The Obligation of the Faithful to Reveal Impediments

I. All the faithful are bound to reveal impediments, if they know any, to the pastor or Ordinary before the celebration of matrimony (canon 1027); this obligation, as is drawn from the nature of the thing prescribed, is of itself grave. It is said:

1. If they know any, that is, if they have certain or probable knowledge of a diriment or prohibitive impediment. Therefore one is not bound who heard the matter from a person not worthy of trust, unless there is hope of further detecting the truth (St. Alphonsus VI, 994).

2. They are bound to reveal impediments before the celebration of matrimony to the pastor or local Ordinary. But one who warns those about to marry that a dispensation must be sought or that matrimony must not be entered, foreseeing that the warning will be beneficial, satisfies the obligation. Indeed, if it is a question of an infamous impediment, he must first give the aforesaid warning, unless hope of fruit is lacking, or another cause excusing from the warning is present (St. Alphonsus, ibid.).

II. The following are excused from the obligation set forth:

1. One who knows that a dispensation has been obtained or sought, or at least will be sought.

2. One who cannot reveal the impediment without grave inconvenience to himself or his own, or to the community, is excused from the burden of revelation, although he can be bound to warn those about to marry.

3. One who knows an impediment under secrecy is excused thus:

a) If the secret is natural or promised, he is not excused, because the reverence due to the sacrament and the avoidance of evils arising from invalid matrimony prevail over the obligation annexed of itself to the said secrets. And this holds even if an oath has been added (St. Alphonsus VI, 994).

b) If the secret is committed, and it is a question of one who is not bound by force of office to keep the secret, he is not excused for the reason given above. But one who by force of office is bound to keep the secret is excused, because the common good, to which it is of the highest interest that such a secret be kept, prevails over the reverence of itself due to the sacrament and over the avoidance of the evils which are annexed to invalid matrimony.

741. Principles. - I. There is per se a grave obligation to reveal impediments to matrimony, however occult. The reason is derived from the motive of Religion and charity, and also from the precept of the banns itself.

II. The obligation generally pertains to all the faithful of whatever sex, age, parish, or diocese, etc., and also to blood relatives and friends. The reason is that this law is enacted in the name of the Church, to which all Christians are subject, and rests upon the natural precept of Religion and charity, which pertains to all. Indeed, although after the matrimony has been celebrated the positive law of denunciation ceases, nevertheless the law of charity can, according to the circumstances, require the aforesaid revelation. - Scavini.

III. That obligation must be fulfilled as soon as morally possible, because if the betrothed persons should perhaps obtain a dispensation from one or another proclamation and contract sooner, time will not remain for making the revelation, etc.

742. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must impediments learned even under an entrusted secret be revealed?

Reply. Yes, even if an oath not to reveal them was added. The reason is that a natural secret, even one entrusted and sworn, does not bind when grave harm threatens the community or a third person. - St. Ligorius, no. 994.

Except, more probably, a secret of counsel, or a secret entrusted for the sake of seeking counsel to a man exercising a public office, for example, a physician, advocate, Pastor, etc., provided this is done by reason of their profession. For the common good thus appears to require it. - Collet, chapter 5. - Bouvier, chapter 3, article 4. - Carriere, no. 409, and others against others. But those who know an impediment under a secret of this kind must at least warn the betrothed persons to desist from matrimony.

QUESTION 2. Are you bound to reveal an impediment with grave inconvenience or detriment to yourself?

Reply. No, speaking generally, because the law of the Church and charity do not bind with so great an inconvenience ¹. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 995.

¹ The Doctors commonly excuse also in these other cases, namely: 1. when someone has merely heard of the impediment but does not know from whom; 2. if he prudently believes that he will accomplish nothing by revealing it, or even much more if he judges that the revelation will harm those contracting in good faith; 3. if he probably thinks that the revelation will produce grave scandal among others; 4. if he knows that the contracting parties have obtained an occult dispensation for the forum of conscience. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 994) excepts the case in which the report of the impediment is public; but in a notorious matter there can scarcely be need of a denunciation unless perhaps someone thinks that proofs of the impediment are known to him alone.

743. • QUESTION 3. Are you bound to reveal an impediment if you alone know it and cannot prove it?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that in the present matter the testimony of one can suffice. - Thus the most common and truer opinion, says St. Ligorius, no. 995.

QUESTION 4. Are the contracting parties themselves bound to reveal the impediment?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that here there is no question of inflicting a penalty, but of avoiding sin; therefore they must either abstain from matrimony or disclose the impediments. - See Cases, no. 848.

866. 1° Principle: Whoever, certainly knowing that there is some diriment or prohibiting impediment between those about to marry, is held under grave obligation to reveal it, unless a legitimate cause excuses. This is certain.

This obligation arises: (a) from the very precept of charity, by which we ought to impede a grave evil of our neighbor insofar as it can be done; for from an illicit marriage a grave evil is born, namely the profanation of the sacrament; but from an invalid one graver evils proceed, namely concubinage, illegitimacy of children, etc.; (b) from the virtue of religion, which commands that we take precautions against irreverence toward the sacrament; (c) from the positive law of the Church, which, while it orders marriages to be announced, implicitly commands the faithful to manifest impediments known to them; which moreover is explicitly enjoined in the form of announcement such as is found in the Ritual (l. c.)¹ and in the Code, c. 1027.

¹ Besides, in some dioceses penalties are established against those not denouncing, for example in Baltimore an excommunication of ferendae sententiae. (Statutes, n. 57.)

867. 2° The principle is declared. It is said (A) whoever, whether he is from the parish, or from elsewhere, of whatever sex or age. Hence the contracting parties themselves are held to this: but if there is question of an occult impediment from which dispensation can be obtained, there is no obligation of manifesting it in the external forum; it suffices that it be declared to the confessor, so that he may seek dispensation.

(B) Certainly knowing; for if there is a mere suspicion arising from an uncertain rumor or from testimony which does not deserve faith, there is no obligation of manifesting the matter. Yet juridical proof is not required, but a well-founded persuasion suffices.

868. (C) Unless a legitimate cause excuses, namely: (a) grave damage or danger of grave damage either to the one revealing, or to a third person; for law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

Hence those are not held to denounce who prudently fear that, from the revelation of the impediment, grave dishonor or bodily damages threaten themselves or their own, or grave scandal would be caused, or the infamy of a third person; but one excused from denouncing ought, if he can, to impede the marriage from being contracted without dispensation. - But temporal damage or dishonor coming to the betrothed themselves from the revelation of the impediment does not excuse, because it is less than the spiritual damage which otherwise they would incur. Moreover, that their reputation may be spared, the betrothed themselves ought first to be warned privately; but if they spurn the warning, they ought to impute the defamation to themselves.

(b) The uselessness of denunciation, namely when no fruit is hoped from it, or when it is known that dispensation has already been sought. Some say that he also is excused who knows the impediment only from hearing, and does not remember from whom he heard it; but it is more advisable in this case to reveal the impediment, since this manifestation can be corroborated by other indications or furnish occasion for a serious investigation.

730. The obligation of revealing known impediments. The principal end of the proclamations is that impediments of matrimony, if there are any, be detected. Hence it follows that all who know that some prohibitory or diriment impediment stands in the way are bound (per se under grave obligation) to reveal this impediment.⁵⁰⁷ For the proclamations would be vain unless on the part of those hearing them there arose an obligation to reveal those things which the Church desires to know. Moreover, if there is question of the existence of some diriment impediment, its concealment would render the matrimony invalid, so that the betrothed would live in concubinage (at least material) and would lack many graces. Therefore fraternal charity itself also demands that diriment impediments be denounced. The manner of denouncing impediments is not determined by ecclesiastical law; but the order of charity demands that those about to marry themselves first be admonished, if the revelation of the impediment would bring some infamy. But if the admonition is useless, the matter is to be disclosed to the parish priest, who with great discretion will provide for the reputation of the betrothed.

The causes excusing from this denunciation are principally the following:

a) grave harm to oneself or another.

b) the uselessness of the denunciation.

For example, if the impediment has already been denounced by another or by those about to marry themselves.

c) a sacramental or professional secret.

Hence a confessor, physician, midwife, and so forth, cannot reveal those things which they know by reason of their office; but they are bound (insofar as is possible) to admonish those about to marry to reveal the impediment themselves. A natural or promised secret alone does not excuse from the obligation of revealing impediments, because such a secret must be violated in order to prevent grave harm, as happens in the case.

The denunciation of an impediment is to be made as soon as possible; and if the parish priest has proved it worthy of belief, he must as quickly as possible seek a dispensation from the detected impediment, provided, however, that dispensation is possible. Otherwise he cannot assist at the matrimony. When a doubt has arisen concerning the existence of some impediment, the parish priest is to investigate the matter more accurately by questioning: a) under oath at least two trustworthy witnesses, provided that there is not question of an impediment from knowledge of which infamy would arise for the parties; and b) if necessary, the parties themselves as well. But he is not to assist at the matrimony without consulting the Ordinary if the doubt still remains. Thus the Code of Canon Law, can. 1031, § 1.

⁵⁰⁷ Code of Canon Law, can. 1027.

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

Notes near Article IV, revelation of impediments before Matrimony (printed p. 228).

1 L. VI. 1007. H. A. Tr. XVIII. 59. | 2 L. VI. 1007. | 3 L. IV. T. III. n. 46. | 4 De Imped. n. 268. | 5 Notes on the Sec. Plen. Counc. n. 302-304.

Notes near nn. 1540-1541, obligation and limits of revealing impediments (printed p. 228).

1 L. VI. 994. | 2 c. 3. | 3 c. 4. art. 4. | 4 n. 409. | 5 L. VI. 995. | 6 Ib. 994. | 7 De Imped. n. 269. | 8 Ib. | 9 L. VI. 995.

1540. Principles. - I. There is in itself a grave obligation of revealing impediments of Matrimony, however occult. The reason is drawn from the motive of Religion and charity, and also from the precept itself of banns.¹

II. The obligation generally regards all the faithful of whatever sex, age, parish or diocese, etc., and also blood relatives and friends. The reason is because that law is borne in the name of the Church, to which all Christians are subject, and it rests upon the natural precept of Religion and charity, which regards all. Indeed, although, once Matrimony has been celebrated, the positive law of announcing ceases, nevertheless the law of charity can, according to the circumstances, demand the said revelation.

III. That obligation is to be fulfilled as soon as morally possible; because, if the betrothed persons perhaps obtain dispensation from one or another proclamation and contract sooner, time for making the revelation will not remain, etc.

1541. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Must impediments known under even a committed secret be revealed?

Resp. Affirmatively, even if an oath not to reveal them has been added. The reason is because a natural secret, even committed and sworn, does not oblige when grave damage threatens the community or a third person. - If nevertheless the impediment is infamous, those about to marry themselves must first be admonished, unless either the admonition is probably not going to be profitable, or there is danger in delay.¹ Cf. n. 541. q. 1°.

Except, more probably, the secret of counsel, or a secret committed to a man exercising a public office for the sake of seeking counsel, e.g. to a physician, advocate, Pastor, etc., provided this is done by reason of their profession. For thus the common good seems to demand. - Collet,² Bouvier,³ Carriere,⁴ and others, against others. But even those who under a secret of this kind know the impediment ought at least to admonish the betrothed persons that they desist from Matrimony, unless the admonition probably is not going to be profitable.

Quaer. 2° Are you held to reveal an impediment with your grave inconvenience or detriment?

Resp. Negatively, generally speaking, because the law of the Church and charity do not oblige with so great an inconvenience. - Thus commonly.¹ The Doctors commonly excuse also in these other cases, namely: 1° when someone has only heard of the impediment, but does not know from whom, or has heard of it from a person not worthy of faith; - 2° if he probably judges that revelation is going to beget grave scandal among others; - 3° if he knows that the contracting parties have obtained an occult dispensation for the forum of conscience in an impediment whose report is not public,² and (Feije adds)³ which probably cannot be brought to the external forum; 4° if in another way he can impede the Matrimony and truly does impede it, or efficaciously sees to obtaining dispensation.⁴

Quaer. 3° Are you held to reveal an impediment if you alone know it and cannot prove it?

Resp. Affirmatively, because in the present matter the testimony of one person can suffice, at least for further investigation. - Thus the most common and truer opinion.⁵

Quaer. 4° Are the contracting parties themselves held to reveal an impediment?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is because here there is no question of a penalty to be inflicted, but of sin to be avoided; wherefore it is necessary either that they abstain from Matrimony, or disclose the impediments.

Quaer. 5° What must the Pastor do if he has knowledge of an impediment which is known or probably feared to be present, whether by himself or through others?

Resp. 1° If he acquired the knowledge outside Confession, he cannot pass on to the celebration of Matrimony, but must communicate the affair suitably to the betrothed persons, and, if doubt remains, refer it to the Ordinary.

Resp. 2° If it is clear to the Pastor concerning an occult impediment outside Confession, but the one who is bound by the impediment denies it, he will not be able to assist, whether Matrimony is sought secretly before witnesses, or (more truly according to St. Alphonsus) publicly. Cf. what was said n. 1229. Rule III. Except 2°.

Resp. 3° If he knows an impediment outside Confession, and at the same time knows that dispensation has been obtained for the forum of conscience, he can assist if the impediment is of such a kind that it cannot be brought to the external forum, or at least no probable reason for fearing this is present; otherwise, before he assisted, dispensation would have to be obtained for the external forum.

