The Extraordinary Juridic Form

652. In a twofold case, in which the competent priest who assists at matrimony either cannot be had or cannot be approached without grave inconvenience, the obligation of observing the prescribed form ceases.

1. In danger of death, matrimony contracted before witnesses alone is valid.¹ Danger of death prudently estimated is understood, whether it comes from disease or from another cause (imminent battle, earthquake, inundation). If error has intervened in the estimation of the danger, the matrimony entered without the parish priest is nevertheless valid.

2. Outside danger of death, it is validly contracted before witnesses alone if it is prudently foreseen that that condition of things, in which the competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience, will endure for a month.²

a. Therefore those who can call or approach the competent priest without great inconvenience are held to this under pain of nullity of the matrimony. Those who cannot do this contract validly before witnesses alone, even if of their own industry they have gone to a place where a competent priest cannot be had.

b. In mission regions, and in time of war or sedition or persecution of the Church even in Catholic regions, it can easily happen that a qualified witness cannot be had or that access to him is difficult or not safe.

c. From the Code it is established that the impossibility of having a qualified witness need not be common to some region, but that the particular impossibility of the contracting parties suffices.

d. It is asked whether matrimony can be contracted before witnesses alone where the parish priest or another priest cannot assist at ecclesiastical matrimony unless the civil ceremony has first been premised, without being punished by a grave penalty.³

There are those who affirm this (Bremer, Haring, Schafer); nevertheless the opinion of those who say that even today one must stand by the decision of the Holy See seems to be preferred. This decision holds matrimony entered in this case before witnesses alone as invalid and requires that in individual cases recourse be had to the Holy See.⁴

3. In order that the matrimony be licit, in each case another priest, if one is at hand and can be present, must be called and must assist at the matrimony together with the witnesses.⁵ Therefore if from a grave cause he were not called, the matrimony would be valid and licit.

It is greatly to be advised that a priest be called, even if he can be had only with some inconvenience, lest the spouses lack the blessing and so that provision may be made for the dignity and sanctity of the sacrament.

Question Nine.. On the Celebration of Matrimony Itself.

The following are to be considered: a. the time of celebration; b. the place of celebration; c. the contracting parties; d. the assisting parish priest; e. the rite of matrimony; f. the celebration of mixed matrimony; g. the notation of matrimony.

¹ Cn. 1098, 1.

² Ibid.

³ The case is this: those about to marry cannot enter civil matrimony, suppose because the documents necessary for civil matrimony are lacking; the parish priest cannot assist at ecclesiastical matrimony, because it is forbidden by the government under grave penalties. Can they contract before witnesses alone?

⁴ Cf. Linneborn, p. 371 ff.

⁵ Cn. 1098, 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. "Danger," and not only the article, of death. "Cannot be had": morally speaking, and accordingly probably cannot be had, or even in doubt whether he can be had. "For the care of conscience, and... for the legitimation of offspring." Therefore in these two cases, if the Pastor or Ordinary or duly delegated Priest cannot be had, any other Priest licitly and validly assists at the marriage. For the care of conscience, therefore, for avoiding the danger of sinning and consequently the danger of the eternal salvation of the dying person. For the care of conscience, if likewise the dying person is otherwise held by a grave obligation. "For the care of conscience" is general; and accordingly it is not in the sole case of concubinage, as had expressly been held before in the Decree of the Holy Office, February 20, 1888. And for the legitimation of offspring, which consequently is not sacrilegious, incestuous, or adulterine. "Before any Priest": even one publicly excommunicated or suspended.

36. In the aforesaid danger, therefore, there is no need of any leave of the Ordinary or Pastor, much less is there need of the Pastor himself or of another Priest delegated by the Ordinary or Pastor; but any Priest, with two witnesses however, can assist at the marriage. But if witnesses are lacking, can there be place for legitimate epikeia? There are those who affirm it. But it does not seem so. For this is implicitly presupposed in the proposition condemned by the Holy Office, January 19, 1661; E.M., n. 1044. Moreover, in the present Decree there is question precisely of a most urgent case, when danger of death is imminent, and the law is invalidating. And if place is given to epikeia when witnesses are lacking, then one would have to say that place is also given to epikeia when the Priest too is lacking.

