§ II. On Impediments in Species

1575. - Fifteen diriment impediments of Matrimony are numbered, expressed in these verses:

Error, condition, vow, cognation, crime,
Disparity of cult, force, order, bond, honesty,
Age, affinity, if clandestine, and incapable,
Or a woman has been abducted, and not safely restored to the party:
These forbid marriages to be joined, and retract them when made.

We shall institute a discourse concerning each separately.

A twofold error concerning Matrimony is distinguished, namely: 1° substantial error, which is concerned with the person; 2° accidental error, which affects qualities of the person. But condition is understood as servile, unknown to the other party.

1576. Principles. - I. Every error concerning the person makes Matrimony null by natural law, even if the error is altogether vincible, or only concomitant, or most crass.¹ The reason is because, on the part of the contracting party, it removes the voluntary concerning the object of the contract, and therefore, consent failing, the contract is void. - Except if someone intends actually to contract with the present woman, whoever she finally is.

II. Error concerning the qualities of the person, of whatever kind it is, even if it gave cause to the contract, does not of itself void Matrimony. Thus the common and truer opinion.² The reason is 1° because error concerning qualities does not fall upon the object of the contract; for that object is the very person with whom one contracts, as was just said; it is not the person's qualities; 2° because in those things which constitute a state firm and irrevocable from its nature, such as Profession and Matrimony, the will, according to the nature of the thing in question, accommodates itself and consents without restriction or condition, and altogether absolutely and independently of other conditions besides those which are of the substance of the same contract.³ For from these conditions Matrimonies and Professions would remain uncertain, and accordingly the state itself, which is not according to the nature of the thing in question. Except unless either a) a quality is explicitly intended as a condition without which not (as they say), or b) error of quality redounds into the substance, whether because one errs in a quality not now common, but proper and individual to some determinate person, as if you wished to contract with the first-born and the second-born were presented to you, or because consent is borne directly and principally upon the quality, and less principally upon the person, as if you wished to marry a noble woman, such as you falsely think Titia to be, but not if you wished to marry Titia, whom you falsely think noble. Thus in the internal forum.¹

III. Error concerning the servile condition of the other party dirimes Matrimony by ecclesiastical law, as is clear from L. IV. Decr. T. IX.

1577. Resolves. - 1° If someone thinks he is contracting nuptials with Anna, and marries Agatha, the Matrimony is invalid. It is otherwise if, thinking that he has married a noble, rich, virgin, peaceful girl, he finds her on the contrary plebeian, poor, corrupted, quarrelsome.

2° Matrimony is valid if someone marries a widow, thinking that he is marrying an unmarried woman, even if he was induced into this error by fraud; for fraud indeed induces the obligation of repairing the injury, but does not effect that consent is not concerned with the substance of the thing in question. Indeed this is valid even if he certainly would not have contracted if he had known beforehand that she was a widow; for one must attend not to that which perhaps or even certainly someone would have done, but to that which he really did.

3° A noble girl validly contracts with a wandering man who falsely boasts that he is noble and the possessor of many goods, and proves it by false testimonies. But that woman is not held to cohabit with him, and can immediately make perpetual divorce as regards bed and habitation.

4° Since slaves have obtained liberty among us, there can be no speech of the impediment of condition as regards Marriages contracted from this time onward; nevertheless attention must be given when there is question of Marriages formerly entered between free persons and slaves who perhaps were by error held as free; for the contract which did not subsist from the beginning is not strengthened without new and free consent (and in the case which will be treated under n. 1634, q. 2, offered before the Pastor and two witnesses). Resolve the same concerning similar Marriages entered in those places of South America in which slavery still has force, when the parties immigrate into our provinces. For the rest, cases of this kind will be most rare.

Concerning other unions of former slaves entered in servitude, judgment is for the most part difficult; for often they fostered intercourse among themselves without any mind of marriage, or contracted under this condition, that the Matrimony would subsist only so long as each conducted himself or herself rightly, or until the masters separated them, namely by one being sold and the other retained, or each being sold to different masters. At other times they seem to have wished to enter a perpetual partnership; but whether they were then free from a prior bond can scarcely be known. If it is clear that at some time they seriously entered marriage, with the mind of obliging themselves in perpetuity, it will have to be held valid; nor will it be licit to pass to other nuptials until there is certainty concerning the death of the prior spouse. For the rest, most of their contracts did not have the force of marriage, since they lacked the mind of contracting a perpetual bond, or the condition concerning which above was added to the consent. Wherefore those who come to the Catholic Faith, or are reduced to a good way of living, are not immediately to be compelled to desert the person whom they have under the name of spouse, even if others with whom they already had intercourse are living, or there is no certainty concerning their death; but the matter is to be diligently investigated.¹

1578. - I. The vow diriment of Matrimony is only the solemn vow of perfect chastity (and not of conjugal chastity only, such as is emitted in certain Equestrian Orders), emitted through profession in an approved Religion. For the simple vow of chastity, even perfect and perpetual, does not dirime Matrimony, but only impedes it, according to the things said n. 1568.

II. But Order diriment of Matrimony is Sacred Order. Concerning each impediment the Lateran Council I and II and Trent speak.²

III. The solemn vow of chastity emitted in religious Profession, and Sacred Order, dirime Matrimony in diverse ways. For the former dirimes Matrimony both to be contracted³ and also contracted, provided it was only ratified,⁴ but not consummated.⁵ But Order dirimes Matrimony to be contracted, not Matrimony contracted, even if only ratified.

1579. Questions. - Quaer. 1° By what law do the aforesaid impediments dirime Matrimony?

Resp. 1° The impediment of Order, according to the common opinion, dirimes only by ecclesiastical law. The reason is because, on one side, Order of itself is not repugnant to the conjugal state; nor, on the other side, is there any divine prohibition which is found in the Scriptures or in tradition.

Resp. 2° Since the solemnity of the vow is of ecclesiastical law, by that very fact the Pope can dispense, provided there is a sufficient cause, i.e. one proportioned to the gravity of the matter.

Quaer. 2° What conditions are required that solemn vow and Order dirime Matrimony?

Resp. 1° As regards the vow, it must have been emitted in valid Profession (n. 1159. I.).

Resp. 2° As regards Order, there is required: 1° that it was received validly; 2° that it was received voluntarily. - Thus all.

Cognation is distinguished of three kinds, namely: 1° natural; 2° spiritual; 3° legal. Concerning each separately.

1580. - Natural cognation, or consanguinity, is the bond of persons descending by carnal generation from the same proximate stock, which namely arises from the unity and participation of the same blood.¹

In consanguinity three things are to be distinguished, namely: 1° the stock, or the person from whom others draw origin; 2° the degree, or the measure of distance of one person from another; 3° the line, or series of persons descending from the same stock.

The line is twofold: one straight, the other collateral or transverse. The former is the series of persons of whom some descend from others, either immediately, as children from parents, or mediately, as grandchildren from grandparents, or from great-grandparents, etc. But the latter is the series of persons who, although they have a common stock, nevertheless some do not descend from the others, as are brothers, cousins, etc.

The collateral line is equal or unequal, according as blood relatives are equally distant from the common stock, or unequally.

1581. Things To Be Established. - I. Consanguinity in the straight line, at least by positive law, dirimes Matrimony indefinitely in whatever degree. This is clear from Canon Law in the Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, c. 37.

II. Consanguinity in the collateral line dirimes Matrimony up to the fourth degree inclusively, and not beyond. This is clear from Lateran Council IV and many places of Canon Law.

III. Consanguinity dirimes Matrimony also between those who were born either only from the same father or only from the same mother; likewise between blood relatives begotten from illegitimate births. The reason is because diversity of father or mother, or illegitimacy, does not prevent carnal consanguinity from existing between them.

Rule for Computing the Degrees of Consanguinity.

1582. - First Rule. In the straight line there are numbered as many degrees as persons, the stock being removed, or there are as many degrees as there are generations. Hence between father and son there is one degree, because there is one generation, or one person of the son, the father excluded, as being the stock. Between grandson and grandfather two degrees are numbered, because there are two generations, although three persons intervene, namely the grandfather, the father, and his son, or grandson with respect to the grandfather. Suppose likewise a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather, and you will have three or four degrees.

Second Rule. In the equal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons on one side, the stock being removed. Hence brother and sister are in the first degree: because, if the common stock or father is set aside, one person remains on each side; and, since each is distant by one degree from the stock, they are also distant from one another by one degree. Likewise paternal cousins, or sons of two brothers, are each distant by two degrees from the common stock, or from the grandfather, and therefore are blood relatives between themselves in the second degree. Thus also must one speak concerning the others.

Third Rule. In the unequal collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons on the more remote side, the stock always being removed. Hence if one is distant from the common stock by two degrees, and his blood relative by three, they will be blood relatives between themselves in the third degree, according to the saying: The more remote degree draws the nearer to itself. Therefore Berta will be related by blood in the second degree with her paternal uncle, or brother of her father, because she is distant by two degrees from the common stock, namely from her grandfather, although the uncle himself is separated by one degree from the same stock, since he is the son of the stock, or brother of Berta's father. Thus also concerning all others whatever must it be established.

"In most of the Federal States," says Kenrick,¹ "the Levitical prohibitions have been adopted by the authority of civil law," i.e. Roman law; "in others the prohibition of marrying consists within narrower limits." But these are valid only as regards civil effects.

For computing degrees according to civil law, i.e. Roman law, the number, or sum of all persons in each line, the stock being removed, is taken. Therefore in the straight line they are computed in the same way as canonical degrees; in the equal collateral line the canonical degrees are doubled; in the unequal collateral line the lesser line is doubled and the excess of the greater is added. Cf. n. 905. X.

1583. Questions. - Quaer. 1° By what law does consanguinity in the aforesaid degrees dirime Matrimony?

Resp. 1° It is certain that consanguinity in the straight line dirimes Matrimony by natural law in the first degree, but probably according to St. Alphonsus² not indefinitely in the remaining degrees. For the rest, the case, as is clear, is very far from practice.

Resp. 2° As regards the collateral line, in the first degree, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus³ judges equally probable with the opposite, it does not dirime by divine law. In the other degrees, according to all, it dirimes by ecclesiastical law, as is deduced from the practice of the Church, which dispenses from them.

Quaer. 2° How can the degrees of consanguinity easily be found?

Resp. 1° If the common stock is known, write that person's name on paper, and below it report on this side and that the generations and names of the persons descending, until you arrive at those persons who are to be joined in marriage; from this you will easily compute the degrees.

Resp. 2° If the stock is unknown, proceed thus: Write in the lower part of the paper or tablet the name of the bridegroom on one side, and the name of the bride on the other; then above the name of the bridegroom note the names of his blood relatives who perhaps can be the cause why some cognation exists with the bride; do the same as regards the bride. This notation having been made, ascend from one side and see whether they agree in a common principle or stock, from which the bridegroom and bride are mediately begotten. Hence, after you have found it, and at the same time observed whether the spouses are in an equal or unequal line, finally apply the rules proposed below, and the resolution of the doubt will be clear. For these let the following example be given:

In this example Peter Harvey and Mary Johnson are blood relatives in the fourth equal degree. But if Mary Johnson descended immediately from Maurus Johnson, Arthur Johnson would be her grandfather and Didacus Johnson her great-grandfather, and therefore they would indeed be blood relatives in the fourth degree, but touching the third.

Another method is also indicated for discerning degrees of cognation, namely with a table of genealogy, or tree of consanguinity. Inspect the table on p. 254, and see in what line and in what cells you find the persons concerning whose cognation there is question, and attend by how many degrees they are distant from the common stock. Example: You ask, e.g., in what degree the bridegroom Titius is related by blood with respect to the bride Berta, when you already know that the grandfather of the former was the brother of the great-grandfather of the latter. Place Titius in the middle cell N.; ascend to his grandfather; his brother on the right side, in the cell where paternal uncle is noted, will be Berta's great-grandfather; descend through his straight line by numbering the grandfather, father, and bride herself; hence the common stock will be the one who is found in the third cell above the middle line. Thus you will number three degrees on the part of the bridegroom, and four on the part of the bride; hence you conclude that they are blood relatives in the fourth degree touching the third.

Imagine any other similar examples, supposing one or the other spouse in any cell whether middle or at one side, and ascending to the common stock, so that from there you descend to the other spouse; but do not at all attend to the names which you will find in the various cells occurring, because for the selected cell all things will vary, as is clear.

Consanguinity between the same persons can arise from a double or even multiple head, and then there is a double or multiple propinquity, or impediment to be disclosed in the petition of dispensation; thus, e.g., if two brothers marry two women related to each other by blood, the children proceeding from each Matrimony will be related to each other by blood in two ways, and this circumstance must necessarily be declared.

Quaer. 3° Who are collateral blood relatives?

Resp. They are the following, namely:

1° On the part of the father.

2° On the part of the mother.

3° On each side.

Degrees of Consanguinity.

The printed genealogical tree places N as the central person. The straight line above and below N is:

The principal collateral cells are:

Note. - 1° Persons who are joined by a line are among themselves in the straight line; with the rest, in the collateral line.

2° Where lines are joined, there the stock is had.

Spiritual cognation is a certain propinquity which arises from the statute of the Church, from the administration and reception of Baptism or Confirmation, between certain persons determined in Canon Law.

1584. Principle. - Spiritual cognation dirimes Matrimony by ecclesiastical law: 1° between the Minister of the Sacrament and the subject and the subject's parents; 2° between the godfather or godmother and the goddaughter or godson, and their parents. Thus from Trent.¹ - See the conditions n. 1265. II; to which add that this impediment arises only from valid Baptism, and, if there is question of Confirmation, it is also required that the sponsor have been confirmed.¹

1585. Resolves. - 1° The godfather and godmother can enter Matrimony between themselves, but not with the father or mother of the baptized person.

2° They do not contract spiritual cognation who exercise the office of godfather and godmother in supplying the solemnities of Baptism, as the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide² declared in express words, nor those who only in the name of another receive the baptized person from the sacred font.

3° Sponsors designated by the parents and unjustly rejected by the Pastor contract true spiritual cognation if they actually hold the infant; otherwise, if they were justly rejected by the Pastor.

4° A man baptizing a girl in a case of necessity and privately can marry neither her nor her mother. Say the same of a woman privately baptizing a boy, and of a parent baptizing illegitimate offspring.

5° To the doubt: "Whether the disposition of the council, c. 2. S. 24. Ref. Matr., decreeing that in the Sacrament of Baptism spiritual cognation is contracted between the one receiving and the father and mother of the one received, has place in Baptism without solemnities, conferred at home on account of necessity? The Sacred Congregation judged: Affirmatively. March 5, 1678." Thus also the same Sacred Congregation of the Council, April 17, 1603.

6° Parents baptizing children in necessity or in good faith contract no spiritual cognation by which they are prohibited from the use of marriage; for this prohibition has the character of a penalty, which is not incurred without fault. Indeed, to St. Alphonsus it is quite probable that they do not contract cognation even if deliberately, necessity excluded, they baptized offspring. Others contradict.

7° From conditional Baptism cognation arises if there is a negative doubt concerning the prior Baptism; for, since no reason urges for the value of this one, the presumption stands for the value of that one. Otherwise, if the doubt is positive (cf. n. 1574. q. 5°. R. 1°), as if Baptism is repeated because it was not conferred on the head.

1586. - Legal cognation is the propinquity of extraneous persons which arises from legal adoption. A twofold adoption is distinguished:

1° Perfect adoption or arrogation, by which a person of his own right, in legal form, passes into the power and family of the adopter, and acquires all the rights of a legitimate son.

2° Imperfect adoption or adoption, by which an extraneous person who is not of his own right is assumed as son or grandson, yet does not pass into the family and power of the adopter, and therefore is not made the latter's necessary heir by testament, although he succeeds to him ab intestato.

If a question arises whether in this or that case there is an impediment of legal cognation, recourse must necessarily be had to the civil laws of the State, i.e. there will be an impediment if the civil law admits adoption and the solemnities prescribed by it were observed. De Angelis, L. 4. T. 12.

Principles. - I. Legal cognation constitutes a diriment impediment by ecclesiastical law, although it was first established in Roman Law. This is drawn from the Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, etc.

II. Legal cognation, after the likeness of natural cognation from Roman Law, dirimes Matrimony between the following persons:

1° As in the straight line, between the adopter and the adopted person and the latter's children, while they are constituted under paternal power; 2° between the adopted person and the children of the adopter, as in the collateral line, while the latter's children are under paternal power; 3° between the adopter and the wife of the adopted person, and conversely between the adopted person and the wife of the adopter, as in the straight line by way of affinity, as is clear from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation in Hortana, September 25, 1734.

Notes near nn. 1586-1587, legal cognation and adoption (printed p. 257).

1 L. VI. 154. | 2 Ib. 149. Ferr. V. Bapt. a. 7. n. 20. | 3 Murray, De imp. n. 72 sq. Therefore the opinion of St. Alphonsus L. VI. 149 is to be relinquished. | 4 L. VI. 150. | 5 Ib. | 6 Apud Feije, de Imp. n. 426. 427. | 7 L. VI. 151. 902. H. A. Tr. XIV. 33.

1587. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does legal cognation dirime Matrimony up to the fourth degree between the adopter and the descendants of the adopted person, or conversely?

Resp. 1° Certainly it is restricted to the first degree as regards the adopted person and the descendants of the adopter. This is clear from Canon Law.

Resp. 2° It is controverted as regards the adopter and the descendants of the adopted person. Probably cognation is not extended beyond the first degree, or beyond the adopted person, unless he has descendants constituted under his power; for nothing is found in law opposed to this decision.

Quaer. 2° Does imperfect adoption dirime Matrimony?

Resp. Negatively, more probably with St. Alphonsus and several others, because only perfect adoption is to be judged adoption properly so called. Nevertheless De Angelis, in the cited place, contends from the acts of the Sacred Penitentiary that it is sufficiently clear that any adoption which is admitted by the law of the country induces an impediment.

1588. - Affinity is the propinquity which someone contracts with the blood relatives of the person with whom he has carnal intercourse; or, it is propinquity arisen from carnal copula between one or the other of the copulated persons and the blood relatives of the other. Therefore affinity arises between the man and the blood relatives of the woman, and conversely.

But multiple affinity can happen with the same person, and then it constitutes just as many bonds necessarily to be expressed, so that the dispensation may be valid. The cause of this multiplicity can be various. For it arises: 1° when copula has been had with several persons related by blood to the other party; 2° when it has been had with a person related by blood to the other party in multiple ways; 3° when copula has been had on each side with a person related by blood to the other party; 4° when copula, both licit and illicit, has been had with a person related by blood to the other party.

Nevertheless in the fourth case, namely when before Matrimony copula was had with a person with whom Matrimony was afterwards contracted and consummated, the Apostolic See removed the necessity of expressing this double affinity by letters of March 29, 1842, communicated to the individual Bishops of Belgium, which are valid everywhere.³

This impediment also arises from copula between the old and the sterile; likewise from copula with a woman forced, or not in control of herself, insane, etc.; nor is it dissolved by the death of either.⁴

Hence: 1° Affinity arises both from licit copula, that is, conjugal, and from illicit copula, namely from fornication, adultery, incest, etc.

2° Affinity can also be contracted between the spouses themselves, if either party has relations with someone from the blood relatives of the other.

Notes near nn. 1588-1589, affinity from licit and illicit copula (printed p. 258).

1 L. VI. 1027. | 2 Ib. | 3 Acta, T. X. p. 295 sub 7. | 4 Heiss. § 40. I. 2). | 5 Sess. 24. c. 4. de Ref. Matr.

1589. Principles. - I. Affinity from licit copula dirimes Matrimony up to the fourth degree inclusively; but from illicit copula only up to the second degree inclusively. This is evinced from Lateran Council IV and from Trent.⁵

II. Affinity is not contracted except by perfect and consummated copula, because otherwise the man and woman are not strictly made one flesh. The Doctors agree unanimously in denying affinity if only the woman has emitted seed; not likewise if the man alone emitted seed. Concerning this controversy St. Alphonsus concludes that each opposite opinion is probable, and it is certain that St. Thomas stands for those who require the act to be perfected on each side. Wherefore, since there is question of an impediment, by the general principle it would have to be defined that the matter is doubtful, and therefore the impediment is not present.

But as regards practice the rules which St. Alphonsus also has ought to be valid, namely: 1° When copula is certain, in the external forum it is always presumed in favor of the impediment contracted; 2° the same is presumed also in the internal forum, when the contrary is not certain, because judgment is prudently made from things commonly occurring, especially if the woman confesses that she experienced a great sense of pleasure, even though she did not advert to seminal emission; 3° if it is certain that in fact emission of seed did not follow on one or the other side, in the forum of conscience judgment cannot be borne in favor of the impediment.

III. Affinity contracted between spouses cannot dirime their Matrimony, since it supervenes upon this as already contracted indissolubly; nevertheless it impedes the use of the same in punishment of the adulterous or incestuous spouse. This is clear from several places of Canon Law. But this, as arising from illicit copula, by force of the Tridentine Decree, is not contracted except from copula with the blood relatives of the other in the first and second degree. This is confirmed from the express Declaration of Gregory XIII in St. Alphonsus.

Nevertheless it is required that the incest be: 1) culpable; 2) consummated as above II.; 3) not coerced by grave fear; 4) committed without ignorance, even crass ignorance, of law, fact, and penalty. The general reason is because there is question of a penal law.

1590. Rules. - First. Persons who are carnally joined are not properly affinities between themselves, but are the principle of affinity and hold, as it were, the place of the stock.

Second. Affinity cannot exist between two persons, neither of whom has had copula with a blood relative of the other; therefore the blood relatives of one spouse have no affinity with the blood relatives of the other.

Third. Two brothers can marry two sisters; father and son can marry mother and daughter; indeed the son can marry the mother and the father her daughter. Hence today the axiom: Affinity does not beget affinity.

Fourth. The degrees of affinity are computed in the same mode as the degrees of consanguinity; indeed affinity does not have degrees of itself, but only by reason of consanguinity; therefore such as is the degree of consanguinity with one person, such is the degree of affinity with the other.

Fifth. He who sinned with two sisters, or with first cousins, or with mother and daughter, can marry none of these. (53) p. 430.

Sixth. A man who sinned with the sister, first cousin, or paternal aunt of his other party is held to render the debt to one asking, although he himself cannot ask. The reason is because, since there is question of a merely prohibiting law, the innocent person ought not to suffer from the fault of the guilty.

Seventh. He is not deprived of the right of asking the debt who sins with his own blood relatives, because from this he contracts no affinity with his wife.

Eighth. If each spouse has contracted affinity with the other through incest, neither can ask the debt, because each has lost his or her right; and therefore neither is held, indeed neither can, render the debt to the other.

Degrees of Affinity.

The printed table shows the consanguinei of the man and the consanguinei of the woman around the two persons carnally joined. Lines drawn from one center to the opposite relatives exhibit the affinity of one with the blood relatives of the other, and conversely. It represents blood relatives in the straight line up to the fourth degree, with collateral lines such as brothers and cousins to be added in the same way.

Notes near nn. 1590-1591, degrees and questions on affinity (printed p. 259).

1 L. VI. 1075. | 2 Ib. and n. 902. § Dicunt. | 3 L. IV. Decr. T. XIII. c. 1. | 4 Sess. 24. c. 4. de Ref. Matr. | 5 L. VI. 1070. | 6 Ib. 1071-1075.

1591. Questions. - Quaer. 1° By what law does affinity dirime?

Resp. 1° From the certain opinion of all, it dirimes by the law of the Church alone in the collateral line, and much more probably also in the straight line, if perhaps you except the first degree from licit copula.

But since affinity, by reason of the copula whence it proceeds licitly or illicitly, is a certain natural propinquity and as it were mediate consanguinity, therefore whether it dirimes by natural law or not, it is nevertheless as regards the baptized a diriment impediment, although contracted in infidelity. This is clear from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide under the date August 23, 1852. (C), p. 394.

Resp. 2° It is controverted as regards the first degree of the straight line. Nevertheless the Church, although she has been very many times earnestly asked, has never wished to dispense if affinity arises from legitimate Matrimony, as Benedict XIV also testifies. Moreover, because very grave Doctors deny that Matrimony with an affinity of this kind is void by natural law, therefore if two infidels, after contracting such a Matrimony, came to the Faith, it would not be safe to separate them without dispensation of the Pontiff, unless perhaps these marriages among infidels were void by positive law. But even in this case it is safer, as I think, to have recourse to the Holy See, on account of the not unfounded opinion of some by which power of establishing diriment impediments of Matrimony, even of infidels, is denied to the civil legislator. Cf. the things said n. 1574. q. 1°. - Not rarely has the Church dispensed in affinity of this kind arisen from illicit intercourse, e.g. if someone marries a wife after he has fornicated with her daughter or mother, provided nevertheless that copula with the mother did not precede the birth of the daughter; this condition is always accustomed to be posited in the dispensation. Nevertheless this condition is judged sufficiently fulfilled if copula with the mother preceded the birth of the daughter at such a time that the danger that she could be the daughter of the spouse is altogether absent, or, as the faculty usually conceded to our Bishops sounds (p. LXXV. 4): "no doubt underlies that the spouse is offspring generated by the other of the contracting parties."

Quaer. 2° Who are the various affinities?

Resp. They are the following, namely:

The printed page also gives the following German and French equivalents:

Quaer. 3° Does affinity from Matrimony consummated, but invalid, dirime Matrimony to the fourth degree, or only to the second?

Resp. 1° By reason of affinity it dirimes to the fourth degree if each party was of good faith, as is clear from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council in Brixien. Matr., December 3, 1667. - But whether only to the second degree, if either each party or one party was of bad faith, or in the case in which Matrimony was invalid because of clandestinity, is disputed. We think with the illustrious Feije that, when the case occurs, the matter is to be referred to the Apostolic See, or dispensation is to be made.

Resp. 2° But by reason of public honesty it dirimes up to the fourth degree, because Matrimony, even invalid, by force of public honesty dirimes to the fourth degree. - See the things soon to be said n. 1593. q. 3°.

Notes near n. 1592, impediment of public honesty (printed p. 259).

1 L. VI. 1069 sq. | 2 Apud Gury. Ed. Rom. 1873. T. II. p. 456 (*). | 3 De Syn. L. IX. c. XIII. n. 4. | 4 De Imp. n. 377. 378. | 5 L. VI. 1061. | 6 Sess. 24. c. 3. de Ref. Matr.

1592. - Public honesty is propinquity, or a certain quasi-affinity, which arises through the conjunction not of bodies but of minds, both from betrothals between one betrothed person and the blood relatives of the other, and from ratified Matrimony between one spouse and the blood relatives of the other party. By ecclesiastical law it dirimes.

Rule. - 1° Public honesty arising from valid betrothals celebrated with an individually determined person, by the new law of Trent, dirimes Matrimony only up to the first degree.

2° Public honesty arising from ratified Matrimony dirimes Matrimony to the fourth degree inclusively.

Notes near n. 1593, questions on public honesty (printed p. 260).

1 L. VI. 1061. | 2 Ib. 1063. | 3 S. Pen. apud De Angelis, V. 3. L. 4. T. 4. 7°. | 4 L. VI. 1062. C. un. de Spons. in 6°. | 5 L. VI. 1064. | 6 V. n. 1592. 2°. | 7 L. VI. 1064 and De Angelis, V. 3. L. 4. T. 4. 8°. | 8 Acta, T. XIII. p. 126.

1593. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does PUBLIC HONESTY arise from conditioned betrothals, or from betrothals dissolved by mutual consent, or for any just cause?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively, unless the condition has been fulfilled; because, the condition not having been fulfilled, true betrothals are not had.

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively. The reason is because the impediment is contracted immediately after valid betrothals have been entered, and an impediment once induced cannot be taken away by the will of the betrothed persons or by another supervening cause. Thus from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in St. Alphonsus.

Quaer. 2° Does PUBLIC HONESTY arise from NON-SOLEMN betrothals?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because the Church admits no distinction between private and solemn betrothals.

Quaer. 3° Does PUBLIC HONESTY arise from an INVALID Matrimony?

Resp. Affirmatively, because before Trent honesty arose from a Matrimony of this kind. But the Council changed nothing concerning this, although it restricted the ancient law as to betrothals concerning the future. Thus St. Pius V declared in the Constitution Ad Romanum, July 1, 1568.

Except: 1° if the invalidity arises from defect of consent. Thus from Canon Law. - Hence there is no impediment of public honesty if Matrimony was contracted either from error, or from fear, or with fictitious consent.

Except: 2° if the invalidity comes from a prior impediment of public honesty, arising from validly contracted betrothals; in this case an impediment is not induced to the prejudice of prior betrothals. Hence if Titius, after entering betrothals with Berta, and leaving her, marries her sister, he can, indeed must, return to the first; nor does he need dispensation unless he has consummated the Matrimony. But there is present an impediment as regards other blood relatives of the wife whom he invalidly married, up to the fourth degree.

Except: 3° according to several, a Matrimony null on account of the Tridentine form not being observed. Nevertheless the opinion more true to St. Alphonsus does not admit this exception, "because by ancient law, c. unic. de Spons. in 6., which even now has force, as St. Pius V declared" (C. ad Romanum), "only from Matrimony null directly on account of defect of consent, and not from another cause, is the impediment excused."

Quaer. 4° Does PUBLIC HONESTY arise from the act which is commonly called civil marriage?

Resp. Negatively, "in places where the decree of the Council of Trent, S. 24. c. 1. Ref. Matr., has been promulgated, whether the faithful performing the act intend ... to perform a merely civil ceremony, or intend to enter betrothals concerning the future, or finally from ignorance, or in contempt of ecclesiastical laws, intend to contract Matrimony concerning the present." Thus from the Decree of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, dated March 17, 1879.

Crime diriment of Matrimony is threefold, namely 1° adultery, 2° homicide of a spouse, 3° each together, provided the conditions which we append certainly concur.

Note. - Since this impediment is of ecclesiastical law, and does not suppose, as affinity does, any natural bond, two persons now baptized who perpetrated a crime of this kind while they were still infidels are not affected by it. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, August 23, 1852.

1594. - To incur an impediment from this head there is required:

1° That the adultery be true, formal, consummated. And first, indeed, true, i.e. that at least one of the fornicators be joined by a Matrimony not merely putative, but legitimate and valid, even if perhaps not consummated. Then formal, and indeed on each side, i.e. that each know, or, as is probable to St. Alphonsus, not affectedly be ignorant, that the other is married. Finally consummated, namely with perfect carnal copula intervening, i.e. such as was described n. 1589. II. I said: consummated and formal on each side, because odious things are to be restricted. - Thus commonly.

2° That there be present a promise of Matrimony, more probably true (not fictitious), and absolute (not conditioned), made by one adulterer and accepted by the other at least by some sign (for probably it does not suffice that the other be silent), as the common opinion has it; whether this promise precedes, accompanies, or follows the adultery. But if it precedes, it is required that it was not retracted before the adultery. More probably a reciprocal promise is not required. But whether a promise under condition, verified before the death of the spouse, suffices is disputed. The intrinsic reason of the affirmative opinion is not approved by St. Alphonsus; yet, since it is common, the holy Doctor remits himself to the wise.

3° That both the promise of Matrimony and the adultery be made while the prior spouse is living, or while the same Matrimony is continuing. - Thus from several places of Canon Law.

Under the same circumstances, the diriment impediment is induced also through adultery with the attempted Matrimony (e.g. through consent concerning the present and the will of celebrating marriage, whether made before or after the adultery; whether before the Pastor, or clandestinely). It suffices also if, knowledge concerning the marriage of the other having been had after the adulterous Matrimony, they use the Matrimony without retracting it. - But the promise of entering Matrimony before the death of the spouse does not suffice.

1595. - Three conditions are required that from this an impediment be present:

1° Mutual conspiracy; hence it does not suffice that a spouse kills his or her spouse, if the person with whom he or she is going to enter Matrimony is ignorant of this action, or contradicts it, or afterwards approves it and holds it ratified.

2° Intention of Matrimony. Thus commonly, although it is not expressed in law. The reason is because the end of the law is that no one kill his own spouse or the spouse of another in hope of Matrimony. - This second condition is verified through intention on the part of one, and it probably suffices that certain indications of this intention preceded, e.g. familiarities, love letters, etc.

3° Death really following from the physical or moral action (and therefore from counsel or mandate given to someone) of one or the other accomplice. This is clear from Canon Law. - Thus commonly.

1596. - When the crimes of adultery and spouse-killing are found conjoined, mutual conspiracy to the killing of the spouse is not required, nor a promise of Matrimony, but these three suffice:

1° Adultery, such as was set forth above (n. 1594. 1°). Hence it ought to precede the killing of the spouse; for if the death of the spouse precedes, adultery, which consists in copula with the spouse of another (certainly living), will no longer be able to have place. - It is not necessary, however, that it precede the machination of death.

2° Machination of death by one of the adulterers from the intention of Matrimony; it suffices, however, that this intention be had by one, which nevertheless more probably must be manifested to the other, for which indications suffice, as above n. 1595.

3° Death following from the machination of one of the adulterers, in the same way as was said above concerning homicide alone. Thus from the same Canon Law.

This impediment, which because of the double united crime is called each together, constitutes one impediment. On the contrary, if both adultery and homicide have their own proper conditions separately, as they have been set forth in n. 1594 and 1595 (respectively 1596), they introduce a double impediment.

Disparity of cult is understood in general as diversity of Religion between the contracting parties. But here that disparity is properly understood which intervenes between a baptized and an unbaptized person. Nevertheless here we shall also speak of disparity of cult between baptized persons contracting Matrimony, or of mixed Marriages.

1597. Principles. - I. Disparity of cult which exists between a baptized person (whether this person is Catholic or not) and an infidel, or unbaptized person, makes Matrimony invalid. Thus from unwritten law, i.e. from custom having the force of law.

II. But diversity of Religion between baptized persons does not constitute a diriment impediment. It is proved from the fact that by no law or custom are Marriages between Catholics and heretics declared void. - Thus the unanimous consensus of theologians.

III. Diversity of Religion between Catholics and heretics or schismatics constitutes an impedient impediment. This is drawn both from the practice of the Church, which always with the greatest solicitude turns the faithful away from these Marriages, and from the express Declaration of Benedict XIV, who calls these unions detestable, which holy Mother Church has perpetually condemned and interdicted. (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. 314.)

1598. Questions. - Quaer. 1° By what law are marriages between Catholics and heretics or schismatics forbidden?

Resp. By both divine and ecclesiastical law. By divine law, namely as often as in an individual case the danger of perversion of the Catholic party or of offspring is proximate and cannot be removed; but by ecclesiastical law, because the universal prohibition of the Church obstructs. Its motives are forbidden communication in sacred things and the danger mentioned above, and this not particular or existing here and now in an individual case, but common. Wherefore, although the prohibition of divine law ceases when the danger has been removed, nevertheless the prohibition of the Church does not cease without dispensation. Feije, n. 567.

Quaer. 2° To whom belongs the faculty of dispensing from such an impediment and from the impedient impediment of mixed communion?

Resp. To the Roman Pontiff alone, Bishops being altogether excluded, unless they have obtained this faculty from the Supreme Pontiff. In what manner it is accustomed to be conceded to our Bishops, see p. LXXIV. n. 3. 4. 5.

Quaer. 3° Under what conditions is the aforesaid dispensation conceded?

Resp. Besides a grave cause, all and single conditions recounted p. LXXIV. n. 3. 4. 5 must also be present. (39) p. 425.

Quaer. 4° Is Matrimony entered between Catholics and heretics valid if, dispensation having been obtained, the heretical party is unwilling to acquiesce in the condition imposed by the Church, namely that children OF EACH SEX be educated in the Catholic Religion?

Resp. Affirmatively. For there is question of a merely impedient impediment, and consequently this condition does not affect the validity of the Matrimony. But the Pastor ought in this case to abstain from every intervention, as the Sacred Congregation of Inquisition speaks, June 17, 1829.

Quaer. 5° In what manner in our Provinces must one assist at mixed Marriages if dispensation has intervened?

Resp. 1° See Excerpta ex Rit. Rom. p. 208. () and p. 242 sq. Ed. 1872, or Ed. 1874. p. 200. () and p. 234 sq., where among other things it is observed: "In entering nuptials of this kind the Church has generally ordered those things to be omitted by which the Marriages of Catholics are adorned." It is said: generally; for the rite prescribed in the Ritual for Marriages to be contracted can be permitted tolerantly by way only of exception, and always with celebration of Mass excluded, if graver damages and evils are to be feared, by the Ordinary, whose conscience is burdened in this matter. (g), p. 395.

Resp. 2° As regards the mode of exacting the prescribed promises, the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore admonish that pastors of souls "conduct themselves indeed strongly in the matter, yet suavely in the manner, lest ... they exasperate each spouse, and thence graver evils arise; and this is to be guarded against the more, since it is clear that rarely in these regions is dispensation for entering nuptials of this kind sought from the Bishop or priest until the matter has already proceeded so far that it can scarcely be hoped that the Matrimony can be broken off through the admonitions of the Church." - "Every effort must rather be placed in this, that the faithful be altogether deterred from these mixed marriages. Therefore we exhort pastors of souls that at least once in the year, especially in the time of Advent or Lent, by grave discourse they teach the flocks committed to them the evils which spring from them." Confessors also should opportunely admonish parents, young men, and girls for this end. (40) p. 426.

Resp. 3° "We do not wish," say the same Fathers, "that priests furnish their work to those whom they know are going to approach a little minister for the sake of repeating the matrimonial covenant, or who, after a covenant has been so entered, without signs of penitence, seek the priestly blessing."

Quaer. 6° What must be done if a purpose of entering a mixed Matrimony is detected in a Catholic man or Catholic woman?

Resp. In every better way, yet with Christian charity and suavity, in all patience and doctrine, not only Ordinaries but also pastors and confessors ought to turn their own away from these. But if the person persists in the purpose, and either a) it is clear that not only common danger, but proximate danger which cannot be removed, exists in the individual case, or b) no reasonable cause for seeking dispensation can be alleged (in doubt the Ordinary is to be approached), or c) Matrimony is intended to be contracted without dispensation or the necessary cautions, or d) the penitent, about to seek dispensation and satisfy the cautions, is unwilling to abstain from frequent conversation of such a kind which either is culpable from another source or is going to render empty the hope of the purpose of dismissing the matter in the case that dispensation is denied: indeed the benefit of absolution is to be denied to the penitent, yet care and solicitude concerning his miserable state is not to be cast away, but rather increased. Thus Feije.

Quaer. 7° What must be done if, after a mixed Matrimony has been contracted, the condition of educating offspring Catholic is neglected?

Resp. The Catholic party cannot be absolved unless that party does or seriously promises to do whatever, morally speaking, he or she will be able to do, that the offspring be duly baptized and instructed Catholic. Indeed, in a public case this person is to be numbered among public sinners. From this principle, which does not need proof, you will resolve:

1. If the father is Catholic and the offspring has not yet so grown up that, although not withdrawn from power, it ought nevertheless to be called withdrawn from paternal influence, he cannot be absolved unless first he sees to it, or, if now he cannot, seriously promises to see to it, that the offspring a) if not yet baptized or certainly validly baptized, be baptized; b) assist at divine offices in a Catholic church, frequent a Catholic school if this can be done, etc.

Resolve the same concerning a Catholic tutor.

2. If the mother is Catholic, while the non-Catholic father is still living, she is to be judged to perform her office and can be absolved if she applies, or seriously promises to apply, maternal influence upon the offspring and conjugal influence upon the husband, that the offspring, as above, be duly baptized and educated Catholic. For she cannot use power, which by civil law resides entirely with the father.

3. The non-Catholic father having died, the surviving Catholic mother, unless she lacks the office of tutor, is held to the same thing to which a Catholic father is held.

Quaer. 8° Are Calvinists and Lutherans, and universally heretics living in places where Baptism is doubtful and suspect, to be held as infidels, so that the diriment impediment of disparity of cult is judged to be present between Catholics and them?

Resp. See Excerpta ex Rit. Ed. 1874. p. 234 (+), where the rules to be observed in this case are found. (41) p. 426.

Note. - If in these regions there is question of a Catholic about to enter Matrimony with a non-Catholic party, one must carefully attend not only to the aforesaid rules, but besides inquire concerning the very fact of Baptism conferred or not conferred. Cf. n. 1264. III.

These things are to be established:

1599. - I. Grave fear certainly dirimes Matrimony by ecclesiastical law, and perhaps more probably also by natural law; and this even if the one suffering fear truly consented, or an oath intervened, or fear was inflicted by a third person.

But that fear be grave:

1) It is required that the evil a) cannot otherwise be avoided; b) be feared prudently (not vainly and lightly), and as to be inflicted proximately; c) be grave, such as death or grave torment, exile, long or atrocious prison, loss of status, violation of an honest virgin or widow, removal of reputation, loss of goods of great moment, loss of great profit to which someone has a right or from which at least he is unjustly impeded.

2) It suffices that the evil a) be grave with respect to the one suffering fear; b) be grave by the common opinion of men; c) be absolute, or grave in itself, i.e. it is not required that it be comparatively grave, or graver than that which is chosen; d) be feared either for yourself or for your blood relatives or affinities up to the fourth degree.

Note. - Whichever law you say dirimes Matrimony by fear, whether natural or only ecclesiastical, this impediment does not admit dispensation, but it is necessary that the cause of fear be removed. Therefore, while the cause of fear perseveres, Matrimony invalidly contracted is not convalidated either by copula or by cohabitation (for these are otherwise presumed to have been extorted by fear); for during fear, just as Matrimony cannot validly be contracted, so neither can it be convalidated when invalidly contracted. It must be said otherwise if copula is admitted altogether freely and with marital affection, as the Doctors commonly have after St. Thomas, or also if cohabitation is spontaneous, which is accepted as ratification of consent.

II. But that fear, even grave fear, dirime Matrimony, the following conditions are further required, namely that fear be inflicted 1° by an external and free cause; 2° unjustly; for an injury is not inflicted when the one causing fear uses his right. But he uses his right when these two things concur: a) if the person, whether public or private, has the right of exacting this Matrimony, and b) if that person has the right of threatening and executing what he threatens; 3° for the end of contracting Matrimony, as is commonly held against a few.

III. Light fear, even unjust, does not dirime Matrimony. The reason is 1° because light fear is not judged gravely and efficaciously to influence consent; 2° because by positive law grave fear alone makes Matrimony void; 3° because otherwise innumerable Marriages would become void, with the greatest detriment to society.

IV. Reverential fear, according to the common opinion, of itself, i.e. unless to it are joined either blows, or threats, or fear of some grave evil, for instance hatred, lasting indignation, etc., does not dirime Matrimony. The reason is because not only is it not of itself grave fear, but it is not even fear, but rather reverence.

Case. Titius several times had relations with Berta. She, after offspring had been begotten, denounces Titius to the Magistrate, because he refuses to enter Matrimony with her and to provide for the offspring. Titius, since he could neither provide for the offspring nor wished to marry Berta, is delivered to prison. Tired of prison, Titius marries Berta.

Quaer. 1° Is the Matrimony valid?

2° What if Berta at the same time had fornicated with others?

3° What if under promise of Matrimony Berta gave Titius the use of her body?

Resp. to the 1st. It is valid generally speaking, at least for the external forum; because, generally speaking, fear in this case is justly inflicted.

To the 2nd. It is not valid, because it is not certain that fear was justly inflicted; for the offspring does not certainly belong to him, and not he, but Berta, by admitting several fornicators, was the cause of doubt concerning the father of the offspring.

To the 3rd. This circumstance does not change the case as regards fear justly or unjustly inflicted, unless in favor of Titius in the supposition of the second question. For he is not held to stand by the promise, even a sponsalitial one, in the case in which Berta has fornicated with another (n. 1531. 4).

In practice, in this and similar cases, one must carefully attend: a) whether the one suffering fear perhaps gave only fictitious consent when he contracted nuptials; b) whether cohabitation followed the nuptials so entered or not; c) whether there is not given a reason excusing from contracting Matrimony according to the things said n. 810. If this is present, the things said concerning him who asserts that he consented fictitiously, n. 1548. q. 7°, will be able to be applied; or if he really consented and cohabitation did not follow the nuptials, dispensation in a ratified, non-consummated Matrimony will be able to be sought; d) whether presumed Matrimony is not present.

1600. - By bond is understood the bond of Matrimony by which spouses are so bound together that, while each is living, neither can validly enter Matrimony with anyone else.

The impediment of bond is founded on two attributes of Matrimony, which are indissolubility and unity. Hence it is deduced that the impediment of bond is of divine law.

Cases pertaining here can occur in various ways, especially among us. Hence let the following questions be:

1601. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What must the Pastor do when, for contracting Matrimony, there presents himself to him a wanderer or foreigner asserting that he is not held by the impediment of bond?

Resp. Let him observe those things which we said are to be observed n. 1536, 1537, and, as the case may be, let him advert to those things which are observed in Note I added to n. 1537 for this region.

Quaer. 2° What likewise if someone presents himself for second or further nuptials?

Resp. Distinguish. Either the other party is certainly still living, or is morally certainly dead, or there is doubt concerning that person's death.

If the first, inquiry must be made whether the Matrimony with the other party still living was perhaps entered invalidly, whether because of the impediment of clandestinity having force in the place or case in which it was entered, or because of the impediment of disparity of cult, or because of the impediment of fear, or because of defect of consent given under fear otherwise not voiding (n. 1599. Case), or because of a condition contrary to the substance of Matrimony (n. 1548. q. 6°). If, on account of one of these, it is certainly detected invalid, it will be licit for the Pastor to assist at the second nuptials; but in doubt let him recur to the Ordinary.

If the second, there is no difficulty.

If the third, either the doubt perseveres after diligent inquiry, or not. If not, let him act as was said in the first or second member of the distinction; if the doubt perseveres, he ought to consult the Ordinary and await his response.

Quaer. 3° Whence in doubt is the Pastor to procure for himself moral certitude concerning the death of the other party?

Resp. 1° It is CERTAINLY not procured a) from the mere absence, even long, of the other party; b) precisely from one witness, although by sight; c) precisely from several witnesses by hearing; d) from mere report.

Resp. 2° It is certainly procured either a) from the testimony of a legitimate magistrate, ecclesiastical or civil, or of another person having public authority, or of the Pastor testifying concerning burial; or b) from the statement of two witnesses worthy of faith (among whom blood relatives also are admitted, and indeed ordinarily before others, but not the other party), asserting that they saw the death or burial.

Resp. 3° Those things which, taken singly (see Resp. 1°), would certainly not suffice for producing moral certitude of the death of the other party, when all are joined together, or, in certain cases, only some of them, do produce it. - Thus one witness, even by sight and worthy of faith, does not suffice of itself; nevertheless his sworn testimony will be able to suffice for the Bishop if there concur with it other likely indications, such as, e.g., that the other party, who disappeared long ago, at the time of departure was already old or sick; that he undertook a dangerous voyage; that he tarried in places where a raging plague was taking many out of the midst. - Thus likewise mere report of itself does not suffice, but it will suffice if with it there concur conjectures which constitute a vehement presumption. Note nevertheless that report itself also, whenever it is invoked, although corroborated by other conjectures, must be proved. But for this 1) it is required that two witnesses greater than every exception depose that they have heard from persons worthy of faith that a report of this kind exists; 2) that there concur a reasonable cause from which the report has its origin, e.g. that the husband sailed the sea and, a storm having arisen, after he was expected for a suitable time and sought through likely places, he did not appear, nor was there any report concerning the ship by which he was carried, or that wreckage was found. For no account is taken of report unless it is proved to draw its origin from a reasonable cause.

See the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, where there is special treatment concerning doubt of the death of the other party if he has given his name to military service; and this case of doubt can more easily occur among us after the civil war.

Note. - 1° Not even the Ordinary, if doubt remains after diligent inquiry, can permit the celebration of Matrimony.

2° The doctrine of a few persons is to be rejected who think that Matrimony contracted without sufficient certitude concerning the death of the other party, who in reality is dead, is void. Nevertheless true mutual consent must have been present (cf. n. 1574. q. 7°), and the celebration of a Matrimony of this kind would besides be gravely illicit.

3° Whether spouses may use Matrimony if after nuptials have been entered doubt concerning the death of a prior spouse arises, resolve from the things said n. 1574. q. 6°. - Whether and when, doubt remaining, Matrimony can be entered under condition, see n. 1548. q. 5°. - Concerning whether or not a spouse is to be left in good faith after nuptials have been entered, see n. 1638.

1602. - The impediment of age consists in the defect of age sufficient for fulfilling the offices of Matrimony. It dirimes the Matrimony of the impubes (n. 911) by ecclesiastical law.

Except: if malice (by the judgment of the Holy See or of the Ordinary, so that the Matrimony be licit) does not supply age; which is understood of the impubes who are already capable of generation, and otherwise can sufficiently understand the burden of the conjugal bond.

Since this impediment is of ecclesiastical law, the Matrimony of impubes among infidels is valid (yet here also returns what was said n. 1574. q. 1°), and the Pope can dispense in it. When it has the force of betrothals, see L. VI. 841 and Feije, n. 534.

1603. - A clandestine Matrimony is called that which is contracted without the solemnity required by the Church, namely without the assistance of the Pastor and simultaneously of at least two witnesses. This impediment is of ecclesiastical law alone, since it was constituted by Trent.

For the validity of Matrimony any witnesses whatsoever suffice, whether they are males or females; whether of greater age, or minors, provided they have the use of reason and are able to testify concerning the Matrimony contracted. Hence St. Alphonsus teaches that even infidels can exercise the office of witnesses; nor is it necessary that they be called for this, but even if by chance they pass by or are present there, provided they advert to that which is done; indeed they suffice, although they were called by deceit and for another end; yes, even although unwilling and detained by force they are present.

We must treat 1° of the force of the Decree of the Council of Trent; 2° of the assistance of the Pastor.

1604. - The Council thus establishes: "Those who shall attempt to contract Matrimony otherwise than in the presence of the Pastor, or of another priest with the license of the Pastor himself or of the Ordinary, and of two or three witnesses, the holy Synod renders altogether incapable of contracting in this way, and decrees contracts of this kind to be void and null. ... It decrees besides that a Decree of this kind begin to have its force in each parish after thirty days, to be numbered from the day of the first publication made in the same parish."

1605. Practical Rules for North America. - I. The Tridentine Decree concerning the clandestinity of Marriages:

a) Is presumed to have been promulgated, or certainly, as if it had been promulgated, has force, where at some time it was observed as a condition sine qua non of the validity of Matrimony. The reason is that it would not be observed in this way unless it had been promulgated either formally, or virtually, namely by force of a custom introducing the law.

b) Its obligation is not hindered by the fact that in the place where it was promulgated there is no true Pastor; for it suffices, namely, that the priest who resides near some church exercise care of souls after the manner of a Pastor. This is clear from the Response of the Holy See, May 17, 1804, concerning the priests of Holland, apud P. Heilig.

c) A new promulgation is not at all needed in a parish created by way of dismemberment from another in which the Decree was in force. The reason is that promulgation inheres in the territory. For the same reason, a place remains free in which the Decree was not obliging, if it is joined to a parish where it is in force; while, conversely, a place remains bound in which it was obliging, when joined to a parish where it is not in force.

1606. - II. On the contrary, the Decree does not have force:

a) Where either its formal or its virtual promulgation is doubtful. The reason is that a doubtful law does not oblige.

b) If, the parish in which it had been promulgated having been extinguished, a new one was created which cannot be called a continuation of the former one and in which it was not promulgated anew. The reason is that, when the parish has been destroyed, the moral person to whom the promulgation had been made has also been destroyed, and therefore the promulgation also. (gamma), p. 395.

c) Where it was promulgated by a Pastor without the mandate of the Ordinary, for promulgation is an act of supreme jurisdiction of the external forum, which the Pastor lacks. (42) p. 427.

d) Where the memory of the promulgation has been utterly obliterated. But if there exists the memory of a custom of celebrating Marriages in execution of the Council of Trent before the Pastor, etc., promulgation is presumed. For in the former case it is judged to have been abolished by custom, but in the latter to have been introduced by the same.

e) Where it has been abrogated by a Pontifical declaration or dispensation. The reason is clear of itself. See n. 1608-1611.

f) Where there is present a moral impossibility, and one general in a certain place, of observing the Decree, namely when the Pastor or another competent person cannot be approached for a month, or can be approached only with the greatest difficulty and with grave danger, and this difficulty or impossibility is general in some place. Nevertheless the presence of two witnesses is then necessary for validity. Besides, it is expedient that, if another priest can then or afterwards be had, the nuptial blessing be asked from him. (delta), p. 395.

1607. - And these things indeed are certain; but it can be asked whether the Decree, without a special Pontifical Indult, can be, or could have been, validly published outside parishes properly so called, for instance in so-called quasi-parishes? - I respond that the negative opinion seems to me and to certain others, whose judgments concerning this matter have been communicated with me, to be at least certainly probable. The reason is that, for promulgation to be valid, none of those things must be lacking which are required for its substantial form; but for this it is expressly required by Trent that it be made in ... the parish (see the text of the Council, n. 1604); and parish here is to be understood as strictly so called, or in that obvious and single sense in which it was understood at the time of Trent, and in which it is employed in that very decree of the Council in which parishes are ordered to be erected; and this all the more because here there is question of a matter of strict interpretation, namely of a decree which - derogates from the law previously in force, - restricts the liberty of Matrimony, - and makes void an act which from the very beginning of the Church was valid everywhere on earth. - And this reason indeed renders the promulgation of the Decree outside parishes properly so called at least doubtfully valid; but a law doubtfully promulgated does not oblige. Therefore.

Addendum and Corrigendum. - I hold as probable the opinion that the Decree Tametsi, without a special Pontifical indult, can validly be promulgated only in parishes strictly so called. Yet I add that it would be very desirable for the Holy See to be consulted on the matter. Here is the response given to Bishop N. N. "Bishop N. N., in the Canadian region, set forth to the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition that now doubts 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 N. N., commonly called Cantons or Townships, had not yet been canonically divided into parishes. In these places there were: 1° Missions properly so called, namely without a resident priest, but visited through the year, at times both fixed and unequal, by a missionary delegated for this purpose; 2° quasi-parishes, by which must be understood a territory which, as to external appearance, more or less approached the likeness of a parish, inasmuch as it had a church near which a priest ordinarily, or at least principally, resided, and boundaries designated by the Bishop. - Nevertheless, in these missions and quasi-parishes, just 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. For to this end the Bishops of the Province of Quebec had commanded: 'Since the Tridentine Council, by the solemn decree (Tametsi, Sess. 24 de Ref. matrim.), declared null and invalid marriages entered otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest and witnesses, whose number it determines, we judge it a matter of greatest moment that parish priests and missionaries announce so salutary a decree to the people. We will, therefore, that they read it on the first Sunday after Epiphany, on the occasion of the sermon. In parishes especially, and in newly erected missions, this decree will be published opportunely, as the very tenor of the same decree and the response of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, given to the Bishop of Quebec on 16 Nov. 1824, prescribe.' But since there is doubt whether the Tridentine Decree can validly be published outside parishes properly so called, it is humbly asked of the Sacred Congregation to declare: Whether the promulgation of the Decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent in the missions and quasi-parishes above mentioned was valid?

"The response was given on Wednesday, 14 Nov. 1883. '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, a marriage entered before two witnesses is valid, with the obligation, however, upon the contracting parties of receiving the nuptial blessing as soon as they conveniently can, and of taking care that the marriage be entered in the sacramental registers of the mission or nearer church on which they depend.

"This resolution was confirmed by Our Most Holy Lord on the same feria and day.'

"If I have been rightly, although not authentically, instructed, the reason for the response of the Sacred Congregation is this. The Decree Tametsi must indeed be interpreted strictly, but according to the mind of the Tridentine Fathers. But their mind in composing that Decree was not that parishes should be distinguished from missions among Catholics, but that the Catholic assemblies of the same city or region should be distinguished from the assemblies of heretics, because they did not wish heretics to be comprehended in this Decree where they had distinct assemblies and congregations; and this is the simple and true signification of the word Parish in this Decree according to the mind of the Tridentine Fathers."

The opinion is confirmed: a) From the authority of Lugo, who, speaking of the obligation of the Decree, expressly has: "when there is no parish in which publication is made, the obligation never began."

b) From the authority of the celebrated Feije, who has these words: "In ... the case in which the notion of parochiality does not exist, the Matrimony contracted without priest and witnesses must be called valid. ... We judge this to be so true that in a place of this kind not even the publication itself" (of the Decree) "is ever to be made." But for the notion of parochiality to exist, the celebrated Author requires "that the faithful be held by law itself to receive Easter Communion and other parochial rights either from a determinate missionary, or from at least one out of diverse missionaries set over diverse churches within a certain place" (I would add: or for certain families).

c) From the authority of the celebrated Perrone, who in a letter (July 1873), which a theologian friend testifies to me was read by him, embraces the same opinion.

d) From the authority of St. Alphonsus. See the things said n. 1606. b).

e) From the Response of the Sacred Congregation of Inquisition. - Namely, the Archbishop of Quebec had proposed the following doubt: "5° Is the Matrimony of two Catholics contracted between themselves alone, without any witness, valid?" The Sacred Congregation of Inquisition, November 17, 1835, responded: "It is valid for those inhabitants of the diocese of Quebec who use missionaries. For the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, in the year 1820, decreed: 'for the inhabitants of the diocese of Quebec who use missionaries only, and as long as they do so, there is no place for the decree Tametsi of the Council of Trent, without any respect being had to greater or lesser distance'; from which words" (the Sacred Congregation of Inquisition continues) "it is clear that the aforesaid inhabitants can enter Marriages neither the Pastor standing by, nor any witnesses. ... But the contrary must be affirmed concerning those inhabitants who dwell in places where parishes have been constituted; for they can in no way be held immune from the law of the Tridentine Decree."

That the force of the argument sought from this Response may be clear, I posit a threefold sense which can be attributed to the word parish in the Tridentine decree. The first is that strict sense which I attribute to it. The second is that broad one which we attribute to our quasi-parishes, by which we understand a territory which, as regards external appearance, more or less approaches the likeness of a parish, having a church near which the priest ordinarily, or at least principally, resides, and limits designated by the Bishop. The third is that very broad one which excludes no place where there is some congregation of the faithful, and which is proper to simple Missions. - I said: I posit a threefold sense; for I do not admit that it is truly canonical; for there is no strictly canonical difference, but only a customary one, between a quasi-parish and a simple Mission, or in vain would rules be sought in the common law for distinguishing them. - Nor do the Sacred Congregations of the Holy Inquisition and of Propaganda Fide, in the cited Responses, admit that threefold sense; for they do not suppose that some middle thing exists between parishes properly so called and Missions.

Objection I. Where the reason is the same, the disposition of the law runs the same; but the reason for publishing the Decree outside parishes properly so called is the same as within them. Therefore. - The minor is proved from this, that from the publication of the Decree outside parishes properly so called no greater inconveniences are to be feared, nor is lesser utility to be hoped for, than from publication within them.

Resp. 1° I distinguish the major according to the things said n. 145. For by common law a parish and a quasi-parish cannot be called either correlatives, or equated, or connected, or contained, so that those things which are established concerning the former fully by right pertain to the latter. Thus, e.g., ordinary jurisdiction in the internal forum and the obligation of applying Mass for the people do not pertain to quasi-parishes.

Resp. 2° I deny the minor. For an identity of reason with regard to Missions most certainly does not exist; for when recourse to a priest would be impossible, Marriages would nevertheless be certainly valid. But very often, while the Missionary, at certain or uncertain times, passes successively through the parts of his Mission, it will be truly doubtful whether his absence is sufficiently prolonged or the distance sufficiently long that the betrothed be constituted in the impossibility of recurring to him, and accordingly whether the Matrimony entered without him in such circumstances is valid; while on the contrary in parishes properly so called the pastor habitually resides in the center of a small territory. Therefore there is a great disparity. - But as regards quasi-parishes, a twofold supposition can be made; for they either comprehend, or they do not comprehend, a Catholic population so stable and condensed, and such a number of priests, etc., that the normal exercise of the pastoral ministry can have place in them. In the former case let a parish properly so called be erected, not, if it shall so seem to the Holy See, with an irremovable pastor instituted, and the Decree will be able to be promulgated in a manner certainly valid. In the latter case recourse to a priest will indeed be easier than in a Mission; yet other inconveniences of a different kind will arise. 1) Frequently the Bishop commits to a quasi-pastor a few Missions properly so called or stations, concerning which it will be possible to doubt whether they follow the whole or principal thing by way of accessory or part, or whether they are judged to subsist by themselves, and accordingly whether the publication of the Decree made in the quasi-parish is extended to them. 2° Not rarely it will be doubtful whether such or such a congregation of the faithful is sufficiently similar to a parish properly so called that it deserves to be numbered among quasi-parishes; accordingly the publication of the Decree made there will become doubtfully valid, and likewise all clandestine Marriages to be contracted in that place. - Therefore grave inconveniences follow almost necessarily and of themselves from the publication of the Decree outside parishes properly so called. Therefore parity of reason is rightly denied, and with stronger reason it can be denied that it is certainly proved, as it must be proved by him who wishes to extend a law, and that an irritating law, from case to case; for the liberty of Matrimony is in possession until the contrary is proved.

Objection II. There exist several dioceses in which no parish properly so called ever existed, and to which nevertheless, at the request of Bishops, or Bishops consulting for the solution of a doubt, the declaration of Benedict XIV was extended, or in which the Holy See declared that the impediment of clandestinity was established. Therefore the Holy See supposes that the Decree can have force outside parishes properly so called.

Resp. In order that this objection might have force, it would be necessary that in consultations or petitions of this kind it had been expressly declared that no true parish existed in those dioceses, and that, notwithstanding such knowledge, the Sacred Congregations had issued their rescripts. - But, at least generally, such a declaration is kept silent; indeed the words Pastor, Parish, are used by Bishops who request the extension of the Benedictine declaration, or affirm the fact of promulgation or of long observance of the Tridentine Decree; whence the Sacred Congregations, supposing the publication or observance to have been clothed with the conditions required by law, respond only according to the incomplete allegations. - Thus, for several years, many Bishops obtained the faculty of partially dispensing Pastors from the obligation of applying Mass for the people, because the Holy See was unaware that no parish existed in their dioceses, and therefore no priest bound by such obligation.

Objection III. The following doubt had been proposed by the Archbishop of Quebec: "Is the impediment of clandestinity to be extended to those places of the Canadian region in which a number of inhabitants has begun to exist, and which, when the abundance of inhabitants has been increased, after a few years will be united to Missions or Parishes in which the impediment of clandestinity is in force? - The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide" (October 16, 1824), "judged that the matter should be determined by a general response in these words: Affirmatively: if there is question of Missions or Parishes already preexisting, publication of the Tridentine Decree is not indeed necessary, but can be expedient; - but if there is question of Missions or Parishes to be erected from the beginning, and those in places where the observance of the Decree is not in force, it is altogether to be published, the erection having been made, that the impediment of clandestinity may be in force." - And, on the same day, the same Sacred Congregation rescribed to the same Prelate: "As regards the shores of Lake Champlain, Marriages are not made void on account of the impediment of clandestinity, but are valid, until, Parishes or Missions having been constituted, the Decree Tametsi is published." - Therefore the Decree can be validly published in Missions after erection has been made, in Missions constituted, namely at least in quasi-parishes, in the same way as in Parishes.

Resp. 1° Until the apparent or true contradiction is solved which exists between this twofold response given at the same time and the two decrees cited above, of which one reports and confirms the other, it will be permissible to conclude at most that contradictory decisions cancel one another, and that their authority is doubtful; but nothing follows thence against our thesis, which we establish only as truly and solidly probable.

Resp. 2° From the allegations made by the Archbishop, a trustworthy transcript of which I myself have read, it seems to be established that the Missions in the Response cited above signify Parishes having canonical existence, but not recognized by the temporal authority except as Missions, and commonly designated under this title. - For, lest he give offense to the British Government, which tried to arrogate to itself everything which pertained to the complete erection of Parishes, in the same way in which it does this in the pseudo-Church of England, the Archbishop was erecting Missions which gradually, with his favor, were acquiring the name of Parishes, so that, excepting forty Parishes erected formerly in the time of French domination, the rest had only canonical existence and were civilly designated by the name of Missions. Therefore.

After attentively reading the Instructions of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide of the year 1821, which I report p. LXV, and of the year 1822, which can be seen either in the periodical Past.-Blatt fur Nordamerika, or in the work Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, by S. Smith, I have found nothing which destroys the probability of our opinion; for in each Instruction it is either said or supposed that the question is being treated (at least according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation) concerning places where parishes properly so called are present.

But whether the authority of Kenrick alone stands in the way of the intrinsic probability of our opinion, wiser men than I may see. It is certain that the most learned man erred when, assimilating quasi-parishes to parishes properly so called, he taught that the pastor of a quasi-parish is held, no otherwise than if he were set over a parish properly so called, to apply Mass for the people.

Moreover, what I have said, I have said only for this reason, that concerning this most grave question the Holy See may be consulted, not that anyone by his own motion should draw any practical conclusion from these things; for, as Perrone shrewdly observes in the letter of which I made mention above, "several things there" (i.e. in the regions of Missions) "must be judged from practice and from the custom received there. Nevertheless it would be best that questions of this kind be proposed by the Bishop at Rome, that an authentic response might be had concerning the manner of conducting oneself in regions of this kind which are entangled."

1608. - III. In which places of the United States and British America the Decree is observed.

A) As regards the United States: 1° In the ecclesiastical Province of New Orleans⁵ (or lower Louisiana) and of San Francisco,⁶ everywhere it is judged to have force.

2° In the Province of Oregon¹ it is observed nowhere, and the promulgation made by many Missionaries, at the insistence of the Bishops of this Province, insofar as there was need, was annulled by the Holy See in the year 1850.

3° Nor is it observed in the Province of Baltimore (Florida not excepted)² or of Philadelphia.

4° Nor in the Province of New York³ or of Boston.

5° Nor (as it seems) in the Province of Cincinnati, not even the city of Detroit⁴ being excepted; nevertheless the diocese of Vincennes⁵ is excepted.

6° Nor in the Province of St. Louis, Milwaukee, Santa Fe, Chicago,⁶ a few places being excepted.

B) As regards British America: 1° It is observed in the Province of Quebec, in the dioceses of Quebec,⁷ Montreal,⁷ Three Rivers,⁷ St. Hyacinth,⁸ St. Germain of Rimouski,⁷ and Sherbrooke;⁷ but not in the diocese of Ottawa.⁹

2° In the Province of Halifax,¹⁰ namely in the dioceses of Halifax, Arichat, Charlottetown, St. John New Brunswick,¹ Chatham,¹ it is observed nowhere. - As regards the island of Newfoundland, neither promulgation nor observance is established.

3° In the Province of Toronto, or Upper Canada, or Province of Ontario, namely in the diocese of Toronto,² Kingston, Hamilton, London, and in the Apostolic Vicariate of Sault Ste Marie, it is observed nowhere.

4° In the Province of St. Boniface (at the Red River, or in the Province of Manitoba) it seems to be observed.

Note. - Parishes exist:

1) In the United States, according to the declaration of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore,³ resting upon the declaration of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore, one only, namely in the city of New Orleans. Are there also others? The celebrated De Angelis affirms it. Let wiser men see. Concerning the Province of San Francisco, see Vol. I. (zeta) p. 471.

2) In British America:

a) In the greater part of the dioceses of Quebec, Montreal, Three Rivers, St. Germain of Rimouski, and Sherbrooke.

b) In the whole diocese of St. Hyacinth from the year 1872.

c) None exists in the diocese of Ottawa.

d) None exists, nor has any ever existed, in the ecclesiastical Province of Toronto.

e) In the ecclesiastical Province of Halifax there were erected by the Bishop of Quebec the Parishes: Port-Royal, 1684 (now in the diocese of Halifax); les Mines, 1698 (now in the same diocese); Louisbourg, 1726 (in the diocese of Arichat). But one hundred and ten years ago those French Parishes were utterly overthrown and were never restored, so that the universal persuasion prevails that no Parish exists in that whole Province, excepting the dioceses of Havre de Grace and St. John on the island of Newfoundland.

f) In the Province of St. Boniface there are three parishes. Concerning the canonical erection of two of them, however (St. Boniface and St. Francis Xavier), there is doubt.

1609. - IV. Heretics in North America are not bound by the Decree, and consequently neither are Catholics contracting with them.¹

1610. - V. Although they contract validly, nevertheless those sin gravely who in places where the Tridentine Decree is not judged to have been published, the work of the priest being neglected, contract either between themselves alone, or before the civil magistrate, or before a little heretical minister; but in the case in which they have contracted before a little minister, the sacred rites afterwards, as was said n. 1598. q. 5°. Resp. 3°, cannot be supplied, unless they have given signs of true penitence. Yet never, whether they have contracted between themselves alone, or before a civil magistrate, or before a little minister, will it be lawful to receive, much less to exact, consent anew, since this would favor the error as if the contract had been invalid.

"Witnesses also are to be employed; but their omission, if there is need to conceal the nuptials, seems no fault."²

"Those also are excused" who "contract before the magistrate, that it may be publicly established" concerning the Matrimony, "whenever there is no supply of a priest, nor will there soon be."

1611. - VI. Because of the multitude of those who immigrate into these regions from all parts of the world, I have judged it useful here to append a list of the principal places in which, according to the celebrated Feije,³ the Tridentine Decree must be held to have been promulgated or not promulgated.

A) All clandestine Marriages, i.e. whether of Catholics, or of heretics, or mixed, are invalid in Spain (at Gibraltar, however, Marriages of heretics and mixed Marriages are valid), Portugal, Italy and adjacent Islands, Germany (excepting those to be excepted below), present-day Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the ecclesiastical Province of Goa, the Republic of Mexico, and the regions of Central and South America, excepting those to be indicated under C) 12°. Finally, in all even present-day colonies of the Portuguese or Spaniards.

The same must be said of France, as it existed before the war of 1870. At Strasbourg, however, clandestine Marriages of heretics and mixed Marriages are valid.

B) In various regions of northern Europe, which in the year 1564, in which the Council of Trent was confirmed, had already fallen away from the faith, the Decree concerning clandestinity does not oblige. Thus the matter stands in England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden (not to be confused with Swabia, as some confuse it), and in the greater part of northern Germany. The same is commonly handed down concerning the primitive provinces of Prussia and concerning Saxony.

In some Swiss cantons, as Zurich, it does not oblige. - The same holds, as regards Bavaria, in the non-Catholic places of Onoldina and Pappenheim, and in the district of the once imperial cities of Nuremberg and Weissenburg. - In Russia perhaps one or another diocese is not obligated. - In some more remote parts of Turkey it does not seem to be in force. - In some parishes of Persia and of other regions in that part of the East, even Catholic ones, no publication or observance of the Decree has had place. - The same must be said of Greece. - In China, Tonkin, and Cochinchina it is not in force, with only a few places excepted. In Japan, now, nowhere. It is in force in Julia Caesarea, or in Algeria, but not in Abyssinia, and almost all other regions of Africa.

C) From the declaration of Benedict XIV for Holland¹ and its extension, or from other Pontifical acts, clandestine Marriages are valid, whether of heretics between themselves or mixed, but not (excepting those enumerated under B) of Catholics between themselves: 1° In all the Netherlands,³ excepting Limburg, where nevertheless they are valid as regards the inhabitants of the city of Maastricht and the suburb of St. Peter, and likewise excepting certain places of the dioceses of Utrecht and Bois-le-Duc.⁴

2° At Strasbourg in Alsace.

3° In all Ireland. - Note. From the Directory of the year 1851, approved by all the Bishops of Ireland, Catholics contracting among themselves are bound by the Decree, and indeed from January 1, 1828, everywhere. Thus Feije.¹

4° In Silesia subject to Prussia and in the Duchy of Cleves, and, from March 25, 1830 inclusive, in the dioceses of Cologne, Trier, Paderborn, and Munster, with a faculty given to the Bishops for revalidating Marriages contracted before this day.

5° In the Kingdom of Wurttemberg the Benedictine declaration was certainly extended to the city of Ulm. Concerning other places also of the ecclesiastical Province of the Upper Rhine, there can be doubt. See Feije.²

6° In Russia and in the whole part of Poland subject to Russia.

7° In Hungary and Transylvania, within the limits which they had in the year 1841.

8° In Turkey, Moldavia, and Wallachia; in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, Turkish Bosnia.

9° In Persia and other regions in that part of the East.

10° In Greece.

11° In the Vicariate of Pondicherry and on the whole Malabar coast, in the Apostolic Vicariates of Bombay and Calcutta, and in the Indian possessions (with only some places excepted as regards Catholics) of the English and French. Likewise in Algeria.

12° In the islands and other places of Central or South America formerly existing under the dominion of Catholics, but now subject to the dominion of the English, Dutch, and Danes.

1612. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Is the Matrimony valid of those - a) who from a place where the Tridentine law obliges pass into a place where it does not oblige, and there contract clandestinely; b) who, from a place in which it does not oblige, passing on, contract secretly in a place in which likewise it does not oblige; c) who, from a place in which it does not oblige, passing on, contract secretly in another in which it does oblige?

For the solution of the question the following things must be noted beforehand:

1) A party exempt from the Decree communicates his privilege to the other party.¹

2) Place governs the act,² except in cases excepted by law.

3) The exception of fraud, in the case in which a domicile or quasi-domicile has not previously been acquired. See n. 116 at the end, and n. 1614. q. 1°. Resp. ... 2°.

4) The sufficiency of a domicile or quasi-domicile acquired by at least one party.

5) The sufficiency of the quality of wanderer existing in at least one party. - These things having been noted beforehand:

Resp. 1° A wanderer, wherever he is here and now, contracts clandestinely validly with any person whatever, if in the place in which he contracts the Tridentine law does not oblige at all. What if it does not oblige heretics alone there? He contracts clandestinely validly if he himself is a heretic. But if he himself is a Catholic, but the other party heretical, he contracts clandestinely validly when the other party is either a wanderer, or has a domicile or quasi-domicile in the place, or in his own place, from which he departed, was not held by the Tridentine law. These things concern wanderers; in the following there is question only of those having somewhere a domicile or quasi-domicile.

Resp. 2° Those domiciled in a place in which each is bound by the Tridentine law, if they pass to a place in which this law is not in force at all, and in this place contract clandestinely, do this invalidly, unless one or the other shall previously have acquired a domicile or quasi-domicile there.¹ - Therefore a man and woman, whether Catholics or non-Catholics, domiciled in Belgium, France, Italy, if they pass to New York and there clandestinely contract Matrimony with one another before at least one of them has acquired domicile or quasi-domicile there, contract invalidly. But what if in the place in which they contract heretics alone are not bound, and one or both of the contracting parties is heretical? The solution is the same. Therefore a man and woman, whether both or one of them is heretical, domiciled in Belgium, etc., if they pass to Quebec and there, before domicile or quasi-domicile has been contracted by the heretical party, contract Matrimony clandestinely with one another, contract invalidly. - Others say otherwise, who apply to each case the principle: place governs the act; but then only when the contracting parties have not passed into a place of this kind in fraud of the law.² (epsilon), p. 396.

Resp. 3° Those domiciled in a place in which the Tridentine law does not oblige at all, and contracting in another where it also does not oblige, contract clandestinely validly, even if neither has acquired a domicile or quasi-domicile there. A man, e.g., and a woman, whether Catholics or non-Catholics, domiciled in England, pass to Baltimore and there, neither having acquired domicile or quasi-domicile, contract clandestinely. They do this validly. It is the same if only one or the other is from a place in which the Tridentine law does not oblige at all; as if, passing to Baltimore, one indeed has domicile or quasi-domicile in England, but the other in Belgium. For the principle must be applied that the exemption of one party is communicated to the other on account of the individuality of the contract.

The solution is the same if in each place heretics alone are free, and either each party or one or the other party is heretical. Parties, e.g., non-Catholic, or one Catholic and the other heretical, domiciled in Ireland, pass to Quebec and there contract in the aforesaid manner.

Resp. 4° Those domiciled in a place in which the Tridentine law does not oblige, and contracting in another in which it does oblige, do this invalidly clandestinely, even if they have not yet acquired domicile or quasi-domicile there. A man, for instance, and a woman, domiciled in Baltimore, whether Catholics or non-Catholics, and passing into Belgium, invalidly contract clandestinely there, even though domicile or quasi-domicile has not yet been acquired by one or the other.

The solution is the same if each or one or the other party is heretical, and in the place from which they departed heretics alone are not bound by the Tridentine law, but they are bound by it in the place into which they have passed and in which they contract. A non-Catholic, e.g., domiciled in Ireland, passing into France, and there contracting clandestinely, contracts invalidly.

Quaer. 2° "When there is question of a Matrimony to be contracted or contracted in places in which heretics are not bound by the Tridentine decree, can the following five classes be comprehended under the name of heretic: 1° Those who, having been baptized Catholics, from childhood not yet seven years old are educated in heresy and profess heresy; 2° Those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, namely having received no, or scarcely any, instruction in heretical doctrine, and not having frequented worship, although sometimes having participated; 3° Those who, while still children, falling into the hands of heretics, are joined to a heretical sect; 4° Apostates passing from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect; 5° Those who, born and baptized by heretics, have grown up without having emitted any solemn profession of heresy, and as persons, as it were, of no religion, etc.?"

Resp. The response given by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in the year 1859 to the Bishop of Haarlem in Holland has it thus: "For the effect of Matrimony, the aforementioned are comprehended in ... the Declaration of Benedict XIV."

Quaer. 3° Does Matrimony celebrated secretly in places where the Decree of the Council of Trent is in force have the force of betrothals?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, according to the common opinion, when Matrimony has been contracted in this way between two impubes, or one impubes and the other pubes. The reason is that by the ancient law Marriages of impubes contracted secretly had the force of betrothals, and this force has not been taken away from them by the Tridentine.¹

Resp. 2° "Concerning Marriages between puberes entered in this way, it is now certain that they do not have the force of betrothals. Thus, as Benedict XIV reports, the Sacred Congregation of the Council has often declared. - The chief and pressing reason is that Trent not only renders those contracting secretly incapable of contracting in this way, but besides decrees acts of this kind to be absolutely void and null; and this proceeds even if an oath has been added to them."²

Resp. 3° "Notwithstanding the things said, nevertheless Marriages of this kind can have a threefold effect: a) From them there arises an impediment of public honesty.³ b) If one contracting clandestinely has had copula, and cannot repair the damage thus inflicted otherwise, he is held to marry her, not by reason of the contract, but by reason of justice. c) If the contracting parties in defect of Matrimony expressly intended to oblige themselves to betrothals, from that contract there would even arise a sponsalitial obligation, because Trent does not oppose a contract of betrothal, although it follows or is connected with a null Matrimony." Concerning civil Matrimony see n. 1593. q. 4°.

Quaer. 4° Are clandestine Marriages of heretics judged valid where the Tridentine law is in force?

Resp. From the letters of Pius VII to the Archbishop of Mainz, October 8, 1803, and to the Vicar of the diocese of Trier, April 23, 1817, "it is drawn that judgment depends on the diverse circumstances of the case,⁴ according to the variety of times, places, and persons; and thence it is discerned: 1. why nothing generally has been defined concerning this matter; 2. why (according to the diversity of circumstances) it was resolved sometimes in favor of validity, but sometimes in favor of nullity." Thus the anonymous Annotations to Gury.¹

Quaer. 5° Is the Decree of Trent judged to be in force in a Church recently formed among heretics or infidels?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the Tridentine decree has been published in those parishes. But although by ordinary law this Decree must be promulgated, if anywhere it has not been published, nevertheless sometimes, by reason of special difficulty, the founders of a new Church could defer the promulgation of this Decree, namely when in a great province priests are so rare that they cannot at times assist at Marriages. But it would be more advisable in a similar case to have recourse to the Apostolic See, whose office it is to judge what is more expedient in so grave a matter.

1° What kind of Pastor must assist; 2° in what manner he must assist.

1613. - I. "That Pastor alone can validly assist at Matrimony who is the proper Pastor of one or the other of the contracting parties, and therefore who has jurisdiction over them, or at least over one of them; such also are all who come under the name of Ordinary, as the Bishop, Vicar General, and, the See being vacant, the Capitular or, among us, the Administrator. For it is proved from the Council of Trent that only the Pastor can validly assist at Matrimony. But that Pastor is to be understood in this way we have ascertained from several Declarations of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of Trent.

II. The jurisdiction of the Pastor is constituted by the habitual domicile, or quasi-domicile, of the contracting parties, or of one or the other of them, in his parish, but not by domicile of origin, nor by mere habitation for a short time. It is drawn from Declarations of the Sacred Congregation and Benedict XIV, etc. ... Thus the Theologians by unanimous consent. - Nor can domicile be supplied by simple enrollment among the citizens of a place, whatever the civil laws may establish concerning this." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, August 28, 1864.

1614. Questions. - Quaer. 1° What time is required that some stranger can contract Matrimony in a place not his own?

Resp. 1° It is certain among all that no time is required for him who has contracted a true domicile somewhere. But true domicile is acquired by one's own will through two things joined together at the same time, namely through the fact of commoration and the intention of remaining always. The fact of commoration is clear to the eyes; but as regards the intention, three hypotheses must be distinguished. For either the intention was declared by words, or was manifested by deeds (such, for example, are bringing one's family to the place in which one lives; transferring the greater part of one's fortune there; acquiring goods there; constructing a family burial-place; habitation for ten years, etc.), or no sufficient argument is drawn either from words or from deeds, and then the matter is doubtful. But domicile is never contracted if either by words or by deeds, or by conjectures and circumstances, the intention of remaining perpetually is excluded.

I said: by one's own will; for by disposition of law: a) he who is not his own master retains the domicile of his father or tutor until, having become his own master, he renounces that domicile either by words or by deeds; b) a wife retains the domicile of her deceased husband until she renounces it, unless, however, in the case of legitimate separation, she had already done this before the death of her husband.

Resp. 2° If there is question of quasi-domicile, from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to the postulata of the Plenary Synod of Maynooth ((K), p. 412), that opinion is certain which requires habitation through the greater, and therefore through at least the whole half, part of a year, or at least with the intention of remaining in the place for so long; so that, if either of these is present, Matrimony can be contracted before the pastor of that place, and indeed in the latter case from the first moment of commoration. But quasi-domicile, in this opinion, is acquired even if the commoration takes place for the sole end of entering Matrimony and of departing after the greater or half part of the year has been spent in the place, and although there is question of a rural parish, in which someone remains for the sake of recreation or rusticating, provided he dwells in the place after the manner of citizens or true inhabitants, and not after the manner of wanderers or travelers. According to this opinion the decrees of the Holy See by which the rural Pastor is excluded do not regard except that stay which is neither of the greater or half part of the year, nor with at least the intention of this. - But the intention of remaining in the place for an entire half-year, if nothing has been expressly declared, is drawn from circumstances, of which the chief one will be commoration of at least one month (thirty days) in that place. See the arguments apud Feije.

Hence for practice you conclude:

1° Two domiciles can even be had, by dwelling equally or almost equally, after the manner of true domicile, under two parishes, e.g. in winter in the city, in summer in the country; a domicile and quasi-domicile can also be had at the same time. In a founded doubt concerning domicile or quasi-domicile, either let the license of an undoubted Ordinary or pastor be obtained, or let recourse be had to the Ordinary for the norm of acting. - Diocesan statutes as regards the time of commoration in a place required for contracting Matrimony affect the liceity, but not the validity, of the contract.

2° The Constitution of Urban VIII, of which n. 116 at the end, is to be understood concerning him who has contracted no domicile in the place to which he approaches for the sake of contracting Matrimony; but not concerning him who, so that he may be able to enter Matrimony somewhere, contracts domicile there; for this person uses his own right, namely the right acquired by domicile.

3° They acquire quasi-domicile in a certain place, and as regards the Sacraments (Order excepted, as is clear from the things said n. 1519. q. 1°. Resp. 3°) become subjects: a) magistrates (e.g. the Governor of a State), judges, professors or students of some faculty; b) those who dwell somewhere so that they may convert themselves to the Catholic Religion and receive the Sacraments; c) those who are detained in prison for a notable time - not for custody only, namely until their case is determined by the sentence of a judge - but so that they may undergo the penalty established by the judge; d) male servants, maidservants, young men who dwell in a seminary or college, girls who dwell in a monastery or another house for the sake of education; e) exposed children, and generally boys and girls who have been committed by the administrators of a hospice or foundling hospital to others for the sake of education or service, have quasi-domicile in the place where those to whom they have been committed are staying; f) soldiers where they are in garrisons or stations or camps, but not where they are on expedition. - Nevertheless all these can validly contract also before the Pastor of the place where they have true domicile; yes, girls dwelling for the sake of education in a monastery or conservatory who wish to enter Matrimony are to be sent back to the paternal house, as both the reason of decorum and the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, October 8, 1723, related by Benedict XIV, show must be done. The same assuredly must be observed for young men dwelling for the sake of education in a seminary, college, or other house. (43) p. 427.

Note. - Matrimony is more fittingly contracted before the Pastor of the bride.

Quaer. 2° Can wanderers contract before any Pastor whatever?

To be noted beforehand. - Benedict XIV defines a wanderer as one "who, having left his domicile, seeks a residence in foreign lands"; this is to be understood both if he has determined where he is going to establish his residence, and if he has not yet determined; for still in each case he equally lacks domicile, as Sanchez notes. Add that it is not necessary that he seek a residence; for equally, indeed with stronger reason, he will be called a wanderer who nowhere has, or wishes to have, a fixed and constant residence, as the same Sanchez observes. Besides, as regards the present matter, for someone to be called a wanderer in relation to a parish, there is not even need that he seek a domicile in some remote or foreign region; but generally it is enough that, the prior parish having been left, he has not yet fixed his residence in another, because then he is truly without a parish, as one who has lost the former and not yet acquired another. Therefore: 1° he who, having left a parish, has not yet found the house in which he is to dwell, and meanwhile lodges somewhere in some place, is a wanderer; 2° even if he has found a house in which he will dwell, but nevertheless lodges elsewhere while the house found is being freed from its former inhabitant, he likewise is a wanderer as regards the parish; 3° so also, if he has come into a city and has not yet determined in what part he will dwell, he is numbered among wanderers or those lacking a parish. Sanchez. These things having been noted beforehand:

Resp. Affirmatively, because they do not have a proper Pastor - and this whether both contracting parties are wanderers or only one, since the other can use the privilege of this one. Thus St. Alphonsus; who nevertheless, the authors whom he cites having been inspected, seems to be understood according to the opinion (which seems certain today) teaching that they contract validly before any pastor, provided this man is the pastor of the place in which they contract.

Quaer. 3° Can a suspended, irregular, excommunicated, or schismatic Pastor validly assist at Matrimony?

Resp. Negatively, if he has lost the title, as a heretic excommunicated by name; otherwise, if only jurisdiction: for assistance is not an act of jurisdiction, but of a qualified witness. But a most grave cause is required for asking assistance from a Pastor excommunicated by name, suspended, or interdicted.

Note. - From a pastor bound by censure there must be carefully distinguished, especially among us, a pastor whose faculties have been taken away; for this man would even assist invalidly.

Quaer. 4° Does a priest whom people falsely think to be Pastor assist validly?

Resp. Affirmatively, if he has a colored title and is reputed Pastor from common error. The reason is that then the Church supplies jurisdiction on account of the common good. - Thus all. Thus also it seems that it must probably be said if only common error is present without a colored title, for the same reason, as was said concerning jurisdiction in the internal forum, n. 1394. q. 3°. Resp. 2°.

Quaer. 5° Does any priest whatever validly assist at Matrimony with the presumed license of the Pastor?

Resp. Negatively, because it is not true license; tacit license, however, suffices; or even one extorted by fear or deceit, unless the deceit were concerning the final cause, since delegation does not exist without the will of the delegating person.

Quaer. 6° Can a Vicar validly assist at Matrimony, the delegation of the Pastor being excluded?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if the Vicar supplies the place of the deceased or absent Pastor; for then he is certainly delegated to the universality of causes; indeed then he can also subdelegate another; for he who is delegated, as it were by office, to the universality of causes, can subdelegate another to a particular case. Cf. n. 149. 4°; 150. 2°.

Resp. 2° But if the Vicar is the cooperator of a present Pastor, the difficulty is greater, nor can the matter be defined by a general and absolute rule. Wherefore attend to the statutes or custom of dioceses. For the Bishop, constituting Vicars, assistants of the Pastor, can either confer on them immediately the right of assisting at Marriages, or leave that right to be committed to them from the delegation of the Pastor.

Note. - It is clear of itself that the things which have been said from n. 1613, and which will be said in nn. 1615 and 1616, have force only for places where the Decree is in force.

1615. Principles. - I. It is required, and suffices for the validity of Matrimony, that the Pastor be morally present, as a witness who must give testimony concerning a thing completed. The reason is that the Pastor is employed here as a principal witness deputed by the Church, as is established from Benedict XIV.

II. It is required that the Pastor be addressed and warned concerning that which the contracting parties wish to do, or that he be employed by them. The reason is that otherwise the Pastor is not judged to advert to that which is done, nor can he judge that those who act wish to act seriously. Nevertheless it is not required that he have been expressly called for this. For it would suffice if, by chance, he were present there, or had been summoned under another pretext, provided the contracting parties, while they express consent, offer some sign, e.g. by the eyes, by the tone of voice, by a nod, etc., by which they indicate to the Pastor that they wish to have him as a witness. This is clear from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation apud Benedict XIV.

Hence: 1° the merely physical presence of the Pastor does not suffice, since he must advert to that which is done: whence one drunk, sleeping, insane, cannot assist at Matrimony.

2° It is not necessary that he see the contracting parties, provided he hears them clearly expressing their consent: accordingly a blind man can assist at Matrimony; not, however, one blind and deaf.

3° The Matrimony is valid in the case in which the Pastor, wishing to resist, lest he be able to be held as a witness, closes his eyes, stops his ears, or shouts, and tries to flee, namely so that he may render the act void because he can afterwards affirm that he saw or heard nothing. But already several times the Sacred Congregation has responded this, which is had also in the response to the Bishop of Gien in the year 1581, namely that the Matrimony is invalid if the pastor neither saw nor heard the things which were being done, unless however he had affected not to understand.

1616. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does a Pastor compelled by force and fear validly assist?

Resp. Affirmatively, because by law it suffices that he be present and know what is being done, whether willingly or unwillingly; it is manifest from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation. - See St. Alphonsus.

Quaer. 2° In what place can the Pastor, or the priest deputed by him, assist at Matrimony?

Resp. He can validly assist everywhere, even outside the parish, yes even outside the diocese. But in order that he may assist licitly in a church not his own, he needs the consent of its rector. - The Roman Ritual exhorts that nuptials be made in a church. "Nevertheless it is not forbidden ... to Ordinaries, if no danger threatens and praiseworthy causes concur, that they sometimes permit, according to their prudence, it to be celebrated" (with nuptial Mass also) "in private oratories in which the Sacrifice can be offered."

1617. - Impotence for undertaking matrimonial offices, or incapacity for carnal copula, of itself apt for generation, is distinguished in a manifold way, namely:

1° Certain or doubtful, according as it is or is not manifest.

2° Antecedent or consequent, according as it precedes Matrimony or follows it.

3° Temporal or perpetual, according as it can or cannot be removed by lapse of time or by natural means (i.e. without a miracle) and licit means (i.e. without sin and danger of death).

4° Natural or accidental, according as it arises from an intrinsic defect, or from an extrinsic cause, e.g. malefice, disease, a violent act.

5° Absolute or respective, according as it exists between a man and all women, or between a man and some determinate woman; or vice versa.

1618. Principles. - I. Antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether absolute or relative, renders Matrimony invalid by natural law; relative impotence, however, only with respect to that person with whom copula cannot be completed. The reason is that the object of the matrimonial contract does not exist, since copula is impossible. It is also established from Canon Law.

II. Consequent impotence, and antecedent temporal impotence, do not dirime Matrimony; the reason is that actual use of Matrimony does not pertain to its essence, and it suffices that consummation either was possible at the time of the contract, or will be possible in the future.

III. Impotence certainly known renders the use of Matrimony illicit, even if only attempted; because, where copula cannot be completed, the end which makes congress licit is lacking. (A) p. 408.

Note. - It is now commonly received among physiologists and physicians, because experience has taught it, that for conception and the effect of generation it is by no means necessary that the man inject seminal fluid into the inner parts of the female organ, but that it is enough that fluid of this kind be poured upon and applied to the external surface of the same organ, or to the mouth, or entrance, of the vagina, as they say.

1619. Resolves. - 1° Eunuchs or spadones destitute of both testicles are reputed impotent; otherwise, if they lack only one. (M) p. 409.

2° In doubt concerning antecedent impotence, one must stand for the validity of the Matrimony, and the spouses must be permitted to try copula. Indeed for this a three-year period is conceded to them by Canon Law, notwithstanding the greater probability for perpetual impotence, and although the Matrimony was celebrated with doubtful faith.

3° In doubt concerning consequent impotence, it is likewise lawful for the spouses to try copula until they are certain that it can in no way be completed.

4° In doubt whether certain and perpetual impotence was antecedent or consequent, it is presumed antecedent if it is either natural, or indeed accidental, but the potent spouse complains of this defect of the other one month or another after the Matrimony has been celebrated; but consequent if such a complaint on account of accidental impotence is made a long time after the celebration of Matrimony.

5° Impotence for coition is not to be confused with impotence for generating. Hence sterile persons and the aged who are able to consummate Matrimony contract validly; likewise women who can receive seed, even if they do not retain it. Not, however, those lacking uterus or vagina.

6° "Let the confessor take the greatest care that in a matter of so grave a moment, and subject to so many difficulties, he not proceed rashly, or determine anything by his own authority; but let him refer the case, duly examined with all its circumstances, to the Ordinary, whose office it then will be to establish and determine what ought to be done in a similar matter. Indeed, as it seems to us, a prudent and discreet confessor will not question spouses concerning impotence, nor even forewarn those whom he believes impotent; nor will he answer spouses consulting him on that matter ultimately, unless he himself has first consulted the Bishop." See Van de Burgt, de Matr. n. 206.

1620. - Abduction is the violent carrying away of a woman (even an impubes, widow, corrupted woman, etc.) from a safe place into another, where she is detained under the power of the abductor, for the sake of entering Matrimony. - But it is all the same whether the abductor executes the abduction by himself, or through others; and likewise whether by himself and in his own possession, or through others and in the possession of others, he retains the abducted person in his power. This is drawn from the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, June 25, 1864, as can be seen in the Acta. But he incurs the impediment who abducts for himself, not those who abduct for another.

Abduction dirimes Matrimony by ecclesiastical law between the abductor and the abducted woman. It is established from Trent.

A threefold condition is required for incurring that impediment, namely: 1° that the abducted woman be carried away from place to place; 2° that the woman be abducted only for the sake of Matrimony; 3° that the abduction be made while the woman resists, or is altogether unwilling.

But it makes no difference whether the woman is drawn away by force from her own house, or whether, led around by deceits, she comes unknowingly into the power of the one attempting abduction; and likewise whether she is drawn away from her own house, or, having been led away from it through frauds, is then prevented from being able to return freely to it. For free consent is equally absent, both if by open force, and if through frauds she is no longer permitted to be of her own power. See the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation in the Acta.

1621. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Does an abduction of seduction induce the impediment, or when a woman is induced by gifts, flatteries, etc., to follow the abductor?

Resp. Negatively. The reason is that through the impediment of abduction the Church intends only to provide for the perfect liberty of Matrimony, which is not injured when the woman, consenting with a view to Matrimony, is led away, even against the will of her parents. - Thus commonly, according to St. Alphonsus. Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, Scavini, etc., agree.

Quaer. 2° Are betrothals valid which are contracted while an abducted woman is under the power of the abductor?

Resp. A twofold probable opinion is given:

The first opinion denies, because betrothals require liberty, just as Matrimony itself does; for a penal law is extended where the same reason militates. - Sanchez, the Salmanticenses, etc.

The second opinion affirms, and St. Alphonsus with Lacroix, etc., calls this one more probable. But the reason of this opinion is that betrothals, as things which are always rescindable, require less liberty than Matrimony.

1622. Resolves. - 1° The impediment is not contracted if a woman is led away only from bedroom to bedroom in the same house; because in this way she is not properly constituted under the power of the abductor; but she must be led away from house to house. Nevertheless in this case the impediment of fear can be present.

2° The impediment is not contracted if the woman is abducted for another cause, besides the end of entering Matrimony, e.g. for the end of satisfying lust, etc.; because the Council intends nothing else by this impediment than to favor the liberty of Matrimony.

3° The impediment is not incurred if the woman abducts the man, because the Council speaks only of the male abductor.

4° The impediment is not incurred if Matrimony is contracted between the abductor and the abducted woman after she has been freed from the power of the abductor. This is clearly apparent from the text of Trent. But St. Alphonsus rightly notes that this impediment lasts as long as the abducted woman is in the power of the abductor, even if she consents freely. - See, if you please, other things in the Acta.

See (x) p. 396 for the synopsis of impediments by which infidels are bound, whether certainly or doubtfully, and the practice to be followed with them when they are converted.