Case LXV: A Perplexing Marriage Case

A certain newspaper, somewhat hostile to our creed, made much of the following news item: The marriage of Mr. P. and Mrs. P. was to take place in the parish of X. Mrs. P. had been divorced from her husband, who recently died. All the preparatory steps had been taken and there appeared to be no valid obstacle. When the bridal couple made their Confession, the bride informed the priest that for fifteen years she had been living in concubinage with the bridegroom, whereupon the priest became very angry, and after having given her absolution, he hurriedly left the confessional and made the matter known to the pastor.

The latter sent for the bridegroom and informed him that he must get from the Bishop the necessary dispensation (the affair happened in a diocesan city), otherwise he could not get married. The Bishop being on a journey, the marriage could not take place that day. Upon the Bishop's return the dispensation was most courteously granted. The newspaper joins to this item the question: "Why did the pastor, on an occasion shortly before, marry two persons under similar circumstances, without protesting? Could it depend upon the amount of the fee? And far worse. The seal of Confession was broken." Thus far the newspaper. A correction appeared in the Catholic paper of the place stating the case correctly as follows: Bride and bridegroom approached the Sacraments on the morning of the wedding-day, and all preparations were made for the ceremony. The confessor advised the bride that she could not be married and directed her to go to the pastor and inform him that there was an impediment. The couple in fact did go to the pastor, who, however, told them to apply to the Bishop with the explanation that a marriage could not take place until a dispensation was received. The couple then proceeded to the Ordinary for the dispensation and as he was away from home, they sent a despatch after him, which, however, did not reach him. On his return, the following day, the Bishop readily granted the dispensation from the impedimenta occulto. The couple took the document to the priest and were united in marriage. No fee was asked either for dispensation or marriage.

That the newspaper report had a malicious tendency is plain. It is equally plain that the seal of Confession was not violated and that money played no part. It may happen, likewise, that impediments to marriage escape attention.

If the bride had only shortly before become a widow, and the two had already lived together, the question must be asked whether the impedimentum criminis adulterii did not obtain.

Let us leave that aside and turn to our main point. Did the confessor act rightly in directing the couple, when Confession was made immediately before the ceremony for which everything had been put in readiness, to make known to the pastor an impediment for which dispensation is obtainable, an impedimentum occultum, at that? Decidedly not. The confessor in this case should have bidden the bride to come back in about two hours, and in the meantime he himself should have proceeded to the Ordinary, to apply for the dispensation post absolutionem. And if this was by circumstances prevented, he should have performed the ceremony to avoid scandal. In that case the bridegroom was to be instructed to come to Confession again in about a week's time. Meanwhile it would be possible to apply to the Ordinary and ask for approval of his conduct, and also for the faculty of dispensation.