The Irish standard., 1905-02-25

fenu, nor invoke any OPINION WHICH
is contrary to Divine or ecclesiastical
law on cause others to do so. and that
in difficult eases they take the advice
cf their Bishop. or have recourse
through him to the Holy See.
The Sacred Congregation subse-
quently declared that the profession
\ of the Catholic doctrine as to mar
| riage must in such cases be open
(palam). and not merely mental or
presumed. 1t also declared that the
| above decision was applicable only in
the place and owing to the special Cir
crmstances of the French cases sub
mitted to it, and refused to allow it in
other countries.
| o. On the 9th September, 1887,
in reply to the Bishop Of Lucon in
France the Sacred Congregation deal
ing With the case of Catholic Mayor
! who if not allowed to pronounce de-
cree of divorce would, to the great in
jury Of the church, have been deprived
of his office, decrecd that the Mayor
might he allowed to do so, on the fol-
! lowing conditions:
a. Thnt he openly make profess
sion of the Catholic doctrine concern
ing marriage and that the judgment
12f matrimonial cases belonged eX-
i clusively to the Catholic church.
CD That in pronouncing sentence
and speaking officially as magistrate
he publicly declared that his sentence
had reference solely to the civil con-
tract. and its civil effects and that in
other respects the bond of matrimony
conscience.
The Sacred Congregation again af-
lirmcd that this decision applied to
this particular case, and its peculiar
circumstances.
The principles on which the above
decisions rests, would be the follow
ing:
ID The civil power has no author
ity to create the bond of marriage,
! Which is Il Christian Sacrament 1t
can only create certain civil effects
for instance, that the parties are pun
isllable for bigamy if they marry With
others, or fail in their civil obliga-
tons towards each other.
(2.) In like manner, the civil power
cannot dissolve or break the bond of
marriage. 1t can only abro@ate the
civil contract or the civil effects which
| it itself has created-namely that the
parties shall not be punishable by
civil law if they marry again Or fail
in their civil obligations of husband
and wife.
! CD TO take part in this abrogation
of the civil contract and the civil eff
fccts in given cases would not be In
! irinSically wrong, provided that such
action is kept clear from all suspicion
of dissolution of the bond itself of
matrimony. and that it is made pub
licly certain that the action bears
solely on the civil effects of the mar
riagc as a civil contract. Hence, I'M
der these conditions, and in certain
eases of grave extremity, the eccles-
iastical authorities have declared the
administration of the civil law to be
allowable to Catholic judges and mag
istrates.
l may note that in cases in which
the ecclesiastical courts have de-
clared that a marriage is null-(that
is to say, that the bond of marriag e
never eXisted) and in which the par
ties wish to have the sanction of the
civil law for the dissolution of the
marriage, and this can only be done
by obtaining a civil divorce, it is in
given circumstances allowable for
Catholics or their lawyers to pass the
case through the civil tribunals. This
of course. is not breaking Of the
bond Of marriage (since it never ex-
isted), and is not an infraction of the
ecclesiastical sentence, but on the con-
trary, an attempt to confirm it.-Be.
lieve me, yours sincerely,
]. MOVES.
Westminster Cathedral, s. W.