On Matrimony

"Betrothals contracted by infants, or by an older person with an infant, are null by the law itself, and cannot beget the impediment of public honesty.... If it is established that betrothals were entered into while still in infantile age, it must be investigated whether after the seventh year they were renewed, or at least ratified. But if, as sometimes happens, betrothals were contracted by parents.... if they were still in infantile age, namely the children, it is certain that the contract was void; but if they were of age or above puberty, the contract then would be valid only if the children expressly, or at least tacitly, consented, or afterwards ratified the betrothals entered into in their name by their parents." Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 June 1883, nn. 33, 34; Instruction of the S. C. de P. F., 1885, n. 35. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 18, p. 355 ff.

"We have it established especially by Canon Law that betrothals, whether contracted between infants or by an older person with an infant, are to be held as not done, so that they do not produce even the impediment of public honesty. Those betrothals themselves which are celebrated between persons below puberty, although Canon Law has provided that they are valid and induce an obligation, nevertheless by the same Law it has been established, because of weakness of judgment, that after puberty it is lawful to withdraw; nor is he who first reaches puberty bound to wait for the other, but at once can withdraw, indeed ought to, if he is unwilling to approve the betrothals; otherwise he will not be heard afterwards." S. C. S. O. Feb. 1779.

Can a Bishop issue a law which prescribes a norm of entering into betrothals, as regards their validity, alien from common law? Resp. Negatively.

It is established from the response of the S. C. C., 8 July 1865; 23 March 1878. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 529; Vol. 7, p. 665; Vol. 11, p. 230. Much less can a Bishop render marriages to be contracted without previous denunciations void, by removing jurisdiction for this effect from the Parish Priest. S. C. C. at Lugo, Moral Responses, book 1, doubt 45.

"1. Whether betrothals which are contracted in Spain without a public document are valid? And insofar as negatively, 2. Whether an instrument drawn up in the Curia for a dispensation over some impediments can supply for a public document? Resp. To the 1st and 2nd, negatively." S. C. C. 31 Jan. 1880. Cf. Paul Villada, Cases of Conscience Accommodated Especially to These Times, Part 2, Brussels 1885, p. 74 ff.; Acta S. Sed. Vol. 13, p. 191.

".... For the solution of the proposed doubt, the S. C. likewise indicated that the prescription of chap. Is qui, 30, On betrothals and marriages, received by Gregory IX of happy memory from the pure sources of Pontifical law and promulgated to be observed among all Catholics, is to be observed. For when the Pontiff was asked what needed to be done concerning a man who, after betrothals entered into with a woman, and intercourse had, afterwards had married and known another in the face of the Church, he gave this response: He who gave faith to some woman that he wished to take her as wife, and if afterwards he carnally knows her, and marries another in the face of the Church, is bound to return to the first; because, although the first marriage seems presumed, nevertheless proof to the contrary is not to be admitted against such a presumption. Whence it follows that the marriage afterwards contracted in fact is not a true marriage, but null.... Place before your eyes the things which Father Pirhingius, a most approved explicator of the sacred Canons, brings forward in elucidating chap. Is qui. For in book 4 of the Decretals, title 1, section 1, section 5, after the remembered rule or prescription of Gregory IX, he adds these things: The reason is, because from carnal intercourse the Church presumes in the betrothed a conjugal consent for excluding sin, namely that the betrothed man and betrothed woman wished to know each other mutually not with a fornicator's affection, but with marital affection, because offense is not to be presumed; and this is a presumption of law and of law, that is, altogether certain and indubitable, against which proof is not admitted; and consequently a betrothed man asserting that he did not know the betrothed woman with marital affection or with the intention of contracting marriage with her would not be heard (Covarruvias, in Epitome, book 4, Decretals, part 1, ch. 4, section 1, nn. 1 and 2). It is confirmed, because carnal intercourse following after betrothal concerning the future is a sufficient sign of consent concerning the present unto marriage; and the betrothed through it are judged to hand themselves over mutually to each other. This presumption has place only in the contentious and judicial forum, but not in the forum of conscience and penitential forum. Whence if the betrothed man truly knew the betrothed woman not with marital affection, but with fornicator's affection, it would not be a true marriage in the penitential forum and before God, because the Pope cannot make it that there be a true marriage without expressed or tacit consent (Hostiensis here, col. 2 at the end; Fagnanus here, nn. 6 and 7). Thus far Father Pirhingius, who, while presenting this doctrine, affirms that the same is everywhere held among all treaters of the Canons. Stand here, therefore; hold fast here. Namely, even in those regions in which the Tridentine Decree on marriage has not been promulgated, if the betrothed man and betrothed woman had intercourse with each other not with marital affection but with fornicator's affection, their betrothals do not on that account pass into a true marriage before God; and therefore before God, or in the forum of conscience, the faculty has not been taken from them of passing to other vows, if a legitimate occasion offers itself of dissolving the preceding betrothals.

But if the intercourse has been brought into the external and judicial forum, the same persons could be held by the Ecclesiastical Judge as in the manner of legitimate spouses; and therefore, as long as either of them lives, they could be prohibited from any other marriage, because this is a presumption of law and of law, that is, altogether certain and indubitable, against which proof is not admitted; and consequently the betrothed man asserting that he did not know the betrothed woman with marital affection, or with the intention of contracting marriage with her, would not be heard.

Since these things are so, the S. C. judges that response should be made to the seventh doubt in this way, namely: If in the aforesaid regions, where the Decree of the Holy Council of Trent has not been published, two betrothed persons then have carnal intercourse between themselves, but not from marital affection, but from illicit and fornicator's affection, this intercourse of theirs by no means causes their preceding betrothals to pass into a true marriage before God; or in the forum of conscience they remain free, and they will be able, if the aforesaid betrothals of theirs have been dissolved from some legitimate cause, lawfully to enter other nuptials. Nevertheless, if their intercourse is proved in the external and judicial forum, they could from the presumption of law and of law, against which proof is not admitted, be compelled by ecclesiastical power to hold themselves as true spouses, to whom, while the consort lives, any marriage is interdicted, from chap. 30, On betrothals and marriage.

But a step must be taken to untie the other doubt, which is the eighth in the series of the proposed ones, namely: What counsel is to be given to Missionaries of those regions concerning the mode to be observed, especially in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, with those faithful who, after betrothals and intercourse had with a woman, have publicly contracted nuptials with another, which they themselves in good faith judge just and valid? The Most Eminent Fathers judged that this diligence and caution is to be observed with a penitent of this kind. Let the Confessor peacefully ask him whether he had intercourse with that first woman moved by marital affection, or by illicit and fornicator's affection. If the penitent responds this latter, he will dismiss him in peace, and will raise no doubt concerning the validity of the marriage afterwards contracted. But if the penitent responds that he had intercourse with that first woman with marital affection, he will gravely admonish him that he is not the husband of the other, but of the first, and that he must altogether return to her according to the prescription of chap. Is qui, often remembered. But Missionaries should also have another caution before their eyes, namely, if it should happen that a penitent of this kind can by no means prove in the external forum the carnal intercourse had by him with the first woman, and therefore is compelled, by judgment of the Ecclesiastical President, to retain in honor the nuptials contracted in the sight of the Church; if this should happen, he ought patiently to tolerate any penalty, even of excommunication, rather than, certain that he is entangled by the impediment of bond, lie with the other not without grave fault. For the prescription of Innocent III of happy memory is known, expressed in chap. 44, On sentence of excommunication: If one of the spouses, thus he says, knows for certain an impediment of marriage, because of which he cannot exercise carnal commerce without mortal sin, although he cannot prove it before the Church..., he ought rather humbly to sustain the sentence of excommunication than to commit mortal sin through carnal commerce.

From the things considered thus far the S. C. embraced the response to this second doubt of this kind thus: If any one of the faithful, after betrothals and then intercourse had with one woman, publicly contracts marriage with another woman, and in this state approaches some Missionary in the tribunal of Penance, he must ask him whether he had that intercourse with that first woman from marital affection, or truly from illicit and fornicator's affection. If he responds this latter, he will raise no doubt concerning the validity of his present marriage. But if he responds the first, he will gravely admonish him that he is husband not of the second, but of the first woman, and must altogether return to her. But it is added, for the instruction of the same Missionaries, that if perchance that man, not being able to prove in the external forum the carnal intercourse had by him with that first woman, should hence be compelled by ecclesiastical power to remain with the other woman with whom he publicly contracted marriage, he ought humbly rather to sustain any penalty whatever, even excommunication itself, than to exercise carnal commerce with this other woman not without lethal fault, from chap. 44, On sentence of excommunication...." Instruction of the S. C. de P. F. 17 Jan. 1821, to the Bishops and Apostolic Vicars in the Empire of China and the Kingdoms and Provinces adjacent to it. Pius VII approved it and ordered it to be observed altogether.

".... Common law having been inspected, betrothals concerning the future, intercourse following, pass into true marriage, from chap. Is qui, 30, On betrothals and marriages.... Conformable to this Decretal Epistle is another which Pope Alexander III had already issued before, and which is read in chap. Veniens, 15, same title, whose words are these: Coming to us, he showed us by his report that in his house he received a certain woman, by whom he had offspring, and to whom he pledged faith before many persons that he would take her as wife; meanwhile, however, when he was spending the night at the house of his neighbor, his daughter on that night lay with him; the girl's father, finding them together in his bed, compelled him to betroth her by words concerning the present. And therefore we command that, if you find that after faith pledged he knew the first, you make him remain with her; otherwise you make him adhere to the second as wife, unless he betrothed her compelled by fear which could fall upon a constant man.

This canonical disposition is indeed founded in presumption, but this presumption is so great that proof is not admitted against it, and therefore it is customarily called a presumption of law and of law. Most learned Emmanuel Gonzalez writes rightly to this matter: from intercourse following, the Church presumes conjugal consent rather than fornicator's, namely by a benign interpretation, so that the presumption of sin may be avoided.... It is added, because the betrothed, consenting to intercourse, seem first to consent to marriage as the necessary preamble to lawful intercourse.... Nor against this presumption, when intercourse has followed, is any proof admitted, since it is of law and of law. And Pirhing on this title, section 1, par. 5, n. 27.... Covarruvias, in Epitome, book 4, Decretals, p. 7, ch. 4, part 1, nn. 1 and 2. Schmalzgrueber has similar things there, par. 2, n. 116; Fagnanus there, nn. 2, 3, 4; and all Canonists.

The doctrine is not the same with relation to the internal and penitential forum; for in this forum, if the betrothed man knew the betrothed woman not with marital affection, but with fornicator's affection, through intercourse following the betrothals these would not pass into marriage; for in the internal forum, not presumption, but the truth of the matter must be attended to. It is well to hear the just-praised Fagnanus writing thus: Nevertheless this presumption has place only in the contentious and judicial forum, but not in the forum of the soul, in which there is not presumption or fiction, but the truth itself. Whence, if the betrothed man truly knew the betrothed woman not with wifely affection, but with fornicator's, there would not be marriage in the penitential forum and as regards God. Chap. Tuam, above, same title. For, as Ioannes Andreae says, here n. 4, after Hostiensis, under n. 3, v. Thus the Pope: If the betrothed man in no way consented to the first, but to the second, even if the Pope is above the law, nevertheless consent cannot be valid, nor can he urge a man against conscience. In the same place, nn. 5, 6, 7, Pirhing writes equal things...." S. C. de P. F. 23 June 1850.

".... But indeed, in carrying out the mandates of the Holy Father, this Sacred Penitentiary judges it superfluous to recall to the memory of each one what is a most known dogma of our most holy religion, namely that Matrimony is one of the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord, and therefore that its direction pertains uniquely to the Church herself, to whom the same Christ committed the dispensation of his divine mysteries. Then it also judges it superfluous to recall to the memory of each one the form prescribed by the Holy Synod of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 1, on reform of marriage, without whose observance, 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 compose practical instructions, by which they may persuade the faithful also of that which Our Most Holy Lord proclaimed in secret Consistory on 27 September 1852, that is: Among the faithful there cannot be Matrimony without its being at one and the same time a Sacrament; and therefore any other union between Christians of man and woman, apart from the Sacrament, even one made by force of civil law, is nothing else except a base and deadly concubinage.

And hence they will easily be able to deduce that the civil act before God and his Church can in no way be held not only as a Sacrament, but not even as a contract; and, just as civil power is incapable of binding any one of the faithful in marriage, so also is it incapable of dissolving. Therefore, as this Sacred Penitentiary already at other times declared in some responses to particular doubts, every sentence concerning separation of spouses joined by legitimate Matrimony before the Church, brought by lay power, is of no value; and the spouse who, abusing a sentence of this kind, would dare to join himself to another person, will be a true adulterer; just as he would be a true concubinary who would presume to persist in marriage by force of only a civil act; and each is unworthy of absolution until he repents and, subjecting himself to the prescriptions of the Church, is converted to penance.

But although the true Matrimony of the faithful is contracted only when a man and woman free from impediments make 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 value, nor is there need that it be ratified or confirmed by civil power; nevertheless, to avoid vexations and penalties, and because of the good of offspring, which otherwise would by no means be held legitimate by 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 of 17 September 1746, Redditae sunt Nobis, that by presenting themselves to the Official of the Government they do nothing else than execute the civil ceremony.

For the same reasons, but by no means in order that they cooperate with the execution of the unhappy law, Parish Priests should not so easily and promiscuously admit to the celebration of marriage before the Church those faithful who, because they are kept away by law, would then not be admitted to the civil act and consequently would not be held as legitimate spouses. In this matter they will have to use much caution and prudence, and ask the counsel of the Ordinary; and let him not be easy in assenting, 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 prove themselves legitimate spouses before the law, nevertheless they ought by no means to perform this act before they have celebrated the marriage before the Church. And if some coercion or absolute necessity, which is not easily to be admitted, should be the cause of inverting this order, then every diligence will have to be used that the marriage be contracted before the Church as soon as possible, and meanwhile that the contracting parties remain separated. Concerning this matter this Sacred Penitentiary exhorts each one that he follow and hold the doctrine set forth by Benedict XIV in the Brief of which mention was made above, to which both Pius VI in his Brief to the Bishops of France, Laudabilem Maiorum suorum, given on 20 September 1791, and Pius VII in his letters given on 11 June 1808 to the Bishops of Picenum, referred those same Bishops for the sake of instruction, who had requested norms by which they might direct the faithful in a similar contingency of a civil act. After all these things it is easy to see that the practice observed thus far concerning Matrimony, and specifically concerning parish books, betrothals, and matrimonial impediments of whatever nature, whether constituted or admitted by the Church, is in no way varied." Instruction of the Sacred Penitentiary, 15 Jan. 1866. Cf. N. 819.

"Whether the Ordinary can, for a cause, dispense that while Vespers are sung, denunciations can be made, yet on feast days? Resp. That he can so dispense for a cause." S. C. C. 25 Oct. 1586.

"Whether on abrogated feast days denunciations of marriages can be made in the case? Resp. Negatively, unless with license of the Bishop under the conditions according to the form Brunen., 5 July 1780, the matter having been discussed with the Most Holy One." In Tudertina, Denunciation of marriage, 19 Apr. 1823. Now the Brunen. form requires, besides a grave cause, that "on those days which are not feast days, a frequent attendance of the people at the Church still perseveres."

"Whether and at what time denunciations and the explanation of the Gospel ought to be made in the case? Resp. Affirmatively, and as regards the explanation of the Gospel in the parochial Mass, and as regards denunciations in the same Mass, or at another hour more frequented by the people." S. C. C. 20 Sept. 1828.

Cf. Instruction of the S. C. I., 21 Aug. 1670; Lucidi, Vol. 3, 3rd ed., p. 605 ff.

".... An equal, indeed perhaps a greater vigilance must also be employed by you, lest, after the Denunciations have been remitted, Matrimony be celebrated before the Parish Priest, or another Priest deputed by the Parish Priest himself or by you, with two or three trusted witnesses present, lest any notice or rumor of the celebration arise. For in order that this can be done lawfully according to the prescription of the sacred Canons, not just any obvious and common cause is enough, but a grave, urgent, and most urgent one is required.... But after the Matrimony has been celebrated, without delay by the Parish Priest or other priest before whom it was entered into, a written document of it is to be exhibited to the Bishop, with note of place and time, and of the witnesses who were present at the celebration. It will afterwards be yours diligently to see that, for perpetual memory of the thing done, the aforesaid document is faithfully transferred into a book wholly distinct from the other in which publicly contracted Marriages are noted. A book of this kind, suitably bound for secret Marriages, closed and sealed with seals, is to be cautiously kept in your Episcopal Chancery. And you will suffer it to be unsealed and opened, your license acceding, only in that case in which other Marriages of this kind must be written down, or the necessity of administering justice claims this for itself, or finally those having true interest demand some document from it," etc. Benedict XIV, Const. Satis vobis, 17 Nov. 1741.

"Marriages entered into with only the error of the contracting parties that the bond of 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 held invalid." S. C. S. I. 11 March 1868; 18 Dec. 1872.

"1. Whether, for the effect of dissolving marriage according to the privilege conceded by Christ the Lord in favor of the faith and promulgated by the Apostle, the interpellation of the party persevering in unbelief is by Divine law and therefore so necessary that, it having been neglected, there is plainly no place for dissolving the marriage? Or whether it belongs only to judicial form, and is not required except so that the dissolution be done licitly, especially when it is otherwise established, by morally certain indications, that the other spouse wishes neither to embrace the faith nor to cohabit without contumely of the Creator?

2. Supposing that the first part is answered affirmatively, it is asked whether the interrogation concerning the Religion to be embraced alone suffices, namely whether the party remaining in unbelief wishes to be converted or not, which some of the Missionaries think, relying on the authority of Thomas Sanchez; or rather whether the interpellation whether at least the party persevering in unbelief consents to cohabit without contumely of the Creator is also essential and absolutely required, so that, it having been omitted, the marriage can be dissolved not only not licitly, but also not validly?

3. Whether the solemn expulsion of a wife made by a husband, namely by giving a bill of repudiation before the chiefs of the village, according to the laws of the Kingdom, can hold the place of interpellation and be reputed for it, since it is most certain concerning the will of that husband, namely that he in no way wishes to have the aforesaid woman as wife for the future; or rather, no account being had of the repudiation, in those circumstances also, the double interpellation prescribed in law is required for the validity of the dissolution of the marriage?

4. It is asked how a Missionary ought to conduct himself toward an unbelieving woman, repudiated without any cause of adultery by her husband, also an unbeliever, who has married another, when she asks to be baptized, and there is suspicion whether she is prepared in soul to return to her husband, if perhaps afterwards he recalls her and consents to cohabit without contumely of 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, but only with this condition, namely when the concubine shall have been expelled?

5. It is asked whether adultery gives occasion to unbelieving spouses, just as to Christians, of celebrating perpetual divorce, so that it is altogether intact for the innocent party, when he or she shall have been washed in the sacred Font, either to send a notice of renunciation to the world, or to pass life in the state of widowhood, although the other party wishes to be reconciled and to cohabit without contumely of the Creator?

6. Since an unbelieving husband permits his wife, already tinged with the waters of holy Baptism, indeed to observe Religion, nor does he formally command anything of mortal sin, but in the use of marriage he entices her very importunately to many grave things against conjugal chastity, so that the woman is always in grave danger of sinning mortally: It is asked, in this case, whether the aforesaid woman can leave him and pass to other vows? But what if the danger does not come 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, a most quarrelsome woman and very much addicted to superstitions?

Resp. To the 1st: There is no place for dissolution of a marriage contracted in unbelief, in the case concerning which there is question, unless interpellation has first been made, or unless, for legitimate causes, an apostolic dispensation concerning the interpellation has been obtained.

To the 2nd: The unbelieving spouse is to be interpellated, not only whether he or she wishes to be converted, but also, in the case in which he or she does not wish to be converted, whether he or she wishes to cohabit with the faithful spouse without contumely of the Creator, according to the disposition of Innocent III, chap. Quanto, On divorces.

To the 3rd: Interpellation is to be made, even in the case concerning which there is question, if it can be done, or recourse is to be had to the Apostolic See for obtaining dispensation.

To the 4th: Nothing prevents Baptism from being conferred on the woman concerning whom there is question in the case, provided she is otherwise sufficiently instructed.

To the 5th: A spouse converted to the faith and baptized can make divorce, as regards bed, from an unbelieving spouse because of adultery committed by him, although he seeks pardon and wishes to cohabit without contumely of the Creator.

To the 6th: A converted woman can withdraw from an unbelieving man and pass to other vows, in the case in which he draws her to grave sins against conjugal chastity (chap. Quanto and chap. Gaudemus of Innocent III, On divorces). But if the drawing of the converted woman to mortal sin does not come 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, where other means are not at hand, can withdraw herself from that house where she is drawn to grave sinning; but she cannot dissolve the marriage and pass to another." S. C. de P. F. 5 March 1816, to the Provicar General of Western Tongking.

"If the marriage happened with the Catholic party after the reception of baptism, it will have to be inquired whether there had preceded the canonical interpellation of the spouse still unbelieving, or at least whether dispensation concerning that interpellation had been granted by legitimate authority. Insofar as it shall be established that the interpellation was made, or that 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 the dispensation from it preceded, the first marriage will indeed obstruct the second, but the Ordinary will have to suspend judgment and refer the case with all its circumstances to the Holy See." Instr. S. O. 20 June 1883, n. 44; Instr. S. C. de P. F. 1883, n. 45.

"What is to be thought concerning the marriage of the said man with a Christian girl, contracted without interpellation and dispensation, and what is now to be done? From the things set forth, the first marriage contracted by the man in gentility with a gentile woman subsists, and therefore R. P. D. the Apostolic Vicar, the Orator, should take care, in the more prudent way in which it can be done, to call the parties to himself for the producing of their rights, and, if he finds nothing to the contrary, should oblige him to return to the first marriage." S. C. S. I. 20 June 1858; S. C. de P. F. March 1816.

"There are gentiles who, for the sake of carrying on commerce, leave their own place for a time, that they may betake themselves to other Provinces at a distance of ten or fifteen days' journey, and sometimes more, and there they take other wives while the first are living. One of these recently was converted to the faith with his second wife; then, receiving a message that the first wife was grieving over his conversion, and even was urging him not to embrace the faith, he asked for Baptism, promising that he, content with the second, would absolutely abandon this first wife, and that in no way would he cohabit with her when returned to his own places. A certain Chinese Missionary, to whom the faculty of dispensing from the monition had in no way been granted by the Apostolic Vicar, assented to his wishes, and, judging that in this circumstance there was no place for doubt, baptized this Christian together with his second wife, and, having compelled them to a renewal of consent, joined them in solemn marriage. Afterwards that Christian, having returned, found the first wife changed, and in every way disposed to embracing the faith. It is asked whether, in the proposed case, the marriage entered into with the second wife is valid? The reason for doubting for us is, on the one hand, that that Missionary had no faculty of dispensing from the monition; but, on the other hand, several Missionaries protest, indeed admitting that in this case the marriage with the second wife had been celebrated illicitly, but not so certainly invalidly: both because, on 5 January 1777, when the S. C. de P. F. was interrogated by us whether certain marriages of this sort, celebrated through ignorance without dispensation, would be invalid, it answered nothing, although it answered other things; and because, with Benedict XIV of holy memory as witness, book 13, On the Diocesan Synod, ch. 21, art. 6, most Theologians assert that judicial interpellation can licitly be omitted as often as it is judged to be of no utility; but the Supreme Pontiff does not reject this opinion as false, and declares it only not sufficiently safe in practice. But in the proposed case the interpellation seemed useless to them, since it was clearly established concerning the will of the prior wife. Resp. With attention to the circumstances concurring in the fact, the spouses of whom there is question are not to be disturbed; but let Missionaries beware of imparting dispensation from the interpellation of the spouse if they lack a faculty of this sort."

"Whether, when marriage has been delayed on the part of the faithful party for a notable time after the interpellation made, or after a dispensation from it has been obtained, a new interpellation, or a new dispensation, is necessary? And insofar as affirmatively, what space of time ought to intervene between the first and the second, either interpellation or dispensation from it? Resp. Negatively, insofar as the interpellation was made; affirmatively, after a year, in the case of dispensation obtained at the beginning." S. C. de P. F. 26 June 1820, D. Escodeca, Missionary Ap. in Sutchuen.

"The interpellation is to be made after Baptism." S. C. S. I. 13 Apr.

1859, 21 Nov. 1883. For a grave cause, and with special faculty obtained from the Apostolic See, it can also be made before Baptism. S. C. S. I. 3 June 1874.

"... We decree that those who before conversion had several wives according to their customs, and do not remember whom they took first, when converted to the faith, should take one of them whom they wish, and with her contract marriage by words de praesenti, as is customary; but those who remember whom they took first, the others having been dismissed, should retain her." Paul III, Const. Altitudo Divini consilii, 1537, for the West Indies.

"... Therefore, since, as We have received, among the Indians remaining in their infidelity several wives are permitted, whom they themselves repudiate even for the lightest causes, from this it has happened that, for those receiving Baptism, it has been permitted to remain with that wife who has been baptized together with the husband; and since it very often happens that she is not the first spouse, whence both Ministers and Bishops are tormented by very grave scruples, thinking that that is not a true marriage; but since it is very harsh to separate them from the wives with whom these Indians have received Baptism, especially because it would be most difficult to find the first spouse: therefore We, wishing kindly to consult with paternal affection for the state of the said Indians, and to free the Bishops and Ministers themselves from scruples of this sort, of Our own motion and from Our certain knowledge, and from the fullness of apostolic power, by the apostolic authority and tenor of the present letters declare that Indians thus baptized, as is premised, and to be baptized in the future, may remain with the wife who has been baptized and will be baptized with them, as with a legitimate wife, the others having been dismissed, and that a marriage of this sort legitimately subsists between them, etc." Pius V, 2 Aug. 1571.

"Since therefore it often happens that many Infidels of either sex, but especially of the male sex, after marriages contracted according to the gentile rite, captured by enemies from Ancola, Ethiopia, Brazil, and other Indian regions, are carried away from their native territories and their own spouses into most remote regions, so that both they themselves, and the captives who remain in the fatherland, if afterwards they are converted to the faith, cannot warn their unbelieving spouses, separated by so long an interval of places, whether they wish to cohabit with them without contumely of the Creator, as is proper, either because sometimes there is no access even for messengers to hostile and barbarous provinces, or because they are wholly ignorant into what regions they have been transported, or because the very length of the journey brings great difficulty: for that reason We, considering that marriages of this sort contracted among Infidels are indeed true, but not to be judged so ratified that, necessity persuading, they cannot be dissolved, having compassion with paternal piety on the weakness of such peoples, grant, to all and singular the local Ordinaries and Parish Priests of the said places, and to Priests of the Society of Jesus approved for hearing confessions by the Superiors of the same Society, and sent for the time to the said regions, or admitted in them, by apostolic authority and the tenor of the present letters, full faculty of dispensing with whatsoever faithful Christians of either sex dwelling in the said regions and later converted to the faith, who before receiving Baptism had contracted marriage, so that each of them, the unbelieving spouse surviving, and his or her consent in no way required, or response not awaited, may licitly contract and solemnize in the face of the Church marriages with any faithful person even of another rite, and may afterwards, when they have been consummated by carnal copula, remain in them as long as they live: provided that it is established, summarily and extrajudicially, that the absent spouse, as is stated above, cannot legitimately be warned, or, having been warned, has not signified his or her will within the time fixed in that same warning; which marriages indeed, even if afterwards it should become known that the prior Infidel spouses, justly impeded, were unable to declare their will, and were converted to the faith even at the time of the second marriage contracted, nevertheless must never be rescinded, but are to be valid and firm, and We decree that the offspring to be received therefrom will be legitimate." Gregory XIII, 25 Jan. 1585. Cf. Const. of Benedict XIV, In suprema Catholicae Ecclesiae, 16 Jan. 1745.

"... There are several among the Christians who, in the time of gentility, sold their own wives to Gentiles, afterwards embraced the faith, received sacred Baptism, and in good faith entered into a new marriage with Christian women without any prior monition, either because they were ignorant of its necessity, or because the sold wife was too far distant, or because they did not know where she was now living, or finally because they feared that on account of the monition they would be ill-treated by the second husband and accused before the Prefects concerning the Christian Religion. It is asked: 1. Whether a marriage made in these circumstances is valid? 2. Whether and when there belongs to the Apostolic Vicars of this part the right of dispensing from the aforesaid monition, especially if the Christian has had children from the second Christian wife? But if it does not belong, it is humbly requested. 3. When these women thus sold have migrated to provinces in which the number of Christians abounds, and they cannot be found nor is there any message concerning them, whether ignorance of the fact, namely whether perhaps they had become Christians before the seller passed to second nuptials, ought to impede the dispensation? 4. Finally, whether, in the hypothesis in which these women can be warned, it suffices once to exhort them, either personally or through another, that they 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? Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd: The Most Holy One is to be supplicated for the concession 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; once that Indult has been obtained, the Apostolic Vicar can use the faculty of dispensing according to the form of the mentioned Brief of Gregory XIII and of the Instruction. To the 4th: Negatively." S. C. de P. F. 3 Jan. 1777, Missionary of the Province of Sutchuen in China.

"1. Whether under the name of a legitimate impediment, by which the faithful spouse is dispensed from the interpellation of the unbelieving spouse, there comes only the presumption of the shamelessness of the man who, just as the first time he sold his wife, seems to be feared lest, having recovered her, he would dare to sell her a second time also? 2. Whether there comes only the presumption that the unbelieving party is unwilling to return, namely because in the preceding cohabitation, either on account of diversity of temperaments or from other causes, both disagreed among themselves and were agitated by continual dissensions? 3. Whether there comes only the presumption that the unbelieving husband, from the fact that he has already passed to other nuptials, is unwilling to reject the second wife so as to adhere again to the first; or, if perhaps he wishes again to receive the first, nevertheless is unwilling to reject the second, but to retain both together? 4. Whether there comes only the fear of Christians, namely lest the unbelieving party, understanding from the interpellation made to him that there are Christians in such a place, could thence bring trouble upon the Christian Religion? Resp. To the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd: Negatively. To the 4th: In a case of this sort, the Apostolic See is to be consulted." Clement XIV in C. S. O. 23 Nov. 1769, Apostolic Vicar of Shensi and Shansi.

"When Christians make the interpellations of the prior unbelieving spouse, if the unbelieving spouse responds that he wishes to receive his faithful consort, then they ask that person whether he wishes to be converted, and whether at least he consents to cohabit peacefully without contumely of the Creator. But if the unbelieving party immediately responds that he does not wish any longer to receive the prior faithful spouse or to return to that person, then they ask nothing further, because they fear lest the Pagans become more indignant and blaspheme against the Christian Religion. Therefore it is asked whether it can be permitted to the faithful party to contract marriage with another faithful person, even if in the interpellation of the prior unbelieving spouse the question was omitted whether he wishes to be converted, and whether he at least consents to cohabit together without contumely of the Creator? But if Your Holiness shall have judged that the omission of the said questions, whether the unbelieving spouse wishes to be converted, and whether he wishes at least to cohabit without contumely of the Creator, renders the interpellation null or insufficient, so that by force of an interpellation of this sort, the faithful party cannot validly contract another marriage with some faithful person, then the aforesaid Apostolic Vicar humbly supplicates that Your Holiness sanate in the root the many marriages which in the Vicariate of Sutchuen were contracted after an interpellation made without the said questions. Gregory XVI, the matters set forth having been weighed, benignly sanates and convalidates in the root the marriages contracted as above in the Vicariate of Sutchuen, with the omission of the questions, as is set forth in the suppliant libellus, just as if, in the marriages contracted, the interpellations had been made." 17 Jan. 1836, Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen.

"Whether the question concerning embracing religion alone suffices, namely whether the party remaining in infidelity wishes to be converted or not, ... or rather whether the interpellation, whether at least the party persevering in infidelity consents to cohabit without contumely of the Creator, is also essential and absolutely required; so that, if it is omitted, not only illicitly but also invalidly can the marriage be dissolved? Resp. The unbelieving spouse must be interpellated not only whether he wishes to be converted, but also, in the case in which he is unwilling to be converted, whether he wishes to cohabit with the faithful spouse without contumely of the Creator, according to the disposition of Innocent III, chap. Quanto, de divort." S. C. de P. F. 5 March 1816; S. O. and S. C. de P. F. 25 Jan. 1886. Cf. The Pastoral Gazette, Bombay 1886, n. 155, p. 1280.

"Certain persons recently converted to the faith interpellate the unbelieving spouse, whether she wishes to be converted or at least to dwell peacefully. She responds that she indeed wishes it, but that she is detained by a second husband or by a creditor, who do not allow her to depart. It is asked whether in this case the converted spouse can pass to other nuptials? Resp. Affirmatively: namely that the converted person of whom there is question, if he has not legitimately been dispensed by the Apostolic See, is bound by Divine precept to make, in the present case, one interpellation of the other spouse; but he can make it several times from mere charity. But when this condition divinely enjoined has been fulfilled by the converted person, if the pagan wife has not returned to him within some just and reasonable space of time, the aforesaid converted man can licitly 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." S. C. S. O. 12 June 1850, Apostolic Vicar of Western Cochinchina.

"It often happens that, of two infidels, one is converted to the faith; the other indeed then does not wish to be converted, yet consents to cohabit with the faithful person without contumely of the Creator and without drawing him into mortal sin; indeed he promises that he too will afterwards embrace the faith, which, for some special reason, he judges it necessary to defer for some time. Wherefore the faithful person does not dismiss the unbeliever, but they go on cohabiting as spouses, and this for a long time and even for some years; but afterwards the unbeliever, with will changed, not only does not wish to be converted, but attempts to draw the faithful person to the worship of idols, or departs and no longer consents to dwell with him, indeed he himself passes to other nuptials. It is asked:

1. Whether in this case also the faithful person who has been deserted can depart, and pass to other nuptials, and whether here there has place the privilege promulgated by the Apostle: If the unbeliever departs, let him depart? 2. Whether that has place only when the unbeliever departs out of hatred of the faith, or also when he departs because of discords, or another cause different from the faith? 3. Whether the faithful person can also pass to other nuptials when the unbeliever for whatever cause has departed from him, and it cannot be known whether he is still living or not? 4. Whether a faithful person who from dispensation has validly contracted marriage with an unbeliever can pass to other nuptials if the unbeliever departs, or is unwilling to cohabit, or draws him to mortal sin? 5. Whether, and for how much time, a faithful person after conversion can cohabit with an unbeliever without being deprived of the power of passing to other nuptials?

Resp. To the 1st: In the case of which there is question, affirmatively. To the 2nd: Since the favor of the faith fights on the side of the converted spouse, he can use it from whatever cause, provided it is just, namely if he has not given a just and reasonable motive for the other spouse to depart, e.g. adultery, yet in such a way that the yoke of the matrimonial bond with the unbeliever is then only understood to be dissolved when the converted spouse, the other after interpellation refusing to be converted, passes to other vows with a faithful person. To the 3rd: An interpellation must be premised, by which it is intimated to the unbelieving spouse whether he wishes to be converted; from which interpellation the Apostolic See dispenses for just causes. To the 4th: If the faithful person, with prior dispensation, contracted marriage with an unbeliever, he is judged to have contracted it with an explicit condition, namely provided that the unbeliever is willing to cohabit with him without contumely of the Creator; wherefore, if the unbeliever does not observe the aforesaid condition, the remedies of law are to be applied so that he may observe it; otherwise they must be separated as to bed and cohabitation, but not as to the bond; for which reason in the case of which there is question, while the unbelieving spouse survives, the faithful person cannot pass to other vows. To the 5th: The person converted to the faith, at the very moment of conversion, is not understood to be loosed from the bond of marriage contracted with the unbeliever still surviving, but then only acquires the right of passing to other nuptials, yet with a faithful spouse, and this if the unbelieving spouse after interpellation refuses to be converted. Moreover only then is the bond of marriage dissolved, when the converted spouse passes effectively to other nuptials. If a gentile converted 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 become faithful; but in this case the contracting parties must renew mutual consent before the Parish Priest and witnesses." Clement XIII in S. C. S. O. 5 Aug. 1759, Bishop of Cochinchina; S. C. de P. F. 30 Jan. 1807, Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen.

"The refusal of the education of the offspring in the Catholic Religion is equivalent to contumely of the Creator." S. C. S. I. 14 Dec. 1848.

An unbeliever converted to the faith, with the unbelieving spouse departing after interpellation, can marry an unbeliever by apostolic dispensation. Through it, with the impediment of disparity of worship ceasing, the one marrying in this way "must be said to be loosed from the bond of the prior marriage, as if he had married a faithful person." S. C. de P. F. 28 May 1846.

"It is altogether forbidden for Christians to marry a pagan; but if, after dispensation from disparity of worship has first been obtained from the Holy See, marriages of this sort sometimes happen to be made, it is known that that marriage will be indissoluble as to the bond, and can be dissolved only as to bed, if canonical motives are present, to be acknowledged by the Ecclesiastical Judge. Never therefore, while that unbelieving man is living, even if he is living in concubinage, will a Christian woman be able to enter second nuptials. But if the case concerns the pagan wife of some pagan concubinary, who is converted, then, the interpellation having been made as above, if he refuses to be converted or to cohabit without injury of the Creator, and therefore to desist from concubinage, which certainly cannot be had without injury of the Creator, she will be able to use the privilege in favor of the faith. Generally, if the conversion of the spouse preceded the marriage with an unbeliever, entered into with previous Apostolic dispensation, he can in no way enjoy that privilege conceded in favor of the faith; but if the marriage preceded the conversion, then the converted party will be able to use that privilege, with the things to be observed being observed, as has been said...." S. C. S. O. 4 July 1855.

"If a faithful person, having had a dispensation, contracted marriage with an unbeliever, who, with no account taken of the promise made in contracting the marriage, after some time draws the faithful spouse to sin, or is unwilling to live with her except with contumely of the Creator, or even departs, the remedies of law are to be applied for this, that he may observe the promise made, or, if he refuses to observe it, they must be separated as to bed and dwelling; but as long as he lives the faithful party cannot pass to other vows." S. C. S. O. 1 Aug. 1755.

"... if a marriage entered into with an unbeliever was convalidated by dispensation, it must be and be held as indissoluble, nor indeed will there be any power which can dissolve a marriage of this sort, since this is a matter which admits no doubt at all, since it is a dogma of the Christian Religion that the knot of a valid and consummated marriage is indissoluble." S. C. de P. F. 15 Feb. 1781.

"In the case of a marriage to be dissolved from the privilege promulgated by the Apostle in favor of the faith, only these two things are to be considered, concerning which interpellation must be made: 1. Whether the unbelieving party wishes to be converted. 2. Whether at least the party wishes to cohabit without contumely of the Creator, no account besides being taken whether or not either adultery or repudiation preceded." S. C. de P. F. 17 Jan. 1797.

"The Responses or Decrees, one of the Supreme Inquisition on 5 Aug. 1759, the other of this Sacred Congregation on 17 Jan. 1797, are by no means in conflict with each other.... For in the case proposed by the Bishop of Cochinchina in the year 1759 ... it was asked besides whether the privilege of the faith likewise remained intact for the faithful party, even if the unbeliever departed from her for other causes independent of her conversion and faith, and the response was negative, if the faithful party, after a long time of peaceful cohabitation after conversion, furnished to the unbelieving party a just and reasonable cause of departing, for example through adultery; and for that reason there was added: provided that the faithful party has not given a just and reasonable motive for departing.

Conversely, in the Decree of this Sacred Congregation in the year 1797, it was a question of the case in which adultery of the faithful party had been perpetrated before his conversion, with repudiation then following, and it was asked whether the party, already adulterous and repudiated, if afterwards he had embraced the Christian faith and the unbelieving party had refused to cohabit with him, could use the privilege conceded in favor of the faith and pass to other nuptials; and it was justly answered: affirmatively, only the interpellation being premised, and no account besides being taken whether or not either adultery or repudiation had preceded, since the stain of adultery preceding was to be judged taken away through conversion and Baptism, and the unbelieving party irrationally and unjustly persevered in the plan taken up of by no means reconciling himself to the faithful party. Wherefore if in this case the unbeliever, having received the interpellation, refuses to receive the faithful party and to dwell with him without injury of the Creator, it is not just that, because of this irrational conversion, the faithful party remain in the state of voluntary continence, with danger of sinning." S. C. de P. F. 30 Jan. 1807.

"Whether the words of D. Paul, 1 Cor. 7:15, but if the unbeliever departs, let him depart, are thus to be understood also of Catechumens, or rather, whether Titius, a Catechumen, can marry Bertha, a Catechumen, and repudiated by her unbelieving husband because of Religion? Resp. Negatively, because marriage is not dissolved except through Baptism." S. C. de P. F. 16 Jan. 1803.

Cf. On the Sacraments in General, N. 218.

The Nuptial Blessing, which pertains to the solemnity of nuptials and is contained in the Missal, in the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride, is carefully to be distinguished from the rite of celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony, by which the Priest joins the spouses and blesses the ring, and which is contained in the Roman Ritual.

"The nuptial blessing, which the Missal exhibits in the Mass for bridegroom and bride, is always to be imparted in the marriage of Catholics, yet within the celebration of Mass, according to the rubrics, and outside the closed time, to all those spouses who did not obtain it in contracting marriage, from whatever cause; even if they ask after they have already lived for a long time in marriage, provided that the woman, if a widow, did not receive that blessing in other nuptials. Moreover the same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their marriage are to be exhorted that they ask it at the first possible time. But it must be signified to them, especially if they are neophytes, or contracted validly before conversion, that the blessing itself pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity, of the marriage." S. I. C. 31 Aug. 1881, General Decree; S. R. C. 9 May 1885.

"The Holy See exhorts the faithful to supply the nuptial Blessing of the Parish Priest in marriages celebrated clandestinely. It is asked whether only the solemn Blessing is intended, which is contained in the Missal, or whether also the Blessing of the ring? Resp. Affirmatively in all things." S. C. de P. F. 20 Feb. 1801.

"When the Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen asked that the response of the Sacred Congregation concerning the Blessing to be supplied in clandestine marriages be more clearly explained, the S. C. de P. F. responded that the Blessing is to be given in all things and through all things according to the form of the Roman Ritual, namely also with the Blessing of the ring." S. C. de P. F. 27 Jan. 1805.

"1. Is the nuptial Blessing which is in the Ritual prohibited from being given in the forbidden time? Or at this time is only the Blessing which is in the Missal prohibited? 3. Can the Blessing which is in the Missal be given to those who, without that Blessing, have already been joined in marriage in first nuptials, when the woman is already pregnant, or has already borne children? Likewise to those who here and now contract marriage de praesenti in first nuptials, when the bride is known to be pregnant, or already before marriage has begotten children from fornication? 4. When the nuptial Blessing is given to those who have already validly been joined in marriage, must the formula be recited: I join you in matrimony, without renewal of consent? What when there is doubt, as very often, whether they have already validly contracted or not? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively to the first part, provided that there is not present a custom of not contracting marriage even without solemnity in forbidden time; affirmatively to the second part. To the 3rd: Affirmatively. To the 4th: To the first part, let the Instruction of the year 1806 be given, which is that spouses of this sort are not bound to renew consent where there is no doubt concerning the validity of the marriage already contracted because of some impediment, nor ought the Priest to recite the formula Ego vos, etc., but only to perform the remaining things which are handed down in the Roman Ritual concerning the Blessing. To the second part, let him consult approved authors." S. R. C. 5 July 1845; 2 Oct. 1593.

"Whether the votive Mass for bridegroom and bride can be said, and in it the nuptial Blessing be made, even in the case where the Spouses during this Mass would not receive Holy Communion? Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless let Parish Priests and Rectors of souls take care to exhort the faithful about to marry that they communicate in the Mass in which the nuptial Blessings are imparted." S. R. C. 21 March 1874.

"1. Can a Priest, when marriages are celebrated outside Mass, as frequently happens in the churches of the cities of the Diocese of Monte Albano, impart the Blessing to the spouses and recite the prayers which are contained in the Missal in the Mass for bridegroom and bride, and which are to be said both after the Pater noster and before the Placeat, when there is not a question of nuptials in which the above-mentioned Blessing is not to be denied? And insofar as affirmatively, is he bound? 2. Is it permitted to defer the Mass for bridegroom and bride and the Blessing to the day immediately following, or to another much more remote, even if the spouses before receiving the Priestly Blessing in the church dwell together in the same house? 3. Whether the prohibition of nuptials in the time of Advent and Lent ought to be understood only of the Mass for spouses, and of the prayers placed in the Missal for the Blessing of those marrying; or whether it also touches the marriage itself, which is celebrated only with the ceremonies and prayers which are found in the Ritual? 4. When license has been given by the Bishop to contract marriage in the times forbidden by the Holy Council of Trent, is the Blessing of the spouses through the prayers and orations contained in the Mass for spouses also judged to be permitted? And insofar as negatively, can the Bishop in the case concede that faculty? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively in all things. To the 2nd: Negatively in the case. To the 3rd: Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second, provided that the leave of the Bishop accedes. To the 4th: Negatively in all things." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1858.

"The S. R. C. ... by command of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX decreed: that the nuptial Blessing is to be imparted only in Mass, and it did not declare differently in the year just elapsed, 1858, on 14 Aug., when responding to doubts proposed concerning this matter by the Most Reverend Bishop of Monte Albano." 26 March 1859. Cf. Gardell. n. 5289.

"Unless a grave and reasonable cause is present, the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride is to be celebrated, and the prescription of the Rubric is to be observed as to the kind of Mass; yet in such a way that the Celebrant is free in his mind to turn the fruit of the Mass in favor of the one supplying the alms." S. C. de P. F. 7 June 1853; 23 March 1844.

"... the S. R. C. declared ... that the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride is a private votive Mass, and therefore is always to be read without the Angelic hymn and the Nicene symbol, with three orations: 1. namely, the proper one of the same votive Mass, as is contained at the end of the Missal; 2. and 3. those of the current day, as in Rubrics, title VII, num. 3, On commemorations; Benedicamus Domino at the end, and the last Gospel of St. John." S. R. C. 28 Feb. 1818.

"The Mass in nuptials must always be the votive Mass for Bridegroom and Bride, as in the Missal, except on feasts of precept and doubles of the 1st and 2nd Class, in which a commemoration for Bridegroom and Bride is to be added to the occurring Mass. But the Blessing assigned in it according to the rubrics is not to be imparted except in Mass." S. R. C. 23 June 1853; 7 Jan. 1784.

"1. Whether a Mass of this sort can be said on days excluding doubles, as noted above? 2. Whether the commemoration of the Mass for bridegroom and bride, to be said, according to the said Decree, in Masses of a double of the 1st or 2nd class, ought to be said under one conclusion with the Oration of the feast, or under another conclusion? 3. Whether such commemoration likewise ought to be said, or under another conclusion, as is customary concerning other commemorations occurring on Sundays and feasts of precept? 4. In what place, when other commemorations occur, as in the preceding question, the commemoration of the Mass for bridegroom and bride is to be said under a second conclusion; namely, whether in the last place? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively as to the Octave of Epiphany, the Vigil of Pentecost, and the privileged Octave of Corpus Christi, insofar as the privilege has been granted after the manner of the Octave of Epiphany. To the 2nd: Negatively to the first part, affirmatively to the second. To the 3rd: As in the preceding. To the 4th: It is to be made in the first place after the others of precept." S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1822.

"... because in the times forbidden by the Church the solemn Blessing of nuptials cannot have place, so likewise the commemoration for bridegroom and bride in the occurring Mass is inhibited, nor are the Orations to be resumed outside Mass when the prohibited time has already elapsed." S. R. C. 31 Aug. 1839.

"When several are joined at the same time, the consent of each of them first having been received, and the individual marriages having been duly celebrated, and the form I join you in matrimony, etc., having been said for each by the Parish Priest, nothing prevents the blessings of the rings and the remaining Blessings from being made in common by general words." S. C. S. O. 1 Sept. 1841.

"Whether in Nuptials, which are called second, the blessing of the ring is to be omitted? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1856. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

"1. Whether, outside the case of most grave illness in either of the contracting parties, marriage can be celebrated in a private house before an altar specially erected for this? 2. Whether, outside the said case, in private oratories in which Mass is celebrated? 3. Whether the nuptial Mass can be celebrated in the said oratories? Resp. To the 1st: Provided for in the following. To the 2nd: It is especially fitting that marriage be celebrated in the face of the Church, or in a church. Yet it is not forbidden to local Ordinaries that, if no danger is impending and praiseworthy causes concur, according to their prudence they sometimes permit it to be celebrated in private oratories in which the Sacred [Mystery] can be performed. To the 3rd: Affirmatively, with the Rubrics observed." S. R. C. 31 Aug. 1872.

"Only women who have borne from legitimate marriage have the right to the Blessing after childbirth." S. C. C. 18 June 1859. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 349.

"A certain Parish Priest had asked from his Ordinariate the faculty of dispensing the bridegroom over a double occult impediment of affinity, in the first degree, from illicit copulas 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 dispensation might be obtained from the Apostolic See. The Ordinariate conceded the requested dispensation by force of the quinquennial faculties. It is asked whether the dispensation is valid or not? Resp. Affirmatively, that is, the faculty of dispensing, for the forum of conscience only, in marriages to be contracted, over the occult impediment of affinity from illicit copula, when all things are prepared for the nuptials and there is no time to recur to the Apostolic See, is validly and licitly exercised, even if the aforesaid impediment is multiple." S. Poenit. 30 July 1873.

"Whether a Masonic oath not retracted can or ought to be considered and treated after the manner of an impediment impeding marriage, or even diriment; and what cautions ought to be required, so that the marriage of a Catholic girl with a sworn Freemason can licitly or even validly be blessed by the parish priest? ... Resp. As regards marriage in which one of the contracting parties notoriously adheres to clandestine associations, until the Apostolic See shall have issued a general decree in this matter, it is necessary that Pastors conduct themselves cautiously and prudently; and they ought rather in particular cases to establish those things which they shall have judged more expedient in the Lord, than to decree something by a general rule; but the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass is altogether to be excluded, unless the circumstances require otherwise." Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Vol. 16, p. 265.

"Since marriage is by its own force, by its own nature, by its own impulse sacred, it is fitting that it be ruled and moderated not by the command of princes, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone has the magisterium of sacred things. Then the dignity of the Sacrament must be considered, by whose accession the marriages of Christians have become by far most noble. But concerning a Sacrament the Church alone can and ought to establish and command, according to the will of Christ, so that it is plainly absurd to wish even the least part of its power to have been transferred to the governors of civil affairs." Leo XIII, Enc. Arcanum, 10 Feb. 1880.

"... Only by the solemn profession of vows is a ratified and non-consummated Marriage dissolved; but not by the profession of simple vows; and therefore in the case in which the man, according to the law of 19 March 1857 issued by the S. C. sup. St. Reg., must emit simple vows before solemn profession, either he himself or his spouse will be able to recur to the Apostolic See for obtaining the faculty that solemn vows can be emitted immediately." E. S. C. 25 Jan. 1861.

"By the words of the Ritual, the sponsor holding the infant, absolute taking up is by no means required, since to hold is equally understood and it suffices if the Sponsor, as is customary, joins himself with the infant by physical contact, together with the one in whose hands he is held, and accompanies the carrier to the infusion of the water, without there being need that the Sponsor or the Sponsor-woman only, with the carrier removed, receiving the infant into his or her own hands, present him to the Priest to be baptized." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1856.

Spiritual relationship is not contracted by the procurator but by the mandator. S. C. C. 20 Apr. 1586; 15 March 1631; 15 Sept. 1721; 11 June 1881. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 411 ff.

"Whether the disposition of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 2, de R. M., decreeing that in the Sacrament of Baptism spiritual relationship is contracted between the one receiving and the father and mother of the one received, has place in Baptism performed without solemnities because of necessity? Resp. Affirmatively." S. C. C. 5 March 1678. Cf. Marc, Inst. Mor. Alph., ed. 2, n. 2022.

"Sponsors who are employed in supplying the solemnities of Baptism do not contract the impediment of spiritual relationship." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 11 Sept. 1779; S. C. C. 13 Apr. 1669; 2 Oct. 1687.

"Titius baptized his own son; he did it ignorantly; fearing, but with vain fear, lest he should die; whom he baptized in the presence of some women. The Confessor rebuked the same man, but absolved him. He now asks from the Sacred Penitentiary, with Titius unaware, whom he left in good faith, dispensation from the impediment of spiritual relationship, so that he can ask for and render the debt." Year 1869.

Resp. "The Sacred Penitentiary grants to the Ordinary of the orator the faculty, either by himself or through the proper Parish Priest of the orator, of absolving the orator himself, if it is so, his sacramental Confession having been heard, from ecclesiastical censures and penalties if he has incurred any on account of the premises, and from the guilt of incest, if perhaps after the contracted spiritual relationship he has not abstained from the use of marriage, by apostolic authority, with salutary penance. And of declaring that the same orator, if no other canonical impediment stands in the way, can remain in his marriage, and can and must render the conjugal debt. And of mercifully dispensing with the same man, over the recounted supervening impediment of spiritual relationship, so that notwithstanding it he can licitly and freely demand the conjugal debt from his wife, by apostolic special and express authority. For the forum of conscience; so that the present grace, if and when there shall be need, may avail the orator and his wife also for the external forum." Cf. Scavini, l. 3, n. 850.

A sponsor in confirmation "if not confirmed does not contract spiritual relationship." S. C. C. 13 June 1654. Lucidi, ch. 2, § 3, n. 142.

Whether dispensations are valid as to affinity from licit or matrimonial copula, in which no mention has been made of illicit or anti-matrimonial copula? Resp. "The dispensations in the cases set forth are valid." S. Poenit. 7 June 1842. And this response was declared general by Letters of the same Penitentiary, 10 Dec. 1874.

"1. Can an unbelieving man, who while still placed in infidelity knew, either publicly or privately, yet illicitly, a certain woman, whether faithful or unbelieving, after receiving Baptism validly and licitly contract marriage with a blood-relative of the same woman known by him, if that blood-relative received Baptism either before or after the copula of which there is question? 2. And insofar as affirmatively, concerning which there is very much to be doubted, could the same unbeliever converted to the faith, after the death of his legitimate unbelieving wife, contract marriage with a blood-relative, up to the 4th degree inclusively, of the same deceased wife, whether that blood-relative received Baptism before or after the death of the aforesaid unbelieving wife? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively. To the 2nd: Negatively." S. C. de P. F. 23 Aug. 1852.

"Whether a ratified, non-consummated marriage of pagans produces public honesty, or is judged a diriment impediment after their conversion? For example, the pagan Titius married the pagan Maevia, but did not consummate; after the death of Maevia, Titius becomes a Christian: can he marry Bertha, the sister or cousin of Maevia, who from a pagan has become a Christian? And is the same true concerning betrothals of pagans as concerning a ratified marriage? Resp. The impediment does not subsist." S. O. 19 Apr. 1837.

"Whether from clandestine betrothals the impediment of public honesty is contracted? Resp. Affirmatively." S. Poenit. 10 Sept. 1834.

If a consummated Marriage was not valid, two distinct impediments are had: of public honesty from the null ratified marriage, and of affinity from fornicatory copula. S. C. C. in Brixien., 5 Dec. 1667. Cf. Scavini, l. 3, n. 791, Milan 1874; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, ch. 13; De Justis, de Dispens. Matrimonial., l. 1, ch. 8.

"Whether the act which is commonly called civil marriage gives rise to the impediment of the justice of public honesty? Resp. 'Negatively: and the Most Holy One is to be consulted, that he may deign to declare and establish this.'" S. C. C. 13 March 1879. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 12, p. 176. "In the audience of the 17th of the same month His Holiness deigned to approve and confirm the resolution, and ordered that a decree be made." - "... Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII ... declares and establishes that the prementioned act, which is commonly called Civil Marriage, in places where the Decree of the Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 1, de R. M., has been promulgated, whether the faithful completing the act itself intend, as is fitting, when ecclesiastical marriage has already been duly celebrated, or with the intention of celebrating it as soon as possible, to perform a mere civil ceremony; or whether they intend to enter betrothals de futuro; or finally whether from ignorance, or in contempt of ecclesiastical laws, they intend to contract marriage de praesenti, does not produce the impediment of the justice of public honesty...." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 13, p. 126.

"As Pickler explains according to the Sacred Canons, l. 4, Decretals, tit. 7, that adultery may induce a diriment impediment, it is required that there accede to it either a promise of future marriage, or a contract of marriage de praesenti with the adulteress or adulterer while the prior spouse is still living. But to contract, or to attempt, marriage de praesenti is to enter nuptials, certainly invalidly, by words de praesenti, or by some other sign which includes the promise of consent; yet it makes no difference whether the adultery preceded the attempted marriage or followed it.... That the taking of a concubine, or rather of an adulteress, be had in the case as a true attempted marriage, it is necessary that it include a promise of marriage, either de praesenti or de futuro." S. C. de P. F. 14 Jan. 1844.

"Since I., bearer of the present letters, had a legitimate wife by the name A., he perpetrated adultery with M.; and since he had been summoned into court over this, he abjured the adulteress, and afterwards, the oath having been contemned, while the legitimate wife was living, presumed to contract marriage with her and to cohabit with her for a long time. Finally, after the aforesaid A. was taken away from the present light, the mentioned I. lived with the adulteress for ten years, by whom he procreated ten sons. Therefore we give such a response to your consultation, that they be altogether separated, and, penance having been enjoined upon them, perpetual continence be indicated, especially since both have advanced in their days, and, enduring so long publicly in adultery and perjury from certain knowledge, have disturbed the Church in grave scandal. For you know that Pope Leo established that no one should take in marriage her whom he polluted by adultery; and that here there was more process than if faith had merely been pledged to the adulteress, that, when the legitimate wife was dead, he would take her as wife, since even while the first was living, as adulterer with adulteress, he presumed to adhere to the same woman as if matrimonially, and rashly to violate his sacrament; which union indeed, where also no religion of oath intervened, both Pope Gregory and the Synod of Tribur detests, and ordered each person joined in this way to be subjected to public penance and to remain perpetually without any hope of marriage." etc. Chap. Cum haberet 5, De eo qui duxit in matrim., etc.

"Can an unbelieving man who before baptism had copula with the unbelieving wife of another, and, with the woman assenting and accepting faith concerning future marriage, inflicted death on him, after the baptism of both enter marriage with the said woman? Resp. Affirmatively." S. C. de P. F. 23 Aug. 1852.

"You asked concerning Saracens who, while they were in captivity, killed the husbands of certain Christian women through their snares and machinations, whether, because afterwards through these women they were converted to the Christian faith, they can by law receive them as wives, or, if they have married them, whether the marriage of the same persons holds. Here we are content with the rule of the Council of Tribur, asserting that if those women maliciously plotted the death of their husbands, although by their zeal the men came to the faith, nevertheless they ought not to adhere to them, nor, if they have adhered, are they even to be tolerated, since the Church does not wish to compensate such loss with such gain. To this, certain Saracens are noted to have killed Christians in war, and Christians likewise Saracens; but afterwards the Saracens, converted to the faith, matrimonially joined to themselves the wives of those whom they killed in the contest of war, and Christians are known to have done the very same with Saracen women converted to the faith, who, after they learned the truth concerning the death of their former husbands, constantly demand divorce. Therefore in these matters we respond that, since such persons did not procure the destruction of the deceased husbands, marriage between persons of this sort can licitly be contracted, and those joined in such a way cannot demand divorce." Chap. Laudabilem 1, De Conversione Infidelium.

"... We judge that from marriages of this sort great ruin will be brought upon the Catholic Church. For if the mother, in whose power is the first education of the offspring, is alien from our Sacred rites, what is not to be feared concerning the Religion of the children? For she, solicitously thinking according to maternal love concerning their eternal salvation, will omit no occasion by which she may imbue them with the doctrine of her sect, which she thinks uniquely true. And if she mocks the husband, either fasting on vigils and abstaining from meats, or washing away the stains of his soul in the sacrament of Penance, or approaching the sacred table of the Eucharist, as pursuing empty things, as will happen very often, this also surely must gradually happen, that contempt of most sacred things slip into the minds of the children. But the things which they seize from tender age are most difficult to tear out from their minds.

And conversely, if the mother indeed worships the Catholic religion, but the father, addicted to some Heretical sect, in the sight of the children playfully mocks the sayings and deeds of the wife which pertain to Religion, will not the childish mind of the children, among whom the authority of the father has very great force, have doubted 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, amid the alternating moments in the dispute of the parents, is driven this way and that, gradually slip into indifference of Religion, than which nothing is more deadly, nothing more hostile to Religion, since it utterly removes every Religion, true or false? That too is manifest, that by these marriages a more open field is opened to Lutheran heresy, by which it can diffuse itself more widely. For girls imbued with Lutheran error, to whom now it is lawful to establish domicile with their husbands only in certain particular places, if they have married Catholic men, must follow them wherever it has pleased them to dwell. Besides, the new bride will admit several persons of her sect into the family of the husband; nor can Ministers of the false sect, who come to her for the sake of greeting her, be prohibited from his house. These indeed will not be wanting in their ministry, by which they confirm their sheep in error, and they will suggest to the mother the art by which, in the minds of the children, the seeds of good doctrine may dry up from the very time when they begin to spring forth.

Therefore the zeal of Catholics used up to now will have been in vain, by which the errors condemned by the Church are eliminated from these regions which they hold, when in the future it will have been permitted with impunity to profess that same poisonous doctrine in the midst of those Catholics. To this is added that if either of the spouses, who is Catholic, dies and leaves children in first age, it will be free to the other Heretical spouse to infect his or her children with the poisonous sentiments of the sect. You see therefore, Our beloved Son, what the Catholic religion can promise itself concerning the offspring received from these marriages, and whether it is to be greatly feared lest through those unions by which they intend to propagate the Catholic faith, heresy be propagated more widely; and, what is most dreadful of all, that indifference of whatever Religion may take greater forces day by day, by which, for the most part, access is opened to impiety...." Clement XIII, 16 Nov. 1763, to the Bishop of Argerotan.

"... And to this altogether pertain the most ancient canons severely forbidding mixed marriages themselves, and the more recent Sanctions 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 which is inscribed On the Diocesan Synod. Hence moreover it happens that this Apostolic See, to which alone belongs the power of dispensing over an impediment of mixed religion of this sort, if, relaxing something from the severity of the canons, it has sometimes permitted these mixed marriages, did this only for grave causes and very reluctantly, and never except always under the express condition concerning the necessary and opportune cautions to be premised, namely that not only could the Catholic spouse not be perverted by the non-Catholic, but indeed that the Catholic spouse himself should know that he is bound to draw back the non-Catholic from error according to his strength; and also that all the offspring of either sex, to be procreated from these mixed marriages, must altogether be educated in the sanctity of the Catholic religion. These cautions indeed 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 zeal to guard safe and intact, and against which, without any doubt, they sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these promiscuous nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion. Moreover, in granting dispensations of this sort, besides the mentioned cautions, which must always be premised, and over which dispensation can in no way ever be made, conditions were also added that these mixed marriages must be celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and without any other ecclesiastical rite. These conditions indeed especially look to this, that in the minds of Catholics there never be forgotten the memory both of the canons, which detest mixed Matrimonies of this sort, and of that most constant zeal, by which holy Mother Church has never ceased to avert and deter her children from these same mixed marriages being contracted to their own destruction and that of future offspring.... The same Most Holy Lord of Ours established that in the concession of these dispensations the formula of that Rescript is to be used, in which, even if the aforesaid conditions concerning these mixed marriages being celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and other ecclesiastical rite are not openly declared, nevertheless they are implicitly contained. And His Holiness vehemently admonishes, exhorts, and excites in the Lord all Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries, and commands them, that when in the future by the formula of this Rescript they shall have obtained from this Holy See the faculty of dispensing over the impediment of mixed religion, in executing the same faculty they never cease to watch with all care and zeal, that the conditions also be sedulously fulfilled concerning these mixed Matrimonies being celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and other ecclesiastical rite. But if in some places the sacred Prelates shall have known that the same conditions cannot be fulfilled without graver damages and evils arising therefrom, in this case only, in order to avoid greater damages and evils of this sort, His Holiness commits to the prudent judgment of the same sacred Prelates that they themselves, the cautions always being safe and firm and most diligently observed concerning removing the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse, procuring the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse by the Catholic spouse himself according to his strength, and all the offspring of either sex being altogether educated in the sanctity of the Catholic religion, judge when the commemorated conditions concerning contracting these mixed nuptials outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest can by no means be fulfilled, and when, in entering these promiscuous marriages, there can be tolerated the custom of employing the rite legitimately prescribed in the diocesan Ritual for contracting Marriages, yet always with the celebration of Mass excluded, and with all circumstances of things, places, and persons most diligently weighed, and the conscience of the Prelates themselves burdened concerning the truth and gravity of all the circumstances. But His Holiness greatly desires that these same sacred Prelates keep this indulgence, or rather toleration, wholly committed to their judgment and conscience, with the greatest silence and secrecy with which it can be done." Instruction of the Secretariat of State to all local Ordinaries, 15 Nov. 1858.

"... Therefore the following matters seemed to you worthy of explanation. And first, you ask what is to be understood by the words by which, in the praised Instruction, the faculty or tolerance of blessing mixed marriages is supported and as it were bound, namely, to avoid graver evils and damages. Without doubt graver evils and damages arise therefrom: 1. Whenever, because the blessing is denied to mixed marriages, complaints and hatreds of Heretics against the faithful and against ecclesiastical laws would easily be excited. 2. Whenever, the blessing having been denied by the Catholic Parish Priest, the spouses, before or after the marriage celebrated before him, approach a petty Minister, or even come together in a temple of Heterodox persons, to obtain a sacrilegious blessing, the Catholic Parish Priest being altogether set aside. 3. Whenever besides it would be feared that, the blessing sought by them having been refused, either the necessary cautions concerning removing the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse and concerning educating all the offspring in the Catholic Religion would not be observed, or, what would be more detestable, lest the Catholic party pass over to the camp of the Heretics, to the eternal destruction of himself and the future offspring. Evidently these and like things are those grave damages and evils, to avoid which the Supreme Pontiff declared that it could be indulged, or tolerated, that in mixed marriages the nuptial blessing be imparted. Therefore by these things an easy and correct interpretation and practice of the Instruction offers itself to all Apostolic Vicars.

Whence also from the things said the response to the second is clear. For immediately, by attending to the aforesaid matters, anxieties and doubts will vanish concerning a not correct and therefore discrepant interpretation of the Instruction, and its application to practical cases or events. But whenever, because of the notable distance of places, Prelates cannot by themselves know the gravity and truth of the causes and circumstances concerning mixed marriages to be honored with the Priestly blessing, they will be able to fulfill these same things through Missionaries subject to them, who nevertheless are very well instructed concerning the aforesaid causes and the Instruction, endowed with prudence and zeal according to knowledge.

Those things which in the third place made you anxious concerning silence and secrecy, inculcated in the praised Instruction as far as possible, do not seem to be understood so strictly that this indulgence, or rather toleration, of the Holy See in blessing mixed nuptials becomes known to no one. For you should know that His Holiness wished the Prelates to be warned, that the blessing not be imparted indiscriminately and without selection to mixed marriages; nor that they use such a faculty by public instructions, as if also by way of rule, but very prudently and cautiously, so that the most salutary conditions of the Church, which are always understood to be implicitly joined to such dispensations, are not handed over to oblivion. Surely that there is no other mind of the Supreme Pontiff will be clear to A. T. and the other Apostolic Vicars, if you attend to those things which are contained in the apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief given to the Bishop of Trier on 3 October 1853 concerning this matter. The Supreme Pontiff Pius IX, after he indulged to the Ordinary of Trier that, when the causes already commemorated above concur, the blessing could be imparted to mixed marriages, proceeds in this way: These conditions indeed (outside the church and without the blessing of the Parish Priest) especially look to this, that in the minds of Catholics the memory of the Canons which detest these unions never be forgotten, and of that most constant zeal by which Holy Mother Church has been accustomed to avert her children from the same nuptials being contracted to the destruction of their future offspring.

Therefore from the things said a certain norm is proposed to you and to the other Apostolic Vicars for correctly interpreting and reducing to practice those things which are handed down in the Instruction of Cardinal Antonelli concerning the blessing to be given to mixed nuptials.

Finally, to the questions which A. T. also proposed to be solved as consectary, the Sacred Congregation judged that response should be made thus: The practice of Missionaries is by no means to be disapproved, by which, in order to detect the fraud of Heretics who, their own wife having been rejected, would presume to be joined with a Catholic woman, among other investigations, their banns are published, yet with no mention made of the religion of those who are about to contract the nuptials.

But as to the doubt: Can the Sacraments be given to the Catholic party prepared in mind to go before a Protestant Minister either before or after the Catholic marriage? It will have to be attended whether the spouses approach the Protestant Minister so that they may satisfy only civil law, or truly so that they may communicate in sacred rites. If this second, since the Heterodox Minister assists as one devoted to sacred rites, and the Catholic party persists in his depraved intention, he cannot be admitted to the participation of the Sacraments until, by drawing back from the depraved purpose, he truly comes to his senses. Concerning this matter it will be opportune to consult Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, book VI, ch. VII, § 2.

Lastly it was asked: Whether the Catholic party is to be admitted, who contracted marriage with a Heretic and before a petty Minister, yet validly by force of the Benedictine extension for Holland, to the renewal of mutual consent before the Parish Priest or Catholic Missionary, who could also recite the formula: I join you...? Moreover, whether spouses converted from heresy, who insistently ask this, can be admitted to the same renewal of consent? In places in which marriages of Heretics among 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 marriage, already indissoluble in itself, as if to be contracted anew by words expressing mutual consent de praesenti; nor will the formula, I join you in matrimony, be recited by the Priest. Nevertheless, if there is question of mixed marriages already contracted before a Heretical Minister, insofar as the cautions necessary by law have been supplied, and the Catholic party, repentant of the fact, asks for the blessing, it will be able to be imparted to that person, with absolution from censures first given, and salutary penances imposed, yet always with the celebration of Mass excluded. Likewise also to spouses converted from heresy, provided that they ask, the nuptial blessing is to be imparted in Mass. But the Parish Priest, in any case whatsoever, should teach the spouses together that a blessing of this sort pertains only to the rite, not to the validity, of the marriage." S. O., S. C. de P. F., 4 Dec. 1862.

Bishop M. proposed these doubts: "1. Whether a faculty expedited through the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide can rightly and validly be employed conjointly with another faculty expedited by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office or not, namely when there is question of mixed unions? 2. And if, which would affect me with no small grief, this question must be decided negatively, I further supplicate that Your Holiness deign most graciously to consult for me and to indulge those supports by which what has been done less rightly up to now in this diocese can be better remedied. 3. And for the future, if for this there is need of a special faculty, to concede most mercifully that in mixed marriages by delegated power I also may be able to dispense when there concur impediments of the III and IV degrees only, of simple and mixed consanguinity and affinity, then of public honesty arising from just betrothals, and of crime, with neither spouse, however, plotting, and finally of spiritual relationship except between the one lifting and the lifted. Resp. To the 1st: Negatively. To the 2nd: R. P. D. the Bishop should be silent and leave the spouses in good faith. To the 3rd: The Most Holy One must be supplicated for the grace." S. I. C. 12 Sept. 1866.

"But because it has been reported to the Sacred Congregation that several of the Prelates of the East Indies have up to now used faculties which regard dispensations in diriment impediments of marriage even where it happens that two different impediments are accumulated in the same person, thinking that the faculties granted to them extended to this, which nevertheless cannot be admitted, it has been provided that, as to past marriages in which, with several impediments concurring, dispensation was given in this way, the Apostolic Vicars should be silent and leave the spouses in good faith; but as to future time, they should recur in individual cases, and, if they foresee that time will with difficulty suffice for recurring to the Holy See, they should ask a faculty for a number of cases, which will be conceded to them by the Supreme Pontiff, if indeed it shall seem opportune. By the same reason, if some diriment impediment has place when the discourse is about mixed marriages, in this case likewise the Apostolic Vicars cannot concede dispensations, although they have a separate faculty of dispensing in mixed marriages. Therefore, as regards dispensations given in past time in this way, the Bishops, as above, should be silent and leave the spouses in good faith. But as regards the future, Our Most Holy Lord, at the petition of the Apostolic Vicars, will likewise concede the faculty for more urgent cases where it is evident that there will not be time for recurring to the Holy See, over which the conscience of the Apostolic Vicars is gravely burdened." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 8 Sept. 1869.

"Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord. It has been reported to the Apostolic See that this abuse has not rarely happened, namely that Italians who set out into foreign dioceses and sojourn in them as strangers obtain dispensations over the impediment of mixed religion. Therefore lest a fact of this sort ever be renewed in the future, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, by the counsel of the Most Eminent Fathers General Inquisitors, judged that it should be prescribed in the Lord that all and singular Bishops who are furnished with the faculty of dispensing over the said impediment be made certain that in the use of the same Italians are excepted, concerning whom it is not established that they have altogether deserted Italian domicile.... Rome, from the Buildings of the S. C. de P. F., 30 Aug. 1865."

The Bishop of Southwark consulted the Holy See concerning these four things which follow. "1. In the second formula it is declared that a Bishop who has been given these faculties by the Pontiff can in no way use the same outside the limits of his diocese. But the same Bishop is accustomed to obtain from the Holy See other faculties, to which this limitation is not attached, for example, that he can dispense in mixed marriages to be contracted. It seems to me that as often as the Roman Pontiff, having been asked, grants to anyone a faculty for some matter, this limitation is implicitly attached; so that I cannot concede 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 Thee, Holy Father, to explain whether this opinion is true: that is, as often as an indult by no means bears before itself these words, in no way to use, etc., these are always to be understood in the same.

2. It frequently happens that either a man or a woman, bound by some diriment or impeding impediment, over which we are endowed with the faculty of dispensing, wishes to go to Liverpool, for example, for the sake of entering marriage with another person staying there. I ask whether I can free this person departing from my diocese from every impediment by dispensing directly, and thus, the impediment having been removed, send that person to Liverpool, where the other of the spouses is staying, for entering marriage there.

3. If two persons from among the subjects of my diocese, consanguineous or affine between themselves, wish, absolved from every impediment, to set out to Liverpool for the sake of entering nuptials there, I ask whether I can use the Apostolic Indult for the marriage which will be entered outside the limits of my diocese, by permitting it?

4. Since in dispensing over 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 directly to fall, by which Bishop can the dispensation be conceded, when the Catholic man or Catholic woman comes to enter marriage outside his or her own diocese?

"Resp. To the first clause, can in no way use outside the limits of his diocese: that it must be understood thus, that the faculties comprehended under it can be exercised only with his own subjects actually existing in the diocese at the moment in which the grace is granted. Nevertheless, the same clause is not to be understood in faculties which are conceded to Bishops by the Apostolic See, unless it has been expressed, or otherwise is established concerning the mind of the Supreme Pontiff, or unless the subject matter requires it. But the faculty of dispensing over the impediment of mixed religion is conceded with the clause: he can dispense within the limits of his diocese; therefore it cannot be exercised except with subjects actually existing within the limits of one's own diocese, with the other things being observed which are handed down in the response to the fourth.

To the second and third: Affirmatively, unless the tenor of the Apostolic concession stands in the way, yet leave for the celebration of the marriage having been obtained from the Bishop of the place where the marriage itself is contracted.

To the fourth: Catholic men or women can be dispensed, when just causes accede, over the impediment of mixed religion by the Bishop having this faculty, whose subjects they are by domicile or quasi-domicile acquired in his diocese, provided that they actually exist in the same diocese when they receive the dispensation; but the dispensation thus obtained can be committed to execution wherever mixed unions are permitted to be contracted, unless something else stands in the way by the judgment of the Ordinary of the place in which the marriage is contracted; otherwise, for the dispensation, recourse must be had to the Apostolic See." S. C. S. I. 22 Nov. 1865.

"... What priestly zeal had already suggested to the sacred Prelates of Hungary, now after this law has been passed let it be cared for all the more with all strength, that the faithful be averted from contracting mixed nuptials, and altogether deterred. For as regards the remedy proposed by Your Eminence, namely of obtaining from the Holy Apostolic See a faculty by which it would be lawful for you to dispense with a Catholic bridegroom or bride about to marry in the prohibition of mixed religion, and also to impart the nuptial blessing in at least those cases of mixed marriages to be entered, in which, from the rightly known mind and disposition of will of the Catholic party, indeed of both spouses, it can be hoped that Catholic education, as far as possible, will be bestowed even upon that offspring which by force of civil law would not be educated Catholic, even if by its form, either by baptism imparted with this intention, or by another external act, it would not be received into the bosom of the Church; this seemed such to the Most Eminent Fathers that it can never be permitted, nor even tolerated, by the same Holy Apostolic See. Indeed Your Eminence knows that the Church can never permit the celebration of mixed nuptials unless grave canonical causes concur, and unless opportune cautions are exhibited, by whose force 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 indeed has very often been announced and declared by the Supreme Pontiffs even in those concessions in which they professed that their indulgence had touched those limits which it is altogether unlawful to transgress. That other Pontiffs be passed over, Pius VIII of holy memory, in Apostolic letters given to the Archbishop of Cologne and his suffragans on 25 March 1830, most gravely inculcates: 'But you know, Venerable brothers, that all these cautions look to this, that in this matter the natural and divine laws be held safe and intact; since it is established that Catholic persons, whether men or women, who contract nuptials with non-Catholics in such a way that they rashly commit themselves or their future offspring to the danger of perversion, not only violate canonical sanctions, but also directly and most gravely sin against the natural and divine law. And hence you already understand that we too would be guilty before God and the Church of a most grave crime, if concerning nuptials of this sort to be contracted in those regions we consented that those things be done by you or by the parish priests of your dioceses, by which, if not in words, nevertheless by the facts themselves they would be approved indiscriminately.' Indeed Gregory XVI of holy memory also, to those same Bishops of Hungary, your predecessors, in the letters by which he extended to that Kingdom a like indulgence of the extreme limits, asserted entirely the same divine law concerning cautions founded in the divine and natural law itself, against which without doubt he sins most gravely, whoever rashly commits himself or his future offspring to the danger of perversion. And finally, by order of Pius IX of holy memory, to all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ordinaries on 15 Nov. of the year 1858 it was declared in express words: 'These cautions indeed 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 every zeal to guard safe and intact, and against which without any doubt they sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these promiscuous nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion.' According to this doctrine the Holy Apostolic See has always constantly held and holds that in no way is it lawful to dispense in the prohibition of mixed religion, unless in individual cases, besides canonical causes, the three following conditions concur at the same time, namely: 1. That the parties, and especially the heretical party, have supplied true cautions, by which they bind themselves before the Church to those things which the same Church requires from them; among which the Catholic education of absolutely all the offspring without any exception or restriction holds the chief place. 2. That the ecclesiastical superior have moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of the cautions for the present, and concerning their fulfillment for the future. 3. That the exhibition of the caution be notorious, or at least capable of being such for removing every scandal.

Since these things are so, it can in no way be done that that hope, which is founded solely in the good disposition of will of the contracting parties, can hold the place of true cautions, both because in reality the contracting parties would assume no obligation before the Church, and because this hope, in the present condition of affairs, as it has been described by Your Eminence, does not exclude, indeed supposes, that offspring to be born, which follows the sex of the heretical parent, is to be baptized by a minister of the sect and enrolled by instruction in the same sect; which thing would not only overturn the whole reason of cautions for the Church, but would constitute a caution for heresy. From these things it necessarily follows that it is not lawful in the exposed circumstances of affairs to impart the nuptial blessing. For if without the customary cautions it is never lawful to dispense over the prohibition of mixed religion, much less will it be lawful to honor with the sacred rite of blessing such marriages which, according to the unshaken doctrine of the Church, are altogether opposed not only to ecclesiastical law, but to the natural and divine law...." S. O. 21 July 1880, to the Cardinal Primate and Archbishop of Esztergom. Nouv. Revue Theol. Vol. 18, p. 5 ff.

"... Passing now to another point concerning the commanded assistance of parish priests in mixed marriages, we say that if, the above-named admonition having been premised for calling back the Catholic party from the illicit marriage, the party nevertheless persists in the will of contracting it, and the marriage is foreseen as infallibly about to follow, then the Catholic parish priest will be able to exhibit his material presence, yet in such a way that he is bound to observe the following cautions: 1st, that he not assist at such a marriage in a sacred place, nor vested in any vestment bearing the sacred rite, nor will he recite over the contracting parties any ecclesiastical prayers, and in no way will he bless them. 2nd, that he require and receive from the heretical contracting party a declaration in writing, by which with an oath, in the presence of two witnesses, who also must subscribe, he binds himself to permitting to the co-party the free use of the Catholic religion and to educating in the same all children to be born, without any distinction of sex.... 3rd, that the Catholic contracting party himself also put forth a declaration subscribed by himself and two witnesses, in which with an oath he promises not only that he will never apostatize from his Catholic religion, but that he will educate in it all offspring to be born, and that he will efficaciously procure the conversion of the other non-Catholic contracting party. 4th, as regards the proclamations commanded by the Caesarean decree, which the Bishops reprehend as being acts civil rather than sacred, we respond: since they are preordained to the future celebration of marriage, and consequently contain positive cooperation with the same, which certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance, we cannot consent that these be made...." Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

"The required cautions formerly had to be confirmed in writing or even by oath; but today there suffices such a promise which, reduced into an agreement, supplies a moral foundation concerning the truth of execution, so that an execution of this sort can prudently be expected; from the decision of the Holy Office, 30 June 1842." Marc, Instit. Moral. Alphons., ed. 2, n. 1987.

"As to the first article of 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 in every way outside a sacred place. And this will be the first public sign of disapproval of these marriages; but, 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 banns some expression indicating that marriages of this kind are execrable." Rescript of Pius VI, 31 May 1783, to the Archbishop of Mechlin. Cf. Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

"... Let them beware besides, lest in publishing mixed marriages they express the religion of the non-Catholic contracting party, but 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.

"... And indeed as regards the blessing, as you know very well, this Apostolic See has been accustomed to prohibit it also in those marriages which are entered between Catholics and non-Catholics, with leave of the same See having been obtained, and with the cautions prescribed by it having been applied. And if afterwards it could be tolerated that a custom introduced in some regions be observed of blessing mixed marriages entered with the leave of the Church and the aforesaid cautions, nevertheless the same blessing is never to be tolerated in those cases in which, with no leave of the Church acceding and without the necessary cautions premised, a manifest and most grave crime is admitted in the very entering of the marriage covenant.... And these things are consonant with the precepts and admonitions which, whether in Our letters or those of Our predecessor Pius VIII to various Archbishops and Bishops, or in instructions published either by his order or by Ours, you know to have been recorded, Venerable brother. Nor indeed does it matter if those instructions were given only to some prelates who had consulted this Apostolic See, as if it were free for others not to follow their opinion.... Even if those letters and instructions, in that part in which they indulge or tolerate something new, are referred only to those places for which they were given, nevertheless the reason of them is circumscribed by no limits, insofar as they announce the unchangeable doctrine of the Church, inculcate the opinion of the canons, and proscribe depraved usages which are growing strong anywhere...." Gregory XVI, Letter of 23 May 1846 to the Archbishop of Freiburg.

"... It is necessary that satisfaction be made by the aforesaid spouses to the Church, whose most holy law has been violated, and that cautions concerning removing from themselves and from their offspring the danger of eternal salvation be supplied to the same, even in the external forum, and to this end recourse to the Bishop is to be required." S. I. C. 12 March 1881, to Apostolic Vicar B. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 16, p. 235.

"It is not hidden that in certain places the heretical minister acts the part of a merely civil magistrate, before whom spouses are accustomed to present themselves, or even must because of a political end, namely that they may be held civilly as honorable spouses and that the offspring may be judged legitimate. But then, when heretics are urging, or by civil law or by the command of civil law, it is not disapproved that the Catholic party together with the heretical party present himself before or after the marriage contracted according to the Tridentine form, even before a minister addicted to heresy, only for fulfilling the civil act. For to a doubt once expressed thus: Whether a Catholic contracting before his own Catholic parish priest with a heretic can licitly, when heretics urge it, ratify this marriage before a heretical minister, if from this no profession of a heretical rite is had or inferred, and whatever the heretical minister in the case does is, and is judged, a merely civil and political demand, this Sacred Congregation responded affirmatively.

But indeed, as often as the heretical minister is judged as devoted to sacred rites and as functioning, as it were, in 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 for completing a certain religious ceremony, and the Catholic party would associate himself with the heretical rite; whence there would arise a certain implicit adhesion to heresy, and therefore altogether illicit communication with heretics in divine things would be had. For that reason, even if this pernicious custom has grown up, so that it cannot easily be corrected by the Clergy, nevertheless it will have to be torn out with all zeal and diligence employed. And indeed Benedict XIV openly teaches that it is not lawful for contracting parties to present themselves before a heretical minister insofar as he assists as a minister devoted to sacred rites, and that the contracting parties sin mortally and are to be warned.

Therefore Parish Priests and Missionaries, opportunely instructed and admonished by you, should teach the faithful, both in public Catecheses in Churches and in private instructions, concerning the constant doctrine and practice of the Church, so that they may be salutarily averted, as far as can be done, from contracting mixed nuptials; but if not, that they utterly abhor celebrating marriage before a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites, which is in every way illicit and sacrilegious. Thus response was made to the Ordinary of Trier under Wednesday, 21 April 1847.

Let Parish Priests know besides, if they are questioned by the contracting parties, or if they certainly know that they are about to approach a heretical minister devoted to sacred rites for giving matrimonial consent, that they cannot be silent, but must warn the same spouses concerning the most grave sin which they commit, and concerning the censures into which they incur. Nevertheless, to prevent grave evils, if in some particular case the Parish Priest has not been questioned by the Spouses whether it is lawful or not to approach the heretical minister, and no explicit declaration is made by the same spouses concerning approaching the heretical minister, but nevertheless he foresees that they are perhaps about to approach for renewing matrimonial consent, and besides from the circumstances concurring in the case he foresees that the warning certainly will not be profitable, indeed will be harmful, and that thence material sin is to be turned into formal fault, then let him be silent, scandal however being removed, and provided that the other conditions and cautions required by the Church have been duly placed, especially concerning granting free exercise of religion to the Catholic party, and concerning all the offspring being educated in the Catholic religion. But if finally they wish consent before the parish priest to be renewed, after it has already been given before the heretical minister, and this is publicly known, or is notified by them to the parish priest, the parish priest will not be present at this Matrimony unless, the other things to be observed being observed as is supposed, the Catholic party, repentant of the fact, with salutary penances first imposed, has duly first obtained absolution from the contracted censures. Therefore the Sacred Congregation greatly trusts in the Lord that you, prudently and firmly adhering to the premises, will effect that the safe and intact deposit of inviolable doctrine be preserved, that the morals of Catholics answer to the faith, that apprehended damages be warded off, and that the faithful, strengthened by doctrine and example, walk through the paths of justice." Decree S. C. I. 17 Feb. 1864, to the Bishops of the kingdom of Hanover; 29 Nov. 1672, D. Luc. Wadingus, Vicar General in Ireland.

"The Most Holy One (Gregory XVI), in an audience held on 20 Dec. 1831 ... ordered that there be added in the third case of the aforesaid decree (17 Sept. 1830), regarding certain nullity of Baptism in the heretical party: recourse is to be had in particular cases." Cf. Franc. Sentis, Decree of Clement VIII, Freiburg im Breisgau 1870, p. 135.

"The marriage of those concerning whom it is certainly established that they have not been validly baptized is to be held as the marriage of two infidels; but the marriage of those of whom one party only is recognized as validly baptized, and the other invalidly, is to be held as a marriage affected by the diriment impediment of disparity of worship, and therefore null; finally, if after diligent and accurate examination, doubt concerning Baptism validly received cannot be removed, and the fact of Baptism received is established, Baptism of this sort is to be judged valid in order to the validity of marriage according to the decree of 17 Nov. 1830. But if it is certainly known that there is no Baptism from the actual custom of that sect, the marriage is null." S. I. C. 3 Apr. 1878.

"... 1. I ask whether in order to the validity or nullity of a contracted marriage, the conferral or non-conferral of Baptism, while it is unknown, is to be determined from the principle of presumption? ... 2. Whether, while the conferral of Baptism is unknown, the principle of presumption is rightly applied in order to the value of a contracted marriage in the following articles:

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

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

3. The same must likewise be resolved if they had parents who, while they were living, professed that they did not wish to belong to any sect, and that they honored the Supreme Being rather by honest morals, as they say, than by any special worship.

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

5. If according to the sect of only one parent and a zealous disposition of soul as above, the presumption favors Baptism, and in the education of the offspring that parent in fact and indubitably had the first parts, Baptism is to be presumed.

Resolve the same if, inquiry having been made, it is unknown or is not sufficiently established whether that parent had the first parts; for Baptism in order to marriage is to be presumed, since a union once entered is to be judged valid so long as an obstacle does not reveal itself. But what if it is certainly established that the sect and disposition of soul of the parent who in fact and indubitably had the first parts in education do not favor Baptism, while the sect and disposition of soul of the other parent favor the same?

6. In the case in which no presumption militates for 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 nothing or little about conferring Baptism on their infants, perhaps ought to have place with the stronger right than in many other regions.

The aforesaid questions are proposed chiefly for this reason, that from their solution there may be had a norm according to which one can proceed safely especially in these cases. 1st. When, of two non-Catholic parties separated from each other as above, one asks to be received into the bosom of the Church, and desires to fly to other nuptials. 2nd. When a Catholic party separated from a non-Catholic as above asks to be joined with another spouse, or, already joined with another, desires to be admitted to the sacraments.

Resp. To the 1st: Affirmatively, yet investigation having been carried out in individual cases.

To the 2nd, namely: Whether, while the conferral of Baptism is unknown, the principle of presumption in order to the value of a contracted marriage is rightly applied in the following articles? They responded: Affirmatively as to the first, second, and third article, and as 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 parts," let there be added: "nor is the other spouse known to be positively contrary to the conferral of Baptism," Baptism is to be presumed. In the remaining cases, which are noted in the second part of the fifth number, recourse must be had to the Holy See, with all circumstances of things, places, and persons, and other things bearing on the matter, set forth.

To the 6th: Provided for in the preceding." S. I. C. 1 Aug. 1883, Bishop of Savannah.

"No one is admitted by law to impugn marriage from this head, force and fear, except the one who is said to have suffered violence and coercion; but he is to be rejected who has lived for a long time in marriage, provided that liberty and opportunity of protesting were not lacking to him; so that if, already free from fear, he of his own accord has persisted in the conjugal house and has not refused matrimonial offices, he ought no longer to be heard." Instr. S. I. C. 20 June 1883, n. 35; Instr. S. C. de P. F. 1883, n. 36.

"If all the circumstances have conspired to establish the death of the prior spouse before the second nuptials, concerning whose value there is question, the judge will not be able to pronounce sentence against the second marriage; for its nullity would not be established. But if there is question of a marriage to be contracted, this can never be permitted until the death of the prior spouse has been certainly established." Instr. S. O. 20 June 1883, n. 42; Instr. S. C. de P. F. 1883, n. 43. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 18, p. 363 ff.

"... Wherefore, if any have already contracted new marriages, and indeed in good faith, thinking themselves freed from the bond of the prior marriage through the death of the spouse, they are to be left in good faith, because the possessor of good faith must not be disturbed from possession. If one of them is doubtful and wavering, he can indeed render the debt, but not ask it. If finally both contracted in bad faith, they are now altogether to be separated. Besides, this too must be guarded against: that if perhaps it happens that the prior spouse whom they thought dead still exists among humans, then the second nuptials are altogether to be invalidated, and, the later spouse having been dismissed, each one is bound to return to the prior." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 1792, to the Pro-Vicar of Western Tonkin.

"Moreover in this matter let the judge know that marriage is in itself a certain solemn and public fact, which must always be judged valid unless evident reasons have demonstrated its nullity. Therefore it is indeed to be cared for with all zeal and diligence that those reasons be gathered, but judgment against marriage must never be pronounced unless the complex of them excludes every prudent doubt concerning the existence of the impediment." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 1883, n. 40. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 18, p. 381.

"... Moreover the Most Eminent Fathers observed that Missionaries, as to the marriages of infidels of that region, seem to have fallen into this opinion also, that in doubt one must stand for the invalidity of marriage; and this to such an extent that the party who seeks Baptism must be repelled from Baptism unless either he separates from the other party, or renews the marriage with the same, even if she who seeks Baptism is in good faith, and it does not stand through her that the marriage cannot be renewed: which things indeed cannot easily be approved. For you know that in marriages the contrary principle flourishes, that is: in doubt one must stand for the validity of marriage. But although it is sometimes equitable to recede from this principle, namely when, as for the most part happens in the marriages of infidels, the question concerns the fact, whether indeed 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 put forward possession for itself. For if this happens, the Missionary would wrongly judge that he must stand for its invalidity, since the rights of possession are to be observed until the contrary is clearly established. But the Most Eminent Fathers wished this to be noticed all the more because from those things which you narrate it appears that cases of this sort 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 man, and therefore they also judge that she is in a just marriage; but the unbelieving man, although he says nothing openly, nevertheless does not contradict either the opinion of the woman or that of the people, and deals with her as with a true wife: and these things moreover are of such a kind that they seem to vindicate for their union the name and possession of marriage." Instr. S. O. 18 Dec. 1877. Zitelli, De Dispens. Matrim., Rome 1884, p. 112.

"That only two can be coupled and joined by the bond of marriage, Christ so teaching, and that when either spouse has died, second, indeed even further, nuptials are licit, is dogmatic doctrine of the Catholic Church.

But as regards second and further nuptials, since the matter concerns a thing which is not rarely subject to difficulties and frauds, hence the Holy See has carefully provided, sometimes by general Constitutions, but more often by responses given in particular cases, that liberty of entering new nuptials be so safe for each person that the aforesaid unity of marriage not be brought into danger.

Hence the statutes of the sacred Canons, by which, that someone may licitly pass to other vows, it is required that the death of the spouse be certainly established, as in chap. Dominus, de secundis nuptiis, or that certain news concerning that death be received, as in chap. In praesentia, de sponsalibus et matrimoniis. Hence also those things which are handed down more fully in the Instruction Cum alias, 21 August 1670, sanctioned by Clement X and inserted in 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 other Ordinaries. Especially indeed those things are contained there, n. 12 and 13, which more closely bear on the matter.

And these indeed would abundantly suffice, if in conducting causes of this sort an all-around and absolute certitude concerning the death of the other spouse could always be had; but since the almost infinite turns of cases do not allow this, which was wisely observed in the praised Instruction in these words: If, however, testimonies of this sort cannot be had, the Sacred Congregation does not intend to exclude other proofs which by common law can be admitted, provided they are legitimate and sufficient, it follows that, although the established general principles stand, cases not rarely happen in which the judgments of ecclesiastical Presidents are accustomed to hesitate in discerning and establishing true and just proof; indeed, since, on account of that greatest ease which has been brought about in our age of going to the most remote regions, men wander into almost all parts of the world, the multitude of cases of this sort has so increased that very frequent recourses are had concerning this matter to this Supreme Congregation, not without the inconvenience of the parties, for whom, amid the informations and instructions which, as they say, must be sought and sent according to the matter born, much time flows away before they can fly to the desired vows.

Wherefore the same Sacred Congregation, desiring to meet necessities of this sort, and at the same time considering that, especially in distant places of Missions, ecclesiastical Presidents may be destitute of suitable helps by which they can extricate themselves from grave difficulties, judged that it was useful to issue a fuller Instruction, in which, the things which have already been handed down being in no way abrogated, rules may be indicated which this same Sacred Congregation is accustomed to follow in cases of this sort, 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 made, the state of the question may be so clearly set forth that the sentence ought not to be impeded by a longer delay. Therefore:

1. When a question is instituted concerning the death of a spouse, it must be noted in the first place that an argument from that person's absence alone, however great, although it is admitted almost everywhere by civil laws, is by no means held by the sacred Canons as sufficient for just proof. Whence Pius VI of holy memory rescripted to the Archbishop of Prague on 11 July 1789 that the mere absence of the spouse, and every kind of silence of the same, is not a sufficient argument for proving death, not even when the absent spouse, called by a royal edict, and the same must further be said if this has been done through public newspapers, gave no indication of himself. For that he did not appear, the Pontiff says, his contumacy could no less have been the cause than death.

2. Hence according to the prescription of the same sacred Canons, an authentic document of death must altogether be sought with diligent zeal; namely one drawn up from the registers of the Parish, or Hospital, or military service, or even, if it cannot be had from ecclesiastical authority, from the civil government of the place in which, as is supposed, the person died.

3. Moreover, sometimes this document cannot be had; in which case it will have to be supplied by depositions of witnesses. But the witnesses must be at least two, sworn, worthy of faith, and such as depose from their own fact, knew the deceased, and are concordant among themselves as to the place and cause of death and other substantial circumstances. Besides, if they are relatives of the deceased, or companions of the journey, industry, or even military service, their testimony will have to be made the more of.

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 greatly desiring to enter other nuptials be compelled to live a celibate life, the Supreme Congregation in deciding cases of this sort does not absolutely reject even the testimony of one, provided that that witness is endowed with the recounted conditions, subject to no exception, and besides that his deposition is supported by other and grave aids; and if other extrinsic aids can in no way be gathered, nevertheless this at least is certain, that nothing is found in his testimony which is not congruent and altogether very likely.

5. It also happens that witnesses worthy of all faith testify that at a time not suspect they heard of the spouse's death from the attestation of others, but these, either because absent, or because they have died, or for any other reasonable cause, cannot be examined; then things said from the mouth of another, insofar as they answer to all the other circumstances concurring in the case, or at least to urgent ones, are judged sufficient for a prudent judgment concerning the death that followed.

6. But more than once it is found by experience that not even one witness is found, such as is established above. In this case proof of death from conjectures, presumptions, indications, and whatsoever circumstances will certainly have to be cared for by diligent and very cautious investigation, namely that, several things having been gathered from here and there, and their nature having been weighed, according as they are more urgent or lighter, or are joined by a closer or more remote nexus with the truth of the death, thence the judgment of a prudent man may be moved to affirm the same death by greatest probability, or moral certainty. Wherefore when in individual cases just proof from conjectures of this sort is had, this must be left to the prudent judgment of the judge; here, however, it will not be beside the matter to indicate several sources from which those conjectures, whether more urgent or even lighter, can be gathered and had.

7. Therefore first those presumptions will have to be investigated which regard the person of the asserted deceased himself, and which indeed can easily be had from relatives, friends, neighbors, and persons known in any way to either spouse. In their examination let it be asked, for example:

Whether the one concerning whose death there is question was imbued with good morals, lived piously and religiously, and loved his wife; whether he had no cause of hiding himself; whether he possessed stable goods, or could hope for other things from his relatives or from elsewhere.

Whether he departed with the wife and relatives assenting; what then his age and health were.

Whether at any time, and from what place, he wrote, and whether he opened his will of returning as soon as possible, and other indications of this kind are gathered.

Other indications from the circumstances of things, according to the various cause of absence, can be gathered thus:

If he died because of military service, let it be asked from the commander of the soldiers what he knows about him; whether he was present at 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 business, let it be inquired whether during the time of the journey grave dangers had to be overcome by him; whether he set out alone or accompanied by several; whether in the region to which he betook himself there supervened seditions, wars, famines, and pestilences, etc., etc.

If he entered upon a maritime journey, let diligent investigation be made from what port he departed; who were companions of the journey; whither he betook himself; what was the name of the ship which he boarded; who was the governor of the same ship; whether it suffered shipwreck; whether the society which perhaps gave security for the ship paid its price; and other circumstances, if there are any, should be diligently weighed.

8. Fame also, helped by other aids, constitutes an argument concerning death, yet under these conditions, namely: that it be proved by at least two trustworthy and sworn witnesses, who depose concerning the reasonable cause of the fame itself; whether they received it from the greater and sounder part of the people, and whether they themselves think rightly concerning the same fame; nor is there doubt that it was stirred up by those for whose advantage inquiry is made.

9. Finally, if there shall be need, investigation through public newspapers is not to be passed over, all necessary indications of the person having been given to the Director, unless because of special circumstances it is judged otherwise by sounder and more prudent counsel.

10. All these things, according to the opportunity of the cases, this Sacred Congregation is accustomed diligently to weigh; and since the matter concerns a most grave thing, all things having been balanced with equal scale, and besides the votes of several Theologians and jurisprudents having been heard, it finally pronounces its judgment, whether such death is sufficiently established, and nothing stands in the way by which passage to other nuptials can be conceded to the petitioner.

11. From all these things ecclesiastical Presidents can take a certain norm which they may follow in judgments of this sort. But if, notwithstanding the rules noted thus far, the matter still seems uncertain and entangled to them, they must recur to the Holy See, all the acts having been transmitted with the recourse itself, or at least diligently set forth." Instr. S. C. S. O. 1868.

"When spouses left in infidelity, the marriage not yet having been consummated, do not wish to embrace the faith, can their marriages contracted in impuberty be held as mere betrothals de futuro, while their spouse has not yet been converted to the faith? Resp. Provided that it is established that no impediment of natural or divine law was present, and especially that the contracting parties furnished their consent, they are not betrothals but true marriages." S. O., S. C. de P. F. 25 Jan. 1886. Cf. The Pastoral Gazette, Bombay 1886, n. 153, p. 1280.

This Declaration was made for special reasons; not because the marriages were of heretics. Cf. Benedict XIV, On the Diocesan Synod, l. 6, ch. 6; Cavalchini, Archbishop of Philippi, On Marriages among Heretics, Rome 1741; Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. There Accede the Declarations and Resolutions of the S. C. of Cardinals Interpreters of the Council of Trent, Leipzig 1853, p. 290 ff.; Naples edition, Joseph Pelella 1859, p. 305 ff. Hence when the Capitular Vicars of Poitiers in 1818 had asked: "Whether clandestine marriages of Protestants in France are valid, since today they have civil status there, and form a religious society distinct from Catholic Society, which has its ministers and its usages." S. I. C. responded: "The Decree of Benedict XIV issued in the year 1741 concerning the marriages of Holland is judged to regard only marriages contracted or to be contracted in those provinces, but not other marriages entered or to be entered in other places, to which therefore it cannot be applied without a new and special Declaration of the Apostolic See." And S. Poenit., 28 March 1838, to the Bishop of Grenoble, asking: "Whether marriages entered by heretics among themselves, or with Catholics, according to civil laws alone, or before a heretical minister, without the presence of the Catholic Parish Priest, are valid in France and in other regions where Protestants and all heretics have their ministers, temples, and a legal status approved by the Government?" responded: "Negatively, excepting the regions of which Benedict XIV speaks in the Declaration of 4 Nov. 1741, and to which that same Declaration has been extended by his successors." By the Benedictine Declaration are comprehended "1. Those who, baptized Catholic, are educated from childhood not yet seven years old in heresy and profess heresy. 2. Those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, that is, having received no, or scarcely any, instruction in heretical doctrine, and with worship not frequented, though participated in sometimes. 3. Those who, still children, falling into the hands of heretics, are joined to a heretical sect. 4. Apostates passing over from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect. 5. Those who, born and baptized by heretics, grew up without having emitted any solemn profession of heresy, and as if of no religion," etc. S. O. 6 Apr. 1859.

