another." The Apostolic Datary, however, has this: "The narrowness of a place is verified when its households do not exceed the number three hundred; nor does it prevent this that the narrow place is situated at a small distance from another, provided that those two places are distinct and different from one another and have their own designation. Some distance, however, is required in suburbs which, although they constitute part of a city, are nevertheless admitted as narrow when they are distant from the city by a mile or a little less. Thus think Pyrrhus Corrado, Praxis dispensationum apostolicarum, book 7, chapter 5, and De Justis, De Dispensationibus matrimonialibus, book 3, chapter 2. The practice of this Apostolic Datary conforms exactly to a doctrine of this kind." Cf. A. S. S., vol. 9, p. 631; vol. 16, p. 544; C. 1481.

It often happens that Apostolic matrimonial dispensations are obtained for the cause (whether alone or with others) of the over-advanced age of the female petitioner, expressed simply thus, or sometimes thus: the age of the female petitioner is 25 years, or 30, or otherwise, but more than 24. Since, however, Authors are of the opinion that a cause of this kind is to be interpreted as meaning that up to that age the woman had not found a man of equal condition whom she could marry, this question is asked by this Most Reverend Episcopal Curia of Tropea: Whether, in verifying the aforesaid cause, it is also necessary to inquire into and prove that the woman of over-advanced age had not, up to that age, found a man of equal condition whom she could marry; and whether this is required for the validity of the dispensation?

Response. "It is sufficient that the over-advanced age be certainly established." Sacred Penitentiary, 5 April 1902.

"Under date of 30 March 1897, John B.... and Rosalia I.... N...., of the diocese of N...., received from the Apostolic Datary a rescript of dispensation concerning degrees of consanguinity in the second degree in the equal line from one stock, and in a double fourth degree arising from a third stock. Thus the rescript read, whereas in fact the dispensation had been requested concerning degrees of consanguinity in the second degree from one stock, the fourth from another, and finally likewise the fourth from a third stock. Since time was pressing, the Ordinary of N.... executed the rescript. 1. Whether he validly and licitly executed the rescript?

"On 1 February 1895, when a certain Ordinary had declared himself in the petition to be the Ordinary of origin, whereas in fact he was the Ordinary of domicile, the Sacred Penitentiary responded to his inquiry that the dispensation had been validly and licitly granted, but that the error was to be corrected. Hence 2. Whether the Ordinary of N.... himself must also correct the error of the rescript in the present case?

"Response. Let him rest content after making the correction." Sacred Penitentiary, 2 June 1897.

"I recently wrote to the Sacred Penitentiary that Charles D...., twenty-six years old, and Julia Louisa M...., twenty-three years and six months old, of the diocese of N...., prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness and desiring to contract a lawful Marriage, humbly implored a dispensation from the impediment of consanguinity in the second degree of the collateral line. I alleged as causes the nearly advanced age of the female petitioner (namely, twenty-three years and six months) and her condition as bereft of both parents.

"Now the Sacred Penitentiary, under date of 19 April of the current year, granted the Ordinary of N.... the faculty to dispense for the following reasons: the female petitioner's age of twenty-four years and her condition as an orphan.

"Hence I humbly ask whether I may nevertheless dispense the petitioners, since the female petitioner has not completed her twenty-fourth year.

"The Sacred Penitentiary, in reply to the letter of the Ordinary of N.... dated 23 April of this year, concerning the doubt whether the same Ordinary may execute the rescript of matrimonial dispensation for the petitioners Charles D.... and Julia Louisa M...., since among the causes is read the female petitioner's age of twenty-four years, although the female petitioner, as had been set forth, has not yet completed her twenty-fourth year, responds:

"Since another cause for dispensing is present, nothing prevents the aforesaid rescript of dispensation from being put into execution." Sacred Penitentiary, 28 April 1897.

"The unspeakable crime of incest has always been pursued with a particular hatred by the holy Church of God, and the Supreme Roman Pontiffs established that, if those who were not ashamed to defile themselves with it should have recourse to the Apostolic See for the purpose of seeking a dispensation from impediments invalidating Marriage, their petitions, unless mention had been made in them of the crime committed, should be regarded as infected by the vice of obreption and subreption and that, accordingly, the dispensation should be invalid; and this was provided for on the most holy ground that the Christian faithful might be deterred from this most grave crime.

"This intention of the Holy See is attested both by other documents and by the Decree which the Supreme Council of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition most recently issued, with the Roman Pontiff himself approving, on Wednesday, 1 August 1866, which is as follows: 'Dispensations which, either directly by the Apostolic See or by Pontifical delegation, are granted concerning any prohibited degrees whatsoever of consanguinity, affinity, spiritual kinship, and also public propriety, are surreptitious and are nowhere and in no manner valid if, before the execution of the same dispensations, whether before or after obtaining them, the betrothed parties committed the guilt of incest and, whether questioned or even not questioned, maliciously or even ignorantly concealed the incestuous intercourse entered into between them, whether it is publicly known or even occult, or concealed the plan and intention with which they entered into that same intercourse so that they might obtain the dispensation more easily.'" The Sacred Penitentiary, following in the footsteps of the Supreme Inquisition, established the same thing on 20 July 1869.

"But since very many sacred prelates, either individually and separately or conjointly, reported to the Holy See that the greatest inconveniences arise from this cause when proceeding to the execution of matrimonial dispensations, and that, especially in these wretched times, what had been wisely introduced for the salvation of the faithful not rarely turns to their ruin, Our Most Holy Lord, by divine providence Pope Leo XIII, moved by their petitions, after the matter had been considered long and maturely, and adhering to the vote of the Most Eminent Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, together with me General Inquisitors throughout the whole Christian commonwealth, ordered that these letters be sent to all Ordinaries of places, by which it should be made known to them that the above-reported Decree of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition and of the Sacred Penitentiary, and whatsoever had otherwise been declared or established in the same sense or introduced by the style of the Curia, was by him revoked and abrogated and decreed henceforth to be of no force; and at the same time it was established and declared that matrimonial dispensations to be granted hereafter would be valid even if incestuous intercourse, or the plan and intention of obtaining a dispensation more easily through it, had been concealed; anything whatsoever to the contrary, even worthy of special mention, notwithstanding.

"Nevertheless, although for most grave reasons the Most Holy Father kindly judges that departure should be made from the former rigor in this matter, his intention is that nothing be taken away from the horror which the crime of incest ought to inspire in the minds of the faithful; indeed, he wishes pastors of souls, and others to whom the care of fostering upright morals among the Christian faithful is entrusted, to be urged with the greatest zeal to labor prudently indeed, as the nature of the matter demands, but nevertheless effectively, in pursuing this crime and in deterring the faithful from it by setting before them the penalties to which they become liable." Circular Letter of the Holy Office, 25 June 1885.

"Matrimonial dispensations concerning any impediment whatsoever, whether the question concerns Marriages invalidly contracted or those to be contracted, are valid even if intercourse, or the plan and intention of obtaining the favor more easily through it, had been concealed." Holy Office, 18 March 1891; C. no. 1500.

"Whether a Marriage contracted after a dispensation concerning the more remote degree, the nearer degree having been concealed, is valid when declaratory letters according to the Constitution of Saint Pius V have not first been obtained? - Response. His Holiness taught that Marriages of this kind are indeed valid but unlawful, provided that the dispensations do not touch the first degree, and accordingly that the spouses must be separated until declaratory letters, or what they call a perinde valere, are issued. And he ordered that replies be given in this manner in the future, notwithstanding the contrary Decree of this Sacred Congregation issued under date of 13 November 1732." Holy Office, 12 December 1748.

Saint Pius V, in the Constitution Sanctissimus of 20 August 1566, "established and ordained that henceforth, in any dispensations whatsoever which it may happen are obtained or otherwise granted from His Holiness, from the Roman Pontiff existing at the time, or from the Apostolic See for Marriages contracted or to be contracted between men and women joined to one another in diverse prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity, or mixed degrees arising from a common or the same stock, whatsoever they may be, provided that they do not in any manner touch the first degree, since His Holiness never intends to dispense in it, and in the letters and commissions thereupon, including those to be directed to Ordinaries of places, the more remote degree is to be regarded and is to draw the nearer degree along with itself; and for that reason it is sufficient to express only the more remote degree, yet declaratory letters concerning the nearer degree must afterward be obtained, according to Constitutions of Gregory and Clement, his predecessors, which, in this respect, he renewed and ordered to be inviolably observed; and dispensations or commissions to dispense, the letters drawn up thereupon, and the processes held through them cannot be branded with the vice of subreption or obreption, or with defect of intention, because of the non-expression of this nearer degree on the part of those dispensed or those with whom dispensation is ordered, but are to avail in all things and through all things just as if special and express mention of the nearer degree or of both degrees had been made in letters or commissions of this kind."

"Your Most Reverend Lordship set forth to this Sacred Congregation the practice followed in matrimonial dispensations by Monsignor the Maronite Archbishop of Beirut; namely, that when a matrimonial dispensation has been obtained from the Patriarch or from the Holy See, if before execution is given it is discovered that in the same case another impediment concurs, one of those from which the Maronite bishops believe themselves authorized to dispense, the aforesaid Archbishop in fact dispenses from the new impediment without having recourse anew to the Patriarch or to the Holy See. This being posited, Your Lordship asks whether such dispensations are valid or null.

"Your Lordship is not unaware that, in order for a dispensation to be valid, it is necessary, according to the common teaching of theologians, to disclose all the impediments that obstruct the Marriage, as well as the circumstances which must necessarily be manifested; and such disclosure must be made not in separate petitions but conjointly in the same supplication, for the familiar reason that the whole gravity of the matter must become known to the one dispensing, and a greater number of impediments renders a dispensation more difficult. Therefore, if a diriment impediment for which recourse must be had, or in fact is had, either to the Patriarch, if he has the faculty, or to the Holy See, concurs with another diriment or prohibitive impediment from which the bishop has the faculty to dispense, it is not enough to have recourse and disclose the first to the Patriarch or to the Holy See and the second to the bishop in order to obtain separate dispensations; rather, both must be disclosed to the Holy See or to the Patriarch, in order to implore from it or him a dispensation from both impediments. In fact, this case was proposed to the Sacred Penitentiary: 'A certain dispensation was granted by Your Holiness concerning the impediment of the second degree of consanguinity. It is asked whether, by virtue of the Indult of 15 November (in which faculties are granted concerning impediments of the third and fourth degrees), the bishop can dispense concerning an impediment of the fourth degree which is afterward discovered.' On 15 April the Sacred Penitentiary responded: 'Negative.'" Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 10 May 1887.

".... The Holy Father had principally in view that, in a matter of grave importance which can compromise morality, the truth of what was set forth should be well ascertained and proved upon the faith and conscientious knowledge of the bishops themselves, and not merely of the episcopal curiae....

"While, therefore, we charge their consciences in interposing their endeavors for those dispensations which canonical reasons recommend, it is our will that in the future, for dispensations in the first degree of affinity, or in the second mixed with the first degree of consanguinity or affinity, not by the customary formulaic testimonial letters, but, wherever they can, by special letters of their own, the bishops themselves, the vicars capitular, the vicars apostolic, and the abbots ordinary must directly state, for their respective subjects, the canonical causes which concur in each particular case, the circumstances on account of which they judge the favor necessary, and the danger to life, wherever it is at least probable, which cannot be avoided except by the Marriage. By such a provision the concurrence of causes sufficient for the dispensation will be rendered more difficult, and we shall be more at ease in assenting to concessions which we find justified by necessity, a necessity all the more compelling insofar as the means of remedying it through other arrangements are fewer.

"The Ordinaries will then remain strictly charged to verify what has been set forth when giving execution to the favor; this will be much easier for them if, before writing about it to the Holy See, they shall have obtained such proofs as they judge proper for recommending the petition. Let them keep before them in this matter what our predecessors prescribed concerning the execution of matrimonial dispensations, and especially Benedict XIV. Let them remember, according to his admonition, that the expression of the causes in Apostolic letters and their verification, far from being, as some say, the customary, vain, and superfluous formalities of the Curia, to be regarded as of little or no account, pertain positively to the substance and validity of the dispensation; and by this very fact let them bind themselves to employ every most rigorous precaution in executing the dispensations which are committed to them." Gregory XVI to the Most Reverend Cardinal Pro-Datary, 22 November 1836; M. E., vol. 4, book 6, part 1, p. 174 ff.

"Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord, - As the flood of evils increases, the abundance of petitions for obtaining matrimonial dispensations from an impediment of the first degree touching the second degree of consanguinity has struck the mind of Our Most Holy Sovereign Lord Pope Leo XIII. For he has observed that, by indulging concessions of this kind, unbridled license, which increases from day to day, is in no way restrained, because the continual opportunity and convenience of satisfying it with impunity entice those intending marriage with the hope that, now under the guise of conjugal life, they will conceal the unhappy effects and the guilt which have already preceded.

"But lest the indulgence of His Holiness provide an occasion for undermining the salutary discipline which is commanded by the sanctity of the Sacrament and contributes so greatly to integrity of morals, the good of society, and the increase of more vigorous bodies, he charges the consciences of the bishops to watch diligently lest petitioners approach the Holy See unless true canonical causes commend them in law, and to explain, in letters written in their own hand, the reasons in each case and also the circumstances on account of which they think the favor should be granted. In this way the Supreme Pontiff will more safely assent to petitions whenever he recognizes a necessity that is more constraining in proportion as the means of providing for it in another way are fewer.

"I hold it certain that Your Excellency will labor with all your strength so that the wishes of His Holiness may attain their greatly desired end. Meanwhile I profess to you the sentiments of my respect and pray for all things from the Lord.

"Given at Rome, from our residence, on 19 June 1895."

"In order not to multiply letters, the writer takes advantage of this occasion to recommend the due vigilance that every possible diligence be employed by the episcopal curiae in properly ascertaining the economic condition of those to be dispensed, so that in the respective testimonial letters of recommendation for dispensations of any degree there may be expressed the value of the petitioners' property and of the revenues accruing to them from another source, noting at the same time whether the property is presently enjoyed by the petitioners or is only held in expectation, as often happens among children of a family; but if none of these things is verified, it must be expressly stated that the petitioners possess nothing and live solely by the industry and labor of their own hands." Circular Letter of the Apostolic Datary, 21 July 1879; M. E., vol. 4, part 1, p. 173 ff.

