Article II. On the Extraordinary Juridic Form

With canon 1098 considered, marriage can be contracted before witnesses alone in a twofold case, namely: 1° if danger of death is present and a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience; 2° if a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience, and it is prudently foreseen that this condition of affairs will last for a month.

I. The former case is had if danger of death is present and a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience. Therefore there is required:

1. That danger of death be present. Grave danger suffices, or such danger as suffices for Viaticum to be administered. It is all the same whether the danger arises from illness or threatens from another cause, for example from shipwreck or from a dangerous operation to be undergone. Finally, it suffices that the danger threatens either party.

2. That a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience. It is said:

a) A competent priest, that is, the Ordinary or pastor of that territory, or a priest delegated by either of them.

b) Cannot be had or approached, that is, so that the competent priest can neither come nor be approached, or even if he comes or is approached, nevertheless cannot assist at the marriage without grave inconvenience.¹

c) Without grave inconvenience, that is, it is required that the things said under b) be physically or morally impossible. Now:

alpha) Impossibility can arise from lack of a priest, from their scarcity, from distance, from persecution, from a law which threatens punishment to the assisting minister, from an epidemic, from negligence of the minister who refuses to make the customary visitations, or even refuses to come or to assist, from the reputation of a penitent to be preserved.²

beta) Personal impossibility suffices and is required. It suffices, so that common or local impossibility is not required; it is required, so that common or local impossibility does not suffice if personal impossibility is excluded.³

gamma) Besides this, the case would be present if, with the Ordinary, pastor, and delegated priest lacking, another priest could obtain the faculty of assisting only by a less customary means; and to means of this kind belong telegraph, telephone, and automobile. I said concerning the faculty of assisting to be obtained: for if a priest furnished with the faculty in such a place can easily be summoned,⁴ this must be done, even if, for example, he could be summoned in time only by telephone.

delta) Finally note that the case has place even if the opportunity of having a competent priest has been culpably neglected, provided that here and now the opportunity has ceased.

Corollary. The case is present if danger of death is present and the competent priest, by assisting at the nuptials, would expose himself to punishment with civil law considered.

¹ Pontifical Commission, July 25, 1931 (A.A.S. 1931, p. 388); by this declaration the question is settled which, with the declarations of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments, January 31, 1916, and of the Pontifical Commission, March 10, 1928, considered, had not yet been decided.

² For example, a confessor in the confession of a penitent discovers that he is fostering perverse relations with a person from whom he cannot or does not wish to be separated, so that it is expedient for them to be joined in marriage. In the case the penitent is not bound to grant, nor is the confessor bound to seek from the penitent, permission for obtaining delegation, if the condition of the penitent is unknown and from the delegation obtained suspicion against the penitent could fall on the delegating person.

³ Cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 21, 1908, ad V; Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, March 13, 1910, ad I and II.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 27, 1908, ad V.

II. The latter case is had if a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience, and it is prudently foreseen that this condition of affairs will last for a month. It is said:

1. That a competent minister cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience; these things have been set forth under I, 2.

2. That it is prudently foreseen, etc.; that is, moral certainty, at least broad, is had about the continuance of the same condition of affairs. The fact of the minister's absence does not suffice.¹

3. That this condition of affairs will last for a month. Now, since in this case a starting term is assigned, a month is taken as it is in the calendar. And because the starting term does not coincide, or at least is not judged by law to coincide, with the beginning of the day, the first day is not computed, and the time is ended when the last day of the same number has been completed. But if the month lacks a day of the same number, the time is ended when the last day of the month has been completed. Hence if, for example, those about to marry began from March 25 to be in the required circumstances and foresaw that a missionary would arrive on April 25, they could not validly contract before witnesses alone (canon 34, § 3, 1°, 3°, 4°).

Corollary I. The case is again present if the competent minister, by assisting at the nuptials, would expose himself to punishment with civil law considered.

Corollary II. Even one who in fraud of the law betakes himself to a region where he cannot have or approach a competent minister can contract marriage before witnesses alone, provided that this condition of affairs is prudently foreseen to last for a month. Indeed, of itself he does not even seem to act illicitly, because it is permitted to place the cause by which one is exempted from the law.

¹ Pontifical Commission, November 10, 1925 (A.A.S. 1925, p. 582).

III. Things to be observed in each case. 1. For validity it is required that the presence of the witnesses be simultaneous, physical, and moral (n. 734).

2. In each case, if another priest is at hand who can be present, he must be called and assist at the marriage together with the witnesses, with due regard for the validity of the marriage before witnesses alone (canon 1098, 2°).

3. The spouses should emit matrimonial consent; but it is not necessary that the witnesses or priest request the consent.¹

What if on the one hand necessity is urgent, but on the other hand not even the extraordinary form can be used?

Response 1. If danger of death is present, dispensation can be made in the form, as will be explained later.

Response 2. Outside danger of death, and also in danger of death if one who can dispense in the form is lacking, the circumstances can be such that marriage, by epikeia, can be celebrated even without witnesses; for example, if otherwise someone would have to abstain from entering marriage always or for a very long time, or would be exposed to danger of grave infamy, or, as many wish, would be in most grave danger of eternal damnation (St. Alphonsus VI, 613).

¹ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, June 23, 1830 (Collectanea, n. 816).