Dispensation for a mixed marriage and its conditions

However, in countries where Catholics and non-Catholics live together, and especially if the latter greatly outnumber the former, as they do in Great Britain and in the United States, it is almost impossible to avoid mixed marriages sometimes, and the Holy See grants the necessary dispensation, Certain conditions must be fulfilled before the dispensation for a mixed marriage is granted. In the first place, there must be a grave canonical cause, or a good reason such as the Church recognizes to be sufficient for a dispensation in this matter. In order to remove as far as possible the danger connected with mixed marriages, the Church requires that the non-Catholic party shall promise to leave the Catholic the free exercise of his religion, and that both parties promise to bring up all the children in the Catholic faith. Moreover, the Catholic party must undertake to do his best to bring about the conversion of his spouse to the Catholic religion. The necessity of these promises is founded in the natural and divine law, and the common law of the Church requires that there should be moral certainty that they will be fulfilled and that as a rule they should be in writing (Can. 1061).

If one of the parties be a baptized Catholic, but one who has given up the practice of his religion without going over to any heretical sect, there is no strict impediment to his marrying a Catholic, but of course efforts should be made for his conversion, and if he remain indifferent the Bishop should be consulted (Can. 1066).

In England, when a dispensation has been obtained for a mixed marriage, some Bishops allow the priest to assist at it at the altar rails vested in surplice and stole.

The banns should not be published unless the local Ordinary judge that they may be permitted, taking the necessary precautions to avoid scandal, and omitting all mention of the difference of religion (Can. 1026).

A sermon before or after the function is not prohibited. Mass, however, should never be said nor the nuptial blessing given at a mixed marriage.

The Church does not allow the Catholic party to go through any marriage rite before a non-Catholic minister acting as such. If the non-Catholic minister acts as a civil magistrate, and Catholics are obliged to go through the marriage ceremony in his presence in order to have their marriages recognized by the State, it is permitted (Can. 1063).

"... And to this altogether pertain the most ancient canons severely forbidding mixed marriages themselves, and the more recent Sanctions of the Supreme Pontiffs, concerning which Benedict XIV of immortal memory speaks in his encyclical Letters to the Bishops of the kingdom of Poland, and in the most celebrated work which is inscribed On the Diocesan Synod. Hence moreover it happens that this Apostolic See, to which alone belongs the power of dispensing over an impediment of mixed religion of this sort, if, relaxing something from the severity of the canons, it has sometimes permitted these mixed marriages, did this only for grave causes and very reluctantly, and never except always under the express condition concerning the necessary and opportune cautions to be premised, namely that not only could the Catholic spouse not be perverted by the non-Catholic, but indeed that the Catholic spouse himself should know that he is bound to draw back the non-Catholic from error according to his strength; and also that all the offspring of either sex, to be procreated from these mixed marriages, must altogether be educated in the sanctity of the Catholic religion. These cautions indeed can never be remitted, or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with all zeal to guard safe and intact, and against which, without any doubt, they sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these promiscuous nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion. Moreover, in granting dispensations of this sort, besides the mentioned cautions, which must always be premised, and over which dispensation can in no way ever be made, conditions were also added that these mixed marriages must be celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and without any other ecclesiastical rite. These conditions indeed especially look to this, that in the minds of Catholics there never be forgotten the memory both of the canons, which detest mixed Matrimonies of this sort, and of that most constant zeal, by which holy Mother Church has never ceased to avert and deter her children from these same mixed marriages being contracted to their own destruction and that of future offspring.... The same Most Holy Lord of Ours established that in the concession of these dispensations the formula of that Rescript is to be used, in which, even if the aforesaid conditions concerning these mixed marriages being celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and other ecclesiastical rite are not openly declared, nevertheless they are implicitly contained. And His Holiness vehemently admonishes, exhorts, and excites in the Lord all Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries, and commands them, that when in the future by the formula of this Rescript they shall have obtained from this Holy See the faculty of dispensing over the impediment of mixed religion, in executing the same faculty they never cease to watch with all care and zeal, that the conditions also be sedulously fulfilled concerning these mixed Matrimonies being celebrated outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest and other ecclesiastical rite. But if in some places the sacred Prelates shall have known that the same conditions cannot be fulfilled without graver damages and evils arising therefrom, in this case only, in order to avoid greater damages and evils of this sort, His Holiness commits to the prudent judgment of the same sacred Prelates that they themselves, the cautions always being safe and firm and most diligently observed concerning removing the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse, procuring the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse by the Catholic spouse himself according to his strength, and all the offspring of either sex being altogether educated in the sanctity of the Catholic religion, judge when the commemorated conditions concerning contracting these mixed nuptials outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest can by no means be fulfilled, and when, in entering these promiscuous marriages, there can be tolerated the custom of employing the rite legitimately prescribed in the diocesan Ritual for contracting Marriages, yet always with the celebration of Mass excluded, and with all circumstances of things, places, and persons most diligently weighed, and the conscience of the Prelates themselves burdened concerning the truth and gravity of all the circumstances. But His Holiness greatly desires that these same sacred Prelates keep this indulgence, or rather toleration, wholly committed to their judgment and conscience, with the greatest silence and secrecy with which it can be done." Instruction of the Secretariat of State to all local Ordinaries, 15 Nov. 1858.

"... What priestly zeal had already suggested to the sacred Prelates of Hungary, now after this law has been passed let it be cared for all the more with all strength, that the faithful be averted from contracting mixed nuptials, and altogether deterred. For as regards the remedy proposed by Your Eminence, namely of obtaining from the Holy Apostolic See a faculty by which it would be lawful for you to dispense with a Catholic bridegroom or bride about to marry in the prohibition of mixed religion, and also to impart the nuptial blessing in at least those cases of mixed marriages to be entered, in which, from the rightly known mind and disposition of will of the Catholic party, indeed of both spouses, it can be hoped that Catholic education, as far as possible, will be bestowed even upon that offspring which by force of civil law would not be educated Catholic, even if by its form, either by baptism imparted with this intention, or by another external act, it would not be received into the bosom of the Church; this seemed such to the Most Eminent Fathers that it can never be permitted, nor even tolerated, by the same Holy Apostolic See. Indeed Your Eminence knows that the Church can never permit the celebration of mixed nuptials unless grave canonical causes concur, and unless opportune cautions are exhibited, by whose force the danger of perversion is removed from the Catholic spouse, and provision is made for the Catholic instruction and education of all the offspring. This Catholic doctrine indeed has very often been announced and declared by the Supreme Pontiffs even in those concessions in which they professed that their indulgence had touched those limits which it is altogether unlawful to transgress. That other Pontiffs be passed over, Pius VIII of holy memory, in Apostolic letters given to the Archbishop of Cologne and his suffragans on 25 March 1830, most gravely inculcates: 'But you know, Venerable brothers, that all these cautions look to this, that in this matter the natural and divine laws be held safe and intact; since it is established that Catholic persons, whether men or women, who contract nuptials with non-Catholics in such a way that they rashly commit themselves or their future offspring to the danger of perversion, not only violate canonical sanctions, but also directly and most gravely sin against the natural and divine law. And hence you already understand that we too would be guilty before God and the Church of a most grave crime, if concerning nuptials of this sort to be contracted in those regions we consented that those things be done by you or by the parish priests of your dioceses, by which, if not in words, nevertheless by the facts themselves they would be approved indiscriminately.' Indeed Gregory XVI of holy memory also, to those same Bishops of Hungary, your predecessors, in the letters by which he extended to that Kingdom a like indulgence of the extreme limits, asserted entirely the same divine law concerning cautions founded in the divine and natural law itself, against which without doubt he sins most gravely, whoever rashly commits himself or his future offspring to the danger of perversion. And finally, by order of Pius IX of holy memory, to all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ordinaries on 15 Nov. of the year 1858 it was declared in express words: 'These cautions indeed can never be remitted or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with every zeal to guard safe and intact, and against which without any doubt they sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these promiscuous nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion.' According to this doctrine the Holy Apostolic See has always constantly held and holds that in no way is it lawful to dispense in the prohibition of mixed religion, unless in individual cases, besides canonical causes, the three following conditions concur at the same time, namely: 1. That the parties, and especially the heretical party, have supplied true cautions, by which they bind themselves before the Church to those things which the same Church requires from them; among which the Catholic education of absolutely all the offspring without any exception or restriction holds the chief place. 2. That the ecclesiastical superior have moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of the cautions for the present, and concerning their fulfillment for the future. 3. That the exhibition of the caution be notorious, or at least capable of being such for removing every scandal.

Since these things are so, it can in no way be done that that hope, which is founded solely in the good disposition of will of the contracting parties, can hold the place of true cautions, both because in reality the contracting parties would assume no obligation before the Church, and because this hope, in the present condition of affairs, as it has been described by Your Eminence, does not exclude, indeed supposes, that offspring to be born, which follows the sex of the heretical parent, is to be baptized by a minister of the sect and enrolled by instruction in the same sect; which thing would not only overturn the whole reason of cautions for the Church, but would constitute a caution for heresy. From these things it necessarily follows that it is not lawful in the exposed circumstances of affairs to impart the nuptial blessing. For if without the customary cautions it is never lawful to dispense over the prohibition of mixed religion, much less will it be lawful to honor with the sacred rite of blessing such marriages which, according to the unshaken doctrine of the Church, are altogether opposed not only to ecclesiastical law, but to the natural and divine law...." S. O. 21 July 1880, to the Cardinal Primate and Archbishop of Esztergom. Nouv. Revue Theol. Vol. 18, p. 5 ff.

"... Passing now to another point concerning the commanded assistance of parish priests in mixed marriages, we say that if, the above-named admonition having been premised for calling back the Catholic party from the illicit marriage, the party nevertheless persists in the will of contracting it, and the marriage is foreseen as infallibly about to follow, then the Catholic parish priest will be able to exhibit his material presence, yet in such a way that he is bound to observe the following cautions: 1st, that he not assist at such a marriage in a sacred place, nor vested in any vestment bearing the sacred rite, nor will he recite over the contracting parties any ecclesiastical prayers, and in no way will he bless them. 2nd, that he require and receive from the heretical contracting party a declaration in writing, by which with an oath, in the presence of two witnesses, who also must subscribe, he binds himself to permitting to the co-party the free use of the Catholic religion and to educating in the same all children to be born, without any distinction of sex.... 3rd, that the Catholic contracting party himself also put forth a declaration subscribed by himself and two witnesses, in which with an oath he promises not only that he will never apostatize from his Catholic religion, but that he will educate in it all offspring to be born, and that he will efficaciously procure the conversion of the other non-Catholic contracting party. 4th, as regards the proclamations commanded by the Caesarean decree, which the Bishops reprehend as being acts civil rather than sacred, we respond: since they are preordained to the future celebration of marriage, and consequently contain positive cooperation with the same, which certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance, we cannot consent that these be made...." Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

"The required cautions formerly had to be confirmed in writing or even by oath; but today there suffices such a promise which, reduced into an agreement, supplies a moral foundation concerning the truth of execution, so that an execution of this sort can prudently be expected; from the decision of the Holy Office, 30 June 1842." Marc, Instit. Moral. Alphons., ed. 2, n. 1987.

"As to the first article of banns or proclamations, it can be tolerated that they be made not only outside the Church, as is permitted in the aforesaid royal letters, but also in every way outside a sacred place. And this will be the first public sign of disapproval of these marriages; but, that the disapproval itself may become more manifest, and may indicate on the part of the parish priest that his cooperation will be a purely material and compelled concurrence, it is preferable to add to the customary formula of banns some expression indicating that marriages of this kind are execrable." Rescript of Pius VI, 31 May 1783, to the Archbishop of Mechlin. Cf. Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechlin, and the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

"... Let them beware besides, lest in publishing mixed marriages they express the religion of the non-Catholic contracting party, but let them announce only the names and surnames of the contracting parties...." Pius VI, Extension of the declaration of Benedict XIV to the Duchy of Cleves, 19 June 1793.

"... And indeed as regards the blessing, as you know very well, this Apostolic See has been accustomed to prohibit it also in those marriages which are entered between Catholics and non-Catholics, with leave of the same See having been obtained, and with the cautions prescribed by it having been applied. And if afterwards it could be tolerated that a custom introduced in some regions be observed of blessing mixed marriages entered with the leave of the Church and the aforesaid cautions, nevertheless the same blessing is never to be tolerated in those cases in which, with no leave of the Church acceding and without the necessary cautions premised, a manifest and most grave crime is admitted in the very entering of the marriage covenant.... And these things are consonant with the precepts and admonitions which, whether in Our letters or those of Our predecessor Pius VIII to various Archbishops and Bishops, or in instructions published either by his order or by Ours, you know to have been recorded, Venerable brother. Nor indeed does it matter if those instructions were given only to some prelates who had consulted this Apostolic See, as if it were free for others not to follow their opinion.... Even if those letters and instructions, in that part in which they indulge or tolerate something new, are referred only to those places for which they were given, nevertheless the reason of them is circumscribed by no limits, insofar as they announce the unchangeable doctrine of the Church, inculcate the opinion of the canons, and proscribe depraved usages which are growing strong anywhere...." Gregory XVI, Letter of 23 May 1846 to the Archbishop of Freiburg.

"... It is necessary that satisfaction be made by the aforesaid spouses to the Church, whose most holy law has been violated, and that cautions concerning removing from themselves and from their offspring the danger of eternal salvation be supplied to the same, even in the external forum, and to this end recourse to the Bishop is to be required." S. I. C. 12 March 1881, to Apostolic Vicar B. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 16, p. 235.

“The Bishop of Bardstown explains that many Protestants, without any intention of embracing the Catholic religion, often solicit permission to give consent to contracting Matrimony either before one of his priests or before the bishop himself. It should be noted that in such circumstances the bishop and priests would act not as priests but as civil magistrates, which is permitted by the laws of the commonwealth. He now asks whether it is lawful for himself and his missionaries to preside over such Marriages.

“Response. If the question concerns a Marriage between two heretical parties, although intervention of this kind is not so reprobated that it can never be lawful, nevertheless it is commonly to be discouraged. But if one party is Catholic, after a dispensation has been obtained from the impediment of mixed religion and the usual clauses and conditions have been observed, it is lawful.” Holy Office, 20 December 1837.

“With what rite shall a priest assist at Marriages in which one party is non-Catholic? Is it lawful to pronounce the form, say the prayers, and bless the ring of the heretical bride?—Response. Negative.” Holy Office, 1 August 1821.

“But some of you have also petitioned Us that We grant them the power to impart dispensations or permissions for contracting between persons of whom one professes the Catholic faith and the other heresy.... The Apostolic See has been accustomed to impart this permission only with very great reluctance and much caution, in order to remove the aforesaid danger insofar as possible, and only when some grave and generally public cause intervenes. But it has never granted, especially in Europe, that bishops, even when they petition most insistently, may give the same permission.... Therefore, if We now had to respond to this petition, Our response certainly could not depart from the constant rule of this Holy See and from the example and manner of acting of Our Predecessors.” Brief of Pius VII, 17 February 1809, to the Bishops of France.

“Concerning this matter, only the following has been tolerated in some places: parish priests who, in order to avert graver injuries to the Catholic cause, were compelled to offer their presence at the contracting of these nuptials, might indeed permit them to be effected in their presence—provided, of course, that no other canonical impediment was present—so that, after hearing the consent of both parties, they might afterward, in accordance with their office, record in the book of Marriages the act validly performed; but they were always to beware of approving by any act of their own such unlawful Marriages, and much more of mingling sacred prayers or any ecclesiastical rite with them.” Pius VIII, 25 March 1830, to the Bishops of the Rhine Provinces.

“...And to this matter altogether pertain the most ancient canons severely prohibiting mixed unions themselves and the more recent enactments of the Supreme Pontiffs, concerning which Benedict XIV, of immortal memory, speaks in his Encyclical Letters to the Bishops of the Kingdom of Poland and in the most celebrated work entitled On the Diocesan Synod. Hence, moreover, it has come about that this Apostolic See, to which alone belongs the power of dispensing from an impediment of mixed religion of this kind, if, relaxing something of the severity of the canons, it has sometimes permitted these mixed unions, has done this with very great reluctance and only for grave causes, and always under the express condition that the necessary and suitable cautions be given beforehand: namely, that not only could the Catholic spouse not be perverted by the non-Catholic spouse, and indeed that the Catholic spouse should know himself bound to withdraw the non-Catholic from error according to his powers, but also that all offspring of either sex to be procreated from these mixed Marriages must be educated altogether in the holiness of the Catholic religion. These cautions can never be remitted or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with all effort to preserve safe and intact, and against which those undoubtedly sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these mixed nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion. Moreover, in granting dispensations of this kind, in addition to the stated cautions, which must always be premised and from which dispensation can never in any way be given, conditions were also added that these mixed unions must be celebrated outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without any other ecclesiastical rite. These conditions principally have this purpose: that there may never be effaced from the minds of Catholics the memory both of the canons which detest mixed Marriages of this kind and of that most constant solicitude by which Holy Mother Church has never ceased to turn and deter her children from contracting those same mixed unions to the ruin of themselves and of their future offspring.... Our same Most Holy Lord established that, in granting these dispensations, the formula of that Rescript is to be used in which, although the aforesaid conditions concerning the celebration of these mixed unions outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without another ecclesiastical rite are not expressly declared, they are nevertheless implicitly contained. And His Holiness earnestly admonishes, exhorts, and urges in the Lord all archbishops, bishops, and other Ordinaries of places, and commands them that when in the future they obtain from this Holy See, through the formula of this Rescript, the faculty of dispensing from the impediment of mixed religion, they never cease, in executing the same faculty, to watch with every care and diligence that the conditions concerning the celebration of these mixed Marriages outside the church, without the blessing of the parish priest, and without another ecclesiastical rite are also diligently fulfilled. But if in some places the sacred Prelates should recognize that the same conditions cannot be fulfilled without graver injuries and evils arising therefrom, in this case alone, in order to avoid greater injuries and evils of this kind, His Holiness entrusts it to the prudent judgment of those same sacred Prelates that they themselves—provided that the cautions concerning removal of the danger of perversion from the Catholic spouse, the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse to be procured according to his powers by the Catholic spouse, and the complete education of all offspring of either sex in the holiness of the Catholic religion are always preserved safe and firm and observed with the greatest diligence—judge when the aforementioned conditions concerning contracting these mixed nuptials outside the church and without the blessing of the parish priest cannot be fulfilled at all, and when, in entering these mixed unions, the custom of employing the rite legitimately prescribed in the diocesan Ritual for contracting Marriages can be tolerated, the celebration of Mass nevertheless always being excluded, and all the circumstances of things, places, and persons being most diligently weighed, and the conscience of the Prelates themselves being burdened concerning the truth and gravity of all the circumstances. His Holiness, however, greatly desires that those same sacred Prelates preserve with the greatest possible silence and secrecy an indulgence—or rather a tolerance—of this kind, committed altogether to their judgment and conscience.” Instruction of the Secretariat of State to all Ordinaries of places, 15 November 1858. Cf. C. 1428.

“...What priestly zeal had already suggested to the sacred Prelates of Hungary, let it now, after the enactment of this law, be attended to with all the greater effort and with all their strength: that the faithful be turned away and altogether deterred from contracting mixed nuptials. For with regard to the remedy proposed by Your Eminence—namely, obtaining from the Holy Apostolic See a faculty by which it would be lawful for you to dispense with a Catholic bridegroom or bride who is to marry under the prohibition of mixed religion, and even to impart the nuptial blessing at least in those cases of mixed Marriages to be entered in which, from a rightly known disposition of the mind and will of the Catholic party, indeed of both betrothed parties, it can be hoped that, insofar as possible, a Catholic education will be given even to that offspring which, by force of civil law, would not be educated as Catholic, although the offspring would not be received into the bosom of the Church either through the form of Baptism imparted with this intention or through another external act—the Most Eminent Fathers judged this to be such that it can never be permitted, nor even tolerated, by the same Holy Apostolic See. Your Eminence certainly knows that the Church can never permit the celebration of mixed nuptials unless grave canonical causes concur and unless suitable cautions are furnished, by virtue of which the danger of perversion is removed from the Catholic spouse and provision is made for the Catholic instruction and education of all the offspring. This Catholic doctrine has very frequently been enunciated by the Supreme Pontiffs and declared even in those concessions in which they professed that they had reached those limits of indulgence beyond which it would be altogether unlawful to proceed. Passing over the other Pontiffs, Pius VIII, of holy memory, most gravely inculcates in the Apostolic Letter given to the Archbishop of Cologne and his suffragans on 25 March 1830: “You know, Venerable Brothers, that all those cautions have this purpose: that in this matter the natural and divine laws may be preserved safe and intact; since it is established that Catholic persons, whether men or women, who contract nuptials with non-Catholics in such a manner that they rashly commit themselves or their future offspring to the danger of perversion, not only violate the canonical enactments, but also sin directly and most gravely against the natural and divine law. And from this you now understand that We too would be guilty of a most grave crime before God and the Church if, concerning nuptials of this kind to be contracted in those regions, We consented to those things being done by you or by the parish priests of your dioceses by which, if not in words, nevertheless by the deeds themselves, they would indiscriminately be approved.” Moreover, Gregory XVI, of holy memory, in the Letter to those same Bishops of Hungary, your Predecessors, by which he extended to that kingdom an equal indulgence at the extreme limits, asserted altogether the same divine law concerning cautions founded in the divine and natural law itself, against which anyone who rashly commits himself or his future offspring to the danger of perversion undoubtedly sins most gravely. And finally, by command of Pius IX, of holy memory, it was declared in express words to all archbishops, bishops, and Ordinaries on 15 November 1858: “These cautions can never be remitted or dispensed from, since they are founded in the natural and divine law itself, which the Church and this Holy See strive with all effort to preserve safe and intact, and against which those undoubtedly sin most gravely who, by rashly contracting these mixed nuptials, commit themselves and the offspring to be received therefrom to the danger of perversion.” In accordance with this doctrine, the Holy Apostolic See has always constantly maintained and still maintains that it is in no way lawful to dispense from the prohibition of mixed religion unless, in each case, in addition to the canonical causes, the following three conditions concur at the same time, namely: 1. That the parties, and especially the heretical party, have furnished true cautions by which they bind themselves before the Church to those things which the same Church requires from them; among these, the Catholic education of absolutely all the offspring without any exception or restriction holds the principal place. 2. That the ecclesiastical superior possess moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of the cautions for the present and concerning their fulfillment for the future. 3. That the furnishing of the caution be notorious, or at least be capable of being such, for removing every scandal.

“Since these things are so, it is in no way possible that that hope which rests solely upon the good disposition of the will of the contracting parties can take the place of true cautions: both because the contracting parties would in fact assume no obligation before the Church, and because this hope, in the present condition of affairs as described by Your Eminence, does not exclude, but rather supposes, that the offspring to be born which follows the sex of the heretical parent is to be baptized by the minister of the sect and assigned to instruction in the same sect. This would not only subvert the whole purpose of the cautions on behalf of the Church, but would constitute a caution on behalf of heresy. From these things it follows necessarily that it is not lawful, in the circumstances of affairs set forth, to impart the nuptial blessing. For if without the customary cautions it is never lawful to dispense from the prohibition of mixed religion, much less can it be lawful to honor with the sacred rite of blessing such Marriages as, according to the unshaken doctrine of the Church, are altogether contrary not only to ecclesiastical law but also to natural and divine law....” Holy Office, 21 July 1880, to the Cardinal Primate and Archbishop of Esztergom; M. E., vol. 5, part 1, p. 198.

“...Passing now to another point concerning the assistance at mixed Marriages imposed upon parish priests, We say that if, after the above-mentioned admonition has first been given in order to call the Catholic party away from the unlawful Marriage, that party nevertheless persists in the will to contract it and it is foreseen that the Marriage will infallibly follow, the Catholic parish priest will then be able to offer his material presence, but in such a manner that he is bound to observe the following precautions: 1. That he not assist at such a Marriage in a sacred place, nor be clothed in any vestment displaying a sacred rite, nor recite any ecclesiastical prayers over the contracting parties, and in no way bless them. 2. That he require and receive from the heretical contracting party a written declaration by which, under oath and in the presence of two witnesses who must themselves also subscribe it, that party binds himself or herself to permit the other party the free exercise of the Catholic religion and to educate in it all children to be born, without any distinction of sex.... 3. That the Catholic contracting party also issue a declaration subscribed by that party and two witnesses, in which, under oath, the party promises not only never to apostatize from the Catholic religion, but also to educate in it all offspring to be born and to procure efficaciously the conversion of the other, non-Catholic contracting party. 4. With regard to the proclamations commanded by the Imperial Decree, which the bishops object are civil rather than sacred acts, We respond: since they are preordained to the future celebration of the Marriage and consequently contain positive cooperation in it—which certainly exceeds the limits of simple tolerance—We cannot consent that they be made....” Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechelen, and to the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

“If, therefore, on account of the condition of times, places, and persons, the Marriage of a non-Catholic man with a Catholic woman, and conversely, can in no way be prevented without danger of greater evil and scandal to the detriment of religion, then indeed, in order to prevent greater injuries and scandals, one must abstain from correcting the Catholic spouse by censures expressly pronounced against that spouse by name. Indeed, it must be tolerated both that the customary banns be made by the Catholic parish priest, but with all mention of the religion of those who are to contract the nuptials omitted, and also that merely testimonial letters concerning the banns made be granted, in which, if no invalidating impediment is present, it is declared only that ‘nothing besides the prohibition of the Church on account of the impediment of mixed religion stands in the way of the Marriage to be contracted,’ with no word added from which even a slight suspicion of consent or approval might arise. But if it is recognized that it can conduce to the utility of the Church and the common good of souls that nuptials of this kind, however unlawful and prohibited, be celebrated before a Catholic parish priest rather than before a heretical minister, to whom the parties might easily have recourse, then the Catholic parish priest himself, or another priest acting in his place, will be able to be present at those nuptials by material presence alone, every ecclesiastical rite being excluded, just as if he acted the part of a mere witness commonly called qualified or authorized; namely, so that, after hearing the consent of each spouse, he may afterward, in accordance with his office, record in the book of Marriages the act validly performed.” Instruction to the Bishops of Bavaria, 12 September 1834. Cf. C. 1429.

“The required cautions formerly had to be confirmed in writing or even by oath; but today ‘such a promise suffices as, having been brought into an agreement, furnishes a moral foundation concerning the truth of its execution, so that an execution of this kind can prudently be expected,’ from the Decision of the Holy Office, 30 June 1842.” Marc, Alphonsian Moral Institutions, 2nd ed., no. 1987; Holy Office, 17 February 1875; C. 1437, 1439; M. E., vol. 12, p. 438.

“If, in some extraordinary case, such circumstances concur that the bishop can acquire for himself moral certainty both concerning the sincerity of cautions of this kind for the present and concerning their fulfillment for the future, and altogether special reasons are present which prevent the cautions from being given in the customary manner, the matter is entrusted to his conscience and prudence. Otherwise, notwithstanding the royal Decree, suitable cautions are to be furnished in writing, as has been done hitherto; nor is a dispensation to be given unless the bishop is morally certain that they will be fulfilled.” Holy Office, 10 December 1902; M. E., vol. 15, p. 247; A. S. S., vol. 36, p. 165.

“With regard to the first article concerning banns or proclamations, it can be tolerated that they be made not only outside the church, as is permitted in the aforesaid royal letters, but also altogether outside a sacred place. And this will be the first public sign of the disapproval of these Marriages. But in order that the disapproval itself may become more manifest and may indicate on the part of the parish priest that his cooperation will be a purely material and compelled concurrence, it is preferable to add to the customary formula of the banns some expression indicating that Marriages of this kind are to be detested.” Rescript of Pius VI, 31 May 1783, to the Archbishop of Mechelen. Cf. Rescript of Pius VI to Cardinal de Frankenberg, Archbishop of Mechelen, and to the Bishops of Belgium, 13 July 1792.

“...Let them beware, moreover, lest in publishing mixed Marriages they express the religion of the non-Catholic contracting party; rather, let them announce only the names and surnames of the contracting parties....” Pius VI, Extension of the Declaration of Benedict XIV to the Duchy of Cleves, 19 June 1793.

The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith declared on 4 July 1874 that proclamations can be made in mixed unions when they seem necessary and suitable in the judgment of the Ordinary for discovering impediments, with mention of the religion of those who are to contract the nuptials omitted. C. 1223.

“...And indeed, with regard to the blessing, as you know very well, this Apostolic See has been accustomed to prohibit it even in those Marriages which are entered between Catholics and non-Catholics after permission from the same See has been obtained and the cautions prescribed by it have been employed. And even if it could thereafter be tolerated that the custom introduced in some regions of blessing mixed Marriages entered with the permission of the Church and the aforesaid cautions be observed, nevertheless the same blessing must never be tolerated in those cases in which, with no permission of the Church intervening and without the necessary cautions having first been given, a manifest and most grave crime is committed in the very entering of the matrimonial covenant.... And these things accord with the precepts and admonitions which you know, Venerable Brother, to have been recorded either in Our Letters or in those of Our Predecessor Pius VIII to various archbishops and bishops, or in Instructions issued either by his command or by Ours. Nor indeed does it matter if those Instructions were given only to certain Prelates who had consulted this Apostolic See, as though others were free not to follow their judgment.... Although those Letters and Instructions, insofar as they grant or tolerate something new, refer only to the places for which they were given, nevertheless their rationale is circumscribed by no limits insofar as they announce the immutable doctrine of the Church, inculcate the judgment of the canons, and proscribe depraved customs which may have become prevalent somewhere....” Gregory XVI, Letter of 23 May 1846, to the Archbishop of Freiburg. Cf. C. 1423, 1433.

“Whether, in mixed Marriages, the priest must also abstain from pronouncing the words: I join you together in Matrimony.—Response. Let the parish priest assisting at a Marriage of mixed religion abstain.” Holy Office, 26 November 1835; C. 1427.

Yes, she sometimes does, for grave reasons based on religious interests; for example, when in an exceptional case a well-grounded hope of the other party's early conversion makes the disadvantages and dangers more remote; and when a reason of a political nature demands such a concession.¹ Sometimes, too, the reason for the dispensation is hardness of heart; it is given to prevent a still greater evil. But when she does dispense, the Church imposes conditions dictated by the spiritual interests of the parties and of the children. She requires that the Catholic party work for the conversion of the other; that the non-Catholic party agree in writing to allow the Catholic party full liberty to practise his or her religion devoutly. Moreover both parties must promise in writing to educate in the Catholic Faith all the children that may be born of the marriage.²

¹ [Translator’s note: This latter reason would seem to have application only in countries, such as many of those of Europe, where matrimonial alliances between royal families have political importance.]

² See Code of Canon Law, Canons 1061, 1062.

787. A dispensation for contracting a mixed matrimony pertains to the Holy See alone, namely, to the Holy Office.³⁰ Hence the opinion of certain older moralists who thought that a bishop could dispense by his own authority from the impediment of mixed religion now has no probability. But by delegation of the Holy See very many bishops can dispense for the celebration of mixed marriages. By common law, not only when danger of death is urgent, but also when the matrimony cannot be deferred without probable danger of grave evil until a dispensation is obtained from the Holy See, the local Ordinary can dispense from this impediment. Indeed, if not even the local Ordinary can be approached, both the parish priest and the confessor possess the same faculty. But the latter only for the internal forum and in the act of sacramental confession.³¹

³⁰ Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, January 3, 1871.

³¹ Code of Canon Law, cann. 1043-1045.

788. The conditions required for a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion are the following:

1. Just and grave causes.

For example, grave danger of apostasy of the Catholic party if the dispensation is denied; fear that otherwise only a civil matrimony will be entered, or one only before a non-Catholic minister; a founded hope of conversion of the non-Catholic party.

2. Guarantees furnished by a serious, explicit, and trustworthy promise, namely:

a) that all offspring of either sex be baptized and educated in the holy Catholic religion. Each spouse must promise this.^31a

This condition applies to all offspring, not only those to be born from this matrimony, but also those illegitimately generated by the contracting parties themselves before the matrimony. Moreover, both the parish priest and the Catholic party must prudently take care that offspring perhaps born to the other spouse in a preceding union be withdrawn from heresy and educated as Catholics. For when one spouse obstinately wishes to educate in heresy offspring begotten from another union, a vehement fear is often induced that in the new matrimony he will not fulfill the prescribed conditions. Wherefore then the dispensation must be sought and put into execution very cautiously.

b) that every proximate danger of perversion be excluded from the Catholic party and that the exercise of his religion be entirely free to him. The non-Catholic spouse must promise this.

These guarantees are regularly to be given in writing.³² Moreover, it is required that those wishing to enter a mixed matrimony present themselves before a non-Catholic minister neither before nor after the matrimony. If the parish priest certainly knows that the spouses will approach, or have already approached, a non-Catholic minister, he should not assist at their matrimony except for the gravest causes, with scandal removed and the Ordinary first consulted. The Catholic spouse is bound prudently to procure the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse.³³

^31a See the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, January 14, 1932 (Acta Ap. Sed. XXIV, 25).

³² Code of Canon Law, can. 1061.

³³ Ibid., can. 1062.

789. The rite to be observed in contracting a mixed matrimony. By common law the parish priest cannot concede (either validly or licitly) assistance so called passive in mixed marriages if the guarantees have not been furnished;³⁴ but even if those guarantees have been furnished, he cannot employ a sacred rite, but without sacred garb and outside the church he must ask for and receive the matrimonial consent of those about to marry before two witnesses. But by particular law the proclamations and all the ceremonies contained in the Ritual are not rarely permitted, "the celebration of Mass, however, always excluded."³⁵ Therefore the votive Mass for bridegroom and bride, or another Mass with the nuptial blessing, can never be said in the celebration of a mixed matrimony. It is not prohibited, however, that the contracting parties cause a private Mass to be celebrated on the day of the celebration of the matrimony and assist at this Mass as do the other faithful, provided, however, that from the circumstances this Mass cannot be regarded as a complement of the nuptial ceremony.³⁶

³⁴ Cf. above, n. 764.

³⁵ Code of Canon Law, can. 1102, § 2; can. 1109, § 3.

³⁶ Pontifical Commission, November 10, 1925 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVII, 583).

791. 3. Those who either validly or invalidly contracted a mixed matrimony before a non-Catholic minister³⁹ incur a censure, namely, excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.⁴⁰ This excommunication indeed is held to have been incurred in the external forum because a mixed matrimony is a public fact which can easily be proved in the external forum. Therefore absolution must also be sought and received in the external forum,⁴¹ unless, however, in some diocese an indult exists for granting absolution in the internal forum alone.

Since in the internal forum no censure is incurred unless the sinner had knowledge of the censure, a penitent who did not know that those contracting matrimony before a non-Catholic minister were punished by excommunication does not need absolution from the censure in the internal forum.⁴²

Note. A Catholic party who not only contracted matrimony before a non-Catholic minister but also consented to the non-Catholic education of the offspring incurs a twofold excommunication. Therefore, in a petition for the faculty of absolving, both facts must be stated.⁴³ If such a Catholic party died without signs of repentance, for example, suddenly struck by apoplexy, he cannot be granted ecclesiastical burial and obsequies.⁴⁴

³⁹ Code of Canon Law, can. 2319. It is required that the non-Catholic minister assist at the matrimony as one devoted to sacred things; hence excommunication is not incurred if he assists as an official of the civil government.

⁴⁰ If, however, up to May 11, 1892, they were absolved from a fault of this kind without any previous absolution from censures, they do not seem to be disturbed further.

⁴¹ Thus, for example, in the Archdiocese of Cologne it is prescribed that, before obtaining absolution from censures, the Catholic party, by signing a document before the parish priest and two witnesses, declare in express words that he sincerely grieves for the things committed and will repair them according to his ability (cf. Vogt, loc. cit., n. 6).

⁴² Cf. Leitner, loc. cit.; Hollweck, Die kirchl. Strafgesetze, § 34, notes 1 and 3.

⁴³ Code of Canon Law, can. 2319; cf. above, n. 522.

⁴⁴ Thus the Holy Office, May 8, 1907 (Anal. eccl. XVI [1908], 487).

864. 11. "Danger of celebrating a mixed matrimony or of celebrating before a non-Catholic minister. When there is danger that those who wish to contract matrimony in some degree, even one of the greater degrees, may, because of the denial of a dispensation, approach a non-Catholic minister for the celebration of the nuptials, in contempt of the authority of the Church, a just cause for dispensing is found; for there is present not only a most grave scandal of the faithful, but also the fear of the perversion and defection from the faith of those acting in this way and despising the impediments of matrimony, especially in regions where heresies spread with impunity.... The same must be said concerning the danger that the Catholic party may dare to celebrate matrimony with a non-Catholic."

12. "Danger of incestuous concubinage...."

13. "Danger of civil matrimony. From what has been said it follows that the probable danger that those who seek a dispensation, if they do not obtain it, will celebrate only a civil matrimony, as they say, is a legitimate cause for dispensing."

14. "The removal of grave scandals."

15. "The cessation of public concubinage."

16. "Excellence of merits, when someone has deserved exceedingly well of religion, whether by combat against the enemies of the Catholic faith, by liberality toward the Church, by learning, by virtue, or in another manner."

These merits need not be those of the contracting parties themselves, but can also be those of their parents or ancestors.

"These are the more common and more important causes which are wont to be adduced for obtaining matrimonial dispensations." Thus the cited Instruction. Therefore, other causes which can move the legislator to grant the dispensation sought are not excluded.

867. Principle III. Mixed religion prohibits matrimony from being entered between two baptized persons, of whom one is Catholic, but the other enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect. - Thus from can. 1060.

Mixed religion (religion mixte; gemengde godsdienst) is:

1° between two baptized persons: for if one is baptized in the Catholic Church, the other not baptized, there is the impediment of disparity of worship; on the contrary, if one is baptized outside the Catholic Church, the other not baptized, no impediment is had;

2° of whom one is Catholic, namely, baptized in order to the Catholic Church or converted to it;

3° but the other enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect: for it does not suffice that he belongs to a non-religious sect; nevertheless among non-Catholic sects here are counted also atheistic sects (com. int., July 30, 1934). Hence one is considered Catholic who, although he has externally cast off the Catholic faith, has not yet been enrolled in a non-Catholic sect; and therefore he is not held by the canonical impediment when he wishes to enter matrimony with a Catholic woman, but he is held if with one enrolled in a heretical or schismatic or atheistic sect.

Mixed matrimony, as it is customarily called, 1 is not only always an impediment of ecclesiastical law, which "the Church most severely prohibits everywhere" and already from ancient times; but also for the most part an impediment of natural and divine law, on account of communication in sacred things which it imports, or scandal which it easily gives, especially on account of the danger of perversion in faith and morals for the Catholic party and for the offspring to be born. Hence can. 1060 adds: "but if danger of perversion is present for the Catholic spouse and the offspring, the union is forbidden even by divine law itself."

It can nevertheless be licit from dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, if grave and just causes urge and provided the danger of perversion both of the Catholic party and of the offspring is removed: for the law of the Church prohibiting it is taken away by dispensation, but the natural and divine law ceases to urge if the proximate danger is removed and at the same time a grave reason is present sufficient to make honorable the communication in sacred things. Therefore there is required:

1° Dispensation, and indeed of the Pontiff, to whom, namely, it is reserved, although sometimes it is delegated to a bishop.

2° Just and grave causes, proportionate, namely, to the evil and danger to which such a matrimony exposes one. Such are: the good of the Christian commonwealth, fear of civil matrimony or before a non-Catholic minister, founded hope of conversion of the non-Catholic party, offspring to be legitimated or well educated, scandal or infamy to be avoided.

3° Sufficient removal of danger, as the natural law requires, in which no one has power to dispense. For this the Church requires cautions, because she does not dispense unless

a) the non-Catholic spouse has given caution concerning removing from the Catholic spouse the danger of perversion,

b) each spouse has given caution concerning all offspring to be born - but not concerning offspring already born, as is drawn from the decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 16, 1942 - that they are to be baptized and educated only as Catholics. Those cautions indeed must be given explicitly for liceity, but for validity at least implicitly, i.e., by acts from which it must be concluded, and can be established in the external forum, that the spouses know the obligation of fulfilling the conditions and have manifested a firm purpose of satisfying that obligation (Response of the Holy Office, May 10, 1941).

c) moral certitude must be had concerning the fulfillment of the cautions; for which a bare promise of itself does not suffice.

Thus according to can. 1061, which adds: "cautions regularly are to be demanded in writing," and indeed before dispensation is sought. Indeed in regions in which cautions also have force in the civil forum, provided they are given in civil form, dispensation is not to be conceded unless the cautions have been given in the indicated form; otherwise, namely, a dispensation conceded by those who dispense from indult is invalid (Holy Office, Jan. 20, 1932).

Cautions are always to be demanded, even in danger of death (can. 1043; instr., Nov. 15, 1858; Holy Office, March 18, 1891); otherwise those dispensing from delegation dispense invalidly (can. 1043 and 1061; Holy Office, June 21, 1912 and Jan. 14, 1932). The case is excepted in which, for convalidating matrimony, there is need of sanation in the root, which sometimes is conceded under certain conditions, even if the non-Catholic party does not wish to give the cautions.

1. Ter Haar has written excellently: De matrimoniis mixtis eorumque remediis.

868. Obligations connected with mixed matrimony are recalled to memory by the code of law, and the Catholic spouse is to be warned concerning them:

1° "The Catholic spouse is held by the obligation of prudently taking care of the conversion of the non-Catholic spouse," can. 1062.

2° "Even if a dispensation over the impediment of mixed religion has been obtained from the Church, the spouses cannot, either before or after matrimony entered before the Church, also approach, whether by themselves or through a procurator, a non-Catholic minister as one devoted to sacred things, for giving or renewing matrimonial consent," can. 1063, § 1.

"Nevertheless it is not disapproved that, when the civil law commands it, the spouses stand also before a non-Catholic minister, acting only in the office of a civil official, and this solely for completing the civil act, for the sake of civil effects," can. 1063, § 3.

869. Offices of the pastor. - According to can. 1064: "Ordinaries and other pastors of souls:

1° Let them deter the faithful from mixed nuptials, as much as they can.

2° If they cannot impede them, let them take care with every zeal lest they be contracted against the laws of God and of the Church.

3° When mixed nuptials have been celebrated either in their own or in another territory, let them watch carefully that the spouses faithfully fulfill the promises made.

4° Those assisting at matrimony shall observe the prescription of can. 1102," i.e., they should make the interrogations by which they request and receive the consent of the contracting parties, but abstain from every sacred rite, unless the Ordinary has permitted one for avoiding graver evils, the celebration of Mass always being excluded (n. 852, C).

Nevertheless, "if the pastor knows certainly that the spouses will violate or have already violated this law (of not approaching a non-Catholic minister for giving or renewing matrimonial consent), let him not assist at their matrimony, unless from most grave causes, scandal having been removed and the Ordinary first consulted," can. 1063, § 2. A most grave cause can be the danger of invalid matrimony or of apostasy of the Catholic party or of the education of offspring in heresy.

Let it be permitted to add certain practical points:

a) As regards the dispensation to be conceded, not only the private good of the contracting parties is to be attended to, but especially the common good. And therefore in certain regions there can legitimately exist a practice of rarely conceding dispensation, if this is an efficacious means of generally impeding mixed unions; as also the practice of not conceding dispensation unless after the non-Catholic party has completed an entire course of instruction in Catholic doctrine; - but never to dispense would be against the mind of the Church.

b) If someone without a just cause wishes to enter a mixed matrimony, he sins gravely, and similarly if he almost extorts dispensation by causing fear lest he enter matrimony without dispensation; hence of himself he is unworthy of absolution.

c) From a dispensation conceded there does not always follow full liceity of matrimony. For the Church by prudent counsel sometimes permits lesser evils and dangers of perversion, in order to avoid greater ones, such as apostasy from the faith or long abiding in civil matrimony.

d) A Catholic who illicitly entered mixed matrimony cannot be absolved unless he truly repents and sincerely promises all the cautions required on his part. But if he invalidly contracted mixed matrimony, for example, on account of defect of form, and now truly repents, it must be seen whether the matrimony is to be convalidated or on the contrary whether there is to be abstention from convalidation, as if complete dissolution is to be preferred or civil divorce is foreseen; - otherwise care must be taken that it be convalidated: by renewed consent after due cautions have been given, if possible, or, if the non-Catholic party refuses this, by sanation in the root, provided the Catholic party promises that he will provide according to his powers for the Catholic education of all offspring. But the Catholic party cannot be admitted to the sacraments unless matrimony has been convalidated, or complete separation has been carried out.

e) In doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism of the non-Catholic party, for caution let dispensation be sought not only from the impediment of mixed religion, but also from disparity of worship.

870. Penalties established against transgressors are the following:

A. "Catholics who have dared to enter mixed matrimony, even validly, without dispensation of the Church, remain by the fact itself excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical and sacramental acts until they have obtained dispensation from the Ordinary," can. 2375.

B. "The following Catholics fall under excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:

1° Those who enter matrimony before a non-Catholic minister.

2° Those who are joined in matrimony with a pact, explicit or implicit, that all or some offspring be educated outside the Catholic Church.

3° Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized.

4° Parents or those holding the place of parents who knowingly hand over children to be educated or instructed in a non-Catholic religion," can. 2319, § 1.

C. "Those of whom in n. 2-4 are besides suspected of heresy," can. 2319, § 2. Hence if, after being admonished, they do not remove the cause of suspicion, they are to be prohibited from legitimate acts; but if within six complete months from the contracted penalty they have not amended themselves, they are to be held as heretics, subject to the penalties of heretics (can. 2315), among which is excommunication specially reserved to the Holy See.

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.

Mary, a Catholic, having obtained a dispensation from the Bishop from the impediment of mixed religion, married Titius, an Anglican. After the marriage was contracted, Titius, notwithstanding his promises, prohibited Mary from ever entering a Catholic church and began to treat her cruelly; hence Mary returned to her father’s home, where she is now sought as a wife by Paul, a Catholic man. Mary’s parish priest, who obtained for Mary the dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion, afterwards discovered with certainty that Titius had never been baptized; hence he asks whether Mary is still free so that she can enter a Catholic and happier marriage. Hence it is asked:

1. By what law are the impediments of mixed religion and disparity of worship established?

2. How is the statement “A doubtful Baptism is considered valid in relation to marriage” to be understood?

3. Is it lawful to institute a partial divorce by private authority?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. By what law are the impediments of mixed marriage and difference of religion established?

Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics are forbidden by natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law; if the non-Catholic party is not baptized, the impediment is diriment by custom having the force of universal law.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 308 ff.

2. How is the rule to be understood about doubtful Baptism and marriage.

Theologians are not agreed. Lehmkuhl holds that where the Church’s authority has intervened in such a case, the words are to be taken quite literally, and that the impediment is removed if it existed on account of the non-Baptism of one of the parties.² Wernz, Génicot, and others hold that the rule rests on presumptions, so that if the truth afterwards becomes certain, the presumption ceases.³

2 Theol. Moral., vol. ii, 985.

3 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 313.

3. Is separation by private authority a toro et mensa allowed?

Yes, by mutual consent for the purpose of leading a more perfect life and when there is no danger of incontinence. The innocent party may separate from the other by private authority if that other has been guilty of certain and notorious adultery, as also for a time on account of serious danger to soul or body.⁴

4 Ibid., 281.

4. The case. The dispensation for a mixed marriage in all probability did not remove the impediment of difference of religion which really existed between the parties. Indeed the bishops in England as a rule have not authority to dispense from the diriment impediment of difference of religion, though they can dispense in a mixed marriage. Hence, according to the better opinion, Mary’s marriage with Titius was null and void. However, the parish priest may not on his own authority allow her to marry Paul. Both ecclesiastical and civil law stand in the way. He should collect all the evidence that he can, submit it to the bishop, and then await the result.