37. "Any priest, however, who according to the norm of article VII of the Decree Ne temere, when danger of death is imminent, where the pastor or local Ordinary or priest delegated by either cannot be had, can validly and licitly assist at marriage before two witnesses, can also, in the same circumstances, dispense from all impediments, even public ones, which by ecclesiastical law invalidate marriage, except the sacred order of priesthood and affinity in the direct line from lawful intercourse." Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, May 14, 1909. "This further faculty is valid not only for concubinarii; but also, even if there is no question of concubinarii, if another cause is present for the care of conscience, and, if the case requires, for the legitimation of offspring." Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, August 13 and 15, 1909. Moreover it is valid for all impediments, with only two excepted. Therefore it is valid also for the impediment of clandestinity, and consequently the priest can dispense even from the presence of the two witnesses, if they cannot be had.

38. "VIII. If it happens that in some region the Pastor, or local Ordinary, or Priest delegated by them, before whom marriage can be celebrated, cannot be had, and this condition of things has already persisted for a month, marriage can validly and licitly be entered upon by the betrothed parties giving formal consent before two witnesses."

39. "If it happens": in whatever place this happens; whence it follows generally: "that in some region," namely whether in some whole Nation or Province, or in another determined part or place; whether the local Ordinary is lacking, or only the Pastor, or the Priest delegated by the Ordinary or by the Pastor is lacking; and for whatever cause this happens, whether because, for example, the missionary does not return to the place except after six months, or because the betrothed parties cannot go to the missionary; for then also it is verified that he cannot be had.

40. Therefore, on the other hand, in remote places to which the missionary does not come each month, but in which, nevertheless, if he were requested, he could be had, and the betrothed parties could go without grave inconvenience either to him or to another missionary who is a Pastor in the sense of the Decree, marriages contracted without the presence of the missionary or pastor are to be held invalid. Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 27, 1908. Nevertheless, in the aforesaid case, with a grave cause urging, marriage can freely be contracted before another Pastor; for by the present Decree marriage is validly contracted before any Pastor. The proper Pastor is required only for liceity; only his permission would be needed, and this, with a grave and most just cause standing, can well be omitted and presumed.

41. "For a month," that is, for thirty days, although after the month has elapsed the Pastor, or Ordinary, or Priest delegated by them is soon to come. "And this condition of things has already persisted for a month." This condition of things is not considered interrupted by reason of the momentary, unexpected, and entirely unknown passage to the faithful through some place of a missionary who has already been absent from it for a month. Sacred Congregation of the Council, July 27, 1907.

42. "In some region," whatever place it may be, marriage can validly and licitly be contracted before witnesses alone, without the presence of a Priest competent to assist, whenever, a month having already elapsed, a competent Priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience. Sacred Congregation, March 12, 1910.

43. "If it happens that in some region." He validly enters marriage before witnesses alone who goes into that region in fraud of the law. Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, March 12, 1910.

44. "IX. § 1. When marriage has been celebrated, the Pastor, or he who takes his place, shall immediately record in the book of marriages the names of the spouses and witnesses, the place and day of the celebrated marriage, and other things according to the manner prescribed in the ritual books or by his own Ordinary; and this even if another Priest, delegated either by himself or by the Ordinary, assisted at the marriage.

1032. 3° Form to be observed in extraordinary cases. Can. 1098 decrees that "if the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience," marriage is contracted validly and licitly before witnesses alone in a twofold case: 1) in danger of death; 2) when it is foreseen that this condition of things will endure for a month. - Concerning these things note:

(A) For validity two things are required: (a) that the proper priest or delegate cannot be had; (b) that two witnesses be present.

This impossibility of having or approaching the proper priest is not required to be physical, but moral suffices, which is induced by "grave inconvenience" of any kind, whether on the part of the contracting party, or of his own, or even, as it seems, of the priest himself.

Here it is permitted to observe that in the Code it is not a question of a difficulty which affects some region, or parish, or village, but that a personal difficulty suffices. On this occasion it has been asked whether that case is verified if the pastor cannot assist without grave inconvenience for himself, for example, because the civil marriage cannot be performed within a month, and the law of the region gravely prohibits ministers of worship from assisting at the marriage of those who are not joined civilly? The matter had recently been much agitated, on the occasion of various responses which the Sacred Congregations had given before the promulgation of the Code; but now, with the new law in force, several grave authors judge that can. 1098 is to be applied, and that such a marriage before witnesses alone is valid and licit. Thus De Smet, 3rd ed., n. 135-136; Vlaming, 3rd ed., n. 590. Otherwise Lehmkuhl (Questions... novo juri adaptatae, p. 55). Hence the Ordinary should prudently be consulted in so grave a matter, if time permits.