"... While Urban VIII, Pontifex Maximus of happy memory, was sitting, the Archbishop Elector of Cologne proposed these three doubts before the Congregation of the Council. It is humbly asked from the Sacred Congregation whether inhabitants, both males and females, of a place in which the Council of Trent in the point of marriage has been promulgated and accepted, passing through a place in which the said Council has not been promulgated, while retaining the same domicile, can validly contract marriage in that place without the Parish Priest and witnesses? 2. What if the aforesaid inhabitants, both males and females, transfer themselves there with the sole intention of contracting without the Parish Priest and witnesses, while not changing their dwelling? 3. What if the same inhabitants, both males and females, transfer their dwelling there, with that sole intention of contracting without the Parish Priest and witnesses? But this Congregation gave the Response: on 5 Sept. 1626 the S. C. of Cardinals Interpreters of the Council of Trent responded: To the 1st and 2nd, that there is not legitimate marriage between those so transferring themselves and passing over with fraud. To the 3rd it responded that, unless domicile is truly transferred, the marriage is not valid....

The context well weighed, it is easily understood that the marriages set forth in the 1st and 2nd places are decreed by the same Congregation to be void and null because fraud intervened; but the marriage placed in the 3rd place is judged valid, in which, although fraud intervened, nevertheless he who contracts marriage, before he entered it, had acquired domicile or quasi-domicile in that place where he entered the marriage: Unless domicile is truly transferred. For it is neither new nor unusual that someone have domicile in one place and acquire quasi-domicile in another: in which state of affairs if he is situated, then he will be free to contract marriage before that Parish Priest within whose parish boundaries he then dwells, when he is joined in marriage, according to the common opinion reported by Us and sanctioned in Our above-mentioned Ecclesiastical Institution 33 of the Latin edition....

The same Congregation judged valid the marriage contracted by one who had departed from the place of his proper domicile in order to flee the difficulties into which he would have fallen if he had wished to enter marriage before the Parish Priest of the same place, and had entered it before the Parish Priest of another place, after however he had acquired legitimate quasi-domicile there, and had remained in the same place for some time even after the marriage had been contracted...." Benedict XIV to the Archbishop of Goa, Paucis abhinc, 19 March 1758.

The Tridentine law on the clandestinity of Matrimony is at once local and personal. S. O. 14 Dec. 1859.

"The Bishop of St. Hyacinth in the Canadian region sets forth to the Congregation of the Holy Inquisition that doubts now arise concerning the validity of certain marriages contracted without the solemnity required by the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent in the missions or quasi-parishes of this diocese. For before the year 1872, many places of the Diocese of St. Hyacinth, commonly now called Cantons or Townships, were not yet canonically divided into parishes. In these places there were: 1. Missions properly so called, namely without a resident priest, but visited through the year by a missionary delegated for this purpose at times both fixed and unequal; 2. quasi-parishes, by which must be understood a territory which as to external appearance approached more or less to the likeness of a parish, as having 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 over their care.

... Whether the promulgation of the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent was valid in the aforesaid missions and quasi-parishes? ...

Resp. According to the things set forth, affirmatively, and according to the mind. The mind is that in places where a parish priest cannot be had, 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 be inscribed in the sacramental register of the Mission, or of the nearest church on which they depend." S. I. C. 5 Dec. 1883.

"In those places in which the Apostolic Vicars, mature counsel having been employed, shall have judged it expedient, let them take care that in those places the Decree of the Council of Trent, ch. 1, sess. 24, on Matrimony, be duly promulgated; and therefore, that marriages which henceforth shall happen to be celebrated in the same places, that they may be named and be valid, must be entered before the Parish Priest or Missionary, or any Priest legitimately designated, and two or three witnesses, and these, if they can be had, Christians; but in those places in which the decree cannot be observed whole, because the Parish Priest or another designated for that office is absent, and easy approaches to the same are not open, marriages must indeed be entered before at least two witnesses, and these, so far as is permitted, Christians; yet the contracting parties are to be bound by law, lest the dignity of the Sacrament grow cheap, to present themselves before the Parish Priest or Missionary whenever he returns, that they may duly receive the blessing from him. But the Missionary or Parish Priest when returned, when it has been established to him concerning the consent of the spouses, should teach the spouses that a blessing of this sort pertains only to the rite, not to the validity, of the marriage.... Since after the recent Instruction concerning clandestine marriages, transmitted also to the Siamese at the beginning of the year 1821, the Decree of the Council of Trent perhaps was already duly promulgated through some places, either it is to be observed whole, or almost whole according to the condition of places and persons, as was explained a little before; in this case, if any Catholic women, contemning the decree which they were bound to observe, attempted to enter a nefarious union with heretical men before a petty Minister, the Sacred Congregation judges that such concubinages are to be declared invalid and to have no force in the sight of the Church. But if finally it is doubted whether the Tridentine Decree has thus far been duly promulgated through 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 marriages of this sort to be sanated, insofar as there is need, in the root." Instr. S. C. de P. F. to the Apostolic Vicar of Siam, 9 Dec. 1822.

"... even if that Tridentine law had been promulgated, nevertheless marriages in the presence of only two witnesses are valid as often as in the place where the marriage is contracted, or in a neighboring place to which access can be had without danger, there does not exist a Parish Priest or other secular or regular Priest deputed by the Bishop; this Apostolic See, when likewise interrogated several times, responded. Moreover, lest the dignity of the Sacrament grow cheap, His Holiness wished the faithful to be exhorted that they present themselves to the Missionary when he returns and ask the Blessing from him, yet with a declaration first made by the Missionary that a Blessing of this sort in no way pertains to the validity of the marriage." S. C. S. O. 15 Feb. 1779, Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen.

"Marriages contracted before a secular magistrate or before an extraneous priest, when the contracting parties can in no way, or only most difficultly or most dangerously, recur to the Parish Priest or legitimate superior, are valid as often as at least two witnesses were present, according to the resolutions of the S. C. of the Council in the cause of Belgium, 27 March 1832, in another, 30 March 1669, and according to the resolution of the Congregation of the Holy Office in the cause of the Malabar Province, 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 Lucon. Nevertheless the contracting parties are to be warned to consult their conscience, because marriages contracted before schismatics or adherents of schism, although in the aforesaid circumstances they are valid, are nevertheless illicit; and also the spouses are to be exhorted that they receive the blessing from the legitimate Parish Priest insofar as it can be done without danger. But as often as at least two witnesses were by no means present, the marriages are invalid, and, insofar as it can be done, are to be revalidated; yet in such a way that if some impediment of ecclesiastical law stands in the way, dispensation be given by the Bishop as often as he has power of dispensing from concession of the Apostolic See; recourse must be had to it if the matter concerns impediments in which he does not have the faculty of dispensing from apostolic delegation of the same See. But marriages contracted before a secular magistrate or before an extraneous priest, when the contracting parties can approach no one other than a Parish Priest guilty of the oath or schismatic communion, are likewise valid as often as at least two witnesses were present, and the proper Parish Priest has adhered to schism either on account of the oath or from any other cause; nevertheless the spouses are to be warned and exhorted, as above." Response of Pius VI, Letter Intelleximus, 5 Oct. 1793, to the Bishop of Geneva, to be communicated to the Bishops of Savoy as to civil marriages.

"When access is difficult and not safe, and it is unknown when the Parish Priest can be had, and he is foreseen to be going to be absent from the place for the space of at least one month, and there is no other who may supply the place of the Parish Priest, marriage is valid without the presence of the Parish Priest, with the form of the Council preserved in that in which it can be, namely with at least two witnesses employed." S. O. 1 July 1863; 15 May 1861.

"In these most difficult and distant regions there often occur Christians who, either for the sake of avoiding persecution, or because of the necessity of money, or even because of another cause, sufficiently incautious as the Chinese generally are, set out from the places of Christians where they themselves dwell or were born, to faraway places, to 40 or 50 and more days' journey, together with wife and children; in which places there are no Christians, nor can they be found, nor was there ever any report concerning the Christian religion around. The sons and daughters, when they have become older, marry Pagans without possible dispensation. According to the customs of the people, especially the daughters, and very often also the sons, are in 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 held by the impediment of disparity of worship? What is the law where their faith is safe, as sometimes happens, and where they are in good faith, as occurs for the most part? Resp. In the proposed circumstances they are not to be disturbed, the word having been had with the Most Holy One. The Most Holy One approved." S. C. S. O. 4 June 1851, Apostolic Vicar of Manchuria.

"... We must not therefore recede from the uniform opinion of our predecessors and from ecclesiastical discipline, which do not approve marriages between parties both heretical, or between one Catholic and the other heretical, and this much less in the case in which there is need of dispensation in some degree.... From the words of the letter of Benedict XIV cited above you will certainly have understood that the discourse is about dispensations which have place no less when there is question of simple marriages between a Catholic party and a heretical party, than about degrees of kinship in which the contracting parties would be to each other. And in reality that case of which the Pontiff in the year 1750 was speaking with the Bishop of Wroclaw concerned dispensations in degrees, concerning which he expounded his mind, as we have reported, in terms of mere tolerance, consequent from the things previously known to him; but this very thing is what we cannot do, because in the hypothesis then existing the practice of dispensing in degrees for mixed marriages was inveterate in that place, which is opposed by the rule adopted in other more recent cases by our predecessors and by us ourselves, namely, since dispensation is a grace, this is reserved to the faithful living under obedience of the Church; whence it ought not to be extended to heretics, who, by not acknowledging its authority, by this render themselves unworthy of a similar indulgence; or at most a dispensation in degrees can be conceded by Bishops in some particular case, which is not stricter than those which are comprehended in the formula, and in which an urgent and public cause concurs, but not some private convenience or unbridled impulse of mind of the contracting parties...." Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

"... But indeed, you say, because heretics in Hungary would contract marriages among themselves even in prohibited degrees by force of royal concession alone, it seems to me that it can be asked rightly and deservedly: what must be pronounced concerning the value of marriages of this sort? But unless a legitimate dispensation of impediments by the authority of the Church, by whose authority they were introduced, has intervened, in the same Declaration of Benedict XIV it is sufficiently openly decreed that they are invalid. For he established that even in the very Provinces of Federated Belgium, marriages between heretics, even if the form prescribed by Trent has not been observed in celebrating them, be held as valid, provided that no other canonical impediment stands in the way; by which exception he manifestly shows that, if some other canonical impediment underlies, such as that which arises from prohibited degrees, marriages of this sort do not have force...." Response of S. C. C. to the Bishop of Roznava, 20 Aug. 1780. Cf. Benedict XIV, Const. Magnae nobis, 29 June 1748; Const. Ad tuas manus, 8 Aug. 1748; Const. Singulari nobis, 9 Feb. 1750.

From the Decisions of the Holy See and the Sacred Congregations, marriages of this sort have been declared now valid, now invalid. "Therefore just as those would err who would judge universally that marriages of heretics not contracted before a Catholic Parish Priest are null, so likewise those would err who would affirm universally that the same are valid: if therefore either cannot be affirmed in a general way, the cause of distinction must be drawn from the circumstances of places; and in reality Pius VII drew it from the circumstances of places, in the Letter of 8 Oct. 1803 to the Archbishop of Mainz; for he indicated the causes why unions of heretics can be valid, either because in their places the Decree was not published, or because it was not observed as a Decree of the Council of Trent, or because in the same places, from whatever cause finally, it had gone into desuetude. Therefore heretics are not exempt from that Decree because they are heretics; for if that were true, heretics would always contract validly, wherever they stayed, without the presence of a Catholic Parish Priest and witnesses." Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 64; Vol. 2, p. 637; Joseph Mansella, De Impedim. Matr. Dirim., Rome 1881, p. 264 ff.

"... It is indeed certain that those marriages of which there is question here would be very rare, if the canonical prescriptions concerning quasi-domicile were to happen to be diligently and accurately observed by those who, having set out from a place where the Tridentine law on clandestinity is in force, go to a place where it is not in force. For it is clear and established to you that what was long ago defined by the S. C. C. 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 Aug. 1627. According to those things which are sanctioned in this decree, those who have and retain 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 there they have fixed not only habitation but also true domicile, by which they must altogether purge fraud, if any intervened. But to constitute quasi-domicile, which in these cases must necessarily be acquired, these two things are required at the same time, namely habitation in that place where the marriage is contracted, and the intention of remaining there for the greater part of the year. Wherefore if it is legitimately established that either both or one of the spouses has the intention of remaining for the greater part of the year, from that first day on which these two things concur together, namely both an intention of this sort and actual habitation, it must be judged that quasi-domicile was acquired, and that the marriage which therefore is contracted is valid. Nevertheless, if the aforesaid intention is not established, recourse must be had to the indications which are at hand and which produce moral certainty. But in an occult and internal matter it is difficult to have indications of this sort which make the judge secure: thence it is that the rule confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, Const. Paucis, 12 March 1758, must especially be applied, that it be inspected whether before marriage, for a space of at least one month, either both or one of them lived in the place of the marriage. But if this is found to have been done, it must be judged from presumption of law that the intention of remaining for the greater part of the year existed, and that quasi-domicile was acquired, and therefore that the marriage is valid. But if this presumption of law, which arises from a month's habitation, is destroyed by contrary proofs, by which it is certainly and clearly established that the aforesaid intention in no way existed, then it is manifest that a contrary judgment must indeed be brought forth, because presumption must yield to truth. Besides, it is also manifest that actual habitation is inept for producing quasi-domicile if someone stays in that region after the manner of a vagabond and traveler, but not of one truly and properly inhabiting, namely as the others are accustomed to do who have true and properly so called domicile in the same place...." S. I. C. I, 7 June 1867. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 320 ff.; Benedict XIV, Instruction 33.

"S. U. I. F. V., in place IV, on 6 May 1886, decreed, at the request of the Council of Baltimore, that the Most Holy One should be supplicated that he deign to decree that, in the United States of America, those transferring themselves from a place where the Chapter Tametsi is in force into another place, provided that there they have stayed continuously for the space of at least one whole month, and have proved the freedom of their state as is of law, are to be judged to have quasi-domicile there in order to marriage, without inquiry having to be made concerning the intention of remaining there for the greater part of the year. But the Most Holy One, on Wednesday, 12 Dec., deigned by his supreme authority to ratify and confirm the aforesaid decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, all things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding." Zitelli, Appar. Iur. Eccles., Rome 1886, p. 387.

Cf. N. 770, 840.

Resp. Negatively. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 6, p. 518; Vol. 11, p. 595.

"The proposition asserting that Bishops can dispense in a public impediment diriment of marriage, of consanguinity for a marriage to be contracted, whether in the article of death or in another most urgent necessity in which the contracting parties cannot wait for dispensation of the Apostolic See, is false, rash, scandalous, pernicious, and seditious." S. I. C. 19 Jan. 1661. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 14, p. 155 ff.

"We shall respond to this question according to that reasoning by which the Sacred Congregation, consulted several times about this matter, responded, namely: if this question were to be considered speculatively, as they say, the indivisibility of marriage and other arguments could sufficiently show that it is enough to ask dispensation from one of the two Bishops or Ordinaries. But, since this controversy is instituted perpetually so that it may be understood what is to be done in practice, the response several times has been that in practice dispensation is to be required from each Bishop. For in these cases the validity of the Sacraments is concerned, in which matter the safer opinion is to be held in practice. But the safer opinion is that concerning dispensation to be asked from each Bishop; for the greater part of Theologians is opposed to the opinion by which it is established that it is enough to ask dispensation from one Bishop only." S. C. de P. F. 21 June 1828, Apostolic Vicar of Pondicherry. But cf. N. 826, Resp. S. O. 22 Nov. 1865.

"... With attention to the declarations of the Tribunal of the Holy Inquisition, it has been seen that faculties conceded for dispensing over individual impediments cannot be extended to the case in which these same impediments concur together and are accumulated." S. C. de P. F. 16 June 1868.

"Bishop N. ... up to now thought that the faculty belonged to him, by force of the indult of 15 November, of dispensing in marriages to be contracted over the impediment either of consanguinity or of affinity in the third and fourth degree, not only single, but also double and more, and also in consanguinity and affinity joined together. But since the said Bishop recently discovered that some today doubt concerning the aforesaid opinion, hence he proposes the following doubts to the Sacred Penitentiary:

1. Whether by force of the indult of 15 November the Bishop can dispense in consanguinity or affinity in the degrees determined there, even when the same degrees are multiplied? 2. Whether in consanguinity and affinity joined together? 3. Insofar as negatively, he asks sanation as to the past and faculty as to the future.

Resp. To the 1st: Affirmatively. To the 2nd: Provision will be made in the following. To the 3rd: The Sacred Penitentiary, by special and express apostolic authority, sanates and convalidates in the root all and singular marriages which up to now, on account of the cumulative faculty of dispensing together over consanguinity and affinity, were contracted nullly, and decrees and respectively declares the offspring either received or to be received therefrom legitimate. But the present letters are to be diligently kept in the episcopal Chancery, so that for whatever future event it may be established concerning the validity of the marriages and the legitimacy of offspring.

But as regards the future, faculty is granted to the same Bishop that he himself, or through his vicar general, can dispense over consanguinity and affinity joined together, in the degrees determined in the second article of the indult of 15 November, for ten cases only." S. Poenit. 18 Jan. 1883. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 290 ff. Cf. Declaration N. 826.

