§ 4. On the Cessation of Dispensation

245. The cessation of dispensation can happen in three ways: 1. through cessation of the cause; 2. through revocation by the one dispensing; 3. through renunciation by the one dispensed.

I. A dispensation, or a commission of dispensing, regularly ceases when the MOTIVE cause ceases TOTALLY and CERTAINLY. Thus, for example, the dispensation from not fasting, conceded to you at the beginning of Lent on account of illness, expires when you have fully recovered. But it endures when only the impulsive cause ceases, because this was not the reason of the dispensation; likewise, if the motive cause ceases only partially, because in the remaining part there still remains a sufficient reason of dispensation; likewise, if the motive cause ceases doubtfully, because in doubt possession stands for the dispensation (I, 196; H. Ap., II, 66).

We have said: REGULARLY; for, even when the motive cause has ceased totally and certainly, the dispensation does not therefore cease: 1. if the dispensation has already obtained its effect, for example, if the one dispensed for obtaining a benefice has already obtained it; 2. if some onerous commutation has been added to the dispensation, for example, payment of money; 3. if the dispensation has been given absolutely, that is, without that tacit condition "if the cause endures," namely when it is conceded from a cause which of itself is perpetual, or is judged perpetual, for example, on account of scarcity of priests, on account of honesty of morals, on account of poverty of parents, etc.: for once the obligation of law has been removed through such a dispensation, this obligation, according to a sufficiently probable opinion, does not return unless it is imposed again by the Superior (I, 195; Salmant., de Leg., c. 5, n. 87).

This also must be noted, that a dispensation given ABSOLUTELY is not exhausted by one act, unless it has been conceded for a special case. Thus one dispensed from a vow of chastity for contracting marriage can, when his spouse has died, pass to second nuptials; provided the dispensation was not given for that case alone, for example, for taking a virgin deflowered by him (I, 196; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 269).

246. II. A dispensation ceases through REVOCATION by the one dispensing, notified to the one dispensed (cf. 233, 1.). Yet in this case a distinction must be made: 1. If revocation is made by a Superior in his own law, it is valid, even if without

cause; because obligation and de-obligation depend on the will of the legislator. Yet he who thus revokes sins, but lightly, because he acts inordinately. 2. If revocation is made by a secondary Superior or by a delegate, when a just cause of revoking is lacking, it is not only illicit, but also invalid; because the faculty of revoking is not in his arbitrary power (I, 197; H. Ap., II, 67).

But whether a dispensation ceases by the death of the one conceding? Resp. It depends on the terms of the concession. If it has been conceded absolutely, or with the clause until it is revoked, or at the judgment of the Apostolic See or of the Bishop, IT DOES NOT CEASE. But otherwise, if it has the clause until it shall have pleased us, or at our judgment; provided, however, that the matter is still untouched, say if the confessor has not yet begun to hear the confession of the one dispensed (cf. n. 233).

247. III. A dispensation ceases through RENUNCIATION of the one dispensed, provided the renunciation has been accepted by the Superior. The reason for this is, because, although a subject can yield his own right, if the renunciation does not redound to the damage of another, nevertheless only the Superior, in his own law, can bind again the will which he had rightly and validly released from the law.

Thus, for example, if Peter, having obtained a dispensation for marrying a blood-relative, married a stranger, he can, when his spouse has died, marry the first woman; provided the Superior has not revoked the dispensation. Likewise, he who obtained a dispensation from reciting the Divine Office, from observing the fast, can use the dispensation, even if meanwhile he has observed the law of the Office and fast (I, 198).

248. What is to be done, you will ask, in doubt WHETHER THE CASE NEEDS DISPENSATION?

Resp. 1. If the doubt is OF RIGHT, that is, if it is doubted whether the case is comprehended in the law, whether the doubt is negative or positive, a dispensation is not required, because this is the same as doubting concerning the law itself, whether it has been imposed for that matter. "Therefore the subject can use his liberty. Nevertheless it is more advisable then to approach the prelate who may declare or dispense; since in such a doubt even an inferior prelate can well dispense, without concession of the legislator" (cf. n. 55). See St. Alph., I, 192; ed. G., I, p. 172; cf. Salmant., tr. XI, c. 5, n. 45, whose doctrine he reports.

2. If the doubt is OF FACT, that is, if you positively doubt whether there is present a cause excusing from law, for example, for exercising servile work on Sunday; or even whether the cause which you have is sufficient for excusing you, dispensation is of itself necessary; because, in each case, the law possesses antecedently to your liberty, and therefore it is truer that you are held to the law.¹ Yet it would be otherwise if it were truly and uniquely probable that the cause is sufficient, or grave enough, to exempt you; or if another principle were added, for example, the natural and certain right of preserving health, etc., in the case in which it is feared lest observance of the law is going to harm gravely. Recall the things said n. 223, 241, q. 2. Cf. St. Alph., III, 1036.

Note what the Holy Doctor writes, III, n. 1049 at the end; ed. G., II, p. 439: "If someone does not have a cause absolutely sufficient for excusing him from fasting, and some probable and just reason appears to him, by which he fasts only twice or thrice in the week, he is not to be urged to fast, even if that cause does not altogether suffice, but he is to be left in his good faith, lest perhaps afterwards he culpably omit all fasts."

If the matter concerns dispensation over impediments of matrimony, see n. 2046.