"It pleased Our Most Holy Lord N.... to order that notice be given of how the Apostolic See itself is accustomed to act in dispensing the poor from impediments invalidating Marriage. For it will be your duty, the same Most Holy Lord added, to use these same rules, since a delegate neither can nor ought to depart, even slightly, from the usages and custom of the one delegating. He then added: From the most ancient time it has been the custom of the Apostolic See not to dispense in the form for the poor concerning the simple third and fourth degrees of consanguinity or affinity unless true poverty and some one of the causes to be enumerated below concur.

"Those alone are indeed considered truly poor who are so destitute that they live solely by the labor of their hands and by industry; whence it comes that a dispensation in the form for the poor is not otherwise granted by the Apostolic See unless the poverty of those to be dispensed is established by the attestation of their own bishop, and indeed one drawn up according to the Decree of Urban VIII, namely, that the petitioners are so poor and destitute that they live solely from their own labors and industry.

"Nevertheless, because those also can deservedly be called so poor who possess some goods, a dispensation in the form for the poor is not therefore denied by the Holy See even if the petitioners, if they dwell on this side of the mountains, possess capital goods to the value of 300 scudi in Roman currency; or, if beyond the mountains, to the value of 300 gold ducats of the Camera, amounting to 325 scudi of the said currency. But if they have goods up to the quantity of one thousand scudi, or respectively one thousand gold ducats of the Camera, a dispensation in the form for the poor is nevertheless granted, upon payment, however, of the alms which is commonly called the componenda, of four scudi for each hundred; the Most Holy Lord directs and wills that this be either expended for the relief of the poor or remitted to those being dispensed under the title of alms if, nevertheless, upon consideration of their condition, they appear to be poor. But to those possessing more, a dispensation in the form for the poor is not granted, but under another form, for persons of honorable condition, which, however, is by no means included in the faculties granted." Holy Office, 26 September 1754.

"The Holy Father (Leo XIII) has ordained:

"1. That only those who possess no more than 1,500 lire in their own goods free from encumbrances must be regarded as truly poor; and those who possess no more than 2,000 lire as almost poor.

"2. That for possessors of public revenues, for employees, and in general for all those who, not possessing their own goods, live by labor and industry, poverty or near-poverty must be understood in such a way that, after necessary support has been deducted, there remains to them a fund or capital corresponding to the aforesaid amount established for the poor or almost poor." Letter of Cardinal Rampolla, 9 February 1898.

"In order that this Sacred Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, in the exercise of the power provisionally and exclusively attributed to it of granting in the external forum matrimonial dispensations for the poor or almost poor, may adhere faithfully to the norms prescribed for it, notice is given to Apostolic Expediters and Agents of ecclesiastical affairs, with the charge of communicating it to the ecclesiastical curiae assisted by them:

"1. That the testimonial letters of the bishops must contain the express declaration of the poverty or near-poverty of the petitioners, judged according to the norms in use and with the consciences of the Ordinaries charged in this matter;

"2. That the bishop must sign the testimonial letter, and, in the case of a legitimate impediment, a delegate specially deputed for this purpose may sign it, whether he be the Vicar General or another priest, with express mention being made of the bishop's legitimate impediment and of his special delegation." Sacred Penitentiary, 5 February 1900.

"Whether the Norms recently published concerning the practice of the Apostolic Datary in granting matrimonial dispensations, and especially those which determine the poverty and near-poverty of those to be dispensed, have application and force also for the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, to which the faculty of dispensing the poor and almost poor, recognized as such by their own bishops, is reserved? - Response. Nothing has been changed in the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary." Sacred Penitentiary, 23 July 1902.

"The Bishop of Nicastro asks that the precise norm which, amid so many opinions of various authors, must be followed in stating the condition of poverty or near-poverty of petitioners for matrimonial dispensations be indicated to him. And so forth.

"Response. Until otherwise established by the Holy See, one must stand by the Decree of Benedict XIV, given through the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on Thursday, 25 September 1754, according to which, in relation to matrimonial dispensations, both those who live solely by labor and industry and those who possess some goods, but not beyond the sum in capital of 300 Roman scudi (that is, 1,612.50 lire), are to be considered poor in Italy. Those, however, whose goods do not exceed in capital the sum of one thousand scudi (that is, 5,735 lire) are to be called almost poor there, but from those almost poor persons a modest increase of the tax is customarily exacted." Sacred Penitentiary, 20 January 1904.

"The proposition asserting that bishops can dispense from the public diriment impediment of consanguinity for a Marriage to be contracted, whether at the point of death or in another most urgent necessity in which the contracting parties cannot await a dispensation of the Apostolic See, is false, rash, scandalous, pernicious, and seditious." Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, 19 January 1661; A. S. S., vol. 14, p. 155 ff.

"By command of Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, two classes of questions were very recently proposed to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition for consideration. The first concerns the faculties with which, when danger of death is urgent and there is not time to have recourse to the Holy See, it is fitting to augment the Ordinaries of places so that they may dispense from public impediments invalidating Marriage those who are joined according to the civil laws or otherwise live in concubinage, in order that those about to die, in such straits of time, may be duly joined in the sight of the Church and take counsel for their own conscience; the second concerns the execution of dispensations which are customarily imparted by the Apostolic See.

"With regard to the first, after the matter had been seriously and diligently considered and the vote of the Most Eminent Fathers, General Inquisitors together with me, had been approved and confirmed, His Holiness kindly assented to the favor by which Ordinaries of places may, either by themselves or through an ecclesiastical person acceptable to them, dispense sick persons situated in most grave danger of death, when there is not time to have recourse to the Holy See, from impediments, however public, that invalidate Marriage by ecclesiastical law, except the sacred order of priesthood and affinity in the direct line arising from licit intercourse.

"It is, however, the intention of the same His Holiness that if at any time, which God forbid, necessity requires that dispensation be given to those who are marked with the sacred order of subdiaconate or diaconate, or who have emitted solemn religious profession, and after the dispensation and the Marriage duly celebrated they recover, in extraordinary cases of this kind the Ordinaries are to inform the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of the dispensation imparted; and meanwhile they are to take every measure so that any scandal that may be present may be removed in the best manner possible, both by inducing the same persons to go to places where their ecclesiastical or religious condition is unknown, and, if this cannot be obtained, by enjoining upon them at least spiritual exercises and other salutary penances, and that manner of life which may seem suitable for expiating past excesses and which may be an example to the faithful for living rightly and in a Christian manner.

"But with regard to the second class of questions, the vote of the same Most Eminent Fathers having likewise been approved and confirmed, His Holiness decreed:

"1. That all matrimonial dispensations are in the future to be committed either to the Ordinary of the petitioners or to the Ordinary of the place.

"2. That under the designation of Ordinary are included bishops, administrators or Vicars Apostolic, prelates or prefects having jurisdiction with a separate territory, and their officials or Vicars General in spiritual matters, and, while the see is vacant, the Vicar Capitular or lawful administrator.

"3. That the Vicar Capitular or administrator can also execute those Apostolic dispensations which were remitted to the bishop or to his Vicar General or official and have not yet been put into execution, whether they had begun to execute them or not. And conversely, after the see has then been provided for, the bishop or his Vicar General in spiritual matters or official can execute dispensations which had been remitted to the Vicar Capitular for execution, whether the latter had begun to execute them or not.

"4. That matrimonial dispensations committed to the Ordinary of the petitioners are to be executed by that Ordinary who gave the testimonial letters or transmitted the prayers to the Apostolic See, whether he is the Ordinary of origin or of domicile, whether of both spouses or of either of them; even if, at the time when the dispensation is to be put into execution, the spouses, having abandoned domicile in his diocese, have departed to another diocese with no intention of returning, provided, however, that he notify, if he judges it expedient, the Ordinary of the place in which the Marriage is contracted.

"5. That it is lawful for the aforesaid Ordinary, if he likewise judges it expedient, to delegate another Ordinary for the execution of the dispensation, especially the one in whose diocese the spouses actually reside." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 20 February 1888.

"Whether Ordinaries, in cases of extreme necessity, can subdelegate in a general manner to parish priests and universally to approved confessors the faculty of dispensing from public matrimonial impediments in danger of death, granted by the letters of the Sacred Congregation of 20 February 1888, or not?" After this doubt had been maturely considered, the Most Eminent Fathers on Wednesday, 9 January 1889, said: "Petition is to be made to His Holiness that he deign to decree and declare that the Ordinaries to whom the aforesaid faculty was given by the cited letters of 20 February 1888 can habitually subdelegate it to parish priests only, but for cases in which time to have recourse to the Ordinaries themselves is lacking and there is danger in delay." On the same weekday and date, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII kindly deigned to assent according to the vote of the Most Eminent Fathers. Holy Office, 9 January 1889; C. 1471 ff.

"1. Whether the Sacred Congregation, by the words from impediments however public, intended to confirm the common opinion of theologians, and especially of Saint Alphonsus, which holds that bishops can in cases of urgent necessity dispense from occult impediments and can probably delegate that faculty even generally as an ordinary faculty, so that the intention of the Congregation was to signify that, a fortiori, bishops can dispense from occult impediments in the aforesaid circumstances. - 2. Whether, in most grave danger of death, assistants of a parish priest, when on account of the immense size of the parishes of that diocese they cannot have recourse to him, can in the name of the parish priest dispense from public impediments. - 3. Whether, under the designation of parish priests in the Decree of 9 January 1889, there are also included temporary Vicars who are substituted after the death of parish priests or in their absence.

"Response. To 1. By force of the Decree, affirmative for the point of death. - To 2 and 3. Let the response given on this same Wednesday to the Right Reverend Lord Abbot of the Most Holy Trinity of Cava be given, which is the following, namely: 'The following doubts having been proposed by the Right Reverend Lord Abbot praised above: I. Whether, under the designation of parish priests in the subdelegation of the faculty mentioned in the petition, there are to be understood also vice-parish priests or administrator-curates removable at will, in which parishes parish priests strictly so called and of the true name have not been created? And if negative: - II. Whether at least in dioceses in which, as also in the Abbey Nullius of the Most Holy Trinity of Cava, by privilege or by most ancient and immemorial custom, there are some parishes whose curates are appointed as Vicars of the Abbot under the designation of administrators or archpriest-curates, removable at will, the aforesaid faculty can be extended also to these.' - Response. To I. All who actually exercise the care of souls are included, with vice-parish priests and chaplains excluded. - To II. Provided for in the preceding response." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 22 April 1890.

"Whether under the word parish priests, to whom Ordinaries can subdelegate the faculty of dispensing in cases of extreme necessity from public matrimonial impediments in danger of death, by virtue of the indult of the Supreme Congregation of 1 March 1889, missionaries having the care of souls, although they cannot strictly be called parish priests, can and ought to be understood. - Response. Affirmative for those missionaries who exercise parochial duties." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 23 April 1890.

"Concerning the understanding of the words sick persons situated in most grave danger of death, no slight disagreement has arisen among certain persons. For there are those who assert that there is place for a dispensation only when the impediment directly affects the sick person, but not when the sick person is free and the impediment directly affects only the person in good health. Others, on the contrary, think that the faculty to dispense was granted to Ordinaries even if the sick person does not have the impediment in himself, but it directly exists only in the person in good health. Hence, when they are joined civilly or otherwise live in concubinage, for example, if an unmarried woman and a deacon, she being sick and he in good health, could the Ordinary dispense them? Or if a sick nun lived in concubinage with a deacon in good health, would there be place for dispensation, since the deacon is not situated in most grave danger of death? - Response. By force of the Decree of 20 February 1888, Ordinaries of places can dispense in each of the two cases adduced, and in each case likewise must inform the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of the dispensation imparted and meanwhile take care of those things prescribed in the same Decree. His Holiness approved." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 1 July 1891.

"Whether by force of the Decrees of 20 February 1888 and 1 March 1889, Ordinaries, by themselves or through parish priests, can dispense from public impediments of ecclesiastical law, excepting priesthood and affinity in the direct line, all persons situated at the point of death, although they have not celebrated what they call a civil Marriage and do not live in concubinage. - Response. Negative." Holy Office, 17 September 1890. - And negative also if the sick persons situated in danger of death do not presently live in concubinage but nevertheless lived in it and begot offspring which ought to be legitimated. Holy Office, 3 March 1899.

"Whether the Decrees of 20 February 1888 and 1 March 1889 also include the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of clandestinity, such that, for example, a parish priest delegated by the bishop can, in his parish, join either those who are not his subjects but are strangers present there by chance, dispensing from the presence of their own parish priest, to whom recourse can in no way be had; or even join his own subjects, but without witnesses, likewise dispensing from their presence, when there are absolutely no persons who can fulfill the office of witnesses. - Response. Affirmative." Holy Office, 13 December 1899.

"Whether by the letters of 20 February 1888, by which the faculty is granted to Ordinaries of places to dispense sick persons situated in most grave danger of death from impediments invalidating Marriage by ecclesiastical law, the conditions and exceptions expressed in those same letters remaining firm, and by the later letters of 1 March 1889, by which it is declared that a faculty of this kind can be subdelegated to parish priests, there is understood to be granted also the faculty of declaring and pronouncing legitimate any illegitimate offspring perhaps begotten by the concubinaries who are to be dispensed by virtue of the said faculty, just as it is customary for this to be granted by the Holy See in individual particular cases of matrimonial dispensations; or whether, on the contrary, it is necessary afterward to obtain a new favor from the Holy See for the legitimation of the offspring already begotten?

"Response. Affirmative as to the first part, excepting adulterine offspring and offspring born of persons bound by sacred order or solemn religious profession, the matter having been mentioned to His Holiness. As to the second part, provided for in the first." Holy Office, 8 July 1903.

With regard to disparity of worship and mixed religion, "the cautions are to be required even at the point of death; disparity of worship, as a diriment impediment, is included in the encyclical of the Holy Office of 20 February 1888; but mixed religion, as a prohibitive impediment, is not included." Holy Office, 18 March 1891.

"It is not necessary that, when those contracting Marriage dwell in different places, they be dispensed by both Ordinaries, namely that of the woman and that of the man, but by only one or the other, just as the Sacred Penitentiary declared. We deem it fitting that a response of this kind concerning the matter, which we add here, be made known as occasion requires. - Response of the Sacred Penitentiary: Any Ordinary, acting with a faculty which is not ordinary but is delegated by the Holy See absolutely, simply, and without any condition, to dispense his own diocesans, can (express mention of the delegation being made in each act) dispense from some canonical impediment even in a case in which one person bound by the impediment belongs to his diocese, while the other belongs to another; because the faculty proceeds from the Pope, and, when the impediment has been removed on the part of the person with whom he is able to dispense, the other party also becomes free, since the bond no longer exists between the two parties." And on 13 March 1886 it declared to the Bishop of Cambrai: "A bishop can execute in the external forum a matrimonial dispensation committed by the Holy See, even if one of those to whom the dispensation was granted, while it was being issued, departed from his diocese and established a domicile elsewhere, provided that the other remained in it." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 19 September 1861.

"At Rieti it is regarded as an incontestable maxim that the use of several faculties cannot be cumulated in the same case, on account of the general rule which forbids cumulation in the matter of dispensations, and because the said faculties are of strict law, just as are the dispensations themselves, and therefore must be strictly interpreted and not extended beyond what they state, namely, the express will of the grantor. Hence, since no statement alluding to cumulation is made in the various faculties of dispensation for the various degrees, it follows that one who is furnished with those faculties cannot use them simultaneously in the same case." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 18 May 1869.

"The Bishop of N.... has hitherto thought that the faculty belonged to him, by virtue of the indult of 15 November, to dispense in Marriages to be contracted from an impediment either of consanguinity or of affinity in the third and fourth degrees, not only when single but also when double and more, and likewise when consanguinity and affinity are joined together. But since the said bishop has recently learned that some today doubt the aforesaid opinion, he therefore proposes the following doubts to the Sacred Penitentiary:

"1. Whether, by virtue of the indult of 15 November, a bishop can dispense from consanguinity or affinity in the degrees determined there, even when the same degrees are multiplied? - 2. Whether he can dispense when consanguinity and affinity are joined together? - 3. If negative, he requests sanation for the past and a faculty for the future?

"Response. To 1. Affirmative. - To 2. Provision will be made in what follows. - To 3. By special and express Apostolic authority, the Sacred Penitentiary sanates in the root and convalidates each and every Marriage which hitherto has been contracted invalidly because of a cumulated faculty of dispensing simultaneously from consanguinity and affinity, and decrees and respectively declares legitimate the offspring both already begotten and to be begotten therefrom. The present letters, however, are to be kept diligently in the episcopal chancery so that, for any future eventuality, the validity of the Marriages and the legitimacy of the offspring may be established.

"With regard to the future, however, the faculty is granted to the same bishop that he, either personally or through his Vicar General, may dispense from consanguinity and affinity joined together, in the degrees determined in the second article of the indult of 15 November, for ten cases only." Sacred Penitentiary, 18 January 1883.

"1. Whether, when some secret diriment impediment, or one of the internal forum, concurs with another impediment likewise diriment but public, a special faculty to cumulate is necessary for dispensation. - 2. Whether, when two impediments concur, one of which is diriment and the other only prohibitive, with the exception of that which they call mixed religion, a special faculty to cumulate is likewise necessary for dispensation. - Response. To 1. Negative; and let the Decree of 31 March 1872 in the Coimbatore case be given. - To 2. Affirmative with regard to prohibitive impediments whose dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, namely those which arise from what they call mixed religion, and from betrothals and from a simple vow of perpetual chastity; otherwise in the remaining ones, concerning which the bishop will be able to use his own right." Holy Office, 18 August 1897.

The Decree given on 31 March 1872 in the Coimbatore case reads thus: "The Most Holy Lord declared generally that the prohibition against granting dispensations without a special faculty, when matrimonial impediments concur in one and the same person, does not extend to those cases in which another occult impediment, or one of the internal forum, occurs together with an impediment public by its nature."

A bishop cannot use the special indult to dispense from cumulated impediments, that is, two impediments concurring at the same time, while by another special faculty he sanates a Marriage in the root. Thus the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 January 1882, to the Bishop of Burlington; Zit., p. 105.

"Bishops who enjoy the quinquennial faculty of dispensing from the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity and affinity, simple and mixed only, and from the second, third, and fourth, but not from the second alone with respect to future Marriages, can dispense in the third and third, in the fourth and fourth, in the third mixed with the fourth, and likewise in the third and fourth mixed with the second, whether the degree arises from one stock or from multiple stocks." Holy Office, 15 June 1875; Zit., p. 52. - Cf. M. E., vol. 11, p. 386 ff.

"... Some among us do not hesitate to give an anticipatory and common dispensation for this effect (of marrying). Their reason is that it does not seem probable that the Holy See requires them to undertake a journey of ten days and sometimes more in order to request a dispensation when a case occurs. Furthermore, they have observed that, out of one hundred pagan women who marry faithful men, ninety become Christians; hence, generally and in anticipation, with account taken of the number of Christians in some determined place, they dispense a determined number of them, without the persons being named, from the impediment of disparity of worship. I do not dare to determine whether these missionaries exceed their authority in the aforesaid use of the faculty. - Response. The missionaries have exceeded and do exceed their authority in granting anticipatory and common dispensations without naming the person, and they are to be enjoined henceforth to abstain from granting these dispensations, under pain of nullity; for it is altogether foreign to the custom and intention of this Holy See to will to delegate to anyone faculties which are to be put into execution without the case first having been diligently examined and without the conditions which are imposed having been safeguarded by the same executor. It will therefore be the duty of the Vicar Apostolic himself to subdelegate the faculty, which is supposed to be present to him and to continue, of dispensing from disparity of worship, only to those prudent and pious priests laboring in his mission who permit none of the faithful to contract Marriage with an unbeliever unless they have first seen that those grave causes which the Apostolic See orders to be carefully examined concur in each individual case, and who take particular care that the unbelieving party, unless he has given hope of his conversion, will at least live with the faithful party without insult to the Creator and injury to the Christian name, and will in no manner impede the education of offspring of either sex in the holy religion. But lest the Vicar Apostolic be troubled concerning the dispensations hitherto unduly granted, His Holiness most mercifully granted that those who contracted should not be disturbed, their Marriages having been sanated in the root, as it is called, and the spouses having been released from the obligation of a new consent." Holy Office, 15 February 1790.

"Whether a dispensation from matrimonial impediments granted by the Ordinary of this region according to Apostolic faculties, although gravely unlawful, is nevertheless valid when it has been given without form, because the tenor of the faculty delegated by the Holy See or the time for which it was granted was not expressed, or because it was granted telegraphically in a few words or only orally: this doubt arises from the omission of the clause otherwise they are null in the faculties now granted for America, which clause was formerly expressly appended in faculties of this kind. - Response. Affirmative, provided that the woman was not in fact abducted, or, if abducted, is not in the power of the abductor. The clauses, however, are to be observed exactly, insofar as the circumstances of things, times, and places can permit." Holy Office, 15 June 1875.

"In the Apostolic Letters by which matrimonial dispensations are granted by the Apostolic Datary:

"1. Henceforth the following clauses are to be omitted: a) If he shall humbly seek pardon from you; b) after an oath has first been received from him that they did not commit incest or adultery of this kind in the hope of obtaining a dispensation of this kind more easily, and that they will never commit such things thereafter, nor furnish assistance or favor to those committing them; c) after two sacramental confessions have been made by them.

"2. In the same letters the following words are to be removed: We will that, if you presume to exact any gift or reward or to receive one offered, the absolution or dispensation shall be of no force or moment; and let it be said: It being altogether forbidden that you presume to exact any gift or reward or to receive one offered.

"3. Let the clause Provided that he has remained in the aforesaid separation be removed, and let it be said in its place: The scandal, insofar as it is present, having been removed, especially through separation, for a time agreeable to you, if it can be done.

"4. For the clause If you shall find the prayers to rest upon truth, let this other clause be substituted: If the things set forth are true.

"5. Where it is said, You shall absolve, either personally or through another, according to the customary form of the Church, let it be said: For this occasion only, you shall absolve, either personally or through another." Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 28 August 1895.

"Most Holy Father. - The Bishop of L. sets forth that among the new clauses which the Apostolic Datary uses in issuing matrimonial dispensations there is found one of the following tenor: 'We commit and command to your discretion that you diligently inform yourself concerning the foregoing matters, and, if the things set forth are true, by our authority, on this occasion only, personally or through another, you shall absolve the petitioners from the guilt of incest, sentences and censures, and ecclesiastical and temporal penalties in both forums, a salutary penance having been imposed upon them on account of incest of this kind. Finally, if it shall seem expedient to you that a dispensation of this kind be granted to them, by our authority and from special favor you shall dispense the same petitioners, the scandal, insofar as it is present, having been removed, especially through separation for a time agreeable to you, if it can be done, decreeing legitimate the offspring already begotten, if there is any, and to be begotten therefrom.' Hence it is asked:

"1. Whether for the validity of the execution the executor is bound to posit four distinct acts or decrees, that is: a first act by which he delegates the parish priest or another for the verification of the causes; a second act by which the executor, either personally or through another, imparts absolution to the betrothed parties and imposes a penance; a third act by which the betrothed parties are enjoined to repair the scandal; and a fourth act by which the dispensation and the legitimation of the offspring are granted? And if negative:

"2. Whether it is sufficient to posit two acts or decrees, namely: a first act or decree by which the parish priest or another is delegated for the verification of the causes; a second act or Decree by which, either through the executor or through another, absolution is imparted to the betrothed parties and a penance is imposed, the repair of the scandal is enjoined, and the dispensation and legitimation of the offspring are granted; and indeed in such a way that the dispensation and legitimation granted are understood under the condition that the betrothed parties first have obtained absolution and repaired the scandal?

"3. Whether, for the validity of the execution, a new and canonical verification of the causes to be instituted by virtue of the Apostolic letters is required in a case in which the Ordinary obtained exact information concerning the causes of dispensation, taken through sworn witnesses, before he presented the prayers to the Holy See for obtaining the dispensation?

"4. Whether the words you shall absolve in both forums are to be understood in such a way that a twofold absolution to be imparted separately is required, namely, one in the external forum and another in the internal forum; or whether those words are to be understood in such a way that only one absolution, to be imparted in the external forum, is required, which also avails for the internal?

"5. Whether, in a case in which the separation of the betrothed parties can be effected for the purpose of repairing the scandal, the executor must impose separation upon them for the validity of the execution; or whether for validity of this kind it is sufficient that the executor take care that the scandal be repaired by other effective means?

"Response. To 1. Provision is made in the second. - To 2. It is sufficient, yet in such a way that the dispensation and legitimation of the offspring can be effected only by the executor himself. - To 3. Negative. - To 4. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second. - To 5. It is expedient that the scandal be removed by separation, but it is not forbidden that other methods be employed which, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, suffice to remove it." Sacred Penitentiary, 27 April 1886.

"1. The official must always have exact information concerning the matter at issue, received through a person worthy of faith. It is sufficient that the official have moral conviction, and it makes no difference whether he acquired it in one manner or another. - 2. If the official has true and undoubted confidence concerning the person of the parish priest, which arises from moral conviction, the report of this parish priest suffices to establish the truth and certainty of the prayers. - 3. When the official has undoubted faith in the parish priest and in the integrity of his mind, then his report and testimony, as well as the examination conducted by him and diligently set forth before the episcopal curia, are always sufficient. - 4. An oath is furnished by the person to be examined only in the case in which that same oath is prescribed by the Holy See through Apostolic matrimonial Letters; otherwise not, for what the law willed, it expressed, and what it did not express, it did not will. - 5. When the faith and integrity of the parish priest are established, his testimony concerning poverty suffices unless the contrary is established; for in this case the official shall diligently seek information concerning the poverty. - 6. An oath is to be furnished only in the case in which the Holy See prescribed it in Apostolic Letters of matrimonial dispensations." The delegate of the Bishop of Mainz by mandate of the Sacred Apostolic Datary, following the commonly retained practice, 10 October 1867. Cf. Francis Sentis, Clementis Papae VIII Decretales, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1870, pp. 4-5.

"While the episcopal see is vacant, matrimonial dispensations to be executed are committed by the Holy See to the Vicar Capitular. After the verification of the causes has been completed, and likewise the separation of the betrothed parties prescribed by virtue of the Apostolic letters has been imposed, the Vicar Capitular ceases from his office because the new bishop has undertaken the lawful exercise of the episcopal office. Hence it is asked: 1. Whether the Vicar Capitular can validly complete to the end the execution of the dispensation in which, as above, the matter is no longer intact. - 2. Whether an execution of this kind must be completed by the new Ordinary. And in the case of an affirmative response to the second, it is again asked: - 3. Whether the new Ordinary can undertake the dispensation to be executed in the state in which it is actually found, so that neither a new verification of the causes to be instituted by him nor a new separation of the betrothed parties to be imposed by him is required; or whether he must undertake the execution from the beginning as if the Vicar Capitular had already done nothing in the affair, that is, as if the matter were still wholly intact. - Response. To 1. Negative. - To 2. Negative if the dispensations were remitted to the Vicar Capitular, but affirmative if they were remitted to the Ordinary. - To 3. Negative to the first part, affirmative to the second." Sacred Penitentiary, 3 April 1866.

"Whether, in verifying the impediments and causes of matrimonial dispensations, the interrogation of the betrothed parties is to be made or omitted, and, if it is to be omitted, whether it suffices to question two witnesses worthy of faith concerning all matters? - Response. The matter depends upon the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, after the particular circumstances of each case have been considered, which bring with them the necessity or utility of questioning the betrothed parties also, in addition to the witnesses." Sacred Penitentiary, 5 September 1899.

"In dispensations from the first and second degrees of kinship for contracting Marriage, the clause when necessity is urgent, or insofar as necessity concurs, is customarily appended. For the peace of his conscience, the Bishop of Monterey asks whether, in granting dispensations, the indicated condition of necessity is fulfilled when the will of the contracting parties is so determined that, in the case of refusal, they would proceed to contract before the civil magistrate with public scandal. - Response. Affirmative." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 January 1850.

"Your Lordship asked whether the clause in no. 10 of Formula I, provided that the woman, etc., must be expressed in such a way that otherwise the dispensation is null. Concerning this I must tell you that, since Formula I is in question, in which under the said number no invalidating clause is found, it can be held, as was answered on another occasion by this Sacred Congregation, that the omission of clauses does not injure the validity of grants, provided that the woman was not in fact abducted, or, if abducted, is not in the power of the abductor." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 26 January 1877.

With regard to the clause where there are more unbelievers than Christians, appended to the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of disparity of worship, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith judged that petition should be made to His Holiness for an extension of the faculty, so that by virtue of the aforesaid enlargement that condition, in the case in question, should generally be understood in the future, not of individual villages or hamlets, but of individual chiefdoms. His Holiness kindly granted the requested extension. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 14 January 1806.

What does the clause in the matrimonial dispensations of the Sacred Penitentiary, the scandal, insofar as it is present, having been removed, especially through separation ... if it can be done, import; and, if it is omitted, is the dispensation null?

Response. "Separation is to be preferred to other manners of repairing scandal; if this cannot be done, the scandal is to be repaired, but the manner of repairing scandal is committed to the prudent judgment and conscience of the Ordinary, according to the demands of each case. In a case in which separation has been omitted and the scandal repaired in another manner, let him rest content; otherwise, if in some case he omitted the repair of scandal, let him remain silent and conduct himself more cautiously in the future." Sacred Penitentiary, 12 April 1889; M. E., vol. 6, part 1, p. 201; vol. 7, part 1, p. 271.

What does the clause in the matrimonial dispensations of the Sacred Penitentiary, with a grave salutary penance, or with a grave and prolonged salutary penance, import? - Response. "In defining beforehand the quality, gravity, duration, etc., of the penance, which are committed to the judgment of the one dispensing or of the delegate in conformity with law, neither the limits of severity nor those of humanity are to be exceeded, and account is to be taken of the condition, age, infirmity, office, sex, etc., of those upon whom punishment is enjoined to be imposed." Sacred Penitentiary, 8 April 1890; M. E., vol. 6, part 2, p. 56; vol. 7, part 1, p. 270; vol. 13, pp. 11-12.

"Penances are altogether to be imposed in the execution of matrimonial dispensations, but the omission of their fulfillment does not carry with it the invalidity of the dispensation." Holy Office, 14 December 1891.

"In rescripts of the Sacred Penitentiary for both forums, these words are often found: Some alms having been distributed.

"1. Whether it is sufficient that the alms be determined by the Ordinary and that the petitioners promise that they will distribute it? - 2. Whether the alms determined by the Ordinary must be given before the promulgation of the dispensation? - 3. Whether this alms must be given before the promulgation of the dispensation under pain of nullity? - Response. To 1. Affirmative, unless something else has been expressly enjoined upon the Ordinary himself. - To 2. Provided for in the first. - To 3. Negative." Sacred Penitentiary, 11 June 1859.

"In rescripts of matrimonial dispensations for both forums in favor of the poor, the Sacred Penitentiary inserts the clause: Some alms having been distributed by them, to be assessed and applied at the judgment of the Ordinary according to their means. Now the petitioner, sometimes on account of the extreme poverty of the contracting parties or their ill will, judged it better to pass over the clause and remained entirely silent concerning the alms. But now, doubtful and perplexed, he asks: 1. Whether he promulgated the dispensations invalidly? And if affirmative, he urgently petitions for sanation in the root. But if negative: 2. Whether he may persevere in the same practice, at least in very difficult cases? - Response. To 1. Negative. - To 2. The matter is committed to the prudent judgment and conscience of the Ordinary." Sacred Penitentiary, 11 November 1890.

"It is asked whether, in a case in which the Ordinary foresees that no censure was contracted by the petitioners, the Ordinary who grants a matrimonial dispensation by virtue of some Indult must nevertheless first insert a clause of absolution ad cautelam, which the Sacred Penitentiary and Apostolic Datary are accustomed to insert first? - Response. Absolution from censures in the case in question is laudably inserted first." Sacred Penitentiary, 2 July 1891.

"The faculty was granted to the Vicar Apostolic (of Western Tonkin) of dispensing in the first degree of affinity from illicit intercourse, even in the direct line, with these restrictions: in occult cases, however, and in the internal forum. It is asked whether by these words in the internal forum, or, as Father Antoine explains, in the act of sacramental confession, there is understood a confession to which absolution is joined in the very act, or whether a confession directed to receiving absolution in the future suffices, namely, when the obstacle which compels its postponement and which sometimes lasts a long time has been removed. - Response. Negative to the first part; affirmative to the second." Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 16 January 1797.

Cf. the Instruction of Cardinal Caprara in Zitelli, De Dispensationibus matrimonialibus, Appendix VI.

"Bertha, an unmarried Catholic woman, living for about five years in concubinage with Titius, likewise an unmarried non-Catholic man, after a pledge of fidelity and with marital affection, most recently entered with him what they call a civil Marriage before the civil magistrate. From this union two children were born, one of whom was born, baptized, and educated as a Catholic, while the other died a few weeks after birth.

"The parish priest of the said Bertha having labored vehemently that she be brought to a valid and lawful Marriage, the matter has finally reached such a point that there could now in itself be place for a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion, after the due cautions had first been given, had not the impediment of perpetual impotence intervened, arising from the fact that the said Titius, two years before the celebration of the civil Marriage, was deprived of both testicles by a surgical operation. It seems only to remain that recourse be had to requesting a dispensation in the root for the union. In fact, the intention or matrimonial consent was not lacking, nor, at least after the civil Marriage was contracted, is the external appearance of Marriage lacking, so that the said parties are commonly regarded as spouses. Since by sanation provision would be made for the salvation of the repentant woman's soul and for the legitimacy of the surviving offspring, while if sanation were denied separation could in no manner be effected and most grave scandals would have to be feared, we therefore earnestly commend the prayers of the Catholic woman for obtaining the favor.

"Response. In the case set forth, sanation in the root cannot be granted; and according to the intention. The intention is that, since the Marriage cannot be revalidated, the putative spouses ought to be separated immediately. But if this is morally impossible, then, with precautions employed, let them at least cohabit under the same roof as brother and sister. With regard, however, to the canonical legitimation of the offspring, it can be granted through a rescript of the Sovereign duly issued." Holy Office, 8 March 1900.

"Whether artificial fertilization of a woman can be employed? - Response. It is not lawful." Holy Office, 24 March 1897.

"Spouses who use Marriage in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can cautiously intimate the opinion in question to those spouses whom he has tried in vain by another means to lead away from the detestable crime of onanism." Sacred Penitentiary, 16 June 1880.

"1. Whether a woman can be absolved who would indeed endure her husband if he acted rightly in conjugal intercourse, but who strongly desires that her husband withdraw because that woman fears having offspring. - 2. Whether a woman can be absolved who in conjugal intercourse could obtain from her husband by her blandishments that he would not withdraw, and does not do so because that intercourse displeases her. - Response. Negative." Sacred Penitentiary, 27 May 1847.

"It is asked of the Apostolic See what theological note the following three propositions deserve, namely: 1. For honorable reasons it is lawful for spouses to use Marriage in the manner in which Onan used it. - 2. It is probable that this use of Marriage is not prohibited by natural law. - 3. It is never expedient to question spouses of either sex concerning this matter, even if it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether the man or the wife, abuse Marriage.

"Response. To 1. The proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of Marriage. - To 2. The proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and otherwise implicitly condemned by Innocent XI in proposition 49. - To 3. The proposition as it stands is false, excessively lax, and dangerous in practice." Holy Office, 21 May 1851.

"The Bishop of Le Mans in France, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness with the greatest reverence, most humbly represents the things which follow.

"Nearly all younger spouses are unwilling to have more numerous offspring, and yet are morally unable to abstain from the conjugal act.

"When questioned by a confessor concerning the manner in which they use the rights of Marriage, they are commonly accustomed to be gravely offended; and when admonished, they neither abstain from the conjugal act nor can they be determined to an excessive multiplication of offspring.

"Then, murmuring against their confessors, they abandon the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, give a bad example to their children, servants, and other faithful of Christ; and from this arises a lamentable detriment to Religion.

"The number of those who approach the sacred tribunal of Penance decreases from year to year in many places, especially on account of this cause, as most parish priests more conspicuous for piety, learning, and experience acknowledge.

"How, then, did confessors act formerly? many say. No more children were commonly born from individual Marriages than today, the spouses were not more chaste, and nevertheless they did not fail in the precepts of annual confession and paschal Communion.

"All freely admit that infidelity toward one's spouse and the attempted procurement of abortion are a most grave sin. But they can scarcely, if at all, be persuaded that they are bound under mortal sin either to observe perfect chastity in Marriage or to incur the danger of begetting innumerable offspring.

"The aforesaid Bishop of Le Mans, foreseeing that enormous evils will arise from this and troubled with anxiety, solicitously asks Your Beatitude:

"1. Whether spouses who use Marriage in such a manner as to prevent conception perform an act morally evil in itself?

"2. If the act is to be regarded as morally evil, whether spouses who do not accuse themselves of it can be considered as constituted in that good faith which excuses them from grave fault?

"3. Whether the manner of acting of confessors who, lest they offend married persons, do not question them concerning the manner in which they use the rights of Marriage is to be approved?

"Response. To 1. Since the entire disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the man, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and emits outside the vessel, therefore, if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, while the man insists, threatening blows or death, she herself, as approved theologians teach, can simply permit it without sin, and this for a grave cause which excuses her; because the charity by which she is bound to prevent it does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

"To 2 and 3. Let the aforesaid confessor recall to mind that maxim, holy things are to be treated holily; and let him also weigh the words of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, a learned man and one most skilled in these matters, who in the Praxis Confessariorum, section 4, no. 41, says: 'Concerning the sins of spouses with respect to the conjugal debt, ordinarily speaking, the confessor is not bound, nor is it fitting, to question any except wives, as to whether they rendered it, in the most modest manner possible.... Let him remain silent concerning other matters unless he shall have been asked.' And let him not omit to consult other approved authors as well." Sacred Penitentiary, 8 June 1842.

"Bertha has a husband whom by constant experience she knows to be an onanist. In vain she tried every means to withdraw him from so unspeakable a crime. Indeed, most grave, or at least grave, evils now probably threaten her, such that she must either incur these evils or flee from her husband's house unless she permits at least sometimes the abuse of Marriage, etc. - Response. Since in the proposed case the woman on her part indeed does nothing contrary to nature and applies herself to a lawful matter, while the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the man, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and emits outside the vessel; and therefore, if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, while the man insists, threatening blows or death or other most grave evils, she herself, as approved theologians teach, can without sin conduct herself permissively; since, in these circumstances, she simply permits the sin of her husband, and this for a grave cause which excuses her, because the charity by which she is bound to prevent it does not oblige with so great an inconvenience." Sacred Penitentiary, 1 February 1823.

"Titius, a parishioner, rich, honorable, learned, and a good Christian, when prudently questioned in confession concerning the use of Marriage, confesses that with his wife, even though she is somewhat unwilling, he always interrupts intercourse lest offspring follow; and, when questioned by me, he acknowledges that he nearly always emits outside the woman's vessel. When reproved by me, he immediately replies that he acts thus for a twofold reason: 1. Lest the condition of the family be lowered by more numerous offspring (for he already has a son and a daughter); 2. Lest his wife be excessively wearied by repeated pregnancy. When admonished by the parish priest concerning the emptiness of these reasons, he replies that this manner of acting was approved for him by a certain most illustrious confessor during a certain retreat which he recently made in a certain community, provided that in the act the husband intends the quieting of concupiscence and not pollution.

"John, the parish priest, wondering that this distinguished confessor, who recently had been a lecturer in moral theology at a certain major seminary, had approved such a manner of acting, nevertheless did not dare to absolve Titius, who wished to persevere in this manner of acting. Titius, however, offended by his dismissal, everywhere proclaims his parish priest ignorant and proud, as one who corrects the opinion of others and imposes unbearable burdens upon penitents.

"John, the parish priest, moved by all these things which greatly redound to the detriment of the parish priest and indeed of religion itself, asks:

"Whatever may be said of the past, how ought he to conduct himself with Titius, who will most probably return to confess and will obstinately persevere in his manner of acting?

"Response. The parish priest in the case acted rightly, and a penitent who is unwilling to abstain from this manner of acting, which is pure and simple onanism, cannot be absolved." Sacred Penitentiary, 13 November 1901.

Whether those confessors satisfy their duty who, when a penitent accuses himself of the sin of onanism, "maintain profound silence and, when the confession of sins is finished, excite him to contrition by general words and impart holy absolution to him when he asserts that he detests every mortal sin? - Response. Negative." Sacred Penitentiary, 14 December 1874.

"1. When there is a well-founded suspicion that a penitent who is altogether silent concerning onanism is addicted to this crime, is it lawful for the confessor to abstain from a prudent and discreet question on the ground that he foresees that many persons will be disturbed from good faith and that many will abandon the Sacraments? Or rather is the confessor bound to question prudently and discreetly? - 2. Whether a confessor who, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that a penitent is an onanist is bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin just as concerning other mortal sins, and, as the Roman Ritual says, to reprove him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he grieves over the past and has the resolution not to act onanistically any longer? - Response. In view of ... the unspeakable vice in question having become widespread ... to 1, ordinarily negative to the first part, affirmative to the second; to 2, affirmative, according to the teachings of approved Authors." Sacred Penitentiary, 10 March 1886.