Article III. On Dispensation of Banns

Notes near nn. 1537-1538, persons and dispensation of banns (printed p. 226).

1 L. VI. 991. | 2 Ib. | 3 De Imp. n. 251. 3°. | 4 Sess. 24. c. 7. de Ref. Matr. Collect. p. 437. n. 968. | 5 De Matr. § 21. V. p. 64. 4). | 6 Feije, de Imp. n. 252. | 7 7 Jahrg. S. 68.

1538. Principles. - I. For a just cause dispensation can be made from the law of banns - Trent.¹ - But dispensation is made more easily from one or another proclamation than from all. But Benedict XIV² forbade Bishops to dispense from all, "unless a legitimate, most grave, and inescapable cause presses, as is clear from the Tridentine." But such a cause, since it is relative, will exist much more easily among us than elsewhere.

II. Dispensation of banns pertains to the Bishop as Ordinary. - It is likewise drawn from the Tridentine,³ where it is said that the faculty of dispensing is left to the prudence and judgment of the Ordinary.

III. But the legitimate causes of dispensation are some on account of which the Bishop ought to dispense, and others on account of which he can. Of the former kind are: 1° lest Matrimony be maliciously impeded; 2° grave damage, infamy, or scandal imminent from delay of Matrimony; 3° fear lest the man abandon a girl violated by him; 4° if, Matrimony already having been contracted civilly, the betrothed man does not wish to consent to three proclamations, and other similar things.⁴ - Of the latter kind are: 1° if nuptials are to be contracted among the great; 2° if the betrothed persons are very old, or very disparate in condition, age, wealth, or quality; 3° if it is morally certain that no impediment is present.⁵

Notes near n. 1539, delegation and epikeia for dispensation of banns (printed p. 227).

1 Sess. 24. c. 1. de Ref. Matr. | 2 Bulla, Nimiam licentiam. 18 Maii 1743. Item C. Satis vobis. 17 Nov. 1741. | 3 Sess. 24. c. 1. de Ref. Matr. | 4 L. VI. 1005. | 5 Ib. 1006. | 6 Ib. Vide Feije, n. 266.

1539. Questions. - Quaer. 1° When the betrothed persons are from different dioceses, must dispensation be obtained from each Bishop?

Resp. Affirmatively, as it seems. The reason is because there is no connection between the dispensation of one and that of the other. From another source, only the Ordinary of the place can know concerning the cause of dispensation: for there can be reasons for dispensing for one party, without their being present for the other; and, if impediments are not detected from one side, it does not follow that they cannot be detected from the other. - Nevertheless St. Alphonsus⁶ does not correct those teaching the contrary.

Quaer. 2° Can the Vicar General, and likewise the Capitular Vicar (or among us the Administrator of the diocese), dispense from the proclamations of banns?

Resp. to the 1st. Affirmatively, more probably, according to the most common opinion, provided the Bishop has not reserved this to himself, or does not contradict. The reason is because the Synod concedes this faculty to the Ordinary; but under the name of Ordinary, if the matter belongs to his office and he himself is not expressly excluded, comes also the Vicar General, since he constitutes one tribunal with the Bishop.¹

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, and this is certain from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 2, 1624.

Quaer. 3° Whether and by whom can this faculty be delegated?

Resp. Affirmatively, by those who have it by ordinary right; therefore by the Bishop, by the Vicar General and Capitular Vicar, and, since his jurisdiction is quasi-ordinary or to the universality of causes, also by the Administrator of the diocese. Cf. n. 149, 150. - In very many dioceses this faculty is delegated, at least as regards one or another announcement, to all priests. Let each consult the letters of his Jurisdiction or the diocesan statutes.

Quaer. 4° Whether and when can proclamations be omitted through epikeia, without a preceding dispensation of the Ordinary?

Resp. Affirmatively, VERY probably, provided the following conditions concur: 1st that there be present a cause on account of which the Bishop ought to dispense (n. 1538. III.); 2nd that he (or, if he unjustly refuses dispensation, his Superior) cannot be approached; 3rd that there be danger in delay; 4th that it be clear that no impediment is present.² - Nevertheless Reiffenstuel³ rightly warns that omission is almost not to be advised when the Ordinary (outside the case of a concubinary dying, Feije⁴ aptly adds) has denied dispensation; for it belongs to the Ordinary to judge whether the alleged cause is of such a kind that dispensation is owed. - I add that it is also to be dissuaded in States in which proclamations are prescribed by civil law.

Here again I admonish that the aforesaid conditions occur more easily among us. Wherefore I adhere to the resolutions which Smith hands down on this matter.⁵

Note. - The Tridentine sometimes posits that dispensation be made in such a way that the announcements have place after Matrimony has been contracted, but before it has been consummated. Nevertheless it leaves to the judgment of the Ordinary that, if he prefers, he dispense simply. But today generally only this latter mode is used.