"... Some among us do not hesitate to give an anticipative and common dispensation for this effect, of marrying. Their reason is that it does not seem probable that the Holy See requires that they undertake a journey of ten and sometimes more days so that, when the case occurs, they may ask dispensation. Besides, they observed that, of a hundred pagan women who marry faithful men, ninety become Christians; whence generally and anticipatively, with consideration had of the number of Christians of some determined place, they dispense a determined number of these, the persons not named, from the impediment of disparity of worship. Whether these Missionaries exceed in the use of the aforesaid faculty, I do not dare to determine. Resp. The Missionaries have exceeded and do exceed in conceding anticipative and common dispensations without naming the person, and it must be enjoined upon them that henceforth they abstain from conceding these dispensations, under penalty of nullity; for it is altogether alien from the custom and mind of this Holy See to wish to delegate faculties which are to be entrusted to execution before the cause has been diligently seen, and before the conditions which are attached have been placed in safety by the same executor. Therefore it will belong to the office of the Apostolic Vicar to subdelegate the faculty which is supposed to be present to him and to continue, of dispensing over 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 infidel unless they have seen beforehand that those grave causes concur which are plainly to be required in individual cases, which the Apostolic See commands to be carefully inspected; and especially unless they have guarded that the infidel party, if he or she has not furnished hope of conversion, at least is going to cohabit with the faithful party without contumely of the Creator and injury to the Christian name, and in no way is going to impede the education of offspring of either sex in the holy Religion. But lest the Apostolic Vicar be anxious over dispensations hitherto unduly conceded, His Holiness most mercifully indulged that those who contracted should not be disturbed, their marriages being sanated in the root, as it is said, and the spouses absolved from the obligation of new consent." S. C. S. O. 15 Feb. 1780.

Resp. The process is to be constructed according to the Constitution of Benedict XIV, Dei miseratione, the third day before the Nones of November 1741, and the Instructions issued by the Holy Office, by the S. C. C., and by the S. C. de P. F. Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 1, p. 439 ff.; Vol. 18, p. 344 ff.; Zitelli, De Dispens. Matrim., Rome 1884, p. 126 ff.

"Since dispensation is a relaxation of common law, made with knowledge of the cause by him who has power, it is evident to all that dispensations from matrimonial impediments are not to be indulged unless a legitimate and grave cause intervenes. Indeed everyone easily understands that a cause so much the graver is required as the impediment which is opposed to celebrating the nuptials is graver. But not rarely suppliant letters reach the Holy See for obtaining some dispensation of this sort which are supported by no canonical reason. It also sometimes happens that in supplications of this sort 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 briefly to touch upon those principal causes which, according to canonical sanctions and the prudent judgment of ecclesiastical provision, have been accustomed to be held sufficient for obtaining matrimonial dispensations; then to indicate those things which must be expressed in asking for the dispensation itself.

And, to begin from 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 many things help which individually do not profit. Arg. l. 5, C. De probat. But causes of this sort are the following:

1. Narrowness of place, whether absolute or relative, only by reason of the Oratrix, namely when in the place of origin, or even of domicile, the kinship of the woman has been so propagated that she cannot find another of equal condition to whom she may marry except a blood-relative or affine; but to leave her fatherland is hard for her.

2. Over-adult age of the woman, namely if, having already passed the 24th year of age, she has up to now not found a man of equal condition to whom she can marry. But this cause does not support a widow who desires to fly to other nuptials.

3. Deficiency or incompetence of dowry, namely if the woman does not actually have so great a dowry that she can marry a stranger of equal condition, who is neither blood-relative nor affine, in her own place in which she lives. This cause urges more if the woman exists wholly undowered, and a blood-relative or affine is prepared to take her as wife, or even conveniently to endow her entirely.

4. Lawsuits over succession of goods already arisen, or grave or imminent danger of them. If the woman sustains a grave lawsuit over succession of goods of great moment, and there is no other who will take a lawsuit of this sort upon himself and prosecute it at his own expense except the one who desires to take her as wife, dispensation is customarily conceded; for it concerns the Commonwealth that lawsuits be extinguished. Another cause comes very close to this, namely, a Dowry involved in lawsuits, when the woman is destitute of another man by whose help she could recover her goods. But a cause of this sort suffices only for more remote degrees.

5. Poverty of a widow who is burdened by numerous offspring, and a man promises to support her. But sometimes a widow is assisted by the remedy of dispensation for this cause alone, that she is younger and is situated in danger of incontinence.

6. The good of peace, under which name come not only treaties among Kingdoms and Princes, but also the extinction of grave enmities, quarrels, and civil hatreds. This cause is adduced either for extinguishing grave enmities which have arisen among the blood-relatives or affines of the contracting parties, and which would be altogether settled by the celebration of marriage; or when grave enmities have flourished among the blood-relatives and affines of the contracting parties, and, although peace has already been entered among them, nevertheless the celebration of the marriage would greatly conduce to the confirmation of that peace.

7. Excessive, suspect, dangerous familiarity, and also cohabitation under the same roof, which cannot easily be impeded.

8. Copula previously had with a blood-relative, or affine, or another person laboring under an impediment, and Pregnancy and therefore legitimation of offspring, namely that provision may be made for the good of the offspring itself and the honor of the woman, who otherwise would remain unmarried. This indeed is one of the more urgent causes, on account of which dispensation is customarily given even to commoners, provided that the copula was not perpetrated under the hope of an easier dispensation: which circumstance would have to be expressed in the supplication.

9. Infamy of the woman arisen from suspicion that she, being too familiar with her blood-relative or affine, was known by him, although the suspicion is false, namely when, unless marriage is contracted, the woman would remain gravely defamed or unmarried, or would have to marry a man of unequal condition, or grave damages would arise.

10. Revalidation of marriage which in good faith and publicly, with the Tridentine form observed, was contracted: because its dissolution can scarcely happen without public scandal and grave damage, especially of the woman (chap. 7, De consanguin.). But if the spouses entered the nuptials in bad faith, they by no means merit the grace of dispensation, the Council of Trent so disposing, sess. 24, ch. 5, De reform. matrim.

11. Danger of mixed marriage, or of celebrating before a non-Catholic Minister. When there is danger that those wishing to contract marriage in some degree even of the greater degrees, from the denial of dispensation, will approach a non-Catholic Minister for celebrating the nuptials, with the authority of the Church spurned, a just cause of dispensing is found, because there is present not only most grave scandal of the faithful, but also fear of perversion and defection from the faith of those so acting and contemning the impediments of marriage, especially in regions where heresies rage with impunity. This Sacred Congregation taught this in the Instruction given on 17 Apr. 1820 to the Archbishop of Quebec. Likewise when the Apostolic Vicar of Bosnia had asked whether he could grant dispensation to those Catholics who allege no other motive than mad love, and at the same time it is foreseen that, dispensation being denied, they are going to enter marriage before an infidel Judge, the S. C. of the Holy Office, on Wednesday, 14 Aug. 1822, decreed: Response is to be made to the Orator that in the case set forth he should use the faculties committed to him in form II, as he shall have judged expedient in the Lord. The same must be said concerning the danger that the Catholic party may dare to celebrate marriage with a non-Catholic.

12. Danger of incestuous concubinage. From the above-mentioned Instruction of the year 1822 it is clear that the remedy of dispensation must be applied lest someone grow filthy in concubinage with public scandal and evident danger of eternal salvation.

13. Danger of civil marriage. From the things said it follows that a probable danger that those who seek dispensation, not obtaining it, will celebrate only civil marriage, as they say, is a legitimate cause of dispensing.

14. Removal of grave scandals.

15. Cessation of public concubinage.

16. Excellence of merits, when someone has deserved very well of religion, either by fighting against the enemies of the Catholic faith, or by liberality toward the Church, or by doctrine, virtue, or in another way.

These are the more common and stronger causes which are customarily adduced for obtaining matrimonial dispensations; concerning these Theologians and interpreters of the sacred Canons treat copiously. Among the others to be consulted are Pyrrhus Corradus, Praxis dispensationum apostolicarum, books 7 and 8, and Vincentius De Iustis, De dispensationibus matrimonialibus, book III.

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

1. The Name and Surname of the Orators, each to be written distinctly and clearly, and without any abbreviation of letters.

2. The Diocese of origin or actual domicile. When the Orators have domicile outside the Diocese of origin, they can, if they wish, ask that the dispensation be sent to the Ordinary of the Diocese in which they now live.

3. The species, even the lowest, of the impediment: whether it is consanguinity, or affinity arisen from licit or illicit copula; public honesty deriving origin from betrothals or from ratified marriage; in the impediment of crime, whether it came from killing of the spouse with promise of marriage, or from killing of the spouse with adultery, or from adultery alone with promise of marriage; in spiritual relationship, whether it is between the one lifting and the one lifted, or between the one lifting and the parent of the one lifted.

4. The degree of consanguinity, or affinity, or honesty from ratified marriage, and whether it is simple or mixed, not only the more remote but also the nearer; and also the line, whether it is direct or transverse; likewise whether the Orators are joined by a double bond of consanguinity, both on the side of the father and on the side of the mother.

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 whatsoever, whether diriment or impeding.

6. Various circumstances, namely whether the marriage is to be contracted or has been contracted; if already contracted, it must be opened whether in good faith, at least on the part of one, or with knowledge of the impediment; likewise, whether with denunciations premised and according to the Tridentine form; or whether under the hope of more easily obtaining dispensation; finally, whether it has been consummated; if in bad faith, at least of one party, or with knowledge of the impediment.

7. Incestuous copula, etc. Cf. N. 867.

These things must be kept before the eyes not only by those who recur to the Holy See for obtaining some matrimonial dispensation, but also by those who, from Pontifical delegation, can dispense by themselves, so that they may duly use, as is fitting, the faculties which they possess." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 9 May 1877.

When is narrowness of place such that it can be adduced as a legitimate cause for obtaining matrimonial dispensation?

Resp. A norm is handed down by Pius IX through the circular letter of the Most Eminent Pro-Datary Cardinal Spinola sent to the Archbishops on 30 Aug. 1847. Moreover in it those places are declared narrow in which the number of hearths does not exceed three hundred, or the inhabitants are not beyond one thousand five hundred. S. C. C. on 16 Dec. 1876 gave this response: "Narrowness of place is not to be taken from the number of hearths of each parish, but from the number of hearths of each place or even of several places, if they are not distant from each other beyond a mile." But the Apostolic Datary has these things: "Narrowness of place is verified when its households do not exceed the number three hundred; nor is it an obstacle that the narrow place exists a little distant from another, provided that those two places are distinct and diverse among themselves and have their own name. But some distance is required in Suburbs, which, although they constitute part of the city, nevertheless Narrowness is admitted in them when they are distant from the city by a mile or a little less. Thus think Pyrrhus Corrado in Praxis dispens. apost., l. 7, ch. 5, and De Iustis, de dispens. matrim., l. 3, ch. 2. Moreover the practice of this Apostolic Datary conforms exactly to doctrine of this sort." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 9, p. 631; Vol. 16, p. 544.

"The holy Church of God has always pursued the unspeakable crime of incest with special hatred, and the Supreme Roman Pontiffs established that those who did not blush to defile themselves with it, if they fled to the Apostolic See for the sake of seeking dispensation over impediments diriment of marriage, unless mention of the admitted crime had been made in their prayers, these prayers would be held infected by the defect of obreption and subreption, and therefore the dispensation would be invalid; and this was provided for that most holy cause, that the Christian faithful be kept away from this most grave crime.

The mind of this Holy See is witnessed both by other documents and by the decree which most recently the supreme council of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition, with the Roman Pontiff himself approving, issued on Wednesday, 1 August 1866, which is of this sort: 'that dispensations are subreptitious and nowhere and in no way valid, whether they are conceded directly by the Apostolic See or from pontifical delegation over whatsoever prohibited degrees of consanguinity, affinity, spiritual relationship, and also public honesty, if the spouses before the execution of the same dispensations, whether before or after their impetration, committed the guilt of incest; and, whether questioned or even not questioned, maliciously or even ignorantly kept silent the incestuous copula entered between them, whether it is publicly known or even occult, or kept silent the counsel and intention by which they entered the same copula so that they might more easily obtain dispensation.' The Sacred Penitentiary, insisting on the footsteps of the supreme Inquisition, established the same thing on 20 July 1879.

But since very many sacred Prelates, either individually and separately or jointly, reported to the Holy See that very great inconveniences arise from that cause when one proceeds to the execution of matrimonial dispensations, and especially in these miserable times what had been wisely introduced for the salvation of the faithful not rarely tends to their ruin, Our Most Holy Lord Leo XIII, Pope by divine providence, moved by their petitions, the matter having long and maturely been weighed, and adhering to the vote of the Most Eminent Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Inquisitors General along with me in the universal Christian republic, ordered these letters to be given to all local Ordinaries, by which it might be made known to them that the decree reported above of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition and of the Sacred Penitentiary, and whatever else in the same sense shall have been declared, established, or introduced by the style of the Curia, is revoked and abrogated by him and decreed to be of no force hereafter; and at the same time it is established and declared that matrimonial dispensations to be conceded hereafter, even if incestuous copula or the counsel and intention of more easily obtaining dispensation through it shall have been kept silent, will be valid: all things whatsoever to the contrary, even those worthy of special mention, by no means standing in the way.

Yet while, on account of most grave moments of reasons, the Most Holy Father judges that there must benignly be a receding from the former rigor concerning this matter, His mind is that nothing be taken away from the minds of the faithful concerning the horror which the crime of incest must inject; indeed he wishes curators of souls and others to whom the care of fostering honesty of morals among the Christian faithful has been entrusted to be excited with the greatest zeal, so that, prudently indeed, as the nature of the matter demands, yet efficaciously, they labor in pursuing this crime and deterring the faithful from it, with the penalties to which they become subject set forth." Circular Letter of the Holy Office, 25 June 1885.

Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 7, p. 290 ff., 423 ff.; St. Alph., Ho. Ap., tr. 18, n. 87; Paul Villada, Cas. Consc. his praes. temp. accommod., Brussels 1887, Part 3, Case 5.

"1. The Official must always have exact information about the business of which there is question, received through a person worthy of faith. It is enough that the Official have moral conviction, and it makes no difference if he acquired it in one or another way. 2. If the Official has true and undoubted confidence, which arises from moral conviction, concerning the person of the Parish Priest, the report of this Parish Priest suffices for establishing the truth and certainty of the prayers. 3. When the Official has undoubted faith concerning the Parish Priest and the integrity of his soul, then the report and testimony of that man, and also the examination performed by him and diligently set forth at the episcopal Curia, is always sufficient. 4. An oath is furnished by the person to be examined only in that case in which the same oath is prescribed by the Holy See through Apostolic matrimonial Letters; otherwise not: for what the law wished, it expressed; what it did not express, it did not wish. 5. When it is established concerning the faith and integrity of the parish priest, his testimony concerning poverty suffices, unless it is otherwise established; for in this case the Official will diligently seek information concerning poverty. 6. An oath is to be furnished only in that case in which the Holy See prescribed it in the Apostolic Letters of matrimonial dispensations." The mandatary of the Bishop of Mainz, by mandate of the sacred Apostolic Datary, with commonly retained practice as guide, 10 Oct. 1867. Cf. Franc. Sentis, Clem. Pap. VIII. Decretal., Freiburg im Breisgau 1870, pp. 4-5. You have a brief and ordered exposition of Impediments of Matrimony in the Synopsis of G. Allegre, 2nd ed.

Resp. The prescribed clauses, for example, the notation of the Apostolic Indult, are altogether to be observed, yet not under penalty of nullity, unless this is clearly expressed in the Indult, for example by the words "otherwise they are null." Thus from the Resp. S. O. 15 June 1875. Cf. Marc, Instit. Moral. Alph., ed. 2, n. 2047; Collectan. Constit., etc., for the use of Apostolic Workers, Paris 1880, nn. 1019, 1021.

Resp. Negatively. Thus several times S. Poenit. and S. C. de P. F. 16 Jan. 1797. Collectan. Const., etc., for the use of Apostolic Workers, Paris 1880, n. 858.

Resp. "Spouses using marriage in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can, cautiously however, insinuate the opinion of which there is question to those spouses whom he has tried in vain to lead away by another reason from the detestable crime of onanism." S. Poenit. 16 June 1880.

Whether those Confessors satisfy their office who, with a penitent accusing the sin of onanism, keep deep silence, and when the confession of sins is finished, excite him by general words to contrition, and to him asserting that he detests every lethal sin, impart holy absolution? Resp. Negatively." S. Poenit. 14 Dec. 1874.

"1. When there is founded suspicion that a penitent who is altogether silent about Onanism is addicted to this crime, is it lawful for the Confessor to abstain from prudent and discreet questioning because he foresees that several are to be driven out of good faith, and that many are going to desert the Sacraments? Or rather is the Confessor bound to question prudently and discreetly? 2. Is a Confessor who, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that the penitent is an Onanist bound to warn him concerning the gravity of this sin, equally as of other mortal sins, and, as the Roman Ritual says, to rebuke him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only then when it is established by sufficient signs that the same person grieves concerning the past and has a purpose of no longer acting onanistically? Resp. with attention to ... the unspeakable vice of which there is question in the case having spread widely ... to the 1st, regularly negatively to the 1st part, affirmatively to the 2nd; to the 2nd, affirmatively, according to the doctrines of approved Authors." S. Poenit. 10 March 1886.