Article I. On the Necessity of the Banns

I say. There exists, by necessity of an ecclesiastical precept, a grave obligation of proclaiming the banns before the celebration of Marriage.

It is established concerning the precept from the Lateran and Tridentine Councils and from the new Code: Let it be publicly announced by the pastor between whom marriage is to be contracted (Can. 1022). But the gravity of the obligation is deduced from this, that a general discipline prescribed by two general Councils and resting upon grave motives produces a grave obligation. It is said 1°. by necessity of precept, because it is certain that banns are not required by necessity of the sacrament, for the aforesaid Councils place no invalidating clause. It is said 2°. ecclesiastical, because although by natural law there exists an obligation of inquiring whether some impediment is present for the future Marriage, nevertheless there is not had an obligation of employing such a means.

Question 1. Whether the aforesaid obligation strictly urges in this region?

Resp. Affirmatively; for it is a universal law, again and again repeated by the Baltimore Fathers both in the First and in the Second Plenary Council and by very many diocesan statutes.

Question 2. Are all who are about to contract subject to the law of proclamation?

Resp. Affirmatively, because the law is altogether general. Nevertheless, by usage Princes are excepted, because their lineage is sufficiently known, and ordinarily their marriages are sufficiently public. Except also the case of necessity, for example, if someone near death should wish to marry a concubine in order to legitimate offspring, and there would be danger in delay. - Cf. Ferraris, under the words Denuntiationes Matrimonii.

Publications are not to be made for marriages which are contracted with dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult or of mixed religion, unless the Ordinary of the place, according to his prudence, scandal having been removed, has judged it opportune to permit them, provided the apostolic dispensation has preceded and mention of the religion of the non-Catholic party is omitted (Can. 1026).

Question 3. Does a Pastor who omits the banns sin gravely, if he knows that no impediment is present?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is: 1°. because with difficulty can the Pastor be altogether certain that no impediment of Marriage is present; 2°. because, even if no impediment appears before the proclamation of the banns, it can happen that, once they have been proclaimed, some impediment supervenes; 3°. because a law does not cease when its final cause ceases only in a particular case. - But it is probable that it is not a mortal sin if one denunciation, and perhaps even if two, are omitted. Cf. S. Alphonsus, nn. 990 and 991.

Question 4. What formula is to be used in making the proclamations?

Resp. Concerning this matter the Roman Ritual establishes thus: But the publications are to be made in this way. During the solemnities of Masses or during other divine offices, as above, the Pastor is to admonish the people in this sense in the vernacular speech:

"Let it be known to all here present, that N., son of N., of the family N., of the parish of St. N., and N., daughter of N., of the family N., of the parish of St. N., intend to contract Marriage between themselves. Therefore we admonish all and singular persons that if anyone knows that some impediment of consanguinity or affinity or spiritual relationship, or any other impediment whatever, exists between them, which would impede the Marriage to be contracted between them, he ought to reveal it as soon as possible to the Pastor or to the Ordinary of the place; and this we admonish FIRST, if it is the first; or SECOND, if it is the second; or THIRD, if it is the third publication." Tit. VII, c. 1, n. 8.