The Liturgical Form, Time and Place of Marriage

It does not belong to this place to teach the rites according to which the sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered from the prescription of the Church; rather, concerning the rites themselves or concerning the liturgical precepts which are of greater moment, it must be indicated, as far as can be done, whether they oblige under grave sin or under light sin. The rubrics of the Missal set forth the rites to be observed in the celebration of Mass.

208. On the Missal and its rubrics. 1. In the Latin Church Mass must be celebrated in the Latin language according to the rubrics of the Roman Missal, cn. 819.

The supreme pontiff Pius V, in the bull which is prefixed to the Missal published by his order, establishes two things: first he prohibits the use of other missals, unless they are granted from special privilege; then he commands that Mass be celebrated according to the rubrics contained there.¹ In recent time the S. C. C. took care that a typical edition of the Roman Missal be published, to which all future editions of the same must be exactly conformed.² The Code has these things: With any contrary custom reprobated, the celebrating priest is to observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books, cn. 818. The sacrifice of the Mass must be celebrated in the liturgical language of each one's rite, cn. 819.

2. Some rubrics of the Missal are preceptive, others directive (n. 20). The rubrics which indicate the rites to be observed in the celebration itself are preceptive under grave or under light sin according to their matter; but the rubrics which indicate rites to be observed outside, i.e., before or after Mass, are directive.

a. The very common opinion both among ancient and among recent theologians, which distinguishes the rubrics of the Missal and of other liturgical books into preceptive and directive, must by all means be held; nor are some recent rubricists to be heard who want absolutely all rubrics to be preceptive.³

b. Although directive rubrics of themselves do not oblige in conscience, nevertheless in violating them venial sin can easily be committed, namely where they are not observed without a reasonable motive.

¹ Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.

² Const. Officiorum ac munerum, 25 Jan. 1897, n. 18.

³ Cf. Civilta cattolica, 1891, IV, p. 34 ff.

209. On the omission of rites. In order that it may be determined which omission in the celebration of Mass is grave and which is light, one must distinguish between the ordinary parts of Mass, which must always be performed, such as the confession, epistle, proper prayers, offertory, breaking of the host, mixture of this with the blood, etc., and extraordinary parts, which are not said in every Mass, such as the Gloria, Creed, commemorations, sequence, and those things which in the preface and canon are proper to certain feasts.¹

1. The omission of an ordinary part can easily become a grave sin, especially if it occurs in the canon of the Mass, which is more closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is grave to omit any prayer of the canon or to change its words in such a way that the sense is varied.

Authors attempt to determine more accurately which omissions, especially in the canon, should be judged grave; but in determining these they do not agree. Thus, for committing a grave sin, some require that two, others that ten names of saints in the canon be omitted.² "Nor do those more minute determinations of grave or light omission," as Genicot well notes (II, n. 241), "have much bearing on practice: since no one is accustomed by direct will to pass over a part of the Mass; but if some omit certain things through culpable negligence, their guilt is to be judged from the general cause of omissions which they culpably posit, not from the omissions which in fact happened."

2. The omission of an extraordinary part does not exceed venial sin, because these parts are less closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is venial to omit the Creed or the sequence or the prophecies on Ember days, or even the Passion in Holy Week: for with respect to the Mass this seems to be called a part that is not notable, and therefore, with a grave cause existing (as if otherwise the people on a feast day would lack Mass) and scandal excluded, it could be omitted without sin. If, however, several parts at once were omitted, grave matter could be reached.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 404.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 405.

210. On the addition of rites. 1. In the celebration of Mass, to add something to the rites to be performed from the prescription of the Missal, with the mind of introducing a new rite, or without this mind but in notable quantity, especially if prayers are added which are not contained in the Missal, is a grave sin.

The Council of Trent prohibits priests from employing "other rites or other ceremonies and prayers in the celebration of Masses, besides those which have been approved by the Church";¹ and Pius V prohibits priests from presuming to add or recite in the celebration of Mass other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal.² These prohibitions are to be understood principally of an addition which is made with the mind of introducing a new rite.

2. It is not licit from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a collect or something of this kind to the rites or prayers of the Missal.

"Let the celebrating priest take care," cn. 818 has, "lest he join other ceremonies or prayers by his own judgment." From these words the opinion of those authors (St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, D'Annibale, Genicot) loses probability, who thought that from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a prayer from those which are in the Missal is not a sin.

3. To interpose a short ejaculatory prayer, either orally or by mind alone, among the liturgical prayers themselves is certainly to be disapproved; but to add prayers of this kind between individual prayers, while the priest, e.g., makes the elevation of the species, incenses, genuflects, etc., is not a sin, even if it is done orally, since this is not properly contrary to the rubrics.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 22, decree Quanta cura, De observ. et evitand. in celebr. missae.

² Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.

211. On some requisites for celebrating. 1. It is not licit to celebrate Mass except on an altar, whether fixed or portable, at least mobile, i.e., at least on a consecrated stone.¹

The privilege of celebrating without a consecrated stone is not usually granted even to missionaries.² But the privilege which belongs to bishops by common law, of celebrating from a just cause in any decent place provided a consecrated stone is present, is granted to other priests by special indult of the Holy See.

2. In the celebration of Mass a Missal is required, so that to celebrate without a Missal is of itself a grave sin on account of the danger of erring; but it is not prescribed that the Mass be read, not even the canon, if the moral danger of erring is excluded.

He does not sin who once or twice, even from devotion alone, celebrates without a Missal where this cannot easily be had, provided he knows with moral certitude that he will not err. To avoid the wonder of the people, in this case another sacred book should be placed on the altar.

3. The cross with the image of the crucified, standing out among the candlesticks, so that the priest and the people can easily look upon it, must be present on the altar:³ for the cross with the image of the crucified recalls to the priest and faithful the sacrifice of the cross, which is renewed on the altar.

It is an abuse to be removed by the ordinary, if anywhere a small cross is placed either on the tabernacle or on the little door of the tabernacle in place of the cross to be placed among the candlesticks.⁴

If, however, on the altar there is a large image of Christ crucified, whether sculpted or painted, it is not necessary to add another cross.⁵

4. During the whole time of Mass there must burn on the altar two candles made from beeswax,⁶ nor is it licit by reason of the dignity of the celebrant, if he is inferior to a bishop, to light more than two.⁷

a. To celebrate without any light is a grave sin, unless it is done in the necessity of confecting viaticum for a dying person.

To celebrate with one candle is venial; wherefore for a reasonable cause it is licit to celebrate with only one candle. If the light fails before the consecration and another cannot be had, the sacred rite must be stopped; if it fails after the consecration has been begun, the sacred rite must be completed; but if another light can be had within a quarter of an hour, one must wait. - If the candles are extinguished during celebration, they must be lit again, yet without the sacred rite being interrupted in the meantime.⁸

b. Under grave sin candles must be made from beeswax, and indeed without any admixture of foreign matter, whether vegetable or mineral. Since, however, today foreign substances are frequently mixed even into the wax from which candles are formed, and adulterated candles are sold as genuine, the Holy See, considering the great difficulty of having genuine beeswax, established these things: Let bishops take care according to their powers that the paschal candle, the candle to be immersed in baptismal water, and the two candles to be lit at Masses be from beeswax at least for the greatest part; but the material of the other candles which are to be placed above altars ought to be from the same wax in greater or notable quantity.⁹

There are those who permit that, when wax is lacking and necessity exists,¹⁰ indeed once or twice from devotion alone, celebration can take place with a light from oil.¹¹ More easily it can be permitted that this be done with candles made from stearin or another material, which today can scarcely be distinguished from candles made from beeswax. For although the reason on account of which the Church prescribes candles made from wax is chiefly symbolic, nevertheless there is added also a reason of decency, on account of which authors say that to celebrate with tallow candles (Unschlitt) is mortal.¹²

c. By reason of solemnity, namely if the Mass is not strictly private, but conventual or parochial or solemn or holding the place of a solemn one, it is licit to light more candles, which likewise must be from wax; nor is it permitted that for worship or upon the altar, besides candles from wax, there be used candles from stearin¹³ or illumination from gas¹⁴ or electric light.¹⁵

5. In celebration there is required under grave sin a male server, except in a case of necessity; wherefore each of these is of itself grave: both to celebrate without a server, and to admit a woman serving at the altar, even if she is a nun.

a. Cases of necessity are: alpha. that viaticum may be confected; beta. that the people may satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; gamma. that the priest himself on days of precept may be able to satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; delta. if the server, the oblation having already been made, departs and does not return.¹⁶

b. Priests, however, to whom a special faculty of celebrating without a server is granted (as happens in missions), licitly use this faculty if otherwise they cannot celebrate.

c. In order that celebration may take place with a server who does not know how to respond, a lesser necessity of celebrating is required.

d. If the server pronounces badly, the priest himself, if it can conveniently be done, should supply; if this cannot be done, he should abstain without scruple from every correction, lest he disturb himself or others.

6. When a just cause exists, it can be permitted that a woman respond from a distance to the priest who has first arranged all things necessary for Mass, yet without approaching the altar.

Formerly the S. C. R. permitted the ministry of a woman of this kind only in urgent necessity;¹⁷ but in recent time it no longer requires a necessity of celebrating in order that a woman may be able to respond to the priest, yet it does not determine more accurately the cause which is required for this.¹⁸ Since now it is established,¹⁹ "when a man is lacking, a woman can serve from a just cause, yet under this law, that she respond from a distance and in no way approach the altar," it seems one must say that a priest, with a woman responding, especially if she is a nun and Mass is said in the chapel of nuns, can celebrate if otherwise because of the lack of a server he would have to omit celebration, even if there is not a greater necessity of celebrating.

¹ Cn. 822.

² S. C. prop. fid., 2 Sept. 1870.

³ General rubrics of the Missal, n. XX. Ceremonial of Bishops, l. 1, c. 12.

⁴ S. C. R., 18 Sept. 1822, n. 2621.

⁵ S. C. R., 16 June 1663, n. 1270.

⁶ General rubrics of the Missal, n. 44.

⁷ S. C. R., 7 Sept. 1850, n. 2984.

⁸ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 394; D'Annibale, III, 400.

⁹ S. C. R., 14 Dec. 1904, n. 4147.

¹⁰ Suarez, disp. 81, sec. 6, n. 5.

¹¹ Gobat, Exper. theol., tract. 3, n. 291.

¹² St. Alphonsus, n. 394; in missions sometimes license is granted of using candles made from the fat of the whale.

¹³ S. C. R., 4 Sept. 1815, n. 3376.

¹⁴ S. C. R., 16 May 1901.

¹⁵ S. C. R., 24 June 1914. Concerning electric light these are the decrees: Electric light is forbidden not only together with candles from wax above altars, but also in place of candles or lamps which are prescribed before the most holy Sacrament or Relics of the saints. Nor is it licit at the time of exposition to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in the interior part itself. For other places of the church and other cases electric illumination is permitted, provided that in all things there is preserved the gravity which the sanctity of the place and the dignity of the sacred liturgy demand.

¹⁶ St. Alphonsus, n. 391.

¹⁷ S. C. R., 27 Aug. 1836, n. 2745.

¹⁸ Cf. Gasparri, I, n. 649.

¹⁹ Cn. 813, 2.

212. On the interruption of Mass. Mass must be celebrated without interruption in a continuous course. A twofold interruption is distinguished: essential, when the sacrifice of the Mass, once begun, remains incomplete, as if it is interrupted between the consecration (of one species) and communion, and afterward cannot be continued; and accidental, when the parts of Mass are separated one from another by an intervening extraneous action.

1. To interrupt Mass essentially, or rather to break it off, is never licit, unless danger of death or profanation of the most holy Eucharist is imminent.

If Mass must be broken off after the consecration of one species, the priest can, with the consecration of the chalice omitted, consume the host already consecrated or carry it away with himself together with the chalice to be consecrated in another place. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him consume both species immediately if he can, or, if he cannot, let him carry them away with himself to a safe place to be consumed afterward.

2. To interrupt Mass accidentally is licit from a just cause, and indeed:

a. After the Gospel it is licit to interrupt it for having a sermon, for reciting prayers for the departed, for receiving a procession, for making the proclamation of banns, etc.

b. Before the offertory it is licit to interrupt it at the arrival of a prince, of pilgrims, of a procession, if those arriving otherwise cannot hear Mass on a feast day. In this case the priest can begin Mass again, so that the faithful may hear the complete Mass.

c. Before the canon it is licit to break it off if the priest himself remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, that he is irregular, etc., or if a person excommunicated by name is present who cannot be expelled.

d. Once the canon has begun, and a fortiori once the consecration has been completed, it is licit to interrupt Mass only from a most grave cause, as if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not licit to minister other sacraments between consecration and communion, because they are not of so great necessity.

alpha. Mass is licitly interrupted also on account of a necessity proper to the celebrating priest, e.g., because of a briefly passing illness, or because of a necessity of relieving himself which cannot be deferred until the end of Mass.

beta. A priest interrupting Mass must see to it that the sacrament meanwhile is guarded, and therefore that he enclose it in the tabernacle, if it is present.

gamma. Returning, the priest begins the Mass interrupted after the consecration where he had left off; and if it was interrupted before the consecration, if the interval interposed is less than one hour, he likewise begins where he had left off; but if the interval interposed is greater than one hour, he begins from the beginning, and indeed in such a way that, when the oblation has already been made, he receives new matter and consumes the matter previously offered after the sacred blood has been consumed.

e. After the communion of the celebrant, immediately before the distribution of Holy Communion, it is licit to have from the altar a brief exhortation to those communicating.¹

f. After communion it is likewise licit to interrupt Mass, so that religious vows may be emitted or renewed.

In all religious congregations of either sex in which vows are emitted or renewed within Mass, the norm established by general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites must be observed from the prescription of the Church.² This norm was taken from the constitution of Gregory XIII, Quanto fructuosius (1 Feb. 1583), by which the constitutions of the Society of Jesus are approved.

g. After the communion of the celebrant or within Mass it is not licit to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful who are so distant that he himself loses sight of the altar.³

Therefore the previously approved practice is prohibited, according to which in hospitals, after the Confiteor, etc., has been recited at the altar, the priest with the pyx, without a humeral veil, carries Holy Communion to the sick existing in rooms from which the altar cannot be seen.

¹ S. C. R., 16 Apr. 1853, n. 3009; 23 Mar. 1881, n. 3529.

² S. C. R., 14 Aug. 1894, n. 3836; S. C. R., 5 June 1896, n. 3912.

³ Cn. 868.

213. On completing an interrupted sacrifice. If a priest fails from illness while celebrating, these things must be observed:

1. If he fails after the consecration of the first species and before the consumption of the most precious blood, another priest, even one not fasting, if one fasting is not present, must complete the sacrifice, because the divine precept concerning procuring the integrity of the sacrifice is graver than the precept of ecclesiastical fasting. Even an irregular or excommunicated priest must complete it.

If one hour is interposed between the breaking off of the sacrifice and its continuation, probably there no longer exists an obligation of seeking a priest who may complete the sacrifice, but what remains can be consumed in another Mass, because probably the moral union between the two parts of the Mass is lacking. Nevertheless, even after several hours, it is still licit to supply.¹

2. If the same priest who was seized by illness while celebrating can, after some interruption, complete the sacred rite, not another, even if fasting, but he himself, even if no longer fasting, should do this: for the divine precept, that the same one complete the sacred rite who began it, prevails over the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.²

3. If he fails before the consecration of the first species or after the consumption of the most precious blood, nothing must be supplied by another priest, because the sacrifice properly has either not yet been begun or has already been completed.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 355. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 549.

² Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 552.

214. On those things which are to be said in a clear voice or secretly.¹ 1. He who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said in a clear voice so low that those present can understand nothing, sins venially, because he violates a preceptive rubric.

2. In like manner he who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said secretly either too low, so that even with any impediment removed he cannot hear himself, or too high, so that he is heard even by those present, commits a venial sin, because he injures a preceptive rubric.

3. He sins gravely because he pronounces a great part of the canon in a very raised voice, or the words of consecration so low that he himself cannot hear them. The reason of the first is because he notably injures a preceptive rubric; the reason of the second is because he exposes the consecration to the danger of nullity.

Since a reasonable cause entirely excuses from observing those things which are prescribed only under venial sin, when a cause of this kind exists, those things which are to be said secretly can be said in a clear voice, and those things which of themselves would have to be said clearly can be said in a low voice.²

¹ Cf. General rubrics of the Missal, n. XVI.

² Cf. Gasparri, II, n. 848. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 254.

653. Declaration. 1. Matrimony can be contracted at any time of the year.¹ But there is a certain determined time in which the solemn blessing of nuptials is forbidden; this is called the ferial or closed time.

2. The closed time now is: a. from the first Sunday of Advent until the day of the Nativity inclusively; b. from Ash Wednesday until Easter Sunday inclusively.²

a. Therefore it is that time of the ecclesiastical year which is devoted to the recollection of the chief mysteries of the Christian religion and consequently, according to the mind of the Church, is to be dedicated especially to works of devotion, prayers, and penance.

b. In the closed time matrimony itself is not prohibited, but the solemn blessing of the bride, i.e. the votive Mass for spouses and the blessing of the bride which is contained in this Mass.

3. Nevertheless, ordinaries of places can, for a just cause and with the liturgical laws preserved, permit even the blessing of nuptials in the closed time, after admonishing the spouses that they abstain from excessive pomp.³

a. The prohibition of solemn nuptials had hitherto been treated as a prohibiting impediment under the name of closed or ferial time. In some dioceses, especially of Austria and Germany, not only the solemnities of nuptials, but the nuptials themselves were prohibited. This prohibition, contrary to common law, cannot any longer be maintained after the introduction of the new Code, especially because it would be equivalent to a prohibiting impediment, which ordinaries cannot establish, unless the prohibition is supported by immemorial custom.⁴

b. The liturgical laws prohibit the Mass for spouses: alpha. on Sundays; beta. on feasts of the first and second class; gamma. on privileged octaves of the first and second order; delta. on privileged ferias; epsilon. on the vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost.

¹ Cn. 1108, 1.

² Cn. 1108, 2. Previously, especially before the Council of Trent, the closed time was extended much more broadly.

³ Cn. 1108, 3.

⁴ Cf. Linneborn, p. 392.

654. Declaration. 1. Matrimony between Catholics ought to be celebrated in the parish church with the sacred rite prescribed by the Church; it can be celebrated in another church or in an oratory, whether public or semi-public, only with the license of the ordinary or of the parish priest.

2. The ordinary can permit it to be celebrated in private houses only in an extraordinary case and from a just cause. He cannot permit it to be celebrated in the church or oratory of a seminary or of religious women, unless there is urgent necessity and suitable cautions have been applied.¹

a. Catholic spouses who have contracted a valid matrimony, but for whatever cause have not performed the sacred matrimonial rite (e.g. those contracting in mission places before two witnesses without the parish priest because of his absence), are held under grave obligation to supply it; in this case the declaration of consent and the formula of copulation, "I join you," etc., are omitted.

b. On the contrary, if infidel spouses, joined in a legitimate matrimony, are converted to the Catholic religion, they are to be advised to perform the sacred rite, but they are not to be obliged.

¹ Cn. 1109, 1, 2.

657. Declaration. The matrimonial rite comprises two things: a. the copulation; b. the nuptial blessing.

The matrimonial rite which is contained in the Roman Ritual¹ is not preceptive; therefore laudable provincial customs can be observed according to diocesan rituals.²

1. The copulation or joining of the spouses. The parish priest must ask each contracting party concerning consent, so that the witnesses can give testimony concerning the contracted matrimony.

Once he has understood the consent, he must copulate the spouses with these or similar words, according to the received use of the province: "I join you in matrimony in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The omission of these does not exceed a venial sin.

After the copulation has been performed, if nothing stands in the way, he must impart the nuptial blessing to the spouses.

The blessing of the ring, which is a sacramental, is not to be omitted. It can also be done in second nuptials, even if the same ring had already been used and blessed in the first. If the wedding ring is lost or broken, a new one can be blessed with the same ritual formula.

2. The nuptial blessing. a. Only he can give the nuptial blessing, either personally or through another, who can validly and licitly assist at the matrimony;³ for it is a function reserved to the parish priest.⁴ Therefore if another priest wishes to give it, he needs the license of the parish priest who can validly and licitly assist at the matrimony.

b. Where it is permitted by the prescription of the Church, it is always to be granted if the bride has not yet received it, whether she is a virgin, a widow, or deflowered, even if the bridegroom is a widower and has already once received the blessing.

c. The nuptial blessing is not to be given: if the bride is a widow and has already received the blessing; if the nuptials are celebrated in the closed time, even with the bishop permitting, yet it can afterward be supplied; if a mixed matrimony is contracted, even with dispensation of the supreme pontiff.

d. The votive Mass for spouses can be said only on account of the nuptial blessing; therefore it cannot be said where the blessing is not granted, even if by the rubrics a votive Mass could be said.

¹ Rituale Rom., tit. 7, c. 2.

² Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 1, De reform. matr.; Cn. 1100.

³ Cn. 1101, 2.

⁴ Cn. 462, 4.

Marriage is a sacrament of the living, and should be received in the state of grace. The priest should endeavour - to get the parties to go to confession and Communion when they are married, so that they may enter on their new state of life with the blessing of God. The rite in Catholic marriages should be performed in the Church, and if the wife has not received the nuptial blessing before, it is the wish of the Church that, whenever the rubrics permit, the Mass Pro Sponso et Sponsa should be said, and the nuptial blessing given as therein laid down. This Mass may be said on all days outside close time except on feasts of the first and second class, and on days of obligation. On these days, however, a commemoration may be made of the Mass Pro Sponso et Sponsa and the prayers after the Pater and Communion may be added.

The common law of the Church prescribes that the nuptial blessing shall not be given out of Mass, and in England, by a special indult of the Holy See, when the nuptial Mass is not said, a special blessing is given by the priest according to the Ritual.

In England the State does not acknowledge Catholic marriages unless they are celebrated in presence of a registrar and in a building registered for marriages. A priest who solemnized marriage otherwise would be liable to severe punishment as a felon. Due notice of a marriage must also be given to the superintendent registrar of the district or districts in which the parties reside. The marriage cannot take place without the registrar’s certificate, which cannot be granted before the expiration of twenty-one days after the notice has been entered if the marriage is to be without licence, or of one day if it is to be with licence. These and other laws which the civil authority has imposed on Catholic marriages should be observed in order that the marriages of Catholics may be recognized by the law of the land, and to avoid greater evil. The Nonconformist Marriage Act of 1899 enabled Nonconformists to dispense with the presence of the registrar, but its onerous conditions prevented the Catholic Bishops from accepting it except in some parishes,

The liturgical form is constituted both by the rite of celebration and by the rite of blessing, or the solemn blessing of nuptials, as it is called. Hence:

I. Time. Marriage can be contracted at any time of the year (canon 1108, § 1). But when the solemn blessing of nuptials is forbidden, see n. 744.

II. Place. 1. Marriage between Catholics should be celebrated in the parish church; but in another church or oratory, whether public or semi-public, it can be celebrated only with the permission of the local Ordinary or the pastor (canon 1109, § 1).

2. Local Ordinaries can permit marriage to be celebrated in private homes only in some extraordinary case and with a just and reasonable cause always present; but in churches or oratories either of a Seminary or of religious women, Ordinaries should not permit this unless necessity is urgent and suitable precautions have been employed (canon 1109, § 2).

3. But marriages between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic party are to be celebrated outside the church; but if the Ordinary prudently judges that this cannot be observed without graver evils arising, it is committed to his prudent judgment to dispense in this matter, with the prescription of canon 1102, § 2 nevertheless remaining firm¹ (canon 1109, § 3).

¹ The cited canon excludes the celebration of Mass.

770. • QUESTION 2. Can the nuptial blessing be separated from the celebration of Mass?

Reply. It must be denied. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked: Whether it is licit to retain the custom prevailing in several places of celebrating matrimony in the afternoon and at the same time thus giving the nuptial blessing outside Mass, even in a prohibited time with permission of the Ordinary, since there is scarcely any hope of compelling the faithful either to change the time of the celebration of matrimony or to supply the blessing? The reply was: Let the Roman Ritual be observed (September 7, 1850, in Rupellen., reply 6). Moreover, according to the Roman Ritual, the conjugal blessing cannot take place except during the celebration of Mass. This is confirmed by another Decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites on June 23, 1853, in Limburg. Nevertheless, the Priest is not bound to apply the Mass for the spouses unless he receives an alms from them. Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, September 1, 1841. But the Mass assigned for nuptials is to be said even if it is not applied for the spouses.

Moreover, the nuptial Mass is to be said on all days except Sundays, feasts of precept, Doubles of the first or second class, and the Vigil of Pentecost, but without the Gloria and Credo. On the days, however, on which the Mass For the Bridegroom and Bride cannot be said, a Commemoration from that Mass is to be added. - Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 3, 1818, and April 20, 1822.

But when nuptials are celebrated in the season of Advent or Lent, no commemoration for the spouses is to be made in the Mass through the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion; nor is it licit to recite the Prayers placed in the Missal after the Lord's Prayer and Ite, Missa est; nor are the same Prayers to be recited outside Mass after the prohibited time has elapsed. - Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1839.

Furthermore, if the woman is a widow, not only must the nuptial blessing be omitted but also the proper Mass for the bridegroom and bride. - Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 3, 1761.

Finally, the custom of extending a white veil over the spouses is prohibited and reproved. - Sacred Congregation of Rites, September 7, 1850, in Rupellen.

1. Ambrose, a regular, administers a secular church, committed to him precariously by the Ordinary together with the care of souls. Although the people had up to now been accustomed to the feasts of the diocesan calendar, Ambrose nevertheless performs all the sacred functions according to the calendar of his own Order. Hence he also omits to celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron of the place. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1898, ad 2, n. 3979. Ambrose errs still more as to the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron. For the feast of the Dedication of a church is more solemn and primary, so that it is to be preferred to others, according to the General Decree of the S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1896, n. 3881. The feast of the Titular is to be celebrated by the whole clergy of the church, or by the priest rector assigned to the church or public oratory, through the entire office, and in defect of any clergy by Masses alone. General Decree of the S. R. C., June 5, 1899, n. 4025. But the feast of the Patron of the place is also generally to be observed by regulars. General Decree of the S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3863.

2. On Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament. - Onuphrius, a parish priest, without any scruple celebrates Mass, when occasion is given, at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, and at it distributes communion to the people. For he says that no difficulty can be present in this matter, since it is altogether fitting that the most holy sacrifice be offered at that altar on which the most holy Eucharist is exposed.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Onuphrius does not act rightly. For by several Decrees of the S. R. C. it is prohibited that Mass be celebrated at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed without necessity, or without grave cause, or without immemorial custom, or without a special indult. By the same Decrees it is also prohibited to distribute sacred communion at the aforesaid altar. But as regards the reason of Onuphrius, the contrary is found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 12, n. 9: "It would be, not congruous, but most becoming, that at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is situated, Masses should not be celebrated, which seems to have been observed anciently." For the people, intent upon adoration, ought not to be distracted by other prayers and actions, though sacred, from Him to whom they are uniquely and principally intent. But there is an urgent necessity of celebrating Mass at an altar of this kind if other altars are lacking in the same church or in neighboring churches, especially where the precept of hearing Mass urges. But in order that sacred communion can be distributed to the people, the sacred Eucharist must be reserved at another altar.

