Article I. On Impeding Impediments of Marriage

I say 1°. § 1. An impeding impediment contains a grave prohibition of contracting marriage; which, however, is not rendered invalid if, notwithstanding the impediment, it is contracted.

§ 2. A diriment impediment both gravely prohibits the marriage to be contracted and prevents it from being contracted validly.

§ 3. Although the impediment has itself from one party only, nevertheless it renders marriage either illicit or invalid (Can. 1036).

An impeding impediment gravely prohibits, but the marriage is valid; a diriment impediment both gravely prohibits and obstructs it from being entered validly. And however the impediment has itself from one party, it makes the marriage either illicit only or also invalid. Catholic Titius and heretical Bertha enter marriage before the pastor of the place and witnesses; they sin gravely, but they enter validly. Catholic Theodore and non-baptized non-Catholic Bertina enter marriage before the pastor of the place and witnesses; they sin gravely and enter invalidly. In each case the pastor is deceived, who held all as Catholics. In the first case the marriage is illicit but valid. In the second case the marriage is illicit and invalid. In neither has dispensation been obtained.

I say 2°. An impediment is deemed public which can be proved in the external forum; otherwise it is occult (Can. 1037).

Public, namely, in this question is not only that which is known to many, but also that which can be brought into judgment and proved in whatever manner. It has been received by common jurisprudence that an impediment is to be held altogether public which, although it is actually occult, nevertheless can at some time be made known and proved. - Cf. Anal. Juris. Pontif., year 1882, p. 116.

§ 1. Marriage is impeded by a simple vow of virginity, of perfect chastity, of not marrying, of receiving sacred orders, and of embracing the religious state.

§ 2. No simple vow invalidates marriage, unless invalidation has been established for some by a special prescription of the Apostolic See (Can. 1058).

A vow of virginity is a vow of integrity of flesh, and for its prohibited object has the first consummated carnal work, namely voluntary effusion of seed either through intercourse or through pollution. Whoever enters marriage while entangled by this vow sins gravely; for it is against the law of the Church, which constitutes this vow an impeding impediment; then such a person places himself in a state in which by law the vow is rendered impossible, for when the other spouse asks for the debt, he is bound to render it, and by consummating marriage he violates the vow. Until virginity has been lost, he cannot ask; once it has been lost, he can ask. He is bound to render to the co-party who has the matrimonial right, and it would be illicit to deny it.

A vow of perfect chastity is a vow of abstaining from all external and internal acts contrary to the virtue of chastity; and whether it was temporary or perpetual, or was emitted by a Protestant before conversion, until it has ceased by lapse of time or dispensation or another mode, it renders marriage illicit. One entering with the intention of consummating it sins gravely. Once marriage has been contracted, the vow does not cease, and therefore it must be observed insofar as it can be, with the right of the other spouse preserved; hence he cannot ask, but he is bound to render to the one asking according to his right. But whether the obligation of observing the vow of chastity induces the burden of entering religion and of using the two months formerly conceded for ratified marriage, let Wernz, vol. 4, n. 566, Rosset, and Feije be consulted. Here "rightly," says Wernz, loc. cit., "he denies this obligation. For a vow does not oblige beyond the intention of the one vowing (chastity, not religion), and for the observation of a vow no one is bound to employ a means so extraordinary and difficult, indeed dangerous on account of doubtful vocation." Id., ibid. He must altogether abstain if the other consents or has lost the right. But if he can abstain only with difficulty, he must seek dispensation as soon as possible. If the other spouse dies, and the time for which the vow was emitted has not elapsed, the vow urges.

1°. He who, once this vow has been emitted, contracts Marriage, sins gravely, as is manifest.

2°. Once Marriage has been contracted, he can render and also ask the debt, because the observation of the vow has now been made impossible.

3°. On account of the same reason, once the spouse has died, he can at least probably contract a new Marriage.

Note that often the vow of not marrying is taken for the vow of virginity, although a distinction is given, because virginity properly regards integrity of flesh, which is possible even after Marriage. Wherefore, if it is established that some girl has made a vow of virginity properly so called, it is not licit for her, once Marriage has been contracted, to ask for the first time.

In practice there is often doubt what someone has vowed, whether virginity, celibacy, or chastity; wherefore the penitent will have to be questioned concerning the end which he proposed to himself in vowing, and, the doubt persevering, that which is least is to be held. - Cf. Lacroix, book 3, part 1, n. 357; Lehmkuhl, n. 719.

1°. He who emitted such a vow sins gravely by entering Marriage, both because he deceives the other and because he exposes himself to the danger of violating the vow.

2°. Before the consummation of Marriage he is bound to enter Religion; and therefore he sins mortally when he consummates the Marriage for the first time, whether by asking or by rendering the debt, because he must fulfill the vow when he can.

3°. After Marriage has been consummated, he can ask and render the debt, because execution of the vow has been made impossible, and the asking of the conjugal act is not against that vow, since he did not vow chastity but the religious State.

1°. He who emitted that vow sins gravely by entering Marriage, as is well known.

2°. He is bound to receive Orders if he can, for example, if he obtains the consent of the other. According to several, he is bound to enter Religion before the consummation of Marriage, even with the other unwilling, so that he may be able to fulfill the vow. But others more probably deny this.

3°. Once Marriage has been entered, he can consummate it if he is no longer able to fulfill the vow. - Cf. Heiss, § 18.

In those regions where by civil law legal kinship, arising from adoption, renders nuptials illicit, by canon law also marriage is illicit (Can. 1059).

I say 1°. The Church most severely prohibits everywhere that marriage be entered between two baptized persons, of whom one is Catholic, but the other enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect; but if there is danger of perversion of the Catholic spouse and of offspring, wedlock is forbidden also by divine law itself (Can. 1060).

The Church has always turned the faithful away from these Marriages with the greatest solicitude; thus Benedict XIV, Const. Matrimonia, 4 Nov. 1741, calls these marriages detestable, which Holy Mother Church has perpetually condemned and interdicted. The Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore testify this same thing, n. 130, in the following words: "The Church ... has always turned away from nuptials between Catholics and non-Catholics, both on account of flagitious communication in divine things and on account of the most grave danger either of the perversion of the Catholic party or of the depraved education of the offspring to be born."

I say 2°. § 1. The Church does not dispense over the impediment of mixed religion unless:

1°. Just and grave causes urge;

2°. The non-Catholic spouse has furnished a caution concerning removing from the Catholic spouse the danger of perversion, and each spouse concerning all offspring being baptized and educated Catholic;

3°. Moral certainty is had concerning the fulfillment of the cautions;

§ 2. The cautions are regularly to be required in writing (Can. 1061).

The Catholic spouse is held by the obligation of prudently taking care of the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse (Can. 1062).

Question 1. Why are cautions required?

Resp. These cautions are required and must be required so that the intrinsic dangers which are present in mixed marriages may be removed. - Cf. Encyclical Letter of the S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 March 1868. Since natural and divine law demand these cautions, nuptials can never be permitted by any human authority without them. S. Off., 12 Dec. 1888.

Question 2. Why are cautions regularly required in writing?

Resp. For the sake of security, as a pledge of sincerity; the sincere will easily give the promise in writing, and thus the other party and the Church herself are rendered more secure against withdrawal by the non-Catholic party. But it is said regularly; for if in some extraordinary case such circumstances occur that the Bishop is able to obtain for himself moral certainty, and special reasons are altogether present which prevent the cautions from being given in the customary manner, the matter seems to be left to his conscience. S. Off., 10 Dec. 1902.

Question 3. Why are just and grave causes required?

Resp. In order that the faithful may be permitted to submit and expose themselves, even under suitable cautions, to grave dangers of faith and morals, it is necessary that some grave inconvenience, otherwise by no means avoidable, threaten.

Question 4. Why is moral certainty concerning the fulfillment of the cautions required?

Resp. If moral certainty is not had concerning the sincerity of the promises and their fulfillment, then the intrinsic dangers in these marriages are not said to be removed; and this is the very reason for the cautions. Hence dispensations are not given where that moral certainty is not had.

Question 5. Once dispensation has been obtained, is it licit for the betrothed to furnish consent before a non-Catholic minister as one devoted to sacred things?

Resp. § 1. Even if a dispensation over the impediment of mixed religion has been obtained from the Church, the spouses cannot, either before or after the marriage entered before the Church, also approach, whether by themselves or through a procurator, a non-Catholic minister as one devoted to sacred things, for furnishing or renewing matrimonial consent.

§ 2. If the pastor certainly knows that the betrothed are going to violate this law or have already violated it, he is not to assist at their marriage except from most grave causes, scandal having been removed and the Ordinary first consulted.

§ 3. Nevertheless, that is not disapproved which, civil law commanding, the spouses present themselves before a non-Catholic minister, performing only the office of a civil official, and this for completing only the civil act, for the sake of civil effects (Can. 1063).

As regards the first paragraph: The reason is that, by the fact that the minister would be employed for completing a certain religious ceremony and the Catholic party would associate himself with a heretical rite, there would arise a certain implicit adherence to heresy, and therefore communication with heretics in divine things would be held altogether illicit. Most certainly he would sin gravely who approached a non-Catholic minister in such a way as one performing the office of pastor.

As regards the second paragraph: If they are questioned, or if they certainly know that they are going to approach a heretical minister devoted to sacred things, pastors cannot be silent, but must admonish them concerning the most grave sin which they commit. In these circumstances, when they know what the betrothed are going to do, they are not to assist at their wedlocks. For preventing grave evils, if in some particular case the priest or pastor has not been asked by the betrothed whether it is licit or not to approach a heretical or schismatic minister, and no explicit declaration is made by the same betrothed concerning approaching the same, yet he foresees that perhaps they will approach for furnishing or renewing matrimonial consent, and besides foresees that admonition will certainly not be profitable, indeed will be harmful, and that thereby a material sin would be turned into formal guilt, then let him be silent, scandal nevertheless having been removed, and provided the other conditions and cautions required by the Church have been duly placed. But among the conditions now required are numbered most grave causes, removal of scandal, and the counsel of the Bishop.

As regards the third paragraph: When civil law commands, when absolutely no non-Catholic profession of rite is had or can be gathered from this, it is licit to approach a heretical minister, because his act is only civil and political, and regards solely civil effects. S. Off., 12 Dec. 1888, nn. 7, 8.

Question 6. What are the obligations of pastors of souls in this matter?

Resp. Ordinaries and other pastors of souls:

1°. Are to deter the faithful from mixed nuptials as much as they can;

2°. If they are not able to impede them, they are to take care with every effort that they are not contracted against the laws of God and of the Church;

3°. Once mixed nuptials have been celebrated, whether in their own or in another territory, they are carefully to watch that the spouses faithfully fulfill the promises made;

4°. Those assisting at the marriage are to observe the prescription of Can. 1102 (Can. 1064).

This prescription regards the questions concerning consent according to Can. 1095, § 1, n. 3 and the prohibition of every sacred rite. The other dispositions in like manner import a grave obligation, continually imposed by the Supreme Pontiffs with ruling words upon the pastoral care of Bishops and pastors. For it is a question of removing constant danger of souls.