(B) For liceity two things also are to be observed: (a) if there is present another priest, he should be had, who assists with the witnesses. But it is not said that such a priest, lacking delegation, must ask and receive the consent; it suffices that he assist passively.

(b) Let either the assisting priest or the witnesses, or the contracting parties, take care that the marriage entered be noted in the ritual books (can. 1103, § 3). - It is also fitting that, given the opportunity, the spouses receive the nuptial blessing from a sacred minister (can. 1101).

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.

222. • I. The Code posits two cases in which one can validly and licitly depart from the customary celebration of matrimony.

"If the parish priest or Ordinary or delegated priest who are to assist at matrimony according to the norm of cc. 1095, 1096 cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience:

1° In danger of death matrimony before witnesses alone is valid and licit; and also outside danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that that condition of things will endure for a month;

2° In either case, if another priest is at hand who can be present, he must be called and, with the witnesses, assist at the matrimony, the validity of the union before witnesses alone remaining intact." (Can. 1098.)

223. • II. The former case: in danger of death.

a) Three conditions are required:

1. Danger of death.

The danger suffices, as we have already said above at n. 185, 1, 1°, from whatever cause, threatening either of the contracting parties, grave, certain, or seriously probable. Error in estimating the danger does not harm the validity of the matrimony.

It matters little what the motive cause of the matrimony is.

2. A grave inconvenience preventing the parish priest or Ordinary or delegated priest from being had or approached.

Any grave inconvenience suffices, spiritual or temporal, affecting either the parties, or the priest, or a third person, so that the parish priest is considered unable to be had or approached.

3. Presence of two witnesses.

There must be at least two witnesses, as in the ordinary celebration of matrimony, and they must conduct themselves in the same way.

b) 1. If another priest who can be present is at hand, he must be called and must assist with the witnesses, even if bound by censure, provided he is not, however, a vitandus.

2. Nevertheless this is not prescribed under penalty of invalidity of the matrimony.

3. Such a priest has the very ample faculty regarding dispensation from impediments, as was said above at n. 188 b).

4. If such a priest is lacking and there is a diriment impediment of ecclesiastical law, concerning which the Church is accustomed to dispense, probably the union can be validly celebrated, the ecclesiastical law ceasing in conflict with the natural law.¹

¹ Capello, cited work, n. 692, 4.

224. • III. The other case: outside danger of death.

a) Three conditions are required:

1. A grave inconvenience preventing the parish priest or Ordinary or delegated priest from being had or approached.

As above, n. 223, a) 2.

2. A prudent estimate that that condition of things will endure for a month.

1. It makes no difference whether the qualified witness has been absent for a long or a short time. It suffices that it is prudently to be presumed that he will not be present within a month, although in fact that foresight may be erroneous.

2. The month must be continuous and complete.

3. The nuptials are valid, even if the nupturients have acted in fraud of the law.

3. Presence of two witnesses.

225. • IV. What sort of absence of the qualified witness suffices so that there is place for the celebration of matrimony with witnesses alone?

This question of very great moment was disputed among authors: namely, whether matrimony is valid without the intervention of the parish priest or delegated priest, when the parish priest indeed can be approached or summoned, but refuses to celebrate the matrimony, e.g., because the civil law forbids him to celebrate it, in a case in which the nupturients have not been joined by civil matrimony and cannot be joined.

And indeed the greater part of authors judged that such a matrimony was altogether valid, since here at least the law obliging matrimony to be celebrated before the parish priest was doubtful.

But on the 10th day of the month of March 1928, the Pontifical Commission for the authentic interpretation of the Code of Canon Law promulgated a response which altogether settles the cause. "Q. Whether canon 1098 is to be understood so that it refers only to the physical absence of the parish priest or local Ordinary.

R. In the affirmative."²

² A.A.S., XX, 1928, p. 120.

Therefore now there is no doubt that such matrimonies to be celebrated henceforth are altogether invalid. But it seems that those which had been celebrated in such a way beforehand were valid, on account of the doubtful character of the law.

226. • V. As in danger of death, so also in other cases, another priest must be called if he is at hand, so that he may assist at the matrimony with the witnesses. Cf. n. 223, 3. b.

849. Principle III. The extraordinary juridic form, in defect of the Ordinary or pastor or delegated priest, sometimes sufficient for validity, is the presence alone of two witnesses. - This is established from can. 1098:

"If the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest who assists at matrimony cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience...

1° In danger of death, matrimony before witnesses alone is valid and licit; and also outside danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition of things will last for a month;

2° In either case, if another priest is at hand who can be present, he must be called and assist at the matrimony together with the witnesses, the validity of the union before witnesses alone being preserved."

Therefore: A. For validity, the extraordinary form or presence of two witnesses can suffice only if grave inconvenience stands in the way so that the pastor or Ordinary or delegated priest cannot be had or approached.

There suffices 1) any grave inconvenience whatever, spiritual or temporal, whether it directly affects the parties, or the priest (Commission for the Interpretation of the Code, May 3, 1945), provided that this inconvenience is an impediment to the physical presence of the Ordinary or pastor (Commission I. C., March 10, 1928), even if they are not absent from the place but materially present there (Commission I. C., July 25, 1931). Such are considered: the incarceration of a future spouse joined to the impossibility of having a competent priest, the closure of all approaches in time of war, residence in a remote region where no competent priest is present, a long journey joined to the aforesaid impossibility, etc.; - on the contrary, the mere refusal of the pastor does not suffice, nor any material damage whatever; whether a grave civil prohibition suffices can happen (rescript S. C. Sacr., April 24, 1935, to ep. Met.), but it seems to depend on the nature and gravity of the inconvenience; yet in practice, on account of many inconveniences easily arising, in individual cases recourse must be made to the competent ecclesiastical authority, as has been declared several times. 1

2. Personal impossibility suffices and is required; common or local impossibility is not required, nor does common impossibility suffice if personal impossibility is lacking. Therefore that impossibility can arise not only from defect or scarcity of priests, but also from persecution, from epidemic, from the reputation of a penitent to be preserved, from grave inconvenience to the minister to be feared on a journey, etc.

3. No special cause is required; any motive whatever for entering matrimony suffices.

B. The aforesaid impossibility standing, matrimony so entered is valid in only two cases, besides the case of a legitimate dispensation obtained over the assistance of the pastor. The cases are: danger of death, and impossibility which with moral certitude is foreseen to last for a month.

1° Danger of death, grave or proximate, from any cause whatever, threatening either of the contracting parties, certain or very probable, so that an error in estimating the danger does not harm the validity of the matrimony, provided the estimation is prudent.

2° Outside danger of death, if it is prudently foreseen that this condition of things will last for a month. In the case:

a) It is not required that that condition of things have already lasted for a month, or that the pastor has been absent for a long time; it suffices that it is prudently to be presumed that he will not be present within a month, even if in fact the estimation is erroneous.

b) Yet a probable presumption does not suffice; moral certitude is required, from notoriety or from inquiry, concerning the continuance of the same condition of things, nor does the fact of the pastor's absence suffice (com. int., Nov. 10, 1925).

c) The month must be continuous and complete: it seems to be taken as in the calendar (n. 847, § 1); some, however, take it for a space of 30 days.

d) The nuptials are valid, even if the future spouses have acted in fraud of the law, deliberately deferring matrimony to the time at which the competent priest would be absent, or transferring themselves to a place where a competent priest cannot be had or approached.

1. Cf. I. De Becker, De recto sensu can. 1098, in Eph. Theol. Lov., 1932; Conc. Mechl. IV, decr. 214. - Some judge that this impossibility subsists, even if the pastor or Ordinary could be reached by means of telegraph or telephone, or by automobile, because these are extraordinary means. But that such means are still extraordinary can deservedly be doubted. An extraordinary means would be an airplane.

C. For licitly entering matrimony in these cases, it is required that another priest, if he is at hand, be called and assist with the witnesses.

The priest is prescribed to be called, but not under penalty of invalidity; it suffices that he assist merely passively, and he need not inquire after the consent, just as neither must the witnesses do this. But every priest is to be called, even one under censure, but not a vitandus. In danger of death, a priest has a broad faculty of dispensing over impediments, as will be said in n. 922.

Question 4. Can marriage be contracted before only two witnesses in danger of death, if the conditions of this canon are verified?

Resp. Affirmatively.