The following things, moreover, are to be noted concerning Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament: The celebrant at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, whenever he is in the middle of the altar, must first kiss it and afterward genuflect; but when he comes from one side of the altar, he first genuflects, and afterward kisses the altar.

In solemn Masses which are celebrated at the altar of exposition, a commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament is always made; in private Masses, whether they are read at the altar of exposition or at another within the same church, the aforesaid commemoration is made at the pleasure of the priest, except on feasts of the 1st and 2nd class, on which it cannot be made. The commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament, on account of the identity of the Mystery, is to be omitted only on the feasts of the Passion, the Cross, the Most Holy Redeemer, the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, and the Most Precious Blood. S. R. C., July 3, 1896, ad 4, n. 3924.

In the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, whether for the Prayer of Forty Hours or for any other cause, the three altar cards are altogether to be removed from the altar of exposition, except during the time of Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 20, 1864, ad 3, n. 3129.

At the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament the prayer Deus, qui nobis... must be concluded, Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. S. R. C., Mar. 29, 1851, ad 6, n. 2986.

3. On Requiem Masses - Alexander, a noble man, having died, the principal hall of the house was at once turned into an oratory. Several altars were erected in it; and, many from the people coming together, several Masses were celebrated in the presence of the corpse, so that the soul of the deceased might be aided by stronger suffrages. Alexander and his family enjoyed no privilege of a private oratory; whence the faculty of celebrating Masses thus was given by the bishop. - Licitly?

R. Negatively, speaking in itself. For first, when a certain hall of a house is chosen and is transiently turned into an oratory, so that when that function has been completed it is soon turned back to its former use, there is question not of the erection of a private oratory, but of the erection of a portable altar. And cardinals, bishops, and certain missionaries only have this privilege, which is granted only by the Apostolic See. Moreover, although bishops can grant the faculty of celebrating in private oratories, if great and urgent reasons are present, and only by way of an act; yet in the Case there is question neither of a private oratory, nor are great and urgent reasons present. Finally, private Requiem Masses can indeed also be celebrated in the presence of the corpse, but only in churches and oratories, both public and private, and in chapels belonging to seminaries, colleges, and religious or pious communities of either sex. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3903. E. M. 639; I. M. 639.

Speaking in itself, namely prescinding from legitimate and approved custom and from a special indult. Very recently the S. R. C., Apr. 3, 1894, n. 3822, established: "that while the body of a deceased diocesan bishop, clothed in sacred vestments, lies publicly and solemnly exposed in the great hall of his own residence, Masses may be celebrated throughout the whole morning in suffrage for his soul, all those things being observed which are prescribed in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 2, c. 38, concerning the exposing of the body of a deceased bishop and the offering of suffrages. Which privilege granted to bishops in their own diocese is to be understood, for the same reason, as extended to vicars apostolic in their vicariates, and also to abbots and the other prelates of no diocese enjoying ordinary jurisdiction over the people when they departed from life, yet in their own territory. Finally, by special grace, the S. R. C. grants that deceased titular bishops also may be able to enjoy the same privilege; provided that their bodies are exposed in a suitable hall, and, if outside the City, have been clothed with pontifical ornaments (yet without the pastoral staff); but if in the City, only in prelatial habit." M. E. vol. 8, p. 2, p. 76.

4. Sempronius the priest, in Requiem Masses, always reads the prayers as they lie in the missal, and always omits the sequence. Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. For from the General Decree of the S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3920: "In daily Masses of every kind, whether read or with chant, several prayers are to be said, of which the first is to be for the deceased person or deceased persons certainly designated for whom the sacrifice is offered, from those which are inscribed in the missal, the second at pleasure, the last for all the faithful departed. But if Mass is celebrated for the dead in general, the prayers are to be said which stand in the missal for daily Masses, and in the same order in which they are there inscribed. But if in the same daily Masses it pleases the celebrant to add several prayers, as the rubrics grant the power, this can be done only in read Masses, with an odd number preserved along with the others prescribed, and with the prayer for all the faithful departed assigned to the last place." But the sequence from the same Decree is to be said in any sung Masses, as also in read Masses, on the Commemoration of all the faithful departed and on the day and for the day of death or burial. In the rest it can be recited or omitted at the pleasure of the celebrant. I. M. 657. Cf. also General Decree of the S. R. C., Commemorationis omnium Fidelium Defunctorum, July 9, 1895, n. 3864.

5. Onuphrius the parish priest, since the rite was semidouble, after celebrating a Requiem Mass for the soul of his parishioner Urban, deceased on the preceding day, deferred the absolution at the tomb to another day, on which the corpse was to be brought into the church. - Does he act rightly?

R. Affirmatively. For the absolution is to be made after the Requiem Mass, or without Mass when the corpse is brought to the church, and in its presence. S. C. de P. F., Mar. 21, 1851, Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 913. This is also clear from the Roman Ritual, title de Exequiis. For at the end it is said: "Mass, if the hour is suitable, in the rite for the dead as on the day of death, with the body present, is not to be omitted, unless a great solemnity of the day stands in the way, or some necessity advises otherwise."

6. On the invalid consecration of wine. - Paschal, a priest, at the taking of the Chalice, notices that water had been placed instead of wine. Having the aforesaid water already in his mouth, he remains very uncertain for some space of time whether he ought to throw it from his mouth back into the Chalice, so that, fasting, after the consecration has been made again, he may communicate, or whether rather he ought to swallow it. At last he does this latter thing, yet not without some fear.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Paschal acted rightly. For, this Case occurring, since in practice it is morally most difficult not to swallow the water, one can do this without scruple. Moreover, it seems to be a certain irreverence and indecency to throw the aforesaid drink from the mouth back into the Chalice. It can also be confirmed from the rubric of the missal, which, in the Case in which a particle of the consecrated host adheres to the Chalice while the Blood is being consumed, prescribes that the same either be brought with the finger to the lip of the Chalice, or be consumed after wine has been put into the Chalice, de Defect. tit. 10, n. 8; which latter mode is more approved, as Merati observes in the Notes to Gavantus. Cas. Bonon. Dioeces., year 1791, month of March, Case 3; Gavantus, tom. 1, part 3, tit. 4, n. 5; Merati, ib., tit. 10, n. 8; G. 361; Elbel 148.

But from the rubric of the missal de Defect. tit. 4 it is prescribed that also a new host, in the Case, be consecrated, if, scandal being excluded, it can be done; otherwise, that only wine be consecrated. Yet all things are not to be repeated again; but it will be enough to repeat only those things which pertain to the consecration itself, beginning for the former consecration from the words, Qui pridie quam pateretur; and for the other from the words, Simili modo. But before the first consecration the offering of the Host and Chalice must be made mentally. Rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 2, n. 5; tit. 4, n. 4, 5; Cas. Bonon. Dioec., year 1792, month of Apr., Case 3; G. 360, 361; I. M. 329 ff.

But if a consecrated particle of the host has remained in the chalice with part of the water, then before the new consecration the water is to be poured into a clean vessel, the particle of the consecrated host being retained in the chalice, or extracted from it and soon reverently consumed; but the water poured into that vessel is to be consumed after the ablution, or put into the sacrarium. But if only a little water has remained in the chalice, whether with or without a particle of the consecrated host, wine can be poured upon this, which is then consecrated. Elbel 148.

7. On the omitted consecration of the host - Marinus the priest, after the consecration of the chalice, notices that through distraction he omitted the consecration of the Host. Hence he remains uncertain, not knowing what he should do; for he fears to consecrate the Host after the wine. For thus the nature of the sacrifice seems to him no longer to be verified.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. There is no doubt that what Marinus must do in the Case is to consecrate the host. This is clearly had in the rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 4, 5, 6, where there is discussion of defect of the bread, and a fourfold case is distinguished: that someone notices the defect of the matter of bread before its consecration; after its consecration; after its consumption; after the consumption of the chalice. In the first Case, after a host has been supplied and a mental offering made, the priest is to continue from the place where he left off, and then the host is to be consecrated. In the second and third Case, after other matter likewise has been placed and a mental offering made, that matter also is to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.; and the other corrupt or non-wheaten host, if he has not consumed it, he is to consume after the consumption of the Body and Blood; or he is to hand it over to others to be consumed, or preserve it reverently somewhere. In the fourth Case new bread and wine with water must again be supplied, and, after a mental offering has first been made, both matters are to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie, and at once both are to be consumed, and the Mass continued. Hence it is clear that even after the consecration of the chalice and before its consumption, the host is to be consecrated, notwithstanding that inversion of order, that the wine was consecrated first, and afterward the host is consecrated. This is also clear from the same rubric, ib., in the following number, namely 7, where it is said: "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, or by wind, or by miracle, or being taken by some animal, cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place, Qui pridie quam pateretur, its offering having first been made, as above." And hence it is clear that the order of consecrating first the bread and then the wine does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice. Hence also from the defect of a change of order in consecrating, a sufficient foundation cannot be taken for doubting about the validity of the sacrifice. Suarez, d. 75, s. 6; d. 86, s. 1; Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1792, month of Febr., Case 3.

8. On the consecration of small hosts - Euphrasius always has to consecrate these small hosts; indeed he places them on the corporal, but by no means sees to it that they also are upon the altar stone. For he says that it suffices that the larger host and the chalice are upon the altar stone.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Euphrasius does not act rightly. For first, in rubric tit. 20 it is said: "The altar on which the most holy sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated must be of stone and consecrated by a bishop, or at least a stone altar-slab similarly consecrated by a bishop inserted in it, which is so large that it can contain the host and the greater part of the chalice." Therefore, as the larger host must be upon the altar stone, so also upon the same must be placed the other small hosts, which constitute part of one and the same sacrifice which is celebrated. Yet, as it suffices, if the altar stone is small, that the greater part of the chalice be upon it, so also it suffices that the greater part of the aforesaid hosts, which are taken by way of one matter, be upon the same altar stone, if it is so small that it cannot contain them all. - Moreover, in rubr. tit. 2 it is said: "If the priest is going to consecrate several hosts for communion to be given, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten, he places them on the corporal before the chalice, or puts them in some consecrated chalice or clean blessed vessel behind the chalice, and covers them with another paten or pall." Hence it is sufficiently understood that small hosts also are to be placed upon the altar stone, since they are to be placed near the chalice, and if on the altar stone there is space for the chalice and for the larger host, there consequently will also be space for the small hosts, unless that stone is very small, and the hosts are very many. Hence Merati in l. c. says: "When several particles are to be consecrated for the communion of the lay faithful and of others not celebrating, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten (for when the particles are few, such as five or six, they must be placed upon the paten and beneath the host, so as to offer them together with the host at the same time, and after the offering they are placed upon the corporal separated from the host; yet in such a way that they remain upon the altar stone, and at the left side of the celebrant, according to common usage; but before the chalice according to the higher rubric), the priest, while he prepares the chalice at the beginning of Mass, places them on the corporal; so that, as we have just said, they remain upon the altar stone and before the chalice, according to the higher rubric, and as Quarti, Bissus, Hippolytus a Porto also teach, or according to the more common usage on the side of the Gospel or at the left of the celebrant, as the Caeremoniale missae privatae teaches, cap. 11, de consecrat. particular. et commun. fidelium § 1, and also Gervasi above § Se poi."

And here, as to communion to be distributed to the people outside Mass, the following things are to be noted:

In the administration of most holy communion outside Mass, after the Most Holy Sacrament has been put back in the tabernacle, the priest must bless the people before he folds the corporal, or does something similar. This is inferred from the word then placed in the rubric.

In the blessing after communion outside Mass the priest does not kiss the altar. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833, ad 6, n. 2704.

During the whole Paschal season after the administration of the most holy Eucharist outside Mass, to the antiphon O sacrum... and the versicle Panem de coelo..., Alleluia is added, and the Prayer is said: Pour into us, O Lord, the Spirit of thy charity: that those whom thou hast satisfied with the paschal Sacraments, thou mayest make by thy piety to be of one accord. Through Christ our Lord. - Amen. Roman Ritual.

9. On communion to be given from the larger host - "A chaplain celebrating at an altar in which the Eucharist is not reserved, so that he might satisfy the devotion of a pious woman seeking communion in the Mass, gives to her a part of the consecrated (larger) host.

It is asked: Licitly?

R. Suarez, 3 p., d. 85, s. 2, with Paludanus, and Gavantus, in rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, affirmed that this was licit, relying on the old custom of the Church, which seemed to have been abrogated by no law; and not undeservedly did they write thus in their own age. But now there exists a Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679, approved by Innocent XI, by which, the old custom having now been changed, it is prescribed that none are to be handed over except the customary forms, or particles, of the Eucharist. From this Cavalerius, tom. 4, c. 4, Decret. 2, n. 9, infers that it is not licit to give a part of the host to a layman, one exception being danger of death. And he confirms it from rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, where it is established: If the priest celebrating becomes ill, or falls into syncope after the consecration, yet so that he can communicate, and there is not another consecrated host, the priest who supplies the Mass divides the host and gives one part to the sick man. Now, if only in defect of another host is part of the host of the sacrifice to be given in the Case to a priest already sacrificing, how much more will it be necessary to beware lest it be furnished to a layman outside the case of extreme necessity? Therefore it will not be licit for the chaplain, merely to satisfy the devotion of the woman, to assign to her part of the host." Casus Conscient. Bonon. Dioec., year 1778, month of May, Case III.

But that rigid resolution is not proved by the Documents adduced. For from that first cited Decree nothing else is held except this: that ordinarily and from the general rule it is not licit to give anything except the customary Eucharistic forms or particles. Likewise from the cited Rubric nothing else is held except what must be done if there is, or is not, another consecrated host. By no means, however, does it follow from this that only in a case of extreme necessity can a part of the larger host be given. For fittingly, if another consecrated host is present, this is given to the former sick priest, and the other larger host, lest it be divided, is consumed whole by the other priest, since he then supplies and completes the Mass; rubr. l. c. And thus it is already the common opinion that this can licitly be done even outside the case of extreme necessity, when another just and proportionate necessity exists. For here there is not question of any most grave and graver, or even of any grave precept. And thus La-Croix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 498: "When is it licit for a priest to give to a layman part of his larger host? R. When there is a reasonable cause. Graff., Zanard., Zambran. indeed think that it is not licit outside necessity; but S. Anton., Sylv., Sa, Angel., Io. Sanch., Bon., Barb., Marchant., Possev., Dian., Dic., Aversa, Tamb., Gob., Verj. better contradict this, because Christ Himself did this, nor is it now prohibited, nor is there also any irreverence or indecency in this; but the contrary custom or non-use does not oblige under sin, but arises from this, that ordinarily smaller hosts are also had, which if they do not suffice for the number of those communicating can also be divided into several particles, of which individual particles are given to individual persons. The cited authors say that reasonable causes are present if someone has great devotion toward communicating and it is not convenient for him to wait; if a grave or noble person wishes then to communicate, so that afterward he may in good time dispatch himself to business; if servants cannot easily wait without loss to their duties; if the priest would have to wait a long time that a small host might be brought before the offering, etc." And St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 217: "But if," he says, "only one remained (without communion), Gobat advises rather that there be given to him part of the large host, which can now licitly be done, as Croix says with S. Anton., etc. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time for communion." And at n. 245 the same holy Doctor says: "If this is done without cause it is not licit, but it does not exceed venial, as Tournely rightly says with Poss. But it suffices to excuse it if the one to be communicated is sick, a noble man, a servant, or another who could not wait without inconvenience, even if he communicates only from devotion, as the same Tournely and Conc., Salm. with Dic., Diana, Gran. and Elbel with S. Anton., Sylvest. and Bon. commonly say." And Scavini, l. 3, n. 133, ed. Milan 1874: "To no one," he says, "are several particles to be handed, nor larger ones, but the customary ones. S. R. C., Feb. 12, 1679, General Decree approved by Innocent XI. When the particles do not suffice, the custom of dividing consecrated particles is to be preserved, if necessity is present. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833. Benedict XIV advises, if there is one to be communicated and particles are lacking, to give him part of the large host, if namely the one to be communicated would have to wait a long time."

Therefore to the proposed Case it must be said that the chaplain indeed acted illicitly if he did that so as to satisfy the importunate devotion of a woman who desired to receive communion from the great host of the priest himself. But the chaplain by no means acted illicitly if he did that lest the woman, e.g., a mother of a family, be deprived of communion, or lest she wait a long time with grave inconvenience to herself and her family. - I. M. 536.

10. Mass without a Minister - On a Sunday, about to celebrate Mass in a certain public oratory, into which many had come together to hear it, the chaplain finds no one who knows how to serve Mass, nor is it easy then to find someone suitable for this; for the oratory is distant from the parish, and it is near midday.

It is asked: What must the Chaplain do?

R. In a Case of this kind the chaplain must employ some man who may offer him wine and water in the ministry of the Mass. But as regards the prayers which must be recited either alternately by the priest and the minister, or by this latter alone, the celebrant alone will be able to recite them by himself, and to respond to himself. For in a case of necessity, such as the proposed Case is, the doctors commonly agree that this is licit. And certainly, if the rubric of the missal in the rite to be observed in the celebration of Mass, tit. 4, concerning the Kyrie eleison, expressly warns at n. 2 at the end: If the minister, or those who are present, do not respond to the celebrant, he alone says it nine times; and tit. 7, n. 7 likewise warns that, if by the minister or by the bystanders at the Orate fratres there is no response, May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands, the priest himself by himself says: May the Lord receive the sacrifice from my hands, etc., up to the end; why could not the celebrant also say by himself the remaining things to be said in the Mass with the minister, or by this latter only, if the minister does not know how to respond? For indeed it is forbidden to celebrate Mass entirely without a minister, as is had in the rubric de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1, where it is said: If there is not present a cleric, or another serving in the Mass, or there is present one who ought not to serve, as a woman: but it is not forbidden in a case of necessity to employ a minister who does not know how to respond, provided however that he can furnish wine and water in the ministry itself, especially for washing the fingers, both before the consecration and after the consummation. Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1766, month of Aug., Case 3; I. M. 653.

11. On prayers before and after Mass - A certain priest, while vested he goes to the altar to offer the sacred rite, is accustomed on the way to recite in a low voice the psalm Miserere, which, if he cannot complete it before he reaches the altar, he continues to the end while he unfolds the corporal and opens and arranges the missal; and sometimes, if the way from the sacristy to the altar was very short, he remains a little while in the middle of the altar, so that he may finish that psalm before he descends to begin Mass.

The nuptial blessing consists in the prayers which are found in the Missal: Be propitious, O Lord, etc., and O God, Who by Thy power, etc., to be said before Deliver us, etc.; and also God of Abraham, etc., to be said before the blessing. This nuptial blessing cannot be separated from the Mass, so that it cannot be imparted outside it. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1893, Roman, responses to 3 and 4.

“The nuptial blessing which the Missal gives in the Mass for bridegroom and bride is always to be imparted in the Matrimony of Catholics, but within the celebration of Mass, according to the Rubrics, and outside the forbidden time, to all those spouses who, in contracting Matrimony, did not obtain it for any cause whatsoever, even if they ask for it after they have already lived in Matrimony for a long time, provided that the woman, if a widow, did not receive this blessing in other nuptials.—Moreover, those same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their Marriage are to be exhorted to seek it at the first opportunity. But it is to be explained to them, especially if they are neophytes or contracted validly before conversion, that the blessing pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity of the union.” Holy Office, 31 August 1881, General Decree.

“The Holy See exhorts the faithful to have supplied the parish priest’s nuptial blessing in Marriages celebrated clandestinely. It is asked whether only the solemn blessing which is found in the Missal is intended, or also the blessing of the ring?—Response. Affirmative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 20 February 1801.

“When the Vicar Apostolic of Sichuan asked that the response of the Sacred Congregation concerning the blessing to be supplied in clandestine Marriages be explained more clearly, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith responded that the blessing is to be given in all things and in every respect according to the form of the Roman Ritual, namely, also with the blessing of the ring.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 27 January 1805.

“1. Whether the prohibition of nuptials during the time of Advent and Lent is to be understood only of the Mass for the spouses and of the prayers placed in the Missal for the blessing of those marrying; or whether it also extends to the Marriage itself, which is celebrated with only the ceremonies and prayers that are found in the Ritual? 2. Whether, when the bishop grants permission to contract Matrimony during the times forbidden by the holy Council of Trent, the blessing of the spouses by the prayers and orations contained in the Mass for the spouses is also judged to be permitted? And insofar as the response is negative, whether the bishop can grant that faculty in a case?—Response. To 1: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second, provided the bishop’s permission is present. To 2: Negative in all respects.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 August 1858, Monte Albano.

“When several couples are joined at the same time, after the consent of each has first been received and each Marriage has been duly celebrated, and after the parish priest has said for each the form, I join you in Matrimony, etc., nothing prevents the blessings of the rings and the other blessings from being made in common by general words.” Holy Office, 1 September 1841.

“Whether, in nuptials which are called second nuptials, the blessing of the ring is to be omitted?—Response. Negative.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, response to 2.

“It remains now to speak about one further point concerning which, although We have not been expressly questioned, We nevertheless do not believe that it ought to be passed over in silence, since it can occur all too frequently in practice, namely: whether a Catholic contracting party who afterward wishes to become a participant in the Sacraments ought to be admitted to them? To this We say that, when that same person demonstrates that he repents of his sinful union, this can be granted to him, provided that before the concession he sincerely declares that he will procure the conversion of his heretical spouse, renews his promise concerning the education of the offspring in the orthodox religion, and will repair the scandal given to the other faithful. If such conditions concur, We do not object to the Catholic party becoming a participant in the Sacraments.” Rescript of Pius VI, 13 July 1782, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen.

“...The aforesaid spouses must make satisfaction to the Church, whose most holy law has been violated, and must furnish to the same Church, even in the external forum, cautions concerning the removal from themselves and their offspring of the danger to eternal salvation; and for this purpose recourse to the bishop is to be required.” Holy Office, 12 March 1881, to a Vicar Apostolic; A. S. S., vol. 16, p. 235.

The Nuptial Blessing, which pertains to the solemnity of nuptials and is contained in the Missal, in the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride, is carefully to be distinguished from the rite of celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony, by which the Priest joins the spouses and blesses the ring, and which is contained in the Roman Ritual.

"The nuptial blessing, which the Missal exhibits in the Mass for bridegroom and bride, is always to be imparted in the marriage of Catholics, yet within the celebration of Mass, according to the rubrics, and outside the closed time, to all those spouses who did not obtain it in contracting marriage, from whatever cause; even if they ask after they have already lived for a long time in marriage, provided that the woman, if a widow, did not receive that blessing in other nuptials. Moreover the same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their marriage are to be exhorted that they ask it at the first possible time. But it must be signified to them, especially if they are neophytes, or contracted validly before conversion, that the blessing itself pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity, of the marriage." S. I. C. 31 Aug. 1881, General Decree; S. R. C. 9 May 1885.

"The Holy See exhorts the faithful to supply the nuptial Blessing of the Parish Priest in marriages celebrated clandestinely. It is asked whether only the solemn Blessing is intended, which is contained in the Missal, or whether also the Blessing of the ring? Resp. Affirmatively in all things." S. C. de P. F. 20 Feb. 1801.

"When the Apostolic Vicar of Sutchuen asked that the response of the Sacred Congregation concerning the Blessing to be supplied in clandestine marriages be more clearly explained, the S. C. de P. F. responded that the Blessing is to be given in all things and through all things according to the form of the Roman Ritual, namely also with the Blessing of the ring." S. C. de P. F. 27 Jan. 1805.

"1. Is the nuptial Blessing which is in the Ritual prohibited from being given in the forbidden time? Or at this time is only the Blessing which is in the Missal prohibited? 3. Can the Blessing which is in the Missal be given to those who, without that Blessing, have already been joined in marriage in first nuptials, when the woman is already pregnant, or has already borne children? Likewise to those who here and now contract marriage de praesenti in first nuptials, when the bride is known to be pregnant, or already before marriage has begotten children from fornication? 4. When the nuptial Blessing is given to those who have already validly been joined in marriage, must the formula be recited: I join you in matrimony, without renewal of consent? What when there is doubt, as very often, whether they have already validly contracted or not? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively to the first part, provided that there is not present a custom of not contracting marriage even without solemnity in forbidden time; affirmatively to the second part. To the 3rd: Affirmatively. To the 4th: To the first part, let the Instruction of the year 1806 be given, which is that spouses of this sort are not bound to renew consent where there is no doubt concerning the validity of the marriage already contracted because of some impediment, nor ought the Priest to recite the formula Ego vos, etc., but only to perform the remaining things which are handed down in the Roman Ritual concerning the Blessing. To the second part, let him consult approved authors." S. R. C. 5 July 1845; 2 Oct. 1593.

"Whether the votive Mass for bridegroom and bride can be said, and in it the nuptial Blessing be made, even in the case where the Spouses during this Mass would not receive Holy Communion? Resp. Affirmatively; nevertheless let Parish Priests and Rectors of souls take care to exhort the faithful about to marry that they communicate in the Mass in which the nuptial Blessings are imparted." S. R. C. 21 March 1874.

"1. Can a Priest, when marriages are celebrated outside Mass, as frequently happens in the churches of the cities of the Diocese of Monte Albano, impart the Blessing to the spouses and recite the prayers which are contained in the Missal in the Mass for bridegroom and bride, and which are to be said both after the Pater noster and before the Placeat, when there is not a question of nuptials in which the above-mentioned Blessing is not to be denied? And insofar as affirmatively, is he bound? 2. Is it permitted to defer the Mass for bridegroom and bride and the Blessing to the day immediately following, or to another much more remote, even if the spouses before receiving the Priestly Blessing in the church dwell together in the same house? 3. Whether the prohibition of nuptials in the time of Advent and Lent ought to be understood only of the Mass for spouses, and of the prayers placed in the Missal for the Blessing of those marrying; or whether it also touches the marriage itself, which is celebrated only with the ceremonies and prayers which are found in the Ritual? 4. When license has been given by the Bishop to contract marriage in the times forbidden by the Holy Council of Trent, is the Blessing of the spouses through the prayers and orations contained in the Mass for spouses also judged to be permitted? And insofar as negatively, can the Bishop in the case concede that faculty? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively in all things. To the 2nd: Negatively in the case. To the 3rd: Affirmatively to the first part, negatively to the second, provided that the leave of the Bishop accedes. To the 4th: Negatively in all things." S. R. C. 14 Aug. 1858.

"The S. R. C. ... by command of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX decreed: that the nuptial Blessing is to be imparted only in Mass, and it did not declare differently in the year just elapsed, 1858, on 14 Aug., when responding to doubts proposed concerning this matter by the Most Reverend Bishop of Monte Albano." 26 March 1859. Cf. Gardell. n. 5289.

"Unless a grave and reasonable cause is present, the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride is to be celebrated, and the prescription of the Rubric is to be observed as to the kind of Mass; yet in such a way that the Celebrant is free in his mind to turn the fruit of the Mass in favor of the one supplying the alms." S. C. de P. F. 7 June 1853; 23 March 1844.

"... the S. R. C. declared ... that the Mass for Bridegroom and Bride is a private votive Mass, and therefore is always to be read without the Angelic hymn and the Nicene symbol, with three orations: 1. namely, the proper one of the same votive Mass, as is contained at the end of the Missal; 2. and 3. those of the current day, as in Rubrics, title VII, num. 3, On commemorations; Benedicamus Domino at the end, and the last Gospel of St. John." S. R. C. 28 Feb. 1818.

"The Mass in nuptials must always be the votive Mass for Bridegroom and Bride, as in the Missal, except on feasts of precept and doubles of the 1st and 2nd Class, in which a commemoration for Bridegroom and Bride is to be added to the occurring Mass. But the Blessing assigned in it according to the rubrics is not to be imparted except in Mass." S. R. C. 23 June 1853; 7 Jan. 1784.

"1. Whether a Mass of this sort can be said on days excluding doubles, as noted above? 2. Whether the commemoration of the Mass for bridegroom and bride, to be said, according to the said Decree, in Masses of a double of the 1st or 2nd class, ought to be said under one conclusion with the Oration of the feast, or under another conclusion? 3. Whether such commemoration likewise ought to be said, or under another conclusion, as is customary concerning other commemorations occurring on Sundays and feasts of precept? 4. In what place, when other commemorations occur, as in the preceding question, the commemoration of the Mass for bridegroom and bride is to be said under a second conclusion; namely, whether in the last place? Resp. To the 1st: Negatively as to the Octave of Epiphany, the Vigil of Pentecost, and the privileged Octave of Corpus Christi, insofar as the privilege has been granted after the manner of the Octave of Epiphany. To the 2nd: Negatively to the first part, affirmatively to the second. To the 3rd: As in the preceding. To the 4th: It is to be made in the first place after the others of precept." S. R. C. 20 Apr. 1822.

"... because in the times forbidden by the Church the solemn Blessing of nuptials cannot have place, so likewise the commemoration for bridegroom and bride in the occurring Mass is inhibited, nor are the Orations to be resumed outside Mass when the prohibited time has already elapsed." S. R. C. 31 Aug. 1839.

"When several are joined at the same time, the consent of each of them first having been received, and the individual marriages having been duly celebrated, and the form I join you in matrimony, etc., having been said for each by the Parish Priest, nothing prevents the blessings of the rings and the remaining Blessings from being made in common by general words." S. C. S. O. 1 Sept. 1841.

"Whether in Nuptials, which are called second, the blessing of the ring is to be omitted? Resp. Negatively." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1856. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

— 1. Besides the Holy See, only the local Ordinary himself, the vicar general being excluded without a special mandate, can permit a marriage of conscience for a most grave and most urgent cause (c. 1104).

2. This permission carries with it the promise and grave obligation of preserving secrecy "on the part of the assisting priest, the witnesses, the Ordinary and his successors, and also of one spouse, if the other does not consent to disclosure" (c. 1105).

3. The Ordinary is released from this secrecy: a) if some scandal or grave injury toward the sanctity of marriage threatens from observance of secrecy (e.g., if the man wishes to contract other nuptials); b) if the parents do not take care of the baptism of the offspring, or offer the offspring to be baptized under false names, unless within thirty days they provide to the Ordinary notice of the offspring born and baptized with sincere indication, or if they neglect the Christian education of the children (c. 1106).

4. A marriage of conscience must be noted neither in the customary book of marriages nor in the book of the baptized, but in a special book to be kept in the secret archive of the Curia (c. 1107).

— This marriage, only for a most grave and most urgent cause, can be permitted by the Holy See alone or by the local prelate. This permission includes the promise and obligation of secrecy to be preserved of itself. This marriage is inscribed only in the special book.

— I. Time. "Marriage can be contracted at any time of the year" (c. 1108, §1).

Before the Code, the laudable customs of provinces which prohibited marriages themselves during closed time seemed to Trent to have to be preserved. Now they will not be able to be preserved unless the Ordinaries of places judge that the same cannot prudently be removed.

Today, as was said above, n. 800, only the solemn blessing is prohibited of itself, and the time which before ran from Advent to Epiphany inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday to the octave of Easter, now has its end with the Nativity of the Lord and Easter (c. 1108).

— II. "The place is the parochial church; in another church or public or semi-public oratory it cannot be celebrated except by license of the local Ordinary or pastor; for it to be celebrated in private buildings there is required an extraordinary case, a just and reasonable cause, and the license of the local Ordinary. In churches or oratories, whether of seminaries or of religious women, Ordinaries are not to permit this except with urgent necessity and with opportune cautions applied" (c. 1109, §§1 and 2).

Mixed marriages are to be celebrated outside the church unless the Ordinary prudently judges that this cannot be observed without graver evils arising (c. 1109, §3).

— I. By force of common law, marriage can be celebrated at any time of the year.

II. The place is the parochial church. Elsewhere license of the local Ordinary or pastor is needed.

Preliminary note. After a brief historical survey has been presented, we divide this chapter into three articles: 1. on the subject of this law, or who are bound to it; 2. on the object of the new law, or what things are required for the valid and licit celebration of matrimony; 3. what things are to be done after the matrimony has been celebrated.

753. Historical survey. Matrimony, whether it is considered as a contract or as a sacrament, essentially consists in the consent of the contracting parties alone, sufficiently manifested. But among almost all peoples of all times, this manifestation of nuptial consent is adorned with certain solemnities.¹ Until the Council of Trent the Catholic Church considered all these solemnities as accidental, and therefore held marriages entered even without them to be ratified and valid. Nevertheless, because of the great dangers which are connected with marriages entered in a private manner, "holy Mother Church for most just causes has always detested and prohibited them [clandestine marriages]."² Hence St. Ignatius³ already admonishes: "It is fitting that bridegrooms and brides make their marriage with the judgment of the bishop." Tertullian⁴ testifies: "Among us even occult unions, that is, those not previously professed before the Church, risk being judged akin to adultery and fornication." Until the Council of Trent there was no constant and uniform manner of manifesting matrimonial consent and celebrating matrimony in the diverse parts of the Church.⁵ But the Council of Trent, in its most celebrated Decree Tametsi,⁶ established that thenceforth all marriages would be invalid unless they had been contracted before the proper parish priest and at least two witnesses. This Decree had to exercise its force on the thirtieth day elapsed after its promulgation in each parish.

The Church most certainly could in this manner invalidate all clandestine marriages; for the matrimonial contract has been elevated to the dignity of a sacrament, as was proved above. Moreover, although the Church cannot change the form and matter of the sacraments, nevertheless she can determine under what conditions the matrimonial contract is to be held as legitimate and is to be apt matter of the sacrament. Just as the Church also cannot change the matter and form of the sacrament of penance, nevertheless she can prescribe the manner under which a confessor can validly administer this sacrament. Hence the Decree Tametsi was most just and most wise. But for diverse causes this Decree was not published in several parishes, and therefore clandestine marriages remained valid there. "But not even where the new law was in force was every difficulty removed. For often a grave doubt existed in determining the person of the parish priest in whose presence the matrimony was to be contracted. Canonical discipline indeed established that the proper parish priest ought to be understood as the one in whose parish either contracting party has a domicile or quasi-domicile; but because it is sometimes difficult to judge whether the quasi-domicile is certainly established, not a few marriages were exposed to the danger of being null; and many also, either through the ignorance of men or through fraud, were discovered to be entirely illegitimate and invalid.... Moved by these circumstances, ... Pius X, according to that solicitude for all the churches which he bears, desiring to employ some moderation for removing the aforementioned harms and dangers, committed the matter to the Sacred Congregation of the Council, that it should examine it and propose to him those things which it judged opportune." Hence the Decree Ne temere was issued, which from April 19, 1908, bound throughout the whole Christian world unless a prorogation or dispensation had been granted for some region. A prorogation was granted for the Chinese Empire, in which the Decree did not bind until April 11, 1909. But now all prorogations and exemptions, and indeed the Decree Ne temere itself, have ceased, and the law established in the Code of Canon Law has been in force since May 19, 1918.

Note. If at any time a doubt occurs concerning the validity of some matrimony entered before April 19, 1908, the ancient Tridentine law or particular law perhaps legitimately in force somewhere is to be applied.

¹ Cf. Westermark, History of Human Marriage, c. 19.

² Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 1, de reform. matrim.

³ Ep. ad Polyc., c. 5 (Migne, Patr. graec. 5, 867).

⁴ De pudicit., c. 4 (Migne, Patr. lat. 2, 987).

⁵ Cf. the Sacramentaries of St. Leo, Gelasius, and St. Gregory.

⁶ Loc. cit.

Two cases must be distinguished: 1. the ordinary celebration of matrimony; 2. the extraordinary celebration of matrimony, and indeed a) when danger of death is imminent, or b) in places where a priest cannot be had.

756. General rule. "Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest or the local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either of them, and at least two witnesses." Thus the Code of Canon Law, can. 1094.

Therefore, in the ordinary celebration of matrimony, the assistance of one of the following is altogether required, together with two witnesses:

1. the parish priest of the place;
2. the local Ordinary;
3. a priest duly delegated.

We shall first speak generally of the requirements on the part of the parish priest of the place, etc., and then of those which are required on the part of the two witnesses.

757. a) By the name of parish priest are here understood 1. all parish priests properly so called, whether irremovable or removable; 2. all who are equivalent to parish priests, that is, those who by reason of their office must supply the place of the parish priest.

The following are equivalent to parish priests in this matter:

1. Quasi-parish priests. "In regions where parishes have not been canonically erected, even the priest to whom the care of souls in some definite territory has been legitimately committed is equivalent to a parish priest; and in missions where territories have not yet been perfectly divided, every priest universally deputed by the director of the mission to the care of souls in some station."¹³

2. The one serving, or administrator of, a vacant parish, who in the Code of Canon Law, can. 472, is called the vicar economus (Pfarrverweser). Likewise a substitute vicar, assistant vicar, or cooperator vicar, if he supplies the place of the parish priest in the whole parochial ministry.¹⁴

3. A curate, that is, one who exercises the full care of souls in a determinate territory which, however, has not been erected to the dignity of a true parish.¹⁵ Such curates are called in some places expositi or local chaplains.

4. The perpetual or temporary vicar of an incorporated parish. Parishes are not rarely incorporated into the chapter of a cathedral church or into some monastery. Then the cathedral chapter or monastery must legitimately designate a perpetual or temporary vicar to exercise the parochial care of souls, who is now called the actual vicar.

5. Chaplains or rectors of pious places of any kind exempt from parochial jurisdiction. It is required, however, that they possess true parochial power and that they assist only at the marriages of their subjects, and this in the place of their jurisdiction.¹⁶ Today pious places of this kind not rarely exist, for example, hospitals, in which some spiritual rector entirely exempt from parochial jurisdiction exercises the ministry of souls.

¹³ Thus the Decree Ne temere, II; cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 216, § 3.

¹⁴ Cf. Pontifical Commission, May 20, 1923 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVI, 115).

¹⁵ Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, March 10, 1908. In practice it must first be seen whether such curates, expositi, or local chaplains truly have full jurisdiction in the territory designated to them by the bishop or by legitimate custom, or whether they are rather mere vicars conceded to the parish priest.

¹⁶ Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 1, 1908, ad 10.

758. 6. All personal parish priests, such as, for example, military chaplains and certain parish priests in the East Indies. Personal parish priests are those who exercise parochial jurisdiction not in a determinate territory but over determinate persons.

It is much disputed whether the jurisdiction of personal parish priests of this kind in assisting at matrimony is exclusive or rather cumulative with that of the territorial parish priest. With respect to the East Indies, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on June 2, 1910,¹⁷ decreed that, in view of the peculiar circumstances, personal parish priests alone, to the exclusion of territorial parish priests, can licitly and validly assist at the marriages of their subjects, so that the jurisdiction of personal parish priests in the Indies is exclusive and not cumulative. But with respect to other personal parish priests, and notably with respect to camp or military parish priests, authors do not agree. Hinschius,¹⁸ Noldin,¹⁹ Dr. Vollmar²⁰ (formerly chief chaplain of the Prussian army), the chief chaplain of the Austrian army,²¹ and others teach that the jurisdiction of military chaplains is exclusive. On the contrary, Vogt,²² Wernz-Vidal,²³ De Smet,²⁴ Scherer,²⁵ and others assert that this jurisdiction is cumulative with that of the territorial parish priest. The decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments cited above manifestly favors them, saying: "The resolution [concerning the rights of personal parish priests], as regards validity and liceity, does not seem to prejudice the rights of territorial parish priests; who therefore, according to the Decree Ne temere, appear always validly to assist in their own parish, and licitly also, after the month's residence of either contracting party has preceded, at the marriages even of exempt faithful." - Since this controversy is of great moment in practice (because the validity of the sacrament of matrimony is at issue), the legitimate customs prevailing in the diverse regions where military parish priests are present must be observed until the Holy See issues an authentic decree on this matter. Besides, no private author can establish a general rule concerning the jurisdiction of military chaplains, since the same agreements between the Holy See and governments do not prevail in diverse regions. Certainly it is contrary to the words and mind of the new law that soldiers cannot at least validly contract matrimony before the territorial parish priest as can other faithful; nevertheless, since the Sacred Congregation of the Council on February 1, 1908, ad 7, declared that "with respect to military chaplains ... nothing has been changed," and since civil or military authorities sometimes urge (even with grave penalties added) that the military chaplain assist at the marriages of soldiers and other persons belonging to the military, it is much better that territorial parish priests abstain from assisting at marriages of this kind unless they have special permission.²⁶

¹⁷ Acta Ap. Sed. II, 449.

¹⁸ System d. kath. Kirchenr. II, 340.

¹⁹ De sacram., n. 643.

²⁰ According to the Brief of Pope Pius IX of May 22, 1868, the chief chaplain of the [formerly] Prussian army possesses jurisdiction, separate from the other Ordinaries and in no way subject to them, over each and every one of the faithful who belong to the Prussian army according to the laws (Acta S. Sed. XLI, 91).

²¹ Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht LXXXVIII (1908), 729 ff.; XC (1910), 142.

²² Das kirchl. Eherecht, § 25.

²³ Ius can. V, n. 535.

²⁴ De spons. et matr., n. 64.

²⁵ Kirchenrecht II, 199.

²⁶ Today there are military chaplains having jurisdiction independent of local Ordinaries in Spain (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, May 22, 1909 [Acta Ap. Sed. I, 554]), England (cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, May 15, 1906), and Chile (Motu proprio of Pius X, May 3, 1910 [Acta Ap. Sed. II, 502]). The faculties granted to military chaplains in diverse regions are not the same. Hence the particular statutes must be observed.

759. b) By the name of the local Ordinary are understood diocesan bishops (not titular bishops), apostolic administrators, vicars, and prefects, prelates or prefects having jurisdiction with a separate territory,²⁷ and their officials or vicars general in spiritual matters, and, when the see is vacant, the capitular vicar or legitimate administrator.²⁸ The chief military chaplain is the Ordinary for all persons belonging to the military according to law,²⁹ although he does not have territorial jurisdiction.

The Ordinary can validly assist (whether personally or through a delegated priest) at all marriages within the boundaries of his territory, even without the knowledge and against the will of the parish priests.

²⁷ For example, an abbot and prelate nullius.

²⁸ Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 198, § 2.

²⁹ Nor is the legislation concerning persons belonging to the military uniform in diverse regions.

760. c) A legitimately delegated priest is one who has delegation from the parish priest or local Ordinary, or from those who are equivalent to a parish priest, concerning whom above, n. 757.

Delegation is fittingly distinguished from permission to assist, although this distinction is not expressly contained in the law itself. For delegation is a faculty granted to another priest by a parish priest (territorial or personal) to assist validly at some matrimony; but permission is a faculty granted to someone to assist licitly, who even without such permission would assist validly. From these things it follows that a personal parish priest never needs delegation to assist at the marriages of his subjects; but a territorial parish priest almost never needs delegation to assist at marriages celebrated in his territory. Certain marriages in the East Indies and perhaps the marriages of soldiers, concerning which above, are excepted. A territorial parish priest, however, needs the permission of another parish priest if he wishes to assist at the matrimony of persons about to marry who have not yet lived for a month in his parish, as will be said below. A parish priest and Ordinary within their own territory can delegate any priest (not publicly excommunicated or suspended) to assist at matrimony. But a parish priest and Ordinary who have only personal jurisdiction can delegate another priest in any place whatsoever to assist at the marriages of their subjects.

Concerning this delegation, the following things must be noted:

761. 1. In no way can it be extended beyond the territory of the delegating person, because the delegating person himself does not validly assist at matrimony outside his own territory.

2. Under pain of nullity it is required that this delegation be special, that is, made to a determinate priest for a determinate matrimony or even for several marriages, provided that they are determinate. Therefore all general delegations are excluded, such as were not rarely in use formerly, for example, that matrimony could be celebrated before one of the priests living in some celebrated place of pilgrimage,³⁰ or before the priest who would be deputed by the religious superior to say Mass in the church.³¹ Cooperator vicars alone can be habitually and generally delegated by the bishop or by the parish priest of the territory to assist at matrimony in the parish to which they are attached.³²

3. The delegation must be express or at least quasi-express, which is manifestly gathered from conclusive acts.

The whole doctrine concerning express, tacit, and presumed delegation is thus briefly expressed in the cause Balzan Adami:³³ "In order that another priest besides the proper parish priest of either contracting party be constituted the qualified witness of the matrimony, there must precede a positive act of the will, externally expressed, of the proper parish priest or the proper Ordinary, by which permission to assist, concerning which the Decree speaks, is conceded to him. Therefore presumed or interpretative permission, which does not really exist but would exist only upon some given hypothesis, does not suffice to constitute an authorized witness of matrimony.... But by tacit permission, insofar as it is distinguished from presumed or interpretative permission, the positive will of the proper parish priest or Ordinary to delegate another priest to fulfill the office of authorized witness can be sufficiently expressed. Since, moreover, this general faculty of delegating is nowhere in law restricted to express delegation alone, it must be said that delegation is present where facts preceding the matrimony and truly conclusive show that this was the mind of the one to whom it belongs by law to delegate." - Hence, for example, a cooperator vicar who is sent into some parish to assist the parish priest in all things can validly assist at marriages, even if he does not have the express delegation of the parish priest who is silent and does not contradict. On the contrary, when the parish priest is absent, another priest cannot presume delegation. The matter of delegation in assisting at marriages is often determined by the particular statutes of dioceses. - Of itself, indeed, nothing prevents delegation from being given by telegraph or telephone; but, except in a case of urgent necessity, a transmission of this kind is not expedient, because doubts and ambiguities not rarely arise from it.

4. One delegated for the universality of causes can subdelegate this delegation; on the contrary, one delegated for a particular case does not have this faculty of subdelegation unless it was expressly conceded to him.³⁴

Hence, for example, a cooperator vicar of a parish priest who has obtained general delegation to assist at all marriages to be celebrated in the parish can subdelegate another priest for a particular case; but the latter, subdelegated for this case, cannot again subdelegate another. Likewise, a parish priest or local Ordinary who delegated a determinate priest to assist at a determinate matrimony can also give him permission to subdelegate another determinate priest to assist at the same matrimony.

5. Delegation ceases a) by revocation, b) when the time prefixed has elapsed.

Delegation does not cease by the death of the delegating person or by the right of the delegating person being otherwise terminated,³⁵ although some have opined the contrary. If a parish priest suddenly dies, his cooperator vicar or even the nearest parish priest validly and licitly assists at the matrimony, as is customarily determined by particular statutes.³⁶

³⁰ Noldin-Schmitt, De sacr.¹⁸, n. 642, asserts: "Nothing prevents several determinate priests from being delegated, whether they are named singly or all collectively: all the Servite Fathers in Weissenstein; the parochial clergy of church N." Since here there is question of the validity of the assistance and therefore of the matrimony itself, I think collective delegations of this kind are not sufficiently safe.

³¹ Pontifical Commission, May 20, 1923 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVI, 115).

³² Code of Canon Law, can. 1096, § 1.

³³ Acta Ap. Sed. II, 208; cf. also Acta Ap. Sed. XI, 154 ff., where it is judiciously observed that for greater security express delegation is to be sought in practice before the celebration of the matrimony, but tacit delegation suffices for the validity of the matrimony.

³⁴ Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 199, § 5, and Pontifical Commission, December 28, 1927 (Acta Ap. Sed. XX, 62).

³⁵ Code of Canon Law, can. 207.

³⁶ Ibid., can. 472. Thus, for example, the following is contained in the Pastoral Instruction of Eichstätt, n. 488: "If it happens that, when all things have been prepared for the nuptials, the parish priest suddenly departs this life, for this unforeseen case we delegate, from ordinary power and solely for this occasion, any diocesan and approved priest perhaps staying in the place or to be summoned from the vicinity, so that the nuptials can validly be contracted before him if they cannot be further deferred without inconvenience."

762. I. Conditions required on the part of the parish priest and the Ordinary for valid assistance. There are three; namely, it is required:

1. That he canonically possess his benefice or office and not have been excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office by a sentence, or declared such.³⁷

The Sacred Congregation of the Council on March 2, 1908, responded: "By the name of possession here is understood that act which, whether it is called corporal institution, enthronement, installation, or otherwise, nevertheless always effects this: that the one instituted into the benefice thereby acquires the free exercise of the power annexed to his office." The manner of conferring this corporal institution is customarily determined by particular law or by custom.³⁸

A bishop acquires the episcopal office when he has presented to the chapter the letters of institution given by the Supreme Pontiff, or, where no chapter exists, when those letters have been legitimately published in the diocese.³⁹

The right of assisting at marriages is lost: a) by removal from office or benefice. This is evident of itself. b) By excommunication or suspension or interdict from office, provided, however, that these have been imposed by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence; which indeed is wont to happen quite rarely. An excommunication which a parish priest incurs, for example, by the absolution of an accomplice or by the public striking of a cleric, does not yet deprive him of the right of assisting at marriages unless a declaratory or condemnatory decree imposing the penalty of excommunication has been added.⁴⁰

Note. Since in common error the Church supplies jurisdiction,⁴¹ a matrimony celebrated before a putative parish priest is also valid.⁴²

³⁷ Code of Canon Law, can. 1095, § 1.

³⁸ Ibid., can. 1444. Cf. De Smet, De sponsal. et matrim., n. 64; Vogt, Das kirchl. Eherecht, § 25; Van den Acker, loc. cit., c. 1, a. 4.

³⁹ Code of Canon Law, can. 334, § 3.

⁴⁰ Before the Decree Ne temere, even a publicly excommunicated and suspended parish priest could validly assist at matrimony. Cf. Benedict XIV, De syn. dioec., l. 12, c. 5, n. 2.

⁴¹ Code of Canon Law, can. 209.

⁴² Even a putative parish priest, who by common error is held to be the true parish priest but who, because of an occult defect, invalidly received the parochial office, validly assists at matrimony. It seems, however, to be required that such a parish priest be duly instituted by an ecclesiastical superior; for if he was instituted by the civil government alone, he is an intruded parish priest and lacks all jurisdiction. Wherefore Pius VI wrote to the bishops of France on September 26, 1791: "Since an intruder is in no way a legitimate parish priest and has no title, either true or colorable, a matrimony contracted before him is certainly of no force." (Cf. Van den Acker, Decreti "Ne temere" interpret., c. 1, a. 2.) Besides, such intruders incur an excommunication most specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff (Code of Canon Law, can. 2334), and if by a public decree they have been excommunicated by name or suspended from office, by that very fact they are incapable of assisting at matrimony.

763. 2. That he assist at the matrimony within the boundaries of his territory.⁴³

Therefore, as regards the validity of the matrimony, it matters nothing whether those about to marry are his own parishioners or outsiders. From this statute it appears that the new law concerning the assistance of the parish priest has been made territorial, and thus the former law concerning the necessity of domicile or at least quasi-domicile, which not rarely caused most intricate questions, has been entirely changed. Churches of exempt religious situated within the territory of a parish are also held to be within it, and therefore the parish priest or local Ordinary validly assists at marriages there.⁴⁴ But if such a church has, as they say, active exemption, or if it is after the manner of an abbey nullius which has the privilege of extraterritoriality, then the faculty of assisting there does not seem to have been conceded to the parish priest or local Ordinary. On the other hand, no priest can validly assist at a matrimony in any church or chapel situated within the territory of the parish unless he has been delegated by the parish priest of the place. Hence, for example, in churches of religious or of the military, no one can validly assist at any matrimony, even of outsiders, unless he has been delegated by the parish priest or local Ordinary. Yet personal parish priests, so called, are excepted, who validly assist at the marriages of their subjects everywhere in the world. This has been expressly sanctioned for the personal parish priests of the East Indies;⁴⁵ thus it has been established for military chaplains, whose faculty held before has not been changed by the new law.⁴⁶ Wherefore a military chaplain validly and licitly assists at the marriages of persons belonging to the military according to the laws of each region, but he cannot (without due delegation) validly assist, even in his own church, at the marriages of other persons. For he does not have the rights of a territorial parish priest.⁴⁷

⁴³ Code of Canon Law, can. 1095, § 1, n. 2.

⁴⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, March 12, 1910.

⁴⁵ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, June 2, 1910 (Acta Ap. Sed. II, 449).

⁴⁶ Sacred Congregation of the Council, February 1, 1908, ad 7.

⁴⁷ We have written more broadly concerning this matter in Linzer Theol.-prakt. Quartalschr. 1913, 121-127.

764. 3. That, constrained neither by force nor by grave fear, he ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.⁴⁸

Hence the parish priest or delegated priest must not only receive but also ask for the consent of those about to marry. By this most salutary law, coerced and surreptitious assistance, which formerly sufficed for validity, is excluded. Even in mixed marriages, the assisting parish priest or priest must ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties,⁴⁹ at least if the due guarantees are furnished by the contracting parties. But if the contracting parties refuse to furnish those guarantees and cannot be turned away from entering a mixed marriage of this kind, then not even the passive assistance of the parish priest can be validly and licitly conceded. Thus in illicit mixed marriages, assistance so called passive is henceforth no longer valid unless a new and altogether special privilege is present.⁵⁰

Every coerced assistance of the parish priest renders the matrimony entered invalid. Therefore it matters nothing whether grave fear is inflicted justly or unjustly. For the law simply requires for the validity of the assistance that the parish priest not be constrained by grave fear. Moreover, where the law does not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish. Nevertheless, the assistance of the parish priest does not seem to be invalid if grave fear was induced by an intrinsic cause; for example, if the parish priest assists at the matrimony of a public sinner because otherwise he greatly fears the spiritual ruin both of the woman and of the offspring to be born from the concubinage. On the contrary, the assistance is invalid if the parish priest is compelled to assist at the illicit matrimony of a patron who otherwise threatens deprivation of the parochial office.

