Case 7. Banns

After the banns had been proclaimed in a certain church, Paul, a physician, went to the parish priest and disclosed that, as the family physician, he knew with certainty that the bridegroom suffered from syphilis and consumption and therefore ought not enter marriage. The parish priest, however, doubted whether or not he ought for that reason to forbid the marriage. Hence it is asked:

1. What obligation do the banns impose upon those who know an obstacle to marriage?

2. What is a committed secret, and when does it cease to oblige?

3. What is a prohibition of the Church?

4. What is to be said of the physician and the parish priest in the case?

1. What obligation do banns impose on those who know of an impediment to a proposed marriage?

Banns impose a grave precept to make known to the parish priest any secret impediment to a marriage that any one may know of. This precept binds not only in cases of a natural secret, but also in cases of a promised secret, but not of a professional secret except when this ceases to bind.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 205.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, 471 ff.

2. What is a professional secret and when does it cease to bind?

Professional secrets are those which are communicated to another under an express or implied obligation of secrecy. Such secrets should be made known if this is necessary to avert a public calamity. They may also be made known to avert serious harm which would be done to an innocent party by him whose secret is in question unless the secret were made known.¹

3. What is the prohibition of the Church?

The prohibition of the Church is one of the prohibitory impediments of marriage, which prevent a marriage being lawfully contracted but do not make it null and void if it is contracted in spite of the prohibition. It is particular if a particular marriage for just cause is forbidden by the parish priest, the bishop, or the Pope. It is general if it constitutes a law of the Church.²

2 Ibid., vol. ii, 288.

4. What about the doctor and the parish priest in the case?

The doctor was under the obligation of professional secrecy with regard to the diseases of the bridegroom. It would have been better if in the first instance he had tried to induce the bridegroom to put off the marriage until the syphilis at least was cured. If the bridegroom refused to put off the marriage and refused to acquaint the bride or her father with his state of health, the doctor would be at liberty to tell the secret to any one who could apply a remedy. He would be justified in telling the parish priest if he thought that the parish priest could do this. The priest should try his best to induce the bridegroom put off the marriage, and if he does not succeed he will be at liberty to communicate what he knows to the bride’s family. The priest can not refuse to assist at the marriage especially if the bride knows of the objection to it, and nevertheless consents to be married. But they should not use their marital rights till the syphilis at least is cured.¹

1 Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, vol. ii, 416 ff.