Resp. 4° Whether he ought immediately to cease from continuing the proclamations depends on the certitude or likelihood of the impediment. See Bangen.

Resp. 5° If he acquires the knowledge in Confession, see what is to be said n. 1556. q. 3°.

I. On the Inquiry into Impediments to be Premitted. - II. On the Necessary Instruction of the Contracting Parties in Christian Doctrine. - III. On the Confession to be Premitted to Nuptials.

Notes near the appendix to banns, inquiry and preparatory duties (printed p. 229).

1 L. VI. 1002. Dub. 1°. | 2 p. 71 sq. | 3 Bulla: Nimiam licentiam, 18 Maii 1743. § 10.

Notes near n. 1542, inquiry into impediments before proclamations (printed p. 229).

1 L. VI. 54. | 2 Heiss. de Matr. § 68. I. | 3 De Syn. L. VIII. c. XIV. n. 5. 6. | 4 Tr. VIII. 48.

Notes near n. 1542, Tridentine admonition and impediment inquiry (printed p. 229).

1 Sess. 24. c. 1. Ref. Matr. De hujus Tridentini moniti fine agit Nouvelle Revue Theol. T. V. p. 301 sv. | 2 Cf. Conc. Pl. Balt. II. n. 329. 330.

840. Obligation of revealing impediments. - Regularly "all the faithful are bound to reveal impediments, if they know any, to the pastor or local Ordinary before the celebration of matrimony" (can. 1027); but impediments are to be understood in the broad sense, or all things which stand in the way of celebrating matrimony.

The obligation is grave, because the end of the law is of great moment, namely, to prevent illicit and invalid marriages, by which irreverence would be done to the sacrament and damages would arise for the marrying parties and children, and also for the public good itself. Whence the obligation proceeds not only from positive but also from natural law.

All are obligated, of whatever sex, age, or place they may be, even if only one person knows some impediment and cannot juridically prove it, or the impediment is occult, provided that it is known with true probability. Yet there are causes excusing:

1° Uselessness of revelation, as if the pastor already knows the impediment, or dispensation from it has been made in the forum of conscience, or the revelation is foreseen certainly not to be going to profit.

2° Another efficacious means, such as the admonition of the spouses that they either desist from matrimony or solicit a dispensation. This admonition must always be premised where the impediment arises from an occult sin and is infamous, provided it is hoped that it will profit and time is not urgent; otherwise the impediment should be revealed to the pastor immediately.

3° Grave proportionate damage, whether one's own or that of others, for example scandal. But he who knows the impediment is then bound to impede the matrimony as much as he can.

4° The sacramental secret, and also an official secret by reason of the common good, unless revelation is necessary for protecting an innocent person against the unjust aggression of him who entrusted the secret; - but not a natural secret, nor one promised even under oath, nor even one simply entrusted, because a secret does not oblige to the detriment of the common good or to the damage of a third party.

One excused by a secret is bound, if he can, to warn the future spouses.

I say. All the faithful are bound, before the celebration of marriage, to reveal impediments, if they know any, to the pastor or to the Ordinary of the place (Can. 1027).

But this obligation generally regards all the faithful of whatever sex, age, parish, or diocese, etc., and also blood-relatives and friends. The reason for the first is drawn from the motive of Religion and charity, and also from the precept itself of the banns. - But the reason for the second is that that law is borne in the name of the Church, to which all Christians are subject. Indeed, although, once Marriage has been celebrated, the positive law of denouncing ceases, nevertheless charity and Religion can, according to circumstances, require the said revelation. - I said of itself, because when grave inconvenience or detriment to you intervenes, or if the revelation would be altogether useless, you are not bound to the revelation. - Cf. S. Alphonsus, n. 995; Baller. note (a), p. 715.

Question 1. Must impediments known under a secret, even a committed secret, be revealed?

Resp. Affirmatively, probably, even if an oath of not revealing them has been added. The reason is that a natural secret, even committed and sworn, does not oblige when grave damage threatens the community or a third person.

Question 2. Are you bound to reveal an impediment if you alone know it and cannot prove it?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that in matter of this kind the testimony of one person can suffice. Thus the most common and truer opinion, says S. Alphonsus, n. 995.

XVII. Whosoever knows any impediment which can be proved by witnesses is bound under grave fault to manifest it, as all teach. If it be occult, which cannot be proved by witnesses, some deny that anyone is bound to lay it open; but the affirmative opinion is common. For everyone is bound to obey a superior commanding. But a parish priest promulgating the banns lawfully commands that impediments between the future spouses be manifested. There is added that upon one revealing impediments the proof does not lie.

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

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

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

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