Case XI: Delegation Regarding Marriages

Caius, who lives in the town of A., was engaged to a young lady from the town of B. Caius’ brother is pastor in A. There were special reasons why the marriage should take place in A., and Caius’ brother, the pastor, had intended to perform it, without any assistance or permission from the bride’s pastor at B. Shortly before the time appointed for the marriage, however, the pastor of A. met with an accident and was obliged to leave home in order to be treated in a hospital in a neighboring city. As it was impossible for him to perform the marriage he asked a friend of his, who is pastor in C., to take his place and do it for him. This the pastor of C. agreed to do, but at the last moment he was called away by a death in his own family, and in his hurry and excitement he commissioned his assistant to go to the town of A. and to marry the young people. This the assistant did without further formality, as there was no time to be lost. Now I desire to know whether the pastor of C. could, under the circumstances, subdelegate his assistant priest to perform this marriage in the town of A., and whether the permission of the bride’s pastor at B. was required in order that the pastor at A. or his delegate might assist licitly at this marriage? Answer.—This marriage was performed in the town of A. Therefore the parish priest of A. or else the bishop of the diocese was the only person who could witness this marriage validly. In their absence they must designate some other priest, certus et determinatus, says the new law, who shall witness the marriage as their delegate. The parochus loci where the marriage takes place is the proper person to witness validly a marriage. It makes no difference in relation to the validity of a marriage whether the contracting parties have a domicile or not in the parish. This marriage took place in the town of A. Therefore, the pastor of A. was the competent person to assist validly at it, or to delegate another priest to do so for him. As a matter of fact, the bridegroom lived in A. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, the pastor of A. could marry him not only validly but licitly also. But the bride did not live in the town of A., but in the town of B., and the new marriage law says that the pastor of the bride, in the first place, is the proper person to assist licitly at her marriage. “In every case, however, let it be held as a rule that the marriage be celebrated before the bride’s pastor.” “Ne temere,” V, 5. When there is a justa causa, however, the law does not require the bride to be married by her own pastor, nor does it in that case require that she get his permission to be married licitly elsewhere. When there is no serious reason whatever why a girl should not be married in her own parish and by her own pastor, then the law requires that she be married there, to make her marriage altogether licit. But where there is a serious reason why she should be married outside of her own parish and by some one else than her parish priest, all the commentators on the new marriage law agree that the bride is free to be married by the pastor of the bridegroom. Thus Fr. Noldin, S.J., says:

“From the words of the decree, the right of assisting at the marriage belongs in the first place to the bride’s pastor; in practice, however, the distinction between the bride’s pastor and the bridegroom’s pastor should not be pressed in this matter. For since only a just cause is required for the bridegroom’s pastor to assist licitly, and any reasonable cause of advantage, convenience, or custom is considered just, a just cause will scarcely ever be lacking when those about to marry ask to contract before the bridegroom’s pastor.” n. 10, a.

As there were serious reasons for this marriage taking place in A., where the bridegroom lived, the bride was at liberty to be married there, without asking leave of her own pastor. And let us add, in passing, in this case the bride’s pastor could make no claim to the marriage fee. Therefore, the pastor of A., being himself prevented from witnessing this marriage, had the right, quoad liceitatem, to delegate some other priest to take his place and to act for him. Validly and licitly, therefore, the pastor of A. delegated the pastor of C. to perform this marriage for him, within the limits of the parish of A., without procuring any authorization or permission from the parish priest of B., who was the bride’s pastor.

But now it happened that the pastor of C. could not personally execute the delegation which he received from A., and so he commissioned his curate to execute it for him. The question now arises, was C. competent, in this particular case, to subdelegate his assistant? He himself was delegated personally by A. to assist at this marriage. Did the delegated faculty which he received include expressly or by implication the further faculty to subdelegate another, in case he could not execute the delegation himself? In general, a pastor who delegates another priest to witness a marriage in his stead may also grant such other priest the power to subdelegate another, provided always that it be some certain and determined priest whom he subdelegates.

“To a delegated priest may be granted either a special or a general faculty of subdelegating; for a delegation of this kind is not considered indeterminate, provided the delegate substitutes for himself (subdelegates) only a determinate person.” Noldin, 13.

The difficulty here is to determine whether in fact the pastor of A., in delegating the pastor of C. to assist at Caius’ marriage, granted him also the further power of subdelegating some one else.

If A. did in fact grant this further power to C., then C.’s curate was validly subdelegated and the marriage he performed in A.’s parish was valid. But if A. did not grant C. the power of subdelegating another, then, of course, C.’s curate’s subdelegation was void and the marriage he performed was invalid. It is a question of fact and not of law. May it be taken for granted that C. in this case received from A. the power to subdelegate? We do not think so. The power to subdelegate may be granted either by word of mouth or in writing, expressly or tacitly, or by sign or gesture, personally or through a third person, for a particular case or for all marriages. But an interpretative delegation is, in fact, no delegation. Had A. thought about it at the time, he very likely would have granted C. the power to substitute his curate in case he could not go himself. But, as a matter of fact, he did not, because he did not think about it. There is question here of something that must be capable of proof in foro externo. It is not lawful to suppose or to take for granted certain powers, but their grant must be capable of proof. Otherwise the Sacraments would be exposed to the danger of being null and void. It is not lawful to suppose that one has been granted jurisdiction to hear confessions, except in a case of necessity, but one must make sure that jurisdiction has actually been given. The decree Ne temere does not lay down any rules for subdelegating. Therefore, the question of subdelegating must be governed by the rules of the common law of the Church. According to the rules of the Canon Law a delegate may subdelegate:

1. If he be delegated ad universalitatem causarum. 2. If he received special authorization to subdelegate.

As far as we are able to judge, in the present case there was no special authorization granted to the pastor of C. to subdelegate his curate. Therefore, as soon as C. foresaw that it would be impossible for him to assist at Caius’ marriage, he should have communicated either with the pastor of A. or with A.’s bishop, and requested the faculty to subdelegate his curate, or else have either of them delegate him. Caius and his bride should be made to renew their consent before the pastor of A. or B. or before some one properly delegated by either of them and before two witnesses. If this is impossible, apply for a sanatio in radice.