Those things thus far said concerning the valid assistance of the parish priest can be briefly comprehended thus: in order that a parish priest validly assist at matrimony, it is required:

1. that he actually possess the benefice or have assumed the office;
2. that he not have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence;
3. that he assist within the boundaries of his territory (unless he is a personal parish priest);
4. that he be free and not constrained by grave fear to assist;
5. that he ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

⁴⁸ Code of Canon Law, can. 1095, § 1, n. 3.

⁴⁹ Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 27, 1908, ad 3.

⁵⁰ Pontifical Commission, March 10, 1928 (Acta Ap. Sed. XX, 120).

765. The two witnesses, whose presence is required for the valid ordinary celebration of matrimony, must be carefully distinguished from the parish priest or delegated priest, who is wont to be called the authorized or qualified witness of the matrimony. Positive law prescribes nothing concerning the qualities of those two witnesses; hence nothing else is required of them except that they truly testify to the celebration of the matrimony which they themselves saw and heard. It is, however, very fitting that adult witnesses endowed with good morals be employed. Concerning heretics, the Holy Office decreed on August 19, 1891, that "they are not to be employed; nevertheless they can be tolerated by the Ordinary for a grave cause, provided that scandal is absent." It is evident of itself that the insane, the completely intoxicated, and those who are at once deaf and blind cannot be employed as witnesses, because they cannot render certain testimony concerning the manifested consent of those about to marry. In practice care must be taken that the witnesses summoned truly hear the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties; nevertheless, it suffices for validity that, having seen all the circumstances, they be morally certain of the consent externally given.

II. Conditions required for licit assistance. There are five:

766. 1. Moral certainty concerning the free state of the contracting parties, as had already been established previously by law.⁵¹

The free state signifies immunity from all prohibitive and diriment impediments of matrimony, and especially from the impediment of bond. This moral certainty must be acquired: a) through the examination of the spouses,⁵² b) through the proclamations prescribed by the Council of Trent,⁵³ and sometimes c) through an oath concerning their free state taken by the contracting parties.⁵⁴ A parish priest who were to assist at a matrimony without a previous investigation concerning the free state of the contracting parties would sin gravely, since without urgent necessity he would expose the sacrament to danger of nullity. Since, according to the Code of Canon Law, can. 1103, § 2, the parish priest who assisted at the matrimony must note the names of the spouses in the book of baptisms, or send them to the parish priest of the place where the spouses were baptized, it is most excellently prescribed⁵⁵ that before the nuptial blessing the parish priest always require a testimonial of baptism received (unless the baptism was conferred in his own territory). For thus the free state of the spouses as regards the impediment of bond is easily recognized; for if either spouse were already joined in matrimony, this would be found noted in the book of baptisms.

⁵¹ Moral certainty concerning the free state is no longer necessarily to be obtained according to the Clementine Instruction of August 21, 1670, in which it is prescribed that the episcopal curia institute a process concerning the free state. Hence the legitimate existing customs are to be observed. To the question: "Whether by the Decree Ne temere the law or custom prevailing in some dioceses has been abolished, by virtue of which acts establishing the free state of the contracting parties are to be performed by the episcopal curia, and permission is then given to parish priests to assist at marriages?" the Sacred Congregation of the Council responded on February 1, 1908, ad 11: "Let the accustomed practice be observed."

⁵² Cf. above, n. 723.

⁵³ Cf. above, n. 725.

⁵⁴ Cf. above, n. 728.

⁵⁵ Code of Canon Law, can. 1021, § 1.

767. 2. A domicile or quasi-domicile, or at least a month's residence, of either person about to marry in the place where the matrimony is celebrated.⁵⁶

a) A domicile, which is the place "where someone establishes his household and the sum of his affairs and fortunes; whence he would not again depart if nothing called him away; whence, when he has departed, he seems to be traveling; to which, if he has returned, he has now ceased traveling,"⁵⁷ is acquired as soon as someone begins to dwell in that place with the intention of remaining there perpetually, that is, for an indefinite time.⁵⁸ This intention must be proved in the external forum. It is proved in diverse ways, for example, by the transfer of a great part of one's goods, by the assumption of some office perpetual of itself or at least not limited to a fixed time, by ten years' residence, by taking an oath, and so forth. A quasi-domicile differs from a domicile in this alone: that it does not require the intention of remaining perpetually in some place. The intention of remaining there for the greater part of a year suffices, or at least a residence actually prolonged for the greater part of a year.⁵⁹ When domicile or quasi-domicile is lacking, a month's residence in the place where the matrimony is to be celebrated suffices. Since the proper parish priest of those also who have only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the parish priest of the place where they are actually residing,⁶⁰ such a parish priest can validly and licitly assist at their matrimony. Therefore a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile suffices, and a parochial one is no longer required. Thus at least if those about to marry do not have a parochial domicile or quasi-domicile elsewhere.

b) A month's residence requires nothing other than presence for thirty continuous days; nevertheless, those days are not to be computed mathematically. Hence if the contracting parties had been absent from the parish on one or another day during the month before the celebration of the matrimony, nevertheless they could enter matrimony before the parish priest of the place not only validly but also licitly. For a little is reckoned as nothing.

3. Permission of the parish priest (or Ordinary) of the domicile or quasi-domicile or month's residence of either contracting party, unless a grave necessity intervenes which excuses from seeking permission.⁶¹

The parish priest indeed always assists validly at marriages in his territory, but acts illicitly unless a) either contracting party has a domicile or quasi-domicile or month's residence there; or b) unless there is question of travelers actually journeying; or c) grave necessity intervenes. But if he nevertheless assists at the matrimony, he does not make the stole fees his own and is bound in justice to remit them to the proper parish priest of the contracting parties,⁶² even before a declaratory sentence, and indeed to the proper parish priest of the bride, unless legitimate particular statutes decree otherwise. Stole fees are that tax which is owed according to diocesan law to the priest who assists at the matrimony; they do not, however, include the Mass stipend and other gifts perhaps offered.

⁵⁶ Thus the Code of Canon Law, can. 1097, § 1, n. 2.

⁵⁷ Thus from Roman law, L. 7, C. X, 40 (39); cf. Voetius, Ad Pandectas, l. 5, tit. 1, n. 92. Canonists, for example, Reiffenstuel, In tit. De foro competenti, n. 16 ff., receive and explain this definition. Therefore for a domicile it is required that someone establish his household there, that is, the center of private and domestic life; and consequently he does not acquire a domicile in a place or places where he has workshops alone. Cf. the Paris case in Act. Ap. Sed. III, 326 ff.

⁵⁸ Cf. Benedict XIV, Instruction 33.

⁵⁹ Code of Canon Law, can. 92.

⁶⁰ Ibid., can. 94, § 3.

⁶¹ Thus the Code of Canon Law, can. 1097, § 1, n. 3.

⁶² Ibid., § 3.

768. 4. The parish priest of the bride (if she is Catholic), regularly speaking, should assist at the matrimony to be celebrated, unless some just cause excuses.⁶³

But any reasonable cause, even if not so grave, suffices for the parish priest of the bridegroom (by reason of domicile, quasi-domicile, or month's residence) licitly to assist at the celebration of the matrimony. The reason is that the new law, treating valid and licit assistance with such breadth, cannot fittingly be so severe concerning an accidental point. Hence if the parish priest of the bridegroom assists at the matrimony, he is not bound to return the stole fees received to the parish priest of the bride,⁶⁴ unless particular law establishes otherwise. - If the bride has several proper parish priests, for example, by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile, she can choose from among them the one whom she prefers.

⁶³ Ibid., § 2.

⁶⁴ Thus also Noldin-Schmitt, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 639, and authors commonly.

769. 5. The permission of the local Ordinary (or his delegate) where the matrimony is contracted must be sought if vagabonds desire matrimony.⁶⁵

By the name of vagabonds in this matter are understood all and only those who, at the time the matrimony is to be celebrated, nowhere have a proper parish priest or Ordinary by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile.⁶⁶ But those who have only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile are equivalent to vagabonds in relation to the parish priest.⁶⁷ Therefore travelers, or those who have lived for a month in some parish, are not vagabonds in this matter and must contract matrimony before the parish priest either of the domicile, of the quasi-domicile, or of the place of the month's residence.⁶⁸ - In a case of necessity, for example, if a merely civil matrimony is feared or if the vagabonds are actually journeying,⁶⁹ the parish priest can assist at the matrimony of vagabonds without the permission of the Ordinary. But authors do not agree whether this permission of the Ordinary is required if only one or the other party of the contracting parties is a vagabond. Vogt⁷⁰ and Noldin-Schmitt⁷¹ affirm it; Leitner⁷² denies it. The affirmative opinion seems more conformable to the mind of the law, because the same reason of law exists whether both or either one of the contracting parties is a vagabond.

You will resolve. From those things said thus far, the following case, which can frequently occur, is easily solved: Two persons about to marry, living in Fribourg, wish to contract matrimony in the church of the Friars Preachers in Düsseldorf before a Dominican religious who is the bride's natural brother. In order that this matrimony can be validly and licitly celebrated, it is required that the parish priest of Fribourg grant permission to assist to the parish priest in whose parish (or to the archbishop in whose diocese) the church of the Friars Preachers in Düsseldorf is situated. But that parish priest (or archbishop) can then delegate the Dominican religious. The parish priest of Fribourg cannot directly delegate the Dominican religious, because outside his territory not even he himself can assist at the matrimony of his own parishioner.

⁶⁵ Thus the Decree Ne temere, V, § 4; Code of Canon Law, can. 1032.

⁶⁶ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, March 12 (13), 1910, ad 5 (Acta Ap. Sed. II, 195). The doctrine concerning the matrimony of vagabonds does not seem to have been changed in the Code of Canon Law, although canons 91, 1032, and 1097, § 1, nn. 2 and 3, cause some difficulty.

⁶⁷ Code of Canon Law, can. 94, § 3.

⁶⁸ Noldin-Schmitt, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 641, teaches that a month's residence alone does not suffice for someone to cease being a vagabond (in this matter).

⁶⁹ Code of Canon Law, can. 1097, § 1, n. 3.

⁷⁰ Das kirchl. Eherecht, 65, note 3.

⁷¹ Noldin-Schmitt, loc. cit., n. 641.

⁷² Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, 296.

770. Scholion. On the sacred ceremonies to be observed in the celebration of matrimony. Although the priest is not the minister of the sacrament of matrimony, nevertheless it is always fitting that those about to marry seek the blessing of the priest. The Code of Canon Law, can. 1100, therefore establishes: "Outside a case of necessity, in the celebration of matrimony the rites prescribed in ritual books approved by the Church or received by praiseworthy customs are to be observed." Wherefore spouses who validly and licitly entered matrimony in places where a legitimately delegated priest could not be had for a month are also bound afterward, at an opportune time, to seek the nuptial blessing from a priest. This can fittingly be done when they cause their names to be inscribed in the parochial book of marriages.

771. The nuptial blessing is distinguished as twofold: one simple, which is contained in the Roman Ritual, "The Rite of Celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony";⁷³ the other solemn, which is contained in the Missal.⁷⁴

a) The solemn blessing consists in three prayers, of which two are said after the Pater noster, but the third after Ite, missa est or Benedicamus Domino. It is not lawful to give this solemn blessing outside Mass,⁷⁵ unless an altogether special privilege is possessed, such as was conceded to the Diocese of Eichstätt on September 1, 1838, and February 5, 1865. Concerning this blessing the Holy Office established on August 31, 1881:⁷⁶ "The nuptial blessing which the Roman Missal sets forth in the Mass for bridegroom and bride must always be imparted in the marriages of Catholics, but within the celebration of Mass according to the rubrics and outside the forbidden time, to all those spouses who did not obtain it when contracting matrimony for any cause whatsoever, even if they seek it after they have already lived long in matrimony, provided that the woman, if a widow, did not receive that blessing in other nuptials. Moreover, the same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their matrimony are to be exhorted to seek it at the first opportunity." From these words (which agree with the statutes of the Code of Canon Law, cann. 1101, 1102, 1108, 1143), it follows that the solemn nuptial blessing cannot be given: a) if the woman already received it in another matrimony;⁷⁷ b) if the matrimony is celebrated during a closed time, unless permission of the Ordinary is present;⁷⁸ c) if the matrimony to be celebrated is mixed.⁷⁹ The celebration of a mixed matrimony will be treated specially below. - The spouses are also to be exhorted to communicate at the nuptial Mass.

b) The simple blessing, which is contained in either the Roman Ritual or a duly approved diocesan ritual, must be given in a church or in a public or semi-public oratory, but not in a private house, nor in churches or oratories of a seminary or of women religious, except with the permission of the bishop.⁸⁰ In many places, for reasonable causes, the simple blessing alone is imparted to those about to marry. It belongs to the bishop to judge whether the custom of omitting the solemn nuptial blessing is to be permitted. - The Roman Ritual⁸¹ adds: "Moreover, if in any place other praiseworthy customs and ceremonies are employed in celebrating the sacrament of matrimony, it is fitting that they be retained." It must be noted, however, that only praiseworthy customs can be retained; hence customs redolent of paganism, superstition, or indecency have several times been reproved by the Roman Curia.

⁷³ Tit. 7, c. 2.

⁷⁴ Mass for bridegroom and bride.

⁷⁵ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 12, 1909 (Acta Ap. Sed. I, 255).

⁷⁶ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1557.

⁷⁷ Code of Canon Law, can. 1143.

⁷⁸ Ibid., can. 1108, § 3.

⁷⁹ Ibid., can. 1102.

⁸⁰ Ibid., can. 1109.

⁸¹ Tit. VII, c. 2, n. 6.

772. c) Matrimony itself (with the simple blessing and the proclamations previously made) can be contracted at any time of the year; but the solemn nuptial blessing is forbidden from the first Sunday of Advent through the day of the Nativity of the Lord inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday through Easter Sunday inclusive. Nevertheless, local Ordinaries, with the liturgical laws preserved, can permit it even in the aforesaid closed times for a just cause, after admonishing the spouses to abstain from excessive external pomp, such as dances and great and sumptuous nuptial banquets.⁸²

⁸² Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1108, and, as regards the liturgical laws, Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 14, 1918 (Acta Ap. Sed. X, 332).

Such a valid and licit celebration can occur if the parish priest or local Ordinary is physically absent:^82a 1. in danger of death; 2. if the absence will endure for a month.

^82a Pontifical Commission, March 10, 1928 (Acta Ap. Sed. XX, 120), and July 25, 1931 (Acta Ap. Sed. XXIII, 388).

773. 1. In danger of death, if the parish priest or local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience, matrimony can be contracted validly and licitly before only two witnesses.⁸³

Explanation. It is said 1: in danger of death, that is, of at least either contracting party. Death is imminent when sufficient time probably is not present for entering matrimony in the ordinary manner before the parish priest or the one supplying his place. Therefore, even when death is at hand, the parish priest or his substitute is to be summoned if this can morally be done. - It matters nothing whether death is imminent from grave illness or from another cause, for example, because of the danger of shipwreck, war, and so forth.⁸⁴ - It is said 2: if the parish priest ... cannot be had without grave inconvenience. Any grave impossibility of summoning the parish priest or of seeking due delegation suffices. It is said 3: matrimony can be contracted validly and licitly. Therefore a celebration of matrimony of this kind is not only valid but also licit; nevertheless, both the witnesses and the contracting parties themselves are bound jointly and severally to take care that the matrimony contracted is duly noted in the book of marriages and of baptisms.⁸⁵ - It is said 4: before only two witnesses. Therefore, for the validity of matrimony in danger of death, when the parish priest or Ordinary or duly delegated priest cannot be had, it is not required that another priest be summoned; for two lay witnesses suffice for validity. Nevertheless, if another priest who can be present is available, he must be summoned so that together with the witnesses he assist at the matrimony.⁸⁶ Such a priest can also dispense both from the form to be observed in the celebration of matrimony (that is, from the presence of the witnesses) and from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except two.⁸⁷ It is evident of itself that a priest can never licitly assist at the celebration of any matrimony unless it is first established for him that the contracting parties are free. Therefore, if other proofs cannot be had, he should exact from the contracting parties a sworn affirmation that they are baptized and are held by no impediment.⁸⁸

⁸³ Code of Canon Law, can. 1098.

⁸⁴ Therefore this indult extends more broadly than the Leonine indult of February 20, 1888, conceded for the sick alone.

⁸⁵ Decree Ne temere, IX, § 3.

⁸⁶ Code of Canon Law, can. 1098, n. 2.

⁸⁷ Ibid., can. 1044.

⁸⁸ Ibid., can. 1019, § 2.

774. 2. "If the parish priest or Ordinary or delegated priest who would assist at matrimony cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience ... a matrimony contracted before witnesses alone is valid and licit ..., provided that it is prudently foreseen that this condition of affairs will endure for a month."⁸⁹

Explanation. As regards substance, this law is not new, but even previously matrimony could validly and licitly be entered before two witnesses if it was physically or even morally impossible to approach the parish priest or delegated priest.⁹⁰ The new law, however, establishes that matrimony can then be validly and licitly contracted before witnesses alone if it is morally certain that for a month a competent priest can neither be had nor approached without grave inconvenience.⁹¹ A necessity of celebrating matrimony in this manner can occur, for example, in mission regions where there is a great scarcity of priests; in time of persecution, when priests must conceal themselves; or if Catholic spouses must live in remote places of infidels or non-Catholics, for example, in Russia.

If the parish priest indeed is present but is gravely prohibited by civil law from assisting at matrimony unless a civil marriage has first taken place, which nevertheless cannot be placed first, recourse is to be had in individual cases to the Holy See, which will then decree how the matrimony is to be celebrated.⁹² In danger of death such recourse is not necessary, as was already said in the preceding number.

It is very fitting that matrimonial consent be expressed before some priest (although juridically not competent, but worthy), who can then impart the customary nuptial blessing. If, however, a priest cannot be had, nevertheless some religious ceremony is to be employed according to the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of June 23, 1830: "In such a case the parents should choose two witnesses who, going together with the bridegroom and bride and their relatives to the church of the place, should on bended knees recite in common the customary acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition, and thus the bridegroom and bride should duly dispose themselves for contracting matrimony. After these things, rising, the bridegroom and bride should express mutual consent by words of the present before the aforesaid witnesses, and after giving thanks to God they should return home. But if they cannot go to the church, the aforesaid things are to be observed in private houses."⁹³ The contracting parties must take care that they are free both from every matrimonial impediment and from mortal sin.

⁸⁹ Code of Canon Law, can. 1098.

⁹⁰ Thus, for example, the Holy Office responded on November 14, 1883: "In places where a parish priest cannot be had, a matrimony celebrated before two witnesses is valid; nevertheless, the burden rests upon the contracting parties of receiving the nuptial blessing as soon as it can be done and of taking care that their matrimony be inscribed in the sacramental register of the mission or of the nearest church to which they are subject." Several similar Instructions are brought forward by Leitner, Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, 306.

⁹¹ Pontifical Commission, November 10, 1925 (Acta Ap. Sed. XVII, 583).

⁹² Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, January 31, 1916. Although nothing is contained concerning this recourse in the new Code, nevertheless it seems to be necessary (for liceity) if it can be made without grave inconvenience.

⁹³ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 816.

775. Note. 1. Such a matrimony entered without the assistance of a priest is valid even if the contracting parties, in fraud of the law, that is, precisely in order to avoid the assistance of a priest, depart into a region in which a priest cannot be had.⁹⁴ Indeed, in a case of true necessity a faculty has been conceded to Chinese Ordinaries, which they can also habitually delegate to directors of missions, of dispensing from the substantial form of the celebration of matrimony, that is, from the presence of two witnesses.⁹⁵

2. Once the matrimony has been celebrated, the witnesses together with the contracting parties are bound jointly and severally to take care that, as soon as possible, the matrimony be written in the books of marriages and of baptisms of the proper church, or of the nearest church if there is no proper church.⁹⁶

⁹⁴ Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, March 12, 1910, ad 3.

⁹⁵ Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 27, 1908, ad 7.

⁹⁶ Decree Ne temere, IX, § 3.

2056. There are two things which pertain most proximately to the celebration of matrimony, namely: proclamations are to be premised, and the Tridentine form is to be observed. - We shall treat each separately.

We shall treat 1. of the precept and form of proclamations; 2. of dispensation from making them; 3. of the revelation of impediments.

PROCLAMATIONS, which are also called banns, are public denunciations by which the faithful are warned concerning a matrimony to be contracted between certain persons, to the end that, if anyone knows some diriment or prohibiting impediment to exist between those wishing to contract, he may manifest it at an opportune time. - These, however, ought to be preceded by the private INVESTIGATION of the parish priest, and an opportune ADMONITION of the nupturients concerning those things which are required for contracting matrimony validly and licitly. - That these may become known better, let the following be given.

2057. Principles. I. The parish priest, before he comes to proclamations, is bound to institute a diligent EXAMINATION, by which he may know whether nothing obstructs the valid and licit celebration of matrimony. - For he ought, by reason of his office, to watch that subjects receive the Sacraments worthily. And this is greatly commended both by the Roman Ritual,⁸ and by Benedict XIV's Constitution Nimiam licentiam.⁹ - Congruently with these prescriptions:

1. "The parish priest, having been warned concerning some matrimony to be contracted in his parish, first should know from those to whom it pertains, for example from the parents or other cognates, and especially from the betrothed themselves, who and of what sort are those who wish to contract matrimony. Whether between them there is some canonical impediment, impedient or diriment; whether they wish to contract spontaneously, freely, and according to the honesty of the Sacrament." Thus the RITUAL.

2. If one party is a foreigner, according to the Instruction of the S. Inquisition approved by Clement X on 21 August 1670,¹⁰ a testimony or mandate concerning free state is altogether required; in which matter, diocesan Statutes also must be attended to.

3. Let him inquire whether sons and daughters of families contract with the consent of parents. For matrimonies reasonably against the will of parents the holy Church of God has always detested and prohibited for most just causes (cf. n. 1973, q. 6).¹¹ - But if the children are unwilling to desist from matrimony, and greater evils are to be feared, let the parish priest not deny his ministry; but, if he can, let him set forth the whole matter to the Bishop.

4. Let him not neglect the prescriptions of the civil law, if they can be observed with a safe conscience. For although the civil law can establish nothing concerning Sacraments, nevertheless the parish priest acting against it would involve himself in many entanglements, which always, insofar as divine and ecclesiastical laws permit, he ought prudently to decline according to his strength.¹²

5. The RITUAL warns "that each spouse know the rudiments of the Faith, since afterward he ought to teach these to his children." The betrothed therefore are to be examined concerning these, yet prudently and discreetly, according as the condition of persons and various circumstances will persuade.

6. Let the parish priest explore whether they live separately, by day as well as by night; or, if previously they have lived under the same roof, whether from the time of the betrothals or of the proclamations they have been separated.¹³

7. "Moreover let the spouses be admonished that, before they contract, they diligently confess their sins, and devoutly approach the Most Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Matrimony to be received; and how they ought to conduct themselves rightly and Christianly in it, let them be diligently instructed from divine Scripture, by the example of Tobias and Sarah, and by the words of the Angel Raphael teaching them how holily spouses ought to live together."¹⁴

Concerning this we OBSERVE: 1. The state of grace is altogether required for receiving the Sacrament of matrimony worthily, as is plain. But Confession and Communion are strictly prescribed by no law: wherefore the PARISH PRIEST indeed ought urgently and paternally to exhort the betrothed to dispose themselves for matrimony by the reception of these Sacraments; but he cannot strictly command it, unless perhaps diocesan Statutes require it. 2. In setting forth the duties of spouses, and in inquiring concerning impediments from illicit intercourse, the PARISH PRIEST should use such a manner of speech as bears before it a certain singular gravity and integrity of mind; yet those things which pertain to the use of matrimony will scarcely not have to be remitted to the time immediately preceding matrimony, and ordinarily it is better to hand them on in the very act of confession¹⁵ (cf. n. 2119).

2058. II. Proclamations are NECESSARILY TO BE PREMISED before matrimony: and this from an ecclesiastical precept obliging UNDER GRAVE obligation.

They are to be premised; for the holy Tridentine Synod,¹⁶ "adhering to the footsteps of the sacred Lateran Council celebrated under Innocent III, commands that for the future, before matrimony is contracted, it be publicly denounced three times by the proper parish priest, on three continuous feast days, in church, during the solemnities of Masses, between whom matrimony is to be contracted." - Yet matrimony would not be invalid if, proclamations having been omitted, it were contracted, provided no other impediment obstructs.

But that the law obliges under grave obligation is evinced both from its end, which is that impediments be known and that clandestine matrimonies be avoided; and from the penalties laid on violators, which similarly are grave, namely: a PARISH PRIEST presuming to assist at a matrimony which legitimate denunciations have not preceded is commanded to be punished by suspension from office, to last three years, or even by a graver penalty.¹⁷ WITNESSES also, if they act knowingly, are to be affected with a fitting penalty. - But as regards the CONTRACTING PARTIES, if the matrimony was invalid from a hidden impediment, the children born from putative matrimony will be illegitimate, about to have no help from the ignorance of the parents.¹⁸ Dispensation concerning an impediment afterward detected is also granted with more difficulty, and besides a penance to be defined at the judgment of the Bishop is to be enjoined (cf. n. 2061).¹⁹

2059. III. Proclamations OUGHT to be made on three continuous feast days, in church, during the solemnities of Masses, by the proper parish priest of the contracting parties. Thus the decree of Trent.

Therefore they ought to be made: 1. On feast days, i.e. feasts of precept, among which suppressed feasts can be numbered if functions and solemnities are still customarily performed, as before the suppression, and there is a concourse of people.²⁰ - Indeed, on account of a just motive, which is approved as such by the Bishop, they can be made on ferial days themselves, if from some cause there would be a great concourse in the church.²¹

2. On three continuous feast days, i.e. with no feast day omitted from the first proclamation to the last. - To make proclamations on three non-continuous feast days, provided several feast days do not intervene, according to the truer opinion, is not mortal, because it does not seem a grave transgression; but it is not excused from venial fault, because now the precept of the Council is transgressed. But if three immediate feast days should occur, practice bears that one or another be passed over, because in so brief a time the end of the Council would not be sufficiently obtained.²²

3. In church during the solemnities of Masses, i.e. in the parochial or conventual Mass, at the judgment of the parish priest. - According to the decree of S. C. C. dated 20 Sept. 1828,²³ the same thing can be done at another time, at which the concourse of the people would be more frequent. - Indeed, it is probable that they can be made outside the church, on the occasion of some sacred function, in a place of great concourse, "at least without mortal fault, and if some cause is present, without any fault."²⁴

4. By the proper parish priest of the contracting parties, i.e. by him to whose parish the betrothed pertain by title of domicile or quasi-domicile (concerning domicile see below n. 2074).

Hence: 1) If they are of diverse parishes, proclamations are to be made in each. 2) Likewise in each, if someone has a double domicile, i.e. domicile in one parish and quasi-domicile in another. And this is clearly gathered from the Statute of the City (11 Jan. 1762), prescribing that denunciations be made both in the parish of domicile and of the college, monastery, conservatory, where the betrothed are staying.²⁵ - 3) If someone recently has arrived in some parish, proclamations ought to be made both in that parish and in the parish of his prior habitation, if he stayed there for at least six months. But what space of time from changed domicile is required, so that proclamations are to be made only in the actual parish, is not defined by law: the matter therefore must be recognized from custom and from diocesan statutes. 4) They are to be made besides in the place of origin, unless it has already been deserted for several years. - 5) If the nupturients are wanderers, they are to be made in the parishes both of actual habitation and of origin, or even of preceding habitation, if either betrothed stayed there for a longer time. 6) Soldiers are to be proclaimed in the place where they are in garrisons and besides in the parish of their parents if they are minors; and if they are adults, in the place where they resided before undertaking military service.²⁶

Note. When proclamations are to be made in two parishes, neither parish priest will be able to assist at the matrimony unless he has received the ATTESTATION of the other parish priest, that three proclamations were duly made in his parish, and that no impediment was detected from them.

2060. IV. In making proclamations, that FORM ought to be held which corresponds to their end. - The reason is that aptitude for the end, i.e. the manifestation of impediments, is principally intended by the legislator. - Wherefore 1) the denunciations are to be made in the vernacular speech, with a high and intelligible voice, and the persons intending to contract and their parish are to be indicated accurately, so that there is room for no error. 2) In the individual denunciations it must be commemorated whether it is the first, or second, or last; indeed if only one, or two, were to be made by dispensation of the Ordinary, this ought to be notified to the people standing by. 3) It is also better to warn the people concerning the grave obligation incumbent upon each faithful person of manifesting impediments known to him, as is had in the formula of the Roman Ritual. 4) It is advised, and in various provinces is held as prescribed, that matrimony be celebrated only after an entire day has elapsed after the last proclamation. - 5) But if within two months after the denunciations have been made, matrimony has not been contracted, the denunciations are to be repeated, unless it seems otherwise to the Bishop (ROMAN RITUAL).

2061. IT IS ASKED. Whether it is a grave sin to omit denunciations, if, diligence having been made, it is altogether ESTABLISHED that no impediment underlies?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if the three denunciations are omitted. "The reason is both because, although through diligence the parish priest fulfills the end of Trent, nevertheless he transgresses the form of diligence which the Council prescribes: which, since it is in a most grave matter, is not excused from mortal sin unless urgent necessity which does not allow delay is present; and because otherwise the end of the precept of denunciations is not adequately satisfied; for the diligence of the parish priest does not sufficiently supply the effect of denunciations for impeding evils which otherwise can happen" (cf. n. 2058).²⁷

Resp. 2. To omit two denunciations, more probably, is mortal; but omission of only one, probably, is only venial fault, because with respect to the whole precept it does not seem grave matter.²⁸

Note. What the Tridentine Synod says concerning denunciations, if they have been omitted, to be supplied before consummation of matrimony, has now everywhere passed into desuetude. - Besides, the Synod itself had remitted the matter to the prudence and judgment of Ordinaries.

Dispensation in matrimonial proclamations, which formerly could be obtained with more difficulty and very rarely, is now obtained with an easier business, as the following will set forth.

2062. Principles. I. The faculty of DISPENSING, from a just cause, in PROCLAMATIONS, belongs to Ordinaries of places. It is established from Trent (sess. 24, cap. 1, de ref. matr.). Concerning this it must be NOTED:

1. By the name Ordinary are understood the Bishop, and, the See being vacant, the capitular Vicar; a Prelate having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, and more probably also the vicar general, as is very commonly taught (cf. n. 2259).²⁹

2. For dispensing there is required a just cause, i.e. proportioned to the amplitude of the dispensation. - Hence a less grave cause is required for dispensing from only one denunciation; a graver for dispensing from two; but for licitly dispensing from all, "not any obvious and ordinary cause is enough," says Benedict XIV,³⁰ "but a grave, urgent, and most urgent one is required." And it must be noted besides, "that the Bishop, in dispensing in denunciations, is always bound diligently to inquire elsewhere concerning impediments, unless it were commonly established that they are not present."³¹

2063. II. According to the variety of causes, the Ordinary sometimes CAN and sometimes IS BOUND to dispense from proclamations. - It is established from those things which have been said concerning dispensation in the Treatise on Laws (cf. n. 234, 2). - Hence:

1. He can dispense, if the cause is sufficient, and no grave inconvenience from denial is to be feared: for example "if nuptials are to be contracted among magnates; if the betrothed are very old, or very disparate in condition, age, riches, or quality."³²

2. He is bound to dispense, if the cause is urgent, namely if grave common or private damage, spiritual or temporal, is to be avoided; or if the dispensation will conduce to a notable spiritual or temporal good of the community or of some private person. CAUSES of this kind are: 1) Probable fear lest the matrimony be impeded maliciously. 2) Necessity of matrimony for avoiding damage or infamy of the contracting parties or of offspring: for example if concubinarians were reputed spouses; or if defloration preceded, and the bridegroom were now about to die, or about to depart to a distant region, or a change of will in him were feared. 3) The bad will of a bridegroom refusing, after civil matrimony has already been contracted, that three proclamations be made; and similar things.³³

2064. Questions. IT IS ASKED 1. Whether dispensation, when the betrothed are from diverse dioceses, must be obtained from EACH BISHOP?

Resp. The more common opinion today is affirmative, and, the intrinsic reasons being considered, also seems more probable. Yet where contrary custom is in force, it can be observed; but the mandate of free state is altogether required (cf. n. 2048, 1).

IT IS ASKED 2. Whether the PARISH PRIEST can sometimes dispense in denunciations?

Resp. Negatively, "because the parish priest has no jurisdiction in the external forum."³⁴ - Yet very probably authors say that, although the parish priest cannot dispense, nevertheless in cases in which the Bishop is bound to dispense and cannot be approached, he will be able to declare that the precept of proclamations does not oblige, provided he is certain that no impediment is present.³⁵

Just as it is the office of the parish priest publicly to denounce matrimonies to be contracted, so also it is the office of the faithful to manifest the impediments which they know obstruct their celebration. - The following will declare the things which pertain to this obligation.

2065. Principles. I. Every Christian faithful person who KNOWS that there is some impediment between the betrothed which obstructs the celebration of matrimony, IS BOUND, and indeed under grave obligation, to DENOUNCE it. The obligation proceeds from the law of charity, by which we are commanded to avert damage which threatens either a private person or the community (cf. n. 479 and 483): certainly damage of this sort would threaten each from impediments not manifested.³⁶ Besides this, there is the positive precept of the Church.³⁷

It is said 1. Every; because no one, unless legitimately excused, is exempt from this law; but first of all the contracting parties themselves are bound to confess an occult impediment, and to obtain dispensation.³⁸

2. Who knows, i.e. who has had at least probable notice concerning the impediment, even if he cannot prove it; both because such denunciation conduces to further investigations, and because on account of denunciation alone matrimony can sometimes be impeded, namely if the one denouncing is a witness greater than every exception.³⁹ But "if you know the impediment by hearing, but do not remember from whom, or if you received it from a person not worthy of faith, you are not bound to denounce."⁴⁰

3. Some impediment, "whether it is diriment or impedient, even though it is occult and defamatory, namely one which had origin from sin. For anyone is bound to manifest another's occult sin, when the prelate legitimately has commanded it," as in this case (cf. n. 1186).⁴¹

4. Which obstructs, i.e. in which there has not been dispensation. Whence "if the impediment is occult, and dispensation for it has already been obtained as to the internal forum, the one knowing it is not bound to denounce it."⁴²

5. He is bound to denounce it under grave obligation; for there is question of a most grave matter, in which the Church intends to oblige strictly. Yet he is excused from this obligation who cannot denounce without grave damage to himself, or scandal of others.⁴³ Hence no one is bound to manifest his own illicit intercourse, except the nupturients themselves, who ought either to abstain from matrimony, or to procure dispensation for themselves. But one excused ought, if he can, to impede the matrimony.

You ask whether he is excused from denunciation who knew the impediment UNDER SECRET? Resp. Negatively, even if the secret was committed, and an oath of not revealing was added. - The reason is that a promise, even sworn, does not oblige when grave damage threatens the community or a third person⁴⁴ (cf. n. 616). - More probably except the case if someone knew the impediment under the secret of counsel, by reason of a public office which he exercises, for example a parish priest, physician, advocate, etc. For thus the public good seems to demand.⁴⁵ - Nevertheless they are bound, if they can, to warn the nupturients.

2066. II. Revelation, AS SOON AS morally it can be made, is to be made TO THE PARISH PRIEST of the betrothed, or to the BISHOP, yet the order of charity being observed. - Hence, if the impediment is defamatory, and admonition is probably going to be profitable, first the betrothed are to be warned, so that they may provide for themselves. Otherwise, the parish priest or Bishop is to be approached at once, because in circumstances of this kind there is ordinarily danger in delay.⁴⁶

2067. Questions. IT IS ASKED 1. What the PARISH PRIEST, when an impediment is known, ought to do?

Resp. "If the impediment is denounced by others, it is certain from cap. fin. de cland. desp. that the parish priest is bound to interdict the nuptials, and to refer the matter to the Ordinary, that he may take cognizance." And the same must be affirmed, if he alone knows the impediment, outside confession. "The reason is that, if anyone is bound to reveal an impediment, even if he alone knows it, a fortiori the parish priest is bound, upon whom by office it is incumbent to take counsel for the salvation of his sheep. Nor does it obstruct that the Sacrament is not to be denied to an occult sinner publicly seeking it; for it is answered that this proceeds when the impediment merely renders reception of the Sacrament illicit; but otherwise, if the impediment, besides reception, furnishes occasion of other damages and faults."⁴⁷

IT IS ASKED 2. Whether and when the denunciation of ONE WITNESS suffices for impeding matrimony?

Resp. 1. The very common and truer opinion affirms that one witness suffices, even if he is not greater than every exception, provided he has the QUALITIES to be explained below. It is proved from cap. Super eo 22, de test. et attest., and also from cap. Praeterea 12, de sponsal. "The reason is that, although when there is question of prejudice of a third party, full proof is required, nevertheless since here there is question of avoiding danger of the soul, namely if perhaps matrimony were contracted with an impediment, the law is content with a lesser proof."⁴⁸

Resp. 2. The QUALITIES REQUIRED so that one witness can impede matrimony are these: - 1) that he not only denounce, but also depose; unless such a witness by denouncing proved concerning the fame of the impediment, because then it suffices that he denounce; - 2) that he depose or denounce with an oath, because in those things which are to the prejudice of a third person, he is not believed unless he is a sworn witness; - 3) that he depose from certain knowledge, not from hearing: unless it is an impediment of consanguinity or affinity; because then it suffices that he depose that he knew it from certain and trustworthy persons; - 4) that the witness not be a base person; provided the fact is not so occult that it cannot be proved otherwise; for where the faculty of proving is lacking, even proof not sufficient of itself is admitted. Thus commonly.⁴⁹

And here it must be noted that the fame of an impediment is sufficient for impeding matrimony, unless the consanguines of the betrothed, or the betrothed themselves, should swear that the impediment is not present.⁵⁰

Here it comes to be said: 1. of the necessity of the Tridentine form; 2. of the requisites for the Tridentine form; 3. of the rite to be observed in the celebration of matrimony.

2068. By natural law matrimony indeed is perfected by mutual consent externally manifested; but the Tridentine Synod, wishing to meet the grave evils and sins which have arisen from clandestine marriages, established a solemn form under which consent is to be furnished, namely before the parish priest and witnesses, so that consent furnished otherwise is formless, and therefore invalid. - Hence the following are established.

Principles. I. Clandestine matrimony is everywhere GRAVELY ILLICIT. - The old canons established this, Innocent III confirmed it in the Fourth Lateran Council,¹ and the Tridentine Synod² fortified the same by its sanction, when it said that the Church always detested these things. - But if, on account of adjuncts of times or places, the law cannot be observed integrally, it is to be observed as to the possible part, according to the norm prescribed for missions among infidels.³

Hence: 1. The betrothed sin gravely, although in some place the nuptials are valid, if outside a case of necessity they contract between themselves alone, or before only the civil magistrate. 2. They sin more gravely, and are guilty of participation in heretical worship, if they contract before a non-Catholic minister.

2069. II. Clandestine matrimony, in places where the TRIDENTINE decree concerning the solemnity to be employed has been promulgated, is altogether INVALID. For thus it was defined by the Council itself: "Those who shall attempt to contract matrimony otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or another priest by license of the parish priest himself or of the Ordinary, and two or three witnesses, the holy Synod renders them altogether incapable of contracting thus, and decrees that contracts of this kind are void and null, as by the present decree it makes them void and annuls them.... It decrees besides that this decree of this kind shall begin to have its force in each parish after thirty days, to be numbered from the day of the first publication made in that same parish."

Moreover it is required that this PUBLICATION have been made in the individual parishes or quasi-parishes,⁴ either by mandate of the Ordinary as promulgation of the decree of the Council of Trent, or, from special Indult, in the name and authority of the Roman Pontiff, as Benedict XIV explains diffusely.⁵ - And the fact of promulgation ought to be indubitable. But as regards proof, S. C. C. on 29 Sept. 1602 defined: "publication is presumed where the decree had been observed for some time in the parish as a decree of the Council."⁶

We said in places where it has been promulgated, etc.; for it is certain that clandestine matrimonies "stand RATIFIED and FIRM in those places in which the decree of the Council of Trent either was never published, or was never observed as a decree of the same Council; or if it was ever observed, afterward by a long interval of time went into desuetude";⁷ or finally if a dispensation concerning it was granted by Pontifical authority.

Here also it must be NOTED that, as Benedict XIV says,⁸ "when one of the spouses, both by reason of the place in which he lives and by reason of the society in which he lives, is exempt from the law of the Tridentine Synod, the exemption which he enjoys remains communicated to the other party, on account of the individuality of the contract, by force of which the exemption which belongs to one of the parties is extended to the other, according even to civil laws, and is communicated to the same."

2070. III. The Tridentine law invalidating clandestine matrimonies is at once LOCAL and PERSONAL. Thus the Instruction to the Archbishop of San Francisco in California given by S. C. de Propaganda Fide, from the resolution of the Holy Office on Wednesday, 14 Dec. 1859.⁹

As LOCAL, the law affects the territory, and obliges all those who are to be joined in matrimony there, even if they do not have domicile or quasi-domicile there. Hence if two Catholics domiciled in England, where the law is not in force, travel in France where it is in force, and there contract clandestinely, the matrimony is invalid.

But as PERSONAL, the law obliges all those who, having domicile or quasi-domicile in a place where the Tridentine decree has been published and is in force, wish to contract matrimony in another place, where it is not in force. - And this is indubitable, if the nupturients pass over IN FRAUD OF THE LAW, i.e. with the sole intention of contracting matrimony, into an exempt place, unless either one has acquired domicile or quasi-domicile there.¹⁰ Nor is the restriction added to be held as an exception of the law, but it expresses the condition which is to be fulfilled so that one can be a participant in the privileges which inhabitants of the place enjoy. But whether the law also obliges those who passed over into the exempt place not indeed with the intention of marrying, but for another cause, is CONTROVERTED, with a great abundance of authors disputing on each side. This controversy standing, the validity of the matrimony indeed seems to us to have to be affirmed, from those things which we have set forth above concerning doubtful impediments¹¹ (cf. n. 1997, q. 4).

2071. Questions. IT IS ASKED 1. Whether HERETICS are bound by the Tridentine law concerning clandestinity?

Resp. Since it is certain that heretics are generally subject to the laws of the Church, the whole question is concerned with this, whether the Church wills them to be bound by this law of hers (cf. n. 198). But the question must be answered thus: The more common and much more probable opinion affirms that heretics are bound by the law of clandestinity, no less than Catholics, unless there is had a declaration of the Church establishing otherwise. The reason is sought from many documents issued by the Holy See, which cannot be turned aside into another sense except by force.¹²

Most celebrated in this matter is the DECLARATION and concession of BENEDICT XIV as regards matrimonies contracted in HOLLAND, made on 4 Nov. 1741, through which the Pontiff "declared and established that matrimonies, in the said federated provinces of Belgium, contracted up to now among heretics, and which will be contracted in the future, even if the form prescribed by Trent was not observed in celebrating them, provided another canonical impediment did not obstruct, are to be held as valid."¹³ And he declared the same concerning mixed matrimonies, namely those which are contracted by Catholics with heretics.¹⁴

As regards the EXTENSION of this Declaration, the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 19 July 1818, declared: "The Decree of Benedict XIV, issued in the year 1741 concerning the matrimonies of Holland, looks taxatively only to matrimonies contracted in those provinces, but not to other matrimonies entered in other places and provinces, to which therefore it cannot be applied without a new and special declaration of the Holy See."¹⁵ But it is established that the aforesaid declaration afterward, from Apostolic clemency, was also extended to other regions, which were in the same necessity as Holland.

From these things you will gather: 1. If it is established that the Tridentine decree was not published in some place, or after its publication the Benedictine declaration was extended to that place: it is certain that the marriages of heretics, whether among themselves or with Catholics, entered there clandestinely, are valid. 2. The same must be said if this has been expressly conceded by a particular Indult of the Holy See.

And here it comes appositely to be NOTED that, for the effect of matrimony, under the appellation of HERETICS there are comprehended in the declaration of Benedict XIV the following FIVE CLASSES: - "1) Those who, baptized Catholic, from childhood not yet seven years old are educated in heresy, and profess heresy. - 2) Those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, namely having received no, or scarcely any, instruction of heretical doctrine, and not frequenting worship, although sometimes having participated. - 3) Those who, while still children, falling into the hands of heretics, are joined to a heretical sect. - 4) Apostates passing from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect. - 5) Those who, born and baptized by heretics, grew up without having emitted any solemn profession of heresy, and as it were of no religion, etc." Thus C. S. OFFICII, 6 Apr. 1859.¹⁶

Concerning the matrimonies of heretics, S. Congregation of the Council also WARNS these things, in the Instruction to the Bishop of Rosnava (16 March 1780):¹⁷ they "must be so dissembled by you, that concerning their validity or invalidity you abstain altogether not merely from pronouncing judgment, but even from promoting a disputation, from which not so much fruit of utility as movement of offense and danger for the ruin of the Catholic religion would have to be expected." Besides, "If any have entered marriage invalidly in heresy, the form of Trent not being observed, and afterward having been converted to the Catholic religion, persevere in it in good faith and adhere to their marriage, they seem rather to have to be left in the same good faith than to be warned of nullity." Thus S. C. C. in the case Iprensis, 17 Aug. 1737.¹⁸ The same Congregation adds besides: "but particular cases and circumstances of those who are troubled by scruples concerning the validity of these matrimonies ought to be set forth distinctly by the Bishop."

IT IS ASKED 2. Whether, in places where the decree of Trent is in force, matrimonies celebrated without the assistance of the parish priest can be held valid, if ACCESS to him DOES NOT LIE OPEN to the parties?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if there is in some place a GENERAL impossibility, which is foreseen as about to last for at least a month. It is established from the Response of C. S. Officii, given on 1 July 1863 to the Bishop of Vallis Prati,¹⁹ in which these things are read: "The same Eminent Fathers declared: When access is difficult and not safe, and it is unknown when the Parish Priest can be had, and he is foreseen as about to be absent from the place for the space of at least one month, and there is no other who may supply the place of the Parish Priest: matrimony is valid without the presence of the parish priest, yet the form of the Council being observed in that in which it can, namely with at least two witnesses employed."

Resp. 2. Negatively, if the necessity is PARTICULAR to the nupturients, since an invalidating law does not cease on account of the inconvenience of a private person.²⁰ Thus the more common opinion, against others thinking otherwise.

IT IS ASKED 3. Whether matrimonies entered against the law of Trent have ANY EFFECTS?

Resp. From matrimonies of this kind there arises the impediment of PUBLIC HONESTY, as was said above (n. 2033). - But if the matrimony was consummated, it is clear that peculiar obligations arise from this head. - Besides, there are not lacking those who adjudge to such matrimonies the force of betrothals, because an act which does not have force as it is done nevertheless has force as it can be done. But this must plainly be denied, at least if there is question of persons who have reached puberty, as is clear from various decisions of S. C. C.²¹

2072. It helps here to add a LIST of the principal places in which the Tridentine Decree must be held as promulgated or not promulgated.²²

A) All clandestine matrimonies, i.e. whether of Catholics, or of heretics, or mixed, are INVALID in Spain, yet at Gibraltar the matrimonies of heretics and mixed matrimonies have force; in Portugal, Italy and the adjacent islands, in France as it existed before the war of 1870, in Germany with the exceptions to be excepted below, in modern Belgium, the grand duchy of Luxembourg, the Ecclesiastical Province of Goa; the Mexican Republic, and the regions of CENTRAL and SOUTH AMERICA, except those to be indicated under C 12; finally in all colonies of the Portuguese or Spaniards.

B) In various northern regions of Europe, which in the year 1564, in which the Council of Trent was confirmed, had already defected from the faith, the Decree concerning clandestinity DOES NOT OBLIGE. - Thus the matter stands in England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, which is not to be confused with Suevia, as some confuse them, and in the greater part of northern Germany. - The same is commonly handed down concerning the primitive provinces of Prussia, and concerning Saxony. - In some cantons of Switzerland, as Zurich, it does not oblige. The same has force, as regards Bavaria, in the non-Catholic places of Onoldina and Pappenheim, and in the district of the formerly imperial cities of Nuremberg and Weissenburg. - In Russia, one diocese or perhaps another is not obliged. In some more remote parts of Turkey it does not seem to be in force. - In some parishes of Persia and of other regions in that part of the East, even Catholic ones, no publication or observance of the Decree has had place. The same must be said of Greece. In China, Tonkin, and Cochinchina it is not in force, only a few places excepted. In Japan it is now nowhere in force, from the declaration of S. C. of the Holy Office, 11 March 1868.²³ - Nor is it in force in Abyssinia and nearly all other regions of Africa.

C) From the declaration of BENEDICT XIV for Holland and its extension, or from other Pontifical acts, clandestine matrimonies have force, whether of heretics among themselves, or mixed; but not, except those enumerated under B, of Catholics among themselves:

1. In all the Netherlands, except Limburg,²⁴ where nevertheless they have force as regards the inhabitants of the city of Maastricht and the suburb of St. Peter, and likewise excepting certain places of the dioceses of Utrecht and Bois-le-Duc. - 2. At Strasbourg, in Alsace. - 3. In all Ireland. Note. From the directory of the year 1851 approved by all the Bishops of Ireland, Catholics contracting among themselves are bound by the Decree, and indeed everywhere from 1 Jan. 1828.²⁵ - 4. In Silesia subject to Prussia and in the duchy of Cleves, and, from 25 March 1830 inclusive, in the dioceses of Cologne, Trier, Paderborn, and Münster: with faculty given to the Bishops for revalidating matrimonies contracted before this day. - 5. In the Kingdom of Württemberg the Benedictine declaration was certainly extended to the city of Ulm. Concerning other places of the ecclesiastical province of the upper Rhine there can also be doubt.²⁶ - 6. In Russia and in the whole part of Poland subject to the Russians. - 7. In Hungary and Transylvania, within the limits which they had in the year 1841. - 8. In Turkey, Moldavia and Wallachia; in Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, Turkish Bosnia. - 9. In Persia and other regions in that part of the East. - 10. In Greece. - 11. In the Vicariate of Pondicherry and on the whole Malabar coast, in the Apostolic Vicariates of Bombay and Calcutta, and in the Indian possessions of the English and French, with only some places excepted as regards Catholics. - Likewise in Algeria. - 12. In the islands of Central or South America and other places, formerly existing under the dominion of Catholics, but now subject to the dominion of the English, Dutch, Danes.

The essential solemnity prescribed by Trent consists in the presence of the parish priest and witnesses. The following will elucidate the things which pertain to each presence.

2073. Principles. I. Only the PROPER PARISH PRIEST of either contracting party can VALIDLY assist at their matrimony. - It is established both from the Tridentine decree itself, and from various declarations of S. C. of the Council,¹ and finally from the constant practice of the Church and from common interpretation.

It is said 1. PARISH PRIEST, by which name is understood not only the parish priest properly so called, but every ecclesiastical Superior having ordinary jurisdiction over the contracting parties: as the Pope in the universal Church, the Bishop and Vicar general in their own diocese, and, the See being vacant, the capitular Vicar; finally Abbots having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, in their own territory.

A putative parish priest also VALIDLY assists at matrimony, namely one who lacks parochial jurisdiction because of an occult defect, but who, a title at least colored suffragating, is held from common error as the true parish priest. Yet "since an intruder, nominated by non-legitimate authority, is by no means a parish priest," as Pius VI says,² "and has no title, either true or colored, matrimony contracted before him is certainly of no strength."

Similarly, an excommunicated parish priest VALIDLY assists at matrimony, even one to be avoided, irregular and suspended, or not yet initiated into the priesthood; because in assisting he exercises no jurisdiction, but intervenes only as a qualified witness, and he is still parish priest.³ Yet a most grave cause is required for seeking assistance from a parish priest excommunicated by name, or interdicted.⁴ But if he has become a public and declared heretic or schismatic, he can no longer validly assist, because he is deprived of the parochial benefice by the law itself, from the Constitution Noverit of Nicholas III.⁵

Here also it must be NOTED that a parish priest, even outside the parish, and say the same of the Bishop outside his diocese, can assist at the matrimony of his subject, even if the parish priest of the place where the matrimony is celebrated should contradict it.⁶ And, from a just cause, he also does this licitly: the solemn blessing however being omitted, which he is prohibited under grave obligation from imparting without license of the parish priest or Ordinary of the place.⁷

It is said 2. PROPER, namely one who is parish priest of the domicile or quasi-domicile of the contracting parties. Thus it has been defined several times.⁸

2074. For perfect understanding of the matter it seems opportune here to repeat the things which above, in the Treatise on Laws, we said concerning domicile and quasi-domicile.

Therefore someone is said to have DOMICILE there where he dwells with the will of remaining perpetually. But since such a will is an internal thing, it ought to be manifested by words or deeds, or to be argued by presumption of law, from a ten-year habitation, provided the contrary intention is not established. Moreover, domicile once acquired is not lost by actual departure, nor by long absence, but only by a formal will of renouncing it. And this same renunciation is required so that the wife may lose the domicile of her deceased husband. But he who is not his own right, as a minor, retains the domicile of his father or tutor, as long as, after his emancipation, he has not dismissed it either by words or by deeds (cf. n. 203).

QUASI-DOMICILE is commonly defined by authors: habitation in some place, with the intention of remaining there through the greater part of the year, or at least for six months. "Wherefore if it is legitimately established that either both or one of the betrothed has the intention of remaining through the greater part of the year, from the first day on which these two things concur together, namely both an intention of this kind and actual habitation, quasi-domicile must be judged to have been acquired, and the matrimony which is contracted therefore to be valid. - Nevertheless, if the aforesaid intention is not established, recourse must be had to the indications which are at hand, and which produce moral certitude. But in an occult and internal matter, it is difficult to have indications of this kind which make the judge secure: hence it is that the rule confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV must especially be employed, that it be inspected whether before the matrimony, for the space of at least one month, either both or one of them dwelt in the place of the matrimony. But if this is found to have happened, it must be judged from presumption of law that the intention of remaining through the greater part of the year existed, and domicile was acquired, and therefore the matrimony is valid. But if this presumption of law, which arises from monthly habitation, is destroyed by contrary proofs, by which it is certainly and clearly established that the aforesaid intention in no way existed: then certainly it is manifest that a contrary judgment must be pronounced, because presumption must yield to truth. - Besides, it is also manifest that actual habitation is inept for producing quasi-domicile, if someone is staying in that region in the manner of a wanderer and traveler, but not as one truly and properly dwelling, namely in the way others are accustomed who in the same place have a true and properly so-called domicile."⁹

The proper parish priest of wanderers, namely those who have no domicile or quasi-domicile, as to assistance at matrimony, is he in whose parish they actually are. "Therefore they can contract before any parish priest, assisting in his own parish, and this even if only one of the betrothed is a wanderer.... But the parish priest, before he joins wanderers, is bound diligently to inquire concerning their condition, as Trent prescribes,¹⁰ whether they are joined elsewhere; and afterward to seek license of assisting from the Bishop, without which, although he assists validly, nevertheless he sins gravely by assisting."¹¹

From the things said you will resolve: 1. For the validity of matrimony, it makes no difference whether the parish priest of the bridegroom or of the bride assists. Yet matrimony is contracted more fittingly before the parish priest of the bride.

2. One who has two domiciles, or domicile and quasi-domicile, can contract before the parish priest of either one; yet more decently before the parish priest of actual habitation.

3. From quasi-domicile there acquire for themselves parochial right as to celebration of matrimony: public officials, judges, professors, pupils, servants, maidservants, etc., who by reason of office, duty, study, or for the sake of carrying on business, betake themselves into some place with the intention of spending the greater part of the year there; likewise, soldiers and those detained in prison, who are sent to a place for at least six months, but not if they are going to remain there for a shorter time. - And here it must be noted that those who live in some community, under the spiritual care of some chaplain, for example in a hospice, foundling hospital, cannot contract before him; but the presence is required of the parish priest of the place in which is the hospice or other house where they live.¹²

Nevertheless, for all the aforesaid it is also permitted to contract before the parish priest of the PLACE where they have true domicile; indeed girls who, for the sake of education, live in a monastery or conservatory, and who wish to enter matrimony, are to be sent back to the paternal home; as both the reason of decorum and the decree of S. C. of Bishops and Regulars, 7 October 1723, related by Benedict XIV,¹³ show that it must be done. And this same thing must be done with young men living in a seminary, college, or other house for the sake of education.

2075. II. The parish priest or Ordinary enjoys the faculty of DELEGATING a priest who may assist at matrimony in his place. Thus expressly the Tridentine decree. But that the delegation be VALID it is required:

1. On the part of the delegate, that he be a priest, and have notice of the delegation made; for an ignored delegation profits nothing.¹⁴ - He can subdelegate if he is delegated for the universality of causes, for example for performing all parochial duties; otherwise, if he is delegated for a case, unless an express faculty also of subdelegating is conceded: which is opportune to add, so that various difficulties perhaps not foreseen may be met.

2. On the part of the one delegating, that the delegation be express, either in writing, which is best, or by living voice, or at least by some sign which manifests consent in the present; whence, tacit delegation sometimes suffices, but never interpretative delegation. Yet delegation has force even if extorted by fear, provided it has not been retracted; for it is sufficiently voluntary (cf. n. 232, 286).

But with what faculty in this matter coadjutors of parish priests, or Vicars, are endowed, certainly cannot be defined by a general rule, but must be known from custom and diocesan statutes. For the Bishop, in constituting Vicars, can either immediately confer on them the right of assisting at matrimonies, or leave that right to be committed to them from the delegation of the parish priest.

2076. III. Besides the parish priest, at least TWO WITNESSES ought necessarily to assist at matrimony, and this under penalty of nullity. - It is established from the often-cited decree of Trent.

But the common opinion is that any witnesses are suitable for this assistance, even women, children, provided they are capable of reason, infidels, infamous persons, parents, slaves, and even those who by chance pass by there, or are detained by force.¹⁵ Yet honorable Catholics, who know the contracting parties, are to be preferred.

2077. IV. The PRESENCE of the parish priest and witnesses ought to be not only material, but also FORMAL, so that they can attend to what is being done and testify to it. It is established from the end of the law, and from many declarations of S. C. of the Council.¹⁶

Hence: 1. "If they did not well understand the consent of the betrothed, for example because they are of a diverse idiom, one interpreter affirming concerning the consent is not enough.

2. "It is not necessary that they see the contracting parties, provided they hear the words of the contract, if they know the voices of the contracting parties. It also suffices if they see the signs of consent.

3. "Nor does it matter, even if unwilling they are detained through fear, force, fraud, or injury, or even if they contradict and resist.... But contracting parties sin gravely by contracting before a parish priest detained by force or fraud, or passing by by chance, on account of the injury which is inflicted on the Sacrament and the Church, since the parish priest then assists as a public person."¹⁷ Except if, an urgent necessity of contracting being present, the parish priest were unwilling to assist, and the Superior could not be approached: because the parish priest then is bound from office to assist. Yet it would be only venial to contract before witnesses thus present, that is, detained by fraud.¹⁸

2078. Since matrimony is a wholly holy thing, inasmuch as it is a Sacrament, and holy things are to be treated holily, the holy Church of God instituted the RITE which is to be observed in the celebration of this Sacrament.

It is found described in the Roman Ritual,¹⁹ whose prescriptions in this matter look to THREE things: namely the joining, the blessing, and the inscription. A few things concerning each.²⁰

I. The JOINING consists in this, that the parish priest, "the man and woman having been questioned, and their mutual consent having been understood, either says: I join you in matrimony, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; or uses other words, according to the received rite of each province."²¹ In the joining the following are to be OBSERVED:

1. It ought to be performed publicly, or in the face of the Church, and this under grave obligation: as is gathered from Benedict XIV's Constitution Satis vobis, by which the contrary custom is condemned as a grave abuse. - Therefore it cannot be performed in Oratories or in private houses, unless by license of the Ordinary: which only then can be presumed, when some necessity presses, for example in danger of death.

2. The parish priest ought to question each contracting party concerning consent. Yet omission of the questioning, if the free consent of each is established, is only venial.²²

3. He ought similarly to pronounce the words: I join you, etc. Others probably say that this obligation is light; but others, still probably and perhaps more probably, affirm that the same is grave, because it seems a transgression in a matter of great moment.²³

4. Finally there is added the blessing of the ring, which is a sacramental, and whose omission would be only venial. Nor is it to be omitted in second nuptials.²⁴ It can be done in the plural, and likewise the remaining blessings, if several matrimonies are celebrated at the same time.²⁵

5. "If the Mass immediately follows the rite of Joining, the Priest besides Alb and Stole ought also to put on the Chasuble."²⁶

IT IS ASKED. Whether the parish priest can assist at the matrimony of those who are PUBLIC sinners, or excommunicated?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively, of itself, both because by natural law no one can cooperate with the sin of a neighbor, and because the parish priest is bound from justice to apply himself to the spiritual salvation of his sheep, by averting them from sins. - It is said of itself; because he is excused if he assists for avoiding death, or other grave evils of the community or of the contracting parties themselves, for example lest they themselves persevere in sin²⁷ (cf. n. 1429, q. 1).

Resp. to the 2nd. If the contracting parties are notoriously excommunicated, but not to be avoided, "let the parish priest consult the Ordinary, who, with account taken of the matters and circumstances, and all things weighed which are handed down by approved authors and especially by St. Alphonsus, should declare those things which he shall have judged more expedient in the Lord, yet the celebration of Mass always being excluded." Response of the S. PENITENTIARY, 10 Dec. 1860.²⁸

2079. II. The NUPTIAL BLESSING is read in the missal, the Mass for bridegroom and bride, and pertains to the solemnity of Nuptials. It obliges under venial fault, as is commonly taught.²⁹ Concerning it the following things are to be NOTED:

1. "The holy Synod established that the blessing be made by the proper parish priest, and that license for making the aforesaid blessing cannot be conceded to another priest by anyone except by the parish priest himself or by the Ordinary. - But if a priest should have dared to join or bless the spouses without the license of their parish priest, let him remain suspended by the law itself for so long until he is absolved by the Ordinary of that parish priest who ought to have assisted at the matrimony, or from whom the blessing was to be received"³⁰ (cf. n. 1373).

2. The Congregation of the Holy Office, on 31 Aug. 1881, decreed that that blessing "is always to be imparted in the matrimonies of Catholics, yet within celebration of Mass according to the Rubrics, and outside the forbidden time, to all those spouses who, in contracting matrimony, did not obtain it from whatever cause: even if they ask after they have already lived in matrimony for a long time, provided the woman, if a widow, herself did not receive the blessing in other nuptials.³¹ Besides, the same Catholic spouses who did not obtain the blessing of their matrimony are to be exhorted to seek it at the first possible time. But it is to be signified to them, especially if they are neophytes, or validly contracted before Conversion from heresy, that the blessing itself pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity of marriage."³²

3. The blessing of Nuptials cannot be conferred except in Mass:³³ in which the spouses are indeed to be exhorted by parish priests and confessors to communicate, but are not to be compelled by force of precept.³⁴

4. The Mass, in celebration of nuptials, ought always to be the votive Mass for bridegroom and bride, as in the Missal:³⁵ except on Sundays and Feasts of precept, on doubles of the first and second class, within the privileged Octave of Epiphany and Pentecost, on the Vigil of Pentecost, on the octave day of Corpus Christi, and on other days excluding doubles of the second class.³⁶ - But on days on which the Mass for bridegroom and bride is not permitted, the Mass of the day is to be celebrated, with commemoration from that Mass.

5. The Mass for bridegroom and bride is a private votive Mass; since it is for the private good of those marrying, and therefore it must always be celebrated as any other private votive Mass, without Gloria and Credo, even if it is celebrated in chant and with solemn apparatus.³⁷

6. When, without Apostolic Indult, nuptials are celebrated in the time of Advent or Lent, the Commemoration for the spouses ought not to be made in the Mass by Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion; nor is it licit to recite the Prayers placed in the Missal after the Lord's Prayer and Ite Missa est; nor ought the same prayers to be recited outside Mass, the prohibited time having elapsed.³⁸

7. In the same Mass several spouses can be blessed; yet the prayers are not said in the plural, but are recited as they are read in the Missal.³⁹ "If any provinces use other laudable customs and ceremonies beyond the aforesaid in this matter, the holy Synod vehemently desires that they be retained altogether." To this pertains, for example, the ceremony by which the joined hands of the spouses are covered, or bound, with the lowest part of the stole.⁴⁰

8. When, by reason of the blessing to be imparted, the Mass for bridegroom and bride is to be celebrated, the priest is not bound to apply it for the spouses, unless he receives a stipend: wherefore he is free to apply it for another offering.⁴¹

2080. III. The INSCRIPTION of matrimony, which Trent and the Ritual prescribe, is to be made under grave obligation; since, after the death of the witnesses and the parish priest, from this inscription alone it can be established that the matrimony was performed. - See the formulas in the Ritual itself.

Note. Concerning secret matrimony, or matrimony of conscience, concerning which see n. 1962, 3, it will help to have noted the following things here.

1. A Matrimony of this kind cannot be celebrated except by license of the Ordinary: for legitimately obtaining it, there are prerequired: 1) A grave and most urgent cause, for example of recalling from a state of damnation occult concubinarians who are reputed legitimate spouses; 2) diligent inquiry of the matter and circumstances, for example whether the spouses are of their own right or of another's, whether parents justly dissent, etc.; 3) indubitable documents concerning the free state of the spouses.

2. Matrimony is celebrated, denunciations being omitted, with everyone unaware, before only the parish priest and two witnesses, for example two other presbyters, who will most faithfully preserve the secret. But the parish priest ought to admonish the spouses concerning the most grave obligation of providing for future offspring as to education, legitimacy, and inheritance, but especially concerning the obligation of denouncing to the Bishop, within a month to be computed from the day of birth, the offspring received and baptized; if they neglect to do these things, they certainly will lose the right of secrecy.

3. Attestations, both concerning celebration of Matrimony and concerning Baptism conferred, are to be transcribed not in the parochial books, but in books preserved at the episcopal Curia and guarded with seals, and are to be kept cautiously in a more secret place.

Thus from the Constitution Satis vobis of Benedict XIV, issued on 9 Nov. 1741.⁴²

231. • I. Their obligation.

"Outside the case of necessity, in the celebration of matrimony the rites prescribed in ritual books approved by the Church, or received by laudable customs, are to be observed." (Can. 1100.)

From various decrees of the S.S.C.C. it is established that the liturgical form must be observed under grave obligation, even in second nuptials.

232. • II. Solemn blessing.

a) "The parish priest is to take care that the spouses receive the solemn blessing, which can be given to them even after they have lived a long time in matrimony, but only in Mass, with the special rubric observed and excepting the forbidden time." (Can. 1101, § 1.)

1. The obligation of receiving the solemn blessing is light. Indeed, there is no certainty concerning an obligation properly so called. If it has not been received on the day itself, no obligation of receiving it afterwards exists.

2. In many dioceses, notably in Liege, that blessing is almost always omitted, because nuptials are very rarely celebrated with Mass.

b) "Only that priest himself, by himself or through another, can give the solemn blessing who can validly and licitly assist at the matrimony." (Can. 1101, § 2.)

One priest can ask for and receive the matrimonial consent, and another can celebrate the Mass and impart the solemn blessing.

c) The solemn blessing must be omitted:

1. During forbidden time (Can. 1101, § 1), namely from the First Sunday of Advent to the Nativity of the Lord inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday to the feast of Easter inclusive. (Can. 1108, § 2.)

For a just cause the local Ordinary can dispense, with the liturgical laws preserved, and with the spouses warned to avoid excessive pomp. (can. 1108, § 3.)

2. In mixed matrimonies or with an unbeliever.

3. When the woman has already received that blessing. (Can. 1143.)

4. When only one Mass in the rite of the dead is celebrated on the day of the nuptials, because that blessing cannot validly be received in such a Mass.

5. On account of a general interdict affecting the place (can. 2271, 2°), or a particular interdict affecting the church in which the nuptials are celebrated. (Can. 2272, § 3, 2°.)

233. • III. The form to be observed in mixed matrimonies or matrimonies of disparity of worship.

a) We have already said that those matrimonies must be celebrated with the entirely same juridical form under penalty of invalidity as matrimonies among Catholics. Therefore the parish priest must ask for and receive the consent of the spouses.¹

¹ Cf. above, n. 87, a.

b) With respect to the liturgical rites to be omitted or in some way permitted by the permission of the Ordinary, recall the things said above at n. 87 b.

829. Matter to be treated. - Under the name of celebration here come all things which pertain to it:

1° the preparation of matrimony, which is usually made through espousals;

2° those things which must be premised to matrimony, namely, the examination of the spouses and the proclamations of banns;

3° the very form or rite under which matrimony is celebrated.

Concerning these things we must speak successively. 1

852. The liturgical form to be observed. - By the name of liturgical form is understood the complex of rites and ceremonies which accompany the celebration of Christian matrimony and which are prescribed in ritual books approved by the Church or are received by laudable customs. Concerning this, can. 1100 prescribes:

"Outside a case of necessity, in the celebration of matrimony let there be observed the rites prescribed in ritual books approved by the Church or received by laudable customs."

A. The liturgical form is found in the Roman Ritual, tit. 7, c. 2; it comprises three things: the first is the interrogation concerning mutual consent and the pronouncing of the copulative formula, the hands of the spouses being joined, under the words: I join you in matrimony in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or by other similar words according to the received usage of each place; the second is the blessing and handing over of the ring; the third is the solemn blessing with the Mass for the groom and bride.

Nevertheless the special form of the Roman Ritual is not prescribed, because, as the Council of Trent itself says, sess. 24, c. 1 de ref., other approved rites and laudable customs can be observed; which is altogether fitting, because they are often more excellent.

There is a grave obligation of observing the liturgical form from the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13, and from various decrees of the S. C. C., even in second nuptials. Hence one who without legitimate cause omitted the whole ceremony would sin gravely; and Catholics who in a case of necessity have contracted matrimony without ceremonies ought to take care that these be supplied as soon as possible, in which case the formula I join you... is omitted.

B. With the ceremonies is connected the solemn blessing, which, after matrimony has been celebrated, is imparted to the spouses during the solemnities of Mass, according to the rite of the Roman Missal in the Mass for the groom and bride. Yet this blessing is not strictly prescribed, whence there are also certain places where it is more rarely conceded. Concerning it, can. 1101 says:

"§ 1. Let the pastor take care that the spouses receive the solemn blessing, which can be given to them even after they have lived for a long time in matrimony, but only in Mass, the special rubric being observed and the closed time excepted.

"§ 2. Only that priest can give the solemn blessing, by himself or through another, who can validly and licitly assist at matrimony." For it is a function reserved to the pastor.

Let it be noted: a) The blessing can be given only in Mass and indeed by the celebrant (S. Off., Aug. 31, 1881).

b) The blessing must be omitted:

1° in the closed time, namely, from the first Sunday of Advent to the Nativity of the Lord inclusively, and from Ash Wednesday to Easter of the Resurrection inclusively; which they say is prescribed under grave matter, unless the Ordinary grants license;

2° in mixed marriages (can. 1102);

3° when the woman has already received the blessing in preceding nuptials (can. 1143); indeed there are places in which the blessing cannot be conceded even to widowed men, which according to the ritual seems still to be observed (tit. 7, c. 1, n. 18);

4° when only one Mass is celebrated in the rite of the dead, and on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful; because in a Mass of requiem such a blessing cannot be received (S. Off., Sept. 3, 1817); in which case it can be remitted to another day;

5° on account of a general interdict affecting the place, or a particular interdict affecting the church in which the nuptials are celebrated (can. 2271, 2° and 2272, § 3, 2°);

6° when matrimony is entered with one notoriously excommunicated (S. Poen., Dec. 10, 1860).

c) The Mass for the groom and bride is prohibited on Sundays, feasts of the first and second class, privileged octaves of the first and second order, privileged ferias, and vigils of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost; but if the nuptial blessing can be given from license of the Ordinary, the Mass of the day is to be said with the prayer for the spouses added.

d) Nothing prohibits one priest from inquiring after and receiving the matrimonial consent, and another from celebrating Mass and imparting the solemn blessing, provided they have the due competence.

C. Concerning mixed marriages, can. 1102 has force:

"In marriages between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic party, the interrogations concerning consent must be made according to the prescription of can. 1095, § 1, n. 3. But all sacred rites are prohibited; but if graver evils are foreseen from this prohibition, the Ordinary can permit some of the customary ecclesiastical ceremonies, always excluding the celebration of Mass."

Therefore in mixed marriages:

1° The priest must always inquire after and receive the consent even from the non-Catholic party; nor does merely passive assistance suffice for validity (com. int., March 10, 1928).

2° All sacred rites are of themselves prohibited, such as the use of sacred vestment, a sermon properly so called, the blessing of the ring, the blessing of the nuptials, celebration in church, etc.

3° For avoiding graver evils, such as hatred toward the Catholic religion, danger of a merely civil union or of the perversion of the Catholic party, celebration of the nuptials before a non-Catholic minister, etc., the Ordinary can concede certain ceremonies, but not the celebration of Mass nor consequently the solemn blessing connected with it.

Notice: a) The priest who celebrates Mass for the groom and bride is not bound to apply it to them, unless it has been specially contracted thus.

b) At the end of the Roman Ritual is found the formula of the nuptial blessing to be used when Mass is not said, and the formula of prayers which can be recited if the blessing is not permitted. Yet these cannot be imparted except from a special indult.

Espousals also were sanctified by priestly blessing, which the faithful judged it impious to violate. Although these things are said concerning espousals, nevertheless mediately they show the persuasion of the faithful concerning the sanctity also of nuptials, of which espousals are the preparation. Therefore we cited these words. Thesis VII, IV, 6.

Canon X. But concerning abductors, following the statutes of the ancient Fathers, we judge that this is to be held: that if they abducted those who, together with the betrothed man, have been initiated by the priestly blessing, even though they have corrupted the same women, nevertheless they are to be drawn away from these men and restored to their proper betrothed men. But those who either are widows or have not yet been betrothed and are abducted without their own will and that of their parents, nevertheless are to be restored to their parents or relatives, and, if they wish, they may marry others; for they can by no means thereafter be legitimate wives to those by whom they were abducted. But although the ancient canons command that the abductors themselves and those furnishing help to them be anathematized, nevertheless we do not deny that, when they are placed at the last moment, if they devoutly ask, the viaticum of sacred communion is to be given for mercy.

Question 2. Can the nuptial blessing properly so called be separated from the celebration of Mass?

Resp. The rite of celebrating the sacrament of Marriage, by which the priest joins the betrothed and blesses the ring, and which is had expressed in the Roman Ritual, must be carefully distinguished from the nuptial blessing which is read in the Missal (Mass for bridegroom and bride) and pertains to the solemnity of those same nuptials. Concerning the former, one must altogether affirm that it can, indeed must, in forbidden time, or when the solemnities of nuptials are prohibited, be separated from the celebration of Mass; for Marriage can be contracted at every time. But one must deny it as regards the nuptial blessing properly so called, as is established from Canon 1101, soon to be cited. This blessing consists in the Prayers which are had in the Missal, "Propitiare," etc., "Deus, qui," etc., to be said before "Libera nos," etc., and also the other, "Deus Abraham," etc., to be said before the blessing. Decr. Auth. n. 3789, ad 3.

Question 4. What must be said specially concerning the time and mode of giving this blessing, and concerning the Mass within which it must be given?

Resp. Concerning this matter, the following things are to be noticed:

1°. According to the decree of the S. R. U. Inq. given on 31 August 1881, the nuptial blessing is to be given, according to the rubrics however, namely within the celebration of Mass and outside the closed time, "to all those spouses who, in contracting Marriage, from whatever cause, did not obtain it; even if they ask after they have already lived long in Marriage, provided the woman, if she is a widow, has not received that blessing in other nuptials. - Besides, those same Catholic spouses who have not obtained the blessing of their Marriage are to be exhorted to seek it at the first available time. But it is to be signified to them, especially if they are neophytes or before conversion validly contracted from heresy, that the blessing itself pertains to the rite and solemnity, but not to the substance and validity of wedlock." - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 14, p. 513; Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 333, and Appendix XIII, p. 310; Amer. Eccl. Rev., vol. 2, pp. 120 and following.

2°. The nuptial blessing is to be omitted (1°) during the whole closed time, S. R. C., 31 Aug. 1839; (2°) if the woman is a widow and has already received this blessing in other nuptials; (3°) when the betrothed do not wish to receive the blessing within the celebration of Mass; (4°) in mixed marriages, even if they are contracted with dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. Otherwise the woman is to be blessed; it is of no importance for the blessing whether the woman is a virgin or not.

3°. Whenever the nuptial blessing must be omitted, the votive Mass for bridegroom and bride is also prohibited, and likewise the commemoration for bridegroom and bride in the Mass of the day is inhibited. But whenever the woman is to be blessed, the votive Mass for the betrothed is also to be celebrated, except on Sundays, feasts of precept, doubles of the first or second class, days within the octaves of Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi, and privileged ferias and vigils. With Christmas of the Lord and Easter excepted, in the Mass of the day there is to be made the commemoration of the votive Mass for the betrothed, which is always added under a distinct conclusion and in the first place after the prayers prescribed by the rubrics. - S. R. C., 20 April 1822; 15 June 1883.

4°. On licit days, when the Mass for bridegroom and bride is said, the second prayer will always be of the Office, and commemorations will be made of the proper day; in doubles a third prayer is not added (S. C. R., 24 May 1912). On days of inferior rite, the number at least triple is to be completed.

5°. The priest is not bound to apply the Mass for the betrothed unless he receives an alms from the same (S. C. Inq., 1 Sept. 1841).

6°. It is not required that the betrothed communicate within the Mass (n. 3922).

7°. The prohibition of the nuptial blessing in prohibited times must be understood of the Mass for bridegroom and bride and of the prayers in the Missal.

8°. When the blessing is to be given, the Mass for bridegroom and bride is to be said according to the things set forth, although it is not applied for them; nor can that Mass be said unless the blessing is given in the same.

9°. When nuptials have been celebrated in prohibited time and the spouses afterward have sought the nuptial blessing, it is not required that a day be chosen on which the votive Mass for the spouses can be said, but the nuptial blessing can be bestowed within Mass, for example of a double feast of the second class with the commemoration for the Spouses, according to the rubric placed at the head of the Mass for spouses. But the presence of both is necessary for bestowing the blessing. S. C. R., 27 May 1911.

10°. In the typical edition of the Roman Ritual published in the year 1925, Tit. VII, c. 1, n. 18, these things are found: "But let the Pastor beware that, when spouses have received the blessing in first nuptials, he not bless them in second nuptials, whether the woman or even the man passes to second nuptials. But where that custom prevails that, if the man alone has obtained this blessing at another time, the nuptials are blessed, it is to be observed; but a widowed woman, to whom the solemn blessing has once been given, cannot receive it again in subsequent nuptials, even if her husband has never taken a wife. Cf. below, Q. 10°." - S. R. C., 14 June 1918. Several marriages can be blessed at the same time in one Mass. S. Off., 1 Sept. 1841.

I say 1°. A twofold error about Marriage is distinguished, namely: 1°. substantial error, which is concerned with the person; 2°. accidental error, which affects the qualities of the person. But condition is understood as servile condition unknown by the other free party, and consequently the impediment which is called condition is nothing other than an error by which the co-party is thought free when she is a slave.

When error is in the apprehension of a thing not necessary for the essence of the contract, but in a certain accident, it brings it about that the contract is voluntary as regards its essence and consequently such simply, but involuntary in a qualified sense and as regards that accident in which the error is concerned. And this error does not exclude consent, nor is anything had in law vitiating such consent. For in reality, in this error, he wills to marry this woman, to be married to this one; and there is the consent of two into the same thing and a contract substantially whole, nor invalid by law. S. C. C., Wallachien., 2 June 1860.

§ 1. Error concerning the person renders marriage invalid.

§ 2. Error concerning a quality of the person, even if it gives cause to the contract, invalidates marriage only:

1°. If error of quality redounds into error of person;

2°. If a free person contracts marriage with a person whom he thinks free, when on the contrary she is a slave, by slavery properly so called (Can. 1083).

Error of person renders marriage invalid. Error is also either of fortune, or condition, or quality.

Error of person is when this man is thought to be Virgilius but he is Plato; error of fortune when this man is thought to be rich who is poor; error of condition when he is thought to be free who is a slave; error of quality when he is thought to be good and is evil. Cause XXIV, q. 1.

Titius wishes to enter marriage with Anna, and Anna with Titius; therefore each, Titius and Anna, wish mutually to hand over and accept the perpetual and exclusive right over the body in order to determinate acts. Titius wishes to hand over the right over his body to Anna, and Anna wishes to accept that right; Anna wishes to hand over the right over her body to Titius, and Titius wishes to accept that right. In the celebration Martha has been substituted for Anna, and Titius, thinking Martha to be Anna, hands over the right over his body not to Martha, but truly to Anna. But Martha cannot accept from Titius a right which Titius does not hand over to her. This error of person on the part of Titius brings it about that the consent furnished to Martha is null in relation to Martha. In other words, the right which Titius wished to hand over over his body, he wished to hand over to Anna; this was the object of the contract, just as the right which he wished to accept was the right over the body of Anna. Error of person removed this object; in the celebration itself he wished to accept as wife not Martha but Anna, and to hand himself over as husband to a woman, not to Martha, with whom he externally expressed the words, but to Anna. Therefore his error made it such that externally he said that he consented to the woman Martha, to whom he consented in no way. This error removed matrimonial consent. For he does not consent to this Martha, but to Anna, whom he thought Martha to be. Consent to Anna remained; consent to Martha was null; therefore there is no marriage with Martha.

If, however, error of quality redounds into error of person, the contract is invalid: that is, if someone judges that he is contracting with another person, not the one whom he accepts externally, and therefore neither does he consent to contract with this one. When therefore does error of quality redound into error of person? When the quality in which there is error designates an individual person, then error of quality falls back into error of person; as if someone wished to marry the firstborn daughter of the king of Spain. For since the apprehension of the mind draws the consent of the will, the will tends toward that which apprehension proposes to it. Wherefore, since the individual person apprehended, by means of that quality of primogeniture by which she is indicated, is proposed to the will, the consent directly and formally tends toward that person, and hence error concerning that quality is error concerning the person. S. C. C., Wallachien., 2 June 1860.

As regards the second paragraph, n. 2: If a free person has contracted with a slave properly so called, judging her to be free, the marriage is null. The conditions are that the free party be ignorant of the servile condition of the other and contract with that ignorance, and that the slavery be strictly so called.

A threefold error renders marriage null: error of person; error of quality redounding into error of person; error of servile condition of one party.

I say 2°. Simple error concerning the unity or indissolubility of marriage, or its sacramental dignity, even if it gives cause to the contract, does not vitiate matrimonial consent (Can. 1084).

For such error does not take away true and sufficient consent, as has been answered many times by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

A valid marriage can be contracted with a merely concomitant error concerning its indissolubility, because then the general will of contracting according to the institution of Christ prevails, and that general will as it were absorbs the private error. Instruction of the Holy Office, 6 April 1843. - The depraved opinion of the contracting parties, even though confirmed by the laws or customs of the fatherland, namely that the bond of marriage can be dissolved, in no way of itself harms the validity of marriage, unless this opinion is brought into a pact as a condition in the act of entering marriage; for then the marriage becomes null and invalid, as always happens when a condition repugnant to the substance itself has been attached to marriage. Holy Office, 20 June 1866, n. 25. - Marriages entered with only the error of the contracting parties that the bond of consummated marriage can be dissolved in the case of adultery or for other causes are valid. But if they have been entered under this express condition, they must be held as invalid. 11 March 1868, to 2. Error adhering to the mind, which nevertheless has not been brought into a pact or condition, does not harm the validity of marriage. Holy Office, 18 Dec. 1872. Concerning heretics imbued with false doctrine, Benedict XIV, de syn. dioec., 1. 13, c. 22, says thus: It must be believed that they (heretics) wished by a general will to contract a valid marriage according to the law of Christ, and therefore one not to be dissolved even for cause of adultery. For private error can neither be put before nor bring prejudice to the general will of which we have spoken, on which the validity and perpetuity of the contracted marriage depend.

I say 3°. Knowledge or opinion of the nullity of marriage does not necessarily exclude matrimonial consent (Can. 1085). For it does not exclude the general intention of entering marriage according to the law of Christ, and indeed here and now. For they wish to furnish consent truly matrimonial, and thus insofar as they can, as in the example of those who thought that they could not enter before a Turkish judge, although they wished to enter nuptials. Thus such marriages are to be held as valid, as was answered by the Sacred Congregation de Prop. Fide, 1 Oct. 1785. Again the same is established from the sanation of marriage so called civil, which sanation has been conceded not only once. But it could not have been conceded unless matrimonial consent could exist together with such a celebration.

I say 1°. § 1. A marriage entered on account of force or grave fear inflicted from outside and unjustly, from which, in order that someone may free himself, he is compelled to choose marriage, is also invalid (Can. 1087).

This is certainly established from many places of law. Marriage must enjoy full security.

I say 2°. § 2. No other fear, even if it gives cause to the contract, carries with it the nullity of marriage (Can. 1087).

The reason is: 1°. because light fear is not judged to influence consent gravely and efficaciously; 2°. because from positive law only grave fear makes Marriage invalid; 3°. because otherwise innumerable Marriages would become invalid with the greatest detriment to society.

Question 1. Does any grave fear whatsoever dirimently invalidate Marriage?

Resp. Negatively, but the following conditions are required, namely, that it be inflicted 1°. by an external and free cause; 2°. unjustly; 3°. that from it, in order to free himself, someone be compelled to choose marriage.

Question 2. By what law does grave fear dirimently invalidate Marriage?

Resp. Certainly by ecclesiastical law; but whether also by the law of nature is disputed among theologians, and S. Alphonsus, n. 1054, relates reasons on either side. Besides, no practical utility can be derived from the solution of this controversy. For either the discussion is of Marriage to be contracted or of one contracted. If the first, the Church will never dispense unless the cause of fear is first removed; if the other, that Marriage will never be declared invalid unless it has first been proved, in the external forum, that all the conditions which the Church requires for grave fear were verified. - Cf. Ballerini, note (c), p. 806.

A clandestine marriage is called that which is contracted without the solemnity required by the Church.

Question 1. What are the dioceses and places, among us, where the Decree Tametsi was in force de facto, whatever finally may have been the origin and mode of its promulgation?

Resp. This question, which nevertheless regards some fact and not law, was previously wrapped in great obscurity, and diverse responses and opinions for thinking were being circulated. But now, by the work of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, it has a clear solution, for the Fathers of this Council, "after the matter had been studiously investigated, came to this opinion," from which it is certainly not licit to recede: "The Decree Tametsi is not in force in the following ecclesiastical Provinces, namely: 1. Baltimore; 2. Philadelphia; 3. New York; 4. Boston; 5. Oregon City; 6. Milwaukee; 7. Cincinnati, except the diocese of Vincennes; 8. St. Louis, except the city of St. Louis itself and certain other places of the same Archdiocese soon to be named; 9. Chicago, except certain places of the diocese of Alton to be cited presently."

"But in the other places of the same United States the decree Tametsi is judged to be in force, namely: 1°. in the whole province of New Orleans; 2°. in the province of San Francisco with the territory of Utah, except that part of the same territory which lies to the east of the Colorado River; 3°. in the province of Santa Fe, except the northern part of the territory of Colorado; 4°. in the diocese of Vincennes; 5°. in the city of St. Louis, and also in the places called St. Genevieve, St. Ferdinand, and St. Charles, of the Archdiocese of St. Louis; 6°. in the places called Kaskaskia, Cahokia, French Village, and Prairie du Rocher, of the diocese of Alton." - Cf. Responses of the Holy See to the Postulates of the Fathers, in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. cvii. Cf. S. C. d. P. F., 15 April 1901.

Question 2. Were clandestine Marriages of heretics among themselves, or mixed ones, valid where the Tridentine law concerning clandestinity was in force?

Resp. Affirmatively, if however the discussion is of those places to which the Declaration of Benedict XIV was extended, by which in the year 1741 the Supreme Pontiff established that clandestine Marriages entered or to be entered in Holland and in the federated Provinces of Belgium, between heretics or between one heretical party and another Catholic party, are valid. Moreover, this Benedictine Declaration was afterwards extended to several regions of Europe, and as regards us, it had also been extended to several dioceses and places by the work of diverse Bishops; but since, at the time when the last Plenary Council was celebrated, there were still some dioceses to which it certainly had not been extended, and concerning some others there was doubt, the Fathers of the Council requested that, for inducing uniformity, it be extended to all those places, or be declared certainly to have been extended, in which the Decree Tametsi is certainly known to be in force. Moreover, to this petition the response was that this extension was conceded "only" for the dioceses of San Antonio and Galveston and for the Apostolic Vicariate of Brownsville, in which the matter was doubtful. Whence it follows that the Benedictine Declaration had not been in force in the Province of Santa Fe, to which it certainly had not been extended before the aforesaid petition was made. - Cf. Responses of the Holy See, etc., in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, pp. cviii and cix. - Feije, de impedimentis Matrim., nn. 306 and following. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 811, and note (a), p. 820. - Kenrick, n. 186. - Nilles, Part 1, p. 224.

Question 3. Who were those who came under the name of heretics, when it was a question of places where the Benedictine Declaration was in force?

Resp. The solution is clear from the following rescript of the Holy Office, 6 Apr. 1859, which could and had to be applied also to other regions besides Holland. - When the doubt had been proposed: "Whether, for the understanding of the celebrated Declaration of Benedict XIV for Holland, the following five classes can be comprehended under the name of heretic: 1°. those who, baptized Catholic, from childhood not yet seven years old are educated in heresy and profess heresy; 2°. those who are educated not so much in heresy as by heretics, namely with no or scarcely any instruction in heretical doctrine received, and worship not frequented, although sometimes participated in; 3°. those who, while still children, falling into the hands of heretics, are joined to a heretical sect; 4°. apostates passing over from the Catholic Church to a heretical sect; 5°. those who, born and baptized by heretics, have grown up without having emitted any solemn profession of heresy, and as it were of no religion, etc.? ..." The Sacred Congregation responded: "For the effect of Marriage, those enumerated above are comprehended in the praised Declaration of Benedict XIV." - Cf. Feije, n. 319.

Question 4. What was our special privilege in relation to acquiring quasi-domicile for the effect of contracting valid Marriage?

Resp. "The Eminent General Inquisitors on the day 6 May 1886, the matter maturely considered, issued the following decree: 'At the petition of the Council of Baltimore, supplication is to be made to His Holiness that he deign to decree, in the Confederate States of America, that those transferring themselves from a place where the chapter Tametsi is in force to another place, provided they have stayed there continuously for the space of at least one whole month and have proved the liberty of their state, as is of law, are to be judged to have quasi-domicile there in order to Marriage, without inquiry having to be made concerning the intention of remaining there for the greater part of a year.' - But in the audience of the day 12 May 1886, at the report of R. P. D. Joseph D'Annibale, assessor of the Holy Office, the Most Holy Lord Leo XIII deigned by his authority to hold ratified and to confirm the aforesaid Decree of the Eminent Fathers, anything whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding." - Cf. Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. cix. Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques, February 1881, p. 187. - O'Kane, nn. 1021 and following. - Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Nov. and Dec. 1883; and Feb. 1884. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 824, and (b), p. 811. - Nilles, part 1, p. 266.

Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the pastor, or the local Ordinary, or a priest delegated by either one, and at least two witnesses, yet according to the rules expressed in the canons which follow, and with the exceptions saved concerning which in can. 1098, 1099 (Can. 1094).

§ 1. The pastor and the local Ordinary validly assist at marriage:

1°. Only from the day of acquired canonical possession of the benefice according to the norm of can. 334, § 3, 1444, § 1, or of begun office, unless by sentence they have been excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office, or declared such;

2°. Only within the limits of their territory; in which they validly assist at marriages not only of their own subjects, but also of non-subjects;

3°. Provided that, constrained neither by force nor by grave fear, they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

§ 2. The pastor and the local Ordinary who can validly assist at marriage can also give license to another priest that he validly assist at marriage within the limits of their territory (Can. 1095).

Who are pastors, and those equated with them, is clear from Canon 451:

§ 1. A pastor is a priest or moral person to whom a parish has been conferred as title, with care of souls to be exercised under the authority of the local Ordinary.

§ 2. With pastors are equated, with all parochial rights and obligations, and they come in law under the name of pastors:

1°. Quasi-pastors, who rule quasi-parishes, concerning which in can. 216, § 3;

2°. Parochial vicars, if they are endowed with full parochial power.

§ 3. Concerning military chaplains, whether major or minor, one must stand by the peculiar prescriptions of the Holy See (Can. 451).

The distinct parts of a diocese into which the diocese itself is divided, to each of which its own particular church with a determined people is assigned and its own particular and proper pastor is set over it for the care of souls, are parishes; parts of an apostolic vicariate and prefecture, if a particular rector is assigned, are called quasi-parishes. Cf. Can. 216, § 3.

§ 4. Without a special apostolic indult, parishes cannot be constituted according to the diversity of language or nation of the faithful living in the same city or territory, nor merely familial or personal parishes; but as regards those already constituted, nothing is to be innovated without consulting the Apostolic See (Can. 216).¹

For the validity of marriage there is required the presence of the pastor or local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either one, and of at least two witnesses; two exceptions are given which we shall explain below.

Nevertheless, in relation to the pastor and local Ordinary, this one and that one validly assist only from the day of acquired possession of the benefice or of begun office.

But if by sentence they have been excommunicated, or interdicted, or suspended from office, or declared such, their assistance is invalid.

The pastor and Ordinary can validly assist only in their own territory.

But in their own territory they validly assist at marriages not only of subjects but also of non-subjects.

Moreover, that this assistance be valid, it is further required that they have been constrained neither by force nor by grave fear.

Finally, it is necessary that they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

In these points a great distinction is now introduced between the law in force before the Decree Ne Temere and the present law of the Code.

Formerly the announced pastor validly assisted; but now his competence is annexed to the possessed benefice or the office already begun. Formerly he could validly assist as long as he was pastor, although excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office by public decree through sentence, or declared such; but now he who is bound by such a censure is declared incompetent. Formerly he validly assisted at marriages of his own subjects everywhere on earth; but now he can validly assist only in his own territory. Formerly he validly assisted only at marriages of subjects even in his own territory; but now there he validly assists both subjects and non-subjects. Namely, his competence is territorial, restricted within the limits of his own parish but extended also to marriages of non-subjects. Hence the ancient discipline of the proper pastor is abolished, by which formerly the assistance of that pastor in whose parish at least one of the contracting parties had domicile or quasi-domicile was required for validity; but now the contract must be entered before the pastor of the territory in which the contract is entered, although neither party is his subject. Formerly the pastor validly assisted, although constrained by force or grave fear; hence surprise marriages were valid. But now he assists validly only when free from force and grave fear. Formerly the pastor validly assisted when present under compulsion, yet perceiving words signifying the mutual matrimonial consent of determinate betrothed persons; but now for validity it is required that he ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

Therefore the assistance of the pastor must be physical, formal, free, and active.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52.

As regards Marriages to be Celebrated, these things are established for our army and navy.

I. Priest Chaplains of the Army and Navy of the United States of North America, during war, enjoy the full faculty of assisting at the marriages of all those who pertain to the Army and Navy of the United States, whether in regions which are subject to the dominion of the United States, or elsewhere. But in marriages which are celebrated outside the territory of the United States of North America, the local Diocesan Chancery must be approached, lest they be contracted against the laws of the region, and especially in those cases in which one of the contracting parties is not an American citizen.

II. Those pertaining to the Army or Navy of the United States of North America are also able to celebrate marriage either under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of origin, or of the Bishop of the place in which they are staying temporarily in camps, or of the Bishop of the Diocese through which they are journeying.

III. The faculty conceded to the Military Ordinary in relation to the celebration of marriage is not privative but cumulative, namely, it does not exclude the jurisdiction of those who by other titles are able to furnish this according to the norm of law.

IV. Chaplains of the Army or Navy are not to assist at marriages unless after previous investigation, especially with the pastor of the woman.

V. Petitions for obtaining dispensations are to be sent to the Military Ordinary or to the Military Vicar General.

VI. The document of the contracted marriage, according to the decree Ne Temere, is to be carefully prepared and sent to the Military Ordinary; but a copy of the document is to be kept by the Chaplain until the Military Ordinariate renders him certain concerning receipt of the original.

Question 1. When does the Ordinary or pastor begin to be competent as the authorized witness of marriage?

Resp. From the day of acquired possession of the benefice or of begun office.

§ 3. Residential Bishops take canonical possession of a diocese as soon as, in the diocese itself, either personally or through a proxy, they have shown the apostolic letters to the Chapter of the cathedral church, in the presence of the secretary of the Chapter or the chancellor of the Curia, who is to refer the matter into the acts (Can. 334).

§ 1. Induction into possession of a benefice is to be made according to the mode prescribed by particular law or received by legitimate custom, unless from a just cause the Ordinary has expressly dispensed in writing from that mode or rite; in which case this dispensation takes the place of possession taken (Can. 1444).

Question 2. Can a putative pastor validly assist?

Resp. Affirmatively, if from common error he is judged such.

Question 3. Does any priest of the diocese, exercising the sacred ministry without special delegation of the local Ordinary or pastor, validly assist at marriage by force of a general faculty conceded to him of administering all sacraments which do not require the episcopal order?

Resp. Negatively.

Question 4. Which excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted pastor is not competent?

Resp. A pastor is not competent who by sentence has been excommunicated, suspended from office, or interdicted, or declared such. This disposition of the Code corresponds to other canons by which it is required, for external penal effects, that the penalty have been inflicted or declared by condemnatory sentence, especially when it is a question of privation or restriction of the use of priestly power or of other sacred ministers. Cf. Can. 2261, 2264, 2275, 2284.

Question 5. Whether by a prohibition made by the Ordinary, lest the pastor espouse certain persons, the jurisdiction of that pastor is so taken away that, for contracting marriage contrary to such a prohibition, he is not the legitimate pastor?

Resp. "That the marriage contracted before a pastor to whom it has been interdicted by the Bishop lest he intervene is valid." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council in the Gienn. case, year 1581. "On which matter," says Benedict XIV, "there seems to be able to be stirred up no difficulty of graver moment. For since there is not that authority in the Bishop that he could induce a diriment impediment which does not exist, or establish as null and invalid some marriage which by the prescription of the canons is not null and invalid, the marriage will indeed be illicit if it is celebrated before him whom the Bishop has forbidden to be present at a celebration of this kind; he also will sin gravely who, with the superior's prohibition despised, furnishes assistance to it; but by no reason will it be able to be said that the marriage itself lies under the defect of nullity." - De Syn. Dioec., 1. 13, c. 23.

Question 6. What things are required that the assistance of the pastor be valid?

Resp. From what has been said it is clear that two things are required: 1°. he must be a voluntary witness, coerced by no force or grave fear; 2°. he must assist actively by asking for and receiving the matrimonial consent of the spouses. That this mode of assistance, formal, voluntary, and active, is necessary for validity is gathered first from the fact that it is prescribed as a condition sine qua non, through the particle provided that, and second from the end of the legislator, who intends to found those statutes by which all marriages made by surprise are rendered null and invalid. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, v. 40, p. 531.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1111, n. 54.

Question 7. "Whether Ordinaries and pastors, not only explicitly but also implicitly invited and asked, provided nevertheless that constrained neither by force nor by grave fear they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties, can validly assist at marriages?"

Resp. "Affirmatively." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Council, 28 Mar. 1908. It is no longer required that the pastor assist as one invited and asked. - Cf. Can. 1095, § 1.

Question 8. What is the competence of the Ordinary and pastor in relation to marriage?

Resp. It is territorial. But the territory is diverse: that of the Ordinary is the diocese, vicariate, etc.; but that of the pastor is a parish canonically erected, a quasi-parish, or a district defined and perfectly divided from others, or an entire station in places where the territories are not yet perfectly divided. - Leitner, Die Verlobungs- und Eheschliessungsform, p. 33. Cf. Can. 451, §§ 1, 2.

Question 9. What fear invalidates the assistance of the pastor?

Resp. Grave fear, or fear falling upon a constant man. A constant man is one who in some class is of ordinary fortitude, namely, who above others of the same class is distinguished neither by timidity nor by strength of soul. The fear will be grave when the evil inflicting it is such that no one fearing it loses the name of a constant man. Whenever such fear is inflicted by an extrinsic free cause in order to compel the assistance of the pastor, and for that reason he assists, the marriage is null and invalid. But if the pastor unjustly refuses to assist, and on account of this cause is compelled by grave fear to be present, even then the contract must be called null. For where the law does not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish; but the law simply excludes assistance furnished from grave fear. This vexation can easily be removed, because any pastor or Ordinary is suitable and competent for the validity of marriage, indeed in a case of necessity even for liceity. Nevertheless the wedlock entered before a pastor who, finally yielding to importunate prayers, assists will be valid.

Question 10. What is established by the new law in relation to witnesses?

Resp. Besides the presence of an authorized witness, at least two witnesses are required; therefore more can be present. As regards them the ancient discipline is in force. It suffices that they enjoy the use of reason. Therefore non-Catholics can also validly be assumed, or those deceived by fraud or coerced by fear; adults or minors; men or women; wholly unwilling and not knowing how to write. Nevertheless heretics are illicitly assumed. S. C. Inq., 19 Aug. 1891.

Their assistance must be such that they can testify concerning the marriage celebrated of this bridegroom and bride. Therefore material presence is not sufficient, but it is necessary that the witnesses know what is being done. Therefore they must see the spouses and perceive and understand the signs expressing consent; but if they do not see the contracting parties themselves, yet hear known voices while they pronounce consent, the assistance is valid.

Nevertheless it is not required that determinate witnesses be invited, or that certain persons be so employed that these and not others are witnesses; but it suffices that those who are present at the celebration can make faith concerning the marriage entered, since it is certainly established to them concerning the furnishing of consent. And hence a marriage entered before the pastor and several persons, all of whom can duly testify concerning the consent given, is valid, although the two invited witnesses were not present.

Question 11. Whether "exempt regular churches, according to the tenor of the decree, can be considered as the territory of the pastor or Ordinary in whose territorial district they are situated, for the effect of assistance at marriage?"

Resp. "Affirmatively." (S. C. de Sacr., 13 Mar. 1910.)¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1151, n. 126.

You Will Resolve. - Marriages are invalid:

1°. When the pastor or Ordinary or one delegated by either is lacking;

2°. When at least two witnesses do not assist;

3°. When it is contracted before the proper pastor of the spouses outside his own territory without the necessary delegation of the Ordinary or pastor of the place in which it is contracted;

4°. When it is contracted before a non-delegated priest, or before a delegated deacon;

5°. When it is contracted before the pastor announced for the place, but not yet possessing the benefice;

6°. When it is contracted before a pastor excommunicated or interdicted or suspended from office by sentence;

7°. When it is contracted before a pastor compelled by grave fear to assist;

8°. When it is contracted before an invited pastor, indeed hearing but not asking for consent;

9°. When it is contracted before a pastor present by chance, but not actively assisting.

§ 1. But the pastor or local Ordinary assist licitly at marriage:

1°. When it has been legitimately established to them concerning the free state of the contracting parties according to the norm of law;

2°. When it has further been established concerning the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay, or, if it is a question of a wanderer, the actual stay, of one or the other contracting party in the place of marriage;

3°. If the conditions concerning which in n. 2 are lacking, when license has been had from the pastor or Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of one or the other contracting party, unless either it is a question of wanderers actually journeying, who nowhere have a seat of stay, or a grave necessity intervenes which excuses from license to be sought.

§ 2. In any case let it be held as a rule that marriage be celebrated before the pastor of the bride, unless a just cause excuses; but marriages of Catholics of mixed rite, unless something else has been provided by particular law, are to be celebrated in the rite of the man and before his pastor.

§ 3. A pastor who assists at marriage without the license required by law does not make the stole-fees his own, and he is to remit them to the proper pastor of the contracting parties (Can. 1097).

Before marriage is celebrated it is necessary to observe the dispositions of law concerning free state, concerning banns, and all other things pertaining to it. Thus the Roman Ritual, tit. de sacr. matrim.: "The pastor, admonished concerning some Marriage to be contracted in his Parish, should first know from those to whom it pertains who and of what sort they are who wish to contract Marriage: Whether there is some impediment between them; Whether they wish to contract spontaneously, freely, and according to the honesty of the Sacrament; Whether they are of legitimate age, so that the man has completed at least fourteen¹ years, the woman twelve² years; and that each knows the rudiments of the Faith, since they ought afterward to teach these to their children." "Moreover, let the Pastor beware lest he easily admit to contracting Marriage wanderers and travelers and those who have uncertain seats; nor likewise those who have been married before, as are the wives of soldiers or captives or of others who are journeying, unless, after diligent inquiry has been made concerning all these things, and the matter referred to the Ordinary, license for celebrating Marriage of this kind has been had from him, which is to be conceded gratis." Finally, proclamations are to be made according to the statutes of law. By natural and positive law under grave obligation, the pastor is bound before he joins the spouses to institute an investigation concerning free state, that is, concerning their immunity especially from the impediment of bond and from all other impediments, both diriment and impeding. In no way can the pastor licitly proceed to the celebration unless it is established to him concerning this immunity. In this matter let there be compared the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Appendix, pp. 258 and following, pp. 274 and following, and diocesan statutes. Wernz, v. 4, n. 130 and following. Besson, Nouvelle Revue Theologique, tom. 40, p. 76. - Boudinhon, Le Mariage et Les Fiancailles, n. 71 and following. - McNicholas, The New Marriage Legislation, p. 35: This last little book, most excellently adapted to our conditions, is altogether to be consulted. - Cf. Can. 1067, § 1.

¹ Now, sixteen.

² Now, fourteen.

Question 1. What else must be established to the pastor before he can licitly assist at marriage?

Resp. It must be established to him concerning domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay, or, if it is a question of a wanderer, concerning actual stay in the place of marriage. By the Code quasi-domicile has been reintroduced into matrimonial law in relation to its celebration. - Cf. Can. 92, under n. 80.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1112, n. 55.

Question 2. How is the place of marriage mentioned in n. 2 to be understood?

Resp. The place of marriage is the parish or diocese; parochial and diocesan domicile is given. - Cf. Can. 92 under n. 80.

Question 3. How is monthly stay to be understood?

Resp. Generally a month signifies thirty days. - Cf. Can. 32. But we ought not to interpret the matter too rigorously. Wherefore if someone, after habitation in the place has already been begun, were absent by chance for one or another day, this would not prevent him from being said, at the end of thirty days from entrance into the place, to have stayed there for a month.

Moreover, stay in a place here designates residence; thus it can be that someone works during the day in one parish, but has the seat of residence in another. His pastor for marriage is the rector of this latter, not of the former. Stay in no way requires continuous presence. Cf. Besson, l. c., pp. 78 and following. Gennari, Il Mon. Eccles., Sec. Ser., v. 10, p. 90. - Ojetti, l. c., n. 97. - Vermeersch, De Religiosis, v. 4, p. 176.

Question 4. What is required if neither of the spouses has domicile or monthly stay in the place of marriage?

Resp. The pastor and local Ordinary assist licitly: "when, if the conditions concerning which in n. 2 are lacking, license has been had from the pastor or Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of one or the other contracting party, unless it is a question of wanderers actually journeying, who nowhere have a seat of stay, or a grave necessity intervenes which excuses from license to be sought."

Question 5. Is monthly stay in a parish to be computed from the day of conversion, say of Titius, to the Catholic faith, or rather from his entrance into the parish?

Resp. The merely external fact of stay suffices for liceity, abstracting from the fact of the conversion of Titius to the faith. Moreover, the will of the legislator must be sought from the words of the law according to that saying: "The legislator expressed what he willed." But now only monthly stay of one or the other contracting party is required, without any discussion being had concerning their religion. Therefore only the material fact of stay is exacted for liceity, with the other things to be observed by law being observed. But this monthly stay must be morally continuous. S. C. de Sacr., 28 Jan. 1916.

Therefore license is to be sought from the pastor either of domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay of the spouses. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 60. - Gennari, l. c., p. 30. - Bucceroni, Supplementum, n. 13.

This license, since it is not delegation nor necessary for validity, seems to suffice if it is presumed or interpretative. Thus Gennari, l. c. - Pezzani, l. c., n. 94. Grave necessity excuses from obtaining or even seeking this license, some urgent cause for the celebration of marriage, which cannot be deferred except with a notable inconvenience altogether, until license is obtained. In this case the pastor also assists licitly. Authors counsel that the reason for license not sought be preserved by some document, for avoiding inconveniences perhaps to arise afterward.

But if the pastor refuses to give license sought from a just cause, recourse can be had to the Ordinary or to the pastor of the other spouse.

Question 6. When does the pastor licitly assist at marriages of wanderers?

Resp. At the marriage of wanderers concerning whom in can. 91, the pastor, except in a case of necessity, should never assist unless, after the matter has been brought to the local Ordinary or to a priest delegated by him, he has obtained license to assist (Can. 1032).

Question 7. Who are wanderers according to the new Code?

Resp. Wanderers are those who nowhere have domicile or quasi-domicile. Thus the new Code, can. 91. And therefore the sense of wanderer is now fixed. The prohibition of assisting without permission of the Ordinary or delegated person, outside a case of necessity, extends itself to all wanderers who are held such according to Can. 91.

This license is to be sought either from the Ordinary or from a priest delegated by him for this. As is clear, in large dioceses it would be a very grave burden for the Ordinary to attend to this by himself. Canon 1032 meets this difficulty, by force of which he can designate priests in various parts of the diocese who may discharge this function. Therefore the pastor must have recourse to the delegate or to the Ordinary, but only after a diligent examination concerning free state has been instituted; and if there are any diocesan laws on this point, they must be observed exactly. Although it is established to him concerning the liberty of the parties, nevertheless he cannot take a step toward the celebration before license has first been obtained. Necessity would certainly excuse, for example, a marriage to be legitimated in a case of death, where there would be danger in delay; but even in this case the pastor is bound according to his powers to guard beforehand against the danger of nullity of the sacrament. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 62. - Besson, l. c., n. 86; Pezzani, l. c., n. 98, 99. - Gennari, l. c., p. 31. - Creagh, l. c., p. 48.

Question 8. What if one of the spouses is a wanderer?

Resp. The disposition of this canon, which renews the Tridentine decree, must be observed. Therefore the pastor must bring the matter to the Ordinary or delegate, and, after permission has been received, he can licitly assist at the marriage without license of the pastor of the other spouse being sought; for he himself is then the proper pastor at least as regards the effect of this canon. - Cf. Vermeersch, l. c., n. 63. - Besson, l. c., p. 90, 1° (d). - Gennari, Il Monitore Ecclesias., Sec. Ser., v. 10, p. 90.

Question 9. Who ought to assist when the bridegroom and bride are from diverse parishes?

Resp. In any case, let it be held as a rule that marriage be celebrated before the pastor of the bride unless some just cause excuses. - Cf. Can. 1097, § 2.

The same must be said here concerning pastor as also before: namely, he is the one in whose parish the bride either is domiciled or quasi-domiciled or has already stayed for a month. Hence if the bride is subject to one pastor only by reason of that stay, but the man to another by reason of domicile, regularly the marriage is to be celebrated before the former, because he, in the sense of this law, is the woman's pastor.

By this paragraph a norm is established by which matters may proceed better. But from following this norm any just cause of convenience or utility excuses, indeed the very desire of the spouses, if they refuse to present themselves before another pastor. A grave reason is not required here, but simply a just one. Wherefore we also judge with Vermeersch, l. c., n. 64, that the obligation of this paragraph is not grave. Therefore pastors of brides ought not to be excessive in urging their right.

"Marriages of Catholics of mixed rite, unless something else has been provided by particular law, are to be celebrated in the rite of the man and before his pastor" (Can. 1097, § 2). Marriages both among the Greek-Ruthenian faithful and among the faithful of mixed rite are to be blessed in the rite of the woman by the pastor of the woman. Thus S. C. de Prop. F., 17 Aug. 1914, De Spirituali Administratione Ecclesiae Graeco-Ruthenae in Foederatis Civitatibus Americae Septentrionalis.

Question 10. What if the bride has domicile in one parish, but monthly stay in another?

Resp. The celebration can licitly take place before the pastor either of the domicile or of the monthly stay.

Question 11. Can this rule be observed when the bride is a wanderer?

Resp. Affirmatively of itself. "In any case," the canon says. And although very often there is a just cause of celebrating before the pastor of the bridegroom, nevertheless to the bride is attributed a right before the bridegroom, nor can any indication be found of a contrary will of the legislator. - Cf. Besson, l. c., p. 88. - Vermeersch, l. c., n. 64. Nevertheless see above, Question 8.

1°. For the valid celebration of Marriage the Code designates any pastor in his own territory; but for licit celebration, the pastor either of domicile or quasi-domicile or monthly stay. Therefore his competence for validity is restricted to the limits of his own parish; for liceity, to persons domiciled or quasi-domiciled or already staying for a month in the parish. Within his own territory he validly assists at all marriages; outside it, without delegation, at none. Within his own territory he licitly assists at marriages of his own people, whether by reason of domicile or quasi-domicile or by reason of that stay, but not of strangers without license.

2°. Since domicile is immediately acquired by the fact of habitation in some parish with the intention of remaining there perpetually, of itself it would be licit to celebrate marriage immediately.

3°. Simple monthly stay in a parish suffices for licit celebration; therefore whether someone happens to be there by chance, or went there purposely for the sake of wedlock, he contracts licitly in that place before the pastor. For stay in fraud of the law is no longer to be considered.

As regards the liceity of assistance within one's own territory, the following should be kept before the eyes:

Both parties have domicile or monthly stay in the parish of the contract; or only one party, while the other has it elsewhere or does not have it; or neither party.

As regards the first hypothesis: the pastor or local Ordinary, or one delegated by either, can assist from the first day of acquired domicile according to the things just said, or, if they are not domiciled, only after a month.

As regards the second hypothesis: that one party is either the bride or the bridegroom, and the other party, as we first suppose, is not a wanderer. If it is the bride, the pastor can always licitly assist; if it is the bridegroom, regularly the pastor cannot licitly assist unless there is a just cause excusing from the norm prescribed in § 2; if the other party is a wanderer, the matter is to be brought to the Ordinary or to the delegate, and license is to be obtained from him.

As regards the third hypothesis: when neither party has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of the contract, either each has it elsewhere, or both or one or the other is a wanderer. When each has it elsewhere, the pastor of the place of the contract ought not to assist before he has received license from the pastor of the bride; but if a just cause is present, let him have recourse to the pastor of the bridegroom; if, however, grave necessity urges, he assists by law without license. When both or one or the other is a wanderer, the matter must be arranged with the Ordinary.

The pastor, for example of St. Aloysius, licitly assists at nuptials between Titius and Bertha in the following cases, supposing that their free state is legitimately established:

1°. Titius and Bertha have domicile in the parish of St. Aloysius.

2°. Titius and Bertha have monthly stay in the same parish.

3°. Bertha has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius; Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph.

4°. Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius, Bertha in the parish of St. Patrick; nevertheless a just cause is present excusing them from contracting before the pastor of the bride.

5°. Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Aloysius, Bertha is a wanderer; the pastor of St. Aloysius has received license to assist from the Ordinary or from a priest delegated for that.

6°. Titius is a wanderer, Bertha has monthly stay in the parish of St. Aloysius. Necessity of celebrating immediately urges.

7°. Titius and Bertha have domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph; the pastor of St. Aloysius has received license to assist from the Ordinary or from the pastor of the spouses.

8°. Titius and Bertha have domicile in the parish of St. Joseph; grave necessity intervenes excusing from obtaining the aforesaid license.

9°. Titius has domicile or monthly stay in the parish of St. Joseph, Bertha in the parish of St. Mark; the pastor of St. Aloysius has obtained license from the pastor of the bride, or from the Ordinary.

10°. Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Peter, Bertha in the parish of St. Mark. There is present a just cause excusing them from entering marriage before the pastor of the bride, who refuses to give license justly sought to the pastor of St. Aloysius. This latter has received it either from the Ordinary or from the pastor of the bridegroom.

11°. Titius and Bertha are wanderers; or, Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Patrick and Bertha is a wanderer. The pastor of St. Aloysius, after the matter has been brought to the Ordinary or delegate, has obtained license to assist.

12°. Titius and Bertha are wanderers; or, Titius has domicile in the parish of St. Patrick, Bertha is a wanderer. They present themselves before the pastor of St. Aloysius. The necessity of celebrating urges.

§ 1. License of assisting at marriage, conceded according to the norm of can. 1095, § 2, must be given expressly to a determinate priest for a determinate marriage, with any general delegations excluded, unless it is a question of cooperating vicars for the parish to which they are attached; otherwise it is invalid.¹

§ 2. The pastor or local Ordinary is not to concede license unless all things which the law constitutes for proving the liberty of state have been fulfilled (Can. 1096).

Therefore a priest who is not pastor or Ordinary needs license from either one so that he may validly and licitly assist. This license is not delegation properly so called, and therefore perhaps in the article that word is employed, not this one. Concerning it, what Wernz already skillfully observed in his excellent work, v. 4, n. 180, 1, must be noted: "The concession of license to assist is not an act of jurisdiction by which ecclesiastical jurisdiction is truly delegated to another, but by better right is called the substitution of another authorized witness, by force of the faculty received from the Council of Trent, which has great likeness with delegation."

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1109, n. 52; p. 1150, n. 125.

Question 1. Who is the delegating pastor or Ordinary?

Resp. The Ordinary or pastor is understood not of the contracting parties, but of the place in which the matrimonial contract is celebrated: the Ordinary, namely, for his diocese, and the pastor for the parish. For validity requires the assistance of the pastor or Ordinary of the place of contract, or of one delegated by either. Hence if a priest assisted in some territory without delegation from the Ordinary or pastor of this place, although with license of the pastor of the contracting parties, the marriage would be invalid.

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE XXXIX is after 19 April, 1908, applicable to all parts of the United States as far as the marriage in question would have to be contracted before a pastor assisting within the limits of his parish, while outside his parish he could not assist at the marriage even of his own parishioners unless he was delegated either by the bishop of the diocese or by the pastor of the parish where the marriage takes place.

Titius, a Protestant young man, and Caja, a Catholic young woman, both residents of New York City, joined a party of ex cursionists on a trip to the Yellowstone Park in the summer of 1905. While in Albuquerque, N. M., they were married by a Protestant minister. Some time after their return to New York Caja became uneasy about her marriage, and finally laid the matter before a priest. As clandestinity is not a diriment impediment to marriage in New York, the case was somewhat unusual, and at first sight perplexing. On one hand, it might appear that Titius, being a Protestant, is not bound by the laws of the Church regarding marriage, and therefore, neither is Caja "propter individuitatem contractus." Again, the priest recollects that some few years ago some new rulings were made by the Holy See in regard to clandestine marriages in the United States, making them valid in some cases where formerly they were doubtful; but just what was the import of these rulings he does not recall. On the other hand, he argues that all baptized persons are bound by the laws of the Church, otherwise a premium would be put on heresy. In this perplexity he takes the matter under consideration and comes to the following conclusion:

There are two kinds of Church laws; some Church laws are made for the public good, for the promotion of the public welfare and the protection of society. These laws are binding on all baptized persons, whether Catholic or non-Catholic. Of such are the marriage laws of the Church, creating diriment impediments to marriage, v. g., the laws of consanguinity and affinity. There are other laws of the Church which aim directly at the sanctification of the individual, v. g., the law of hearing Mass on Sunday, of abstaining from flesh meat on Friday, etc., and these laws the Church does not wish to bind baptized non-Catholics, for such an intention on the part of the Church would only multiply sin.^* Now, among the former laws, which the Church makes for the good of society, and not for the sanctification of the individual, is the law of clandestinity in regard to marriage, and this law, therefore, the Church wishes to bind all baptized persons, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, except in cases where she expressly dispenses from it. That baptized non-Catholics are bound by the marriage laws of the Church is clearly set forth in the letter of Pope Benedict XIV to the Cardinal, Duke of York, February 9, 1749, and has never been questioned by any theologian. Only where the Church issues a special dispensation from her marriage laws is a marriage of baptized persons valid, if the same is forbidden by a law of the Church under pain of invalidity. It makes no difference whether both parties to the marriage be Catholics, or both non-Catholics, or one Catholic and the other Protestant. Now we know that while the law of clandestinity does not create a diriment impediment to marriage between baptized persons in most parts of the United States, still there are some districts where it is in force, and where, consequently, the marriage of baptized persons, unless contracted before the parish priest and two witnesses, is invalid. What these districts are we learn from the Fathers of the third plenary Council of Baltimore. In the year 1884 the Bishops of the Council sent to Pope Leo XIII a list of both the places in the United States, where the decree "Tametsi," of the Council of Trent, was binding, and of the places where it had never been published, and therefore was never in force. This list has not the force of a law. neither has it ever received the official endorsement of the Holy See, nevertheless it is of paramount authority, since it was compiled with great care by the bishops and theologians of the Council. According to this list, the decree "Tametsi," of the Council of Trent, making clandestinity a nullifying impediment to marriage between baptized persons, is in force in the following places in the United States:

^* See Case xxxviii, page 160.

1. In the entire province of New Orleans. 2. In the province of San Francisco and in the State of Utah, except that part that lies east of the Colorado River. 3. In the province of Santa Fe, except that part of the State of Colorado that lies north of the Arkansas River. 4. In the diocese of Vincennes, Ind. 5. In the city of St. Louis, Mo., and in the villages of Ste. Genevieve, St. Ferdinand, and St. Charles, in the same State. 6. In the city of East St. Louis, Ill., as also in the villages of Centerville Station, Prairie du Rocher, Cahokia, French Village, and Kaskaskia (which has recently been obliterated by the Mississippi River), in the diocese of Belleville, Ill., now, but formerly in the older diocese of Alton, Ill.

In all other parts of the United States the "Tametsi" decree of the Council of Trent has not been published, and therefore clandestinity does not constitute a diriment impediment to marriage between baptized persons.

In all places, therefore, in the United States, where, according to the list of the bishops of the third plenary Council of Baltimore, the "Tametsi" is in force, the marriages of Catholics are invalid unless entered into before the parish priest and two witnesses. In all these districts the marriages of baptized non-Catholics would likewise be invalid, were it not for the fact that the dispensation of Pope Benedict XIV has been applied to them, removing the impediment of clandestinity in the case of non-Catholic marriages. But has the "declaratio Benedictina" been extended, for a certainty, to all the territory of the United States where the "Tametsi" is in force? According to the Fathers of the third plenary Council of Baltimore, the "declaratio Benedictina," declaring valid the marriages of baptized non-Catholics, contracted in places where the "Tametsi" is in force, provided, of course, they be not invalid for some other reason, has been extended, for certain, to: I. The Archdiocese of New Orleans, and to the dioceses of Natchitoches, Natchez, Little Rock, and Mobile, in the province of New Orleans. 2. The province of San Francisco and the State of Utah. 3. The diocese of Vincennes, Ind. 4. The Archdiocese of St. Louis, Mo. 5. The diocese of Belleville, Ill.

According to the same Council of Baltimore, the "declaratio Benedictina" has never been extended to the province of Santa Fe, N. M.

Whether the "declaratio Benedictina" had ever been extended to Texas, i. e., to the dioceses of San Antonio, Galveston, and Brownsville, the bishops of the third plenary Council could not say for sure, and therefore, to remove the doubt, in the case of Texas, and to render the practice uniform for the whole country, the bishops of the United States, in 1884, petitioned the Holy See to extend the "declaratio Benedictina," not only to the dioceses of Texas, In case it had never been extended to them, but also to the province of Santa Fe. In reply to this petition of the bishops the Holy See, in November, 1885, agreed to extend the "declaratio Benedictina" to the dioceses of Texas, but not to the province of Santa Fe. Therefore the province of Santa Fe is the only territory, in the United States, where clandestinity operates as a nullifying impediment in the case of marriages of baptized non-Catholics.

What is true of clandestine marriages of baptized non-Catholics, among themselves, is true also of clandestine mixed marriages. (Tanquerey, de Mat. n. 408.)

The marriage of Titius and Caja took place at Albuquerque, N. M., in the province of Santa Fe. As the "declaratio Benedictina" has never been extended to that province, the marriage was subject to the law of clandestinity, which rendered ft null and void, because it was not contracted "coram parocho et duobus testibus." Had it been contracted in any other part of the country, where the "Tametsi" is in force, it would have been valid, on account of the dispensation of Benedict XIV.

This law of clandestinity is both territorial and personal. In as far as it is territorial, it affects directly the territory where it has been published, and indirectly it affects or binds all those who dwell there, as well as those journeying through it, even though they have no domicile or quasi-domicile there. Thus, two Catholics of the archdiocese of New York, where the "Tametsi" is not in force, journeying through the province of New Orleans, where the "Tametsi" is in force, and while there, contracting a clandestine marriage, contract invalidly. Two baptized Protestants, however, contracting marriage under the same circumstances, contract validly, on account of the "declaratio Benedictina." Their marriage, however, would be invalid, if contracted in Santa Fe, for the papal dispensation removing the impediment of clandestinity for them in New Orleans has never been extended to the territory of Sante Fe.

As far as the law of clandestinity is personal, it affects all baptized persons dwelling in the territory, in this way, that it forbids them to leave the territory and to go elsewhere, where the "Tametsi" is not in force, in order to get married clandestinely, that is "in fraudem legis," in order to cheat the law, without the sincere intention of acquiring there a domicile or quasi-domicile.

In 1886 the Holy See made a special ruling for the United States in regard to the length of time required for acquiring a quasi-domicile "in ordine ad matrimonium." The general rule is that, in order to acquire a quasi-domicile, "in ordine ad matrimonium," a residence "per majorem anni partem" is required. That is, there must be a de facto residence and an intention of remaining there "per majorem anni partem." But since 1886, in the United States, a residence of one month outside of the territory governed by the "Tametsi" is all that is required to gain a legal residence in the eyes of the Church, for the purpose of marriage (Coll. P. F. n. 1413).

Therefore, Titius and Caja are not validly married, and besides Caja is excommunicated for appearing before a Protestant minister. She must first procure a dispensation from the excommunication, then a dispensation from the impediment "mixtae religionis," and after the non-Catholic party has made the necessary promises regarding the faith of the children issuing from the marriage, provided there is no other obstacle or impediment, Titius and Caja may be united in lawful wedlock.

Elvira, after a lapse of ten years since her last Confession, appeared in the confessional. In the interval she had been seduced by Alexis, and become a mother, had been civilly married to him, and borne him three children. Both husband and wife are highly esteemed by the community, and no one knows of their merely civil marriage. Father Titus refuses absolution until Elvira shall bring her husband to have their marriage performed by a priest. Next day she appears with Alexis. The priest questions them in regard to possible impediments and finds that there exist none. He can not, however, induce Alexis, who agrees to the church ceremony for Elvira's sake, to go to Confession, he declares that sooner than to do so, he would do without the church ceremony. Thereupon Father Titus decides to make use of his authority to marry persons living in concubinage, without previous publication of banns; he hears Elvira's Confession, gives her absolution and then joins the parties in marriage before two witnesses. Did he do right?

^* By A. Lehmkuhl, S.J.

Solution. Titus was quite correct; it would have been wrong to have acted otherwise.

The reasons for this decision are obvious. Of course the pastor is obliged to exclude as far as possible the unworthy from participating in the Sacraments. Matrimony being a Sacrament of the living, requires a state of grace; no one therefore can approach it, without having been previously purified from such grievous sins as he may have committed. Even if this can take place by an act of perfect contrition, yet the pastor ought to insist upon a good Confession, and the priestly absolution before marriage. But in matrimony the priest is not dispenser; he is only an authoritative witness. To prevent its unworthy reception he is under obligation only in so far as his is the duty of direction and furthermore the duty to avoid becoming accessory to sin. This duty is, however, superseded when weighty reasons are opposed to it.

In our case there are the weightiest reasons why lawful marriage between Alexis and Elvira should take place, especially considering Elvira, who earnestly desires to be reconciled to God and who is anxious to have her relation to Alexis put in proper order. She is for her own sake, and for the sake of her children, entitled to a lawful marriage ceremony; without such she would be compelled to leave Alexis, to throw herself penniless upon the world, and to see her children dishonored; or else she would remain in the near occasion of sinning. If, therefore, Alexis consents to the church ceremony, to make their marriage lawful, but without being reconciled with God, therefore on his part sacrilegious, the pastor, as well as Elvira, has sufficient reason not to refuse on his part the necessary material cooperation; indeed the pastor is bound to lend his priestly assistance in the marriage, if he otherwise fails to find any impediment. This question is treated in a detailed and thorough manner in Lugo's De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 8 (sect. 13 and 14).

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: Case XX, 1°.—The New Code drops the impediment of public honesty which according to the old law arose from valid engagement contracts. (Cf. Canon 1078.)

Titius, an assistant priest in St. Bartholomew’s parish, is aroused from sleep in the middle of the night and called to the neighboring parish of St. Thaddeus to administer the last Sacraments to one of his parishioners, named Cajus, who is taken suddenly very ill while visiting there in the house of Sempronia, a woman to whom he was never married, but by whom he has several children. Titius recalls, on the way thither, that Cajus is engaged to be married to Tiberia, Sempronia’s sister, which engagement is in writing and signed by Titius himself as well as by Cajus, but not by Tiberia, because she can not write. Now Titius has been warned quite severely by the pastor of St. Thaddeus against trespassing on his parish to administer the Sacraments or perform any other sacerdotal ministry. On the other hand, Titius has received authorization from the assistant priest of St. Thaddeus, who is a particular friend of his, to administer any of the Sacraments within the parish limits whenever he might desire to do so. Taking note of these things, and not wishing to disturb his friend, the assistant priest of St. Thaddeus, Titius resolves to marry Cajus and Sempronia without more ado. He makes two small boys, one ten and the other seven years old, act as witnesses. They are half asleep and grumbling because their sleep has been disturbed. Omitting the interrogations and the prayers, as found in the ritual, Titius marries the pair without any ceremony, simply having them express mutually their consent to the marriage. Returning home, Titius retains the fee for the marriage which Cajus gave him, and records the marriage on the books of St. Bartholomew’s parish, but neglects to make any entry in the baptism records. All this happened since Easter Sunday, April 19, 1908, on which day the new marriage law, “Ne temere,”’ of Pope Pius X, went into effect.

Unde quaeritur: An Titius egerit temere?

Answer.— ‘Nearly thirty years ago, 1880, Leo XIII, of blessed memory, acclaimed to the world the famous encyclical ‘Arcanum,’ which contains a most lucid and comprehensive exposition of the fundamental principles of Christian marriage; and Pius X, through the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in order to make most practical these principles at the present hour, issued the decree ‘Ne temere,’ which (1) changes the discipline of the Church with regard to ‘sponsalia’ (betrothal); (2) modifies the “Tametsi’ decree of the Council of Trent affecting clandestine nuptials: (3) provides for a more perfect registration of marriage.” (Pastoral of the Archbishop of New York on the new marriage law.)

The above case falls under this new law of Pius X, and in order to treat it clearly and orderly, we shall consider:

1. The sponsalia contracted by Cajus and Tiberia.

2. The validity of the marriage between Cajus and Sempronia, as performed by Titius.

3. The lawfulness of the said marriage.

4. Titius’ conduct in retaining the marriage fee and entering the marriage on the records of St. Bartholomew’s church.

I. The sponsalia contracted by Cajus and Tiberia. Since the Council of Trent, vera sponsalia, i. a, a true betrothal or marriage engagement, produced the following results: First, it created a diriment impediment publicae honestatis, to the subsequent marriage of either party to the betrothal, with a blood-relative in the first degree, of the other; that is to say, a man can not marry either the mother, sister or daughter of the woman with whom he has contracted vera sponsalia, nor can the woman marry validly either the father, brother or son of the man to whom she is betrothed.

Secondly, vera sponsalia create an obstructive or prohibitive impediment to the marriage of either party to them with any other person whatsoever. Now the new marriage law does not affect these consequences of vera sponsalia at all. They remain under the new law just what they have been since the Council of Trent. But the new law does affect the sponsalia themselves, restricting them to a written betrothal in the presence of witnesses and signed by the principals and the witnesses. Heretofore any kind of betrothal, verbal or written, with or without witnesses, provided only that it was a real and true promise of marriage, induced the above impediments. Henceforth a betrothal, in order to create the above impediments, must be:

1. A written contract, signed by the parties to the contract; and if either, or both, can not write, the name (X) mark must be placed on the contract, indicating the illiteracy.

2. The signature of one witness is sufficient if the witness be the ordinary of the place, or the parish priest; but if either or both the parties to the contract can not write, an additional witness, who can write, is required to attach signature.

3. The signature of two witnesses is essential if the ordinary of the place or fhe parish priest does not sign; these two witnesses need not be ecclesiastics; they may be laymen; in case either or both parties to the contract can not write, three witnesses are required, who will attach their signatures.

These things being so, the written betrothal that existed between Cajus and Tiberia was not a true betrothal within the meaning of the new marriage law; first, because it did not bear even the name mark of Tiberia, who could not write; and, secondly, because it lacked the signature of an extra witness, who should have signed it, together with the priest, since Tiberia did not know how to write.

Therefore, this written agreement to marry did not place any obstacle in the way of Cajus’ marriage to Sempronia, or to any one else.

II. As regards the validity of the marriage of Cajus and Sempronia, it must be borne in mind that a marriage, in order to be valid according to the new legislation, must be:

1. Contracted before the ordinary or the parish priest (or a priest duly delegated), provided the ordinary or the parish priest has jurisdiction over the place where the marriage is performed.

2. Contracted in the presence of two witnesses besides the officiating priest.

3. Contracted in the presence of a priest having jurisdiction, who assists of his own free will and without compulsion, and asks and receives the consent of the contracting parties.

The question now arises, Is the assistant priest of a parish to be considered a parochus in respect of marriage. Yes; in missions all priests appointed to the universal cure of souls in any station come within the meaning of the term parochus. Fr. Noldin says: By the name of parish priest is understood one who actually exercises the care of souls in his own name, even if the habitual care belongs to another, for example, a chapter, or if the parishes have not yet been canonically erected (Mat. n. 646).

As regards the archdiocese of New York, the Archbishop has ordained: