impelled by conscience (in consequence perhaps of an admonition by the Confessarius) to marry the person whom he has seduced, from whom he lives apart and who has borne him no children; or he has become engaged honorably and wishes to carry out his promise on his deathbed, or the one in danger wishes to make a certain restitution by marrying.

In the decree Ne temere it is not required that the marriage in the facilitated form, in cases of danger of death, must be performed secretly, i. e., with two confidential witnesses and excluding all publicity. Secrecy or publicity is left to the priest's good judgment.

Of marriage banns in such cases the decree makes no mention. If, in so urgent a case, the priest had to apply first of all for dispensation, the facilitated form would become illusory, because parish priest or assistant might just as quickly be summoned, or a delegation from the ordinary obtained.

The regulations concerning the marriage in danger of death find application also in cases of mixed marriages (Catholics and Protest, ants), or of marriages of apostate Catholics. In these cases the stipulation concerning the Catholic education of the children must not be overlooked (Num. XI, Par. 1 and 2, of the decree).

If the decree of Leo XIII, of February 29, 1888, is still in force, along with the decree of Pius X, of August 2, 1907, what distinction is to be made in corresponding cases?

The distinction is as follows:

1. The decree of Pius X is a universal one and applicable for every kind of danger of death, therefore, for instance, also for shipwrecked and for criminals sentenced to death; that of Leo XIII is a special one and applicable only to the sick.

2. Pius X decrees regardless of impediments; Leo XIII refers to

cases in which an impediment is present and a dispensation necessary.

3. Leo XIII decreed only for the legalizing of a civil marriage or a concubinage (therefore, for instance, not including the case of one who wishes to marry a seduced person living apart from him); the decree of Pius X has for its general purpose the appeasing of the conscience and legitimizing of children.

4. Leo XIII speaks of gravissimum mortis periculum; the decree of Pius X is less restricted and ordains for imminente mortis periculo.

5. Leo XIII makes it a condition that there is not sufficient time to apply to Rome; Pius X requires only that, if possible, the ordinary or parish priest be summoned.

6. Leo XIII renders possible (by dispensation from the impediment of clandestinity) a marriage even without priest and without witnesses; Pius X prescribes for the validity and lawfulness at least a priest and two witnesses.

7. In order that a priest may avail himself of the decree of Leo XIII (to grant dispensation) he must be delegated by the ordinary; in order to assist at the marriage according to the new decree of Pius X no episcopal authorization is necessary, because just those cases are intended in which there is no time to apply for delegation. Therefore, if in a marriage in danger of death an impediment to marriage were present (for example relationship), then both decrees are applicable: The casual priest must apply to the ordinary for a dispensation from the impediment, otherwise the marriage would be invalid on account of the existing obstacle; and the local parish priest must be beyond reach, otherwise the marriage would be invalid on account of the form (unless the priest, to whom

is granted the faculty of dispensation, is by the ordinary at the same time delegated to perform the marriage).

A Roman Consultor of the Cong. S. Concilii remarks in his opinion on the new decree: "Haec matrimonii celebratio in extremis non videtur absolute requiri ad salutem" (Acta S. Sed., 1907, p. 574). The decree itself does not say matrimonium contrahi DEBET, but POTEST.

ALOIS SCHMÖGER, D.D.

XXXIII. MARRIAGES IN CASES OF EMERGENCY

In cases of emergency, as distinguished from cases in danger of death, the life of either of the candidates for a marriage is not in danger. The emergency is found in the general impossibility in a certain district, province, or country, to have the marriage performed by a parish priest.

Even before the decree Ne temere (of August 2, 1907), various Roman decisions, and interpretations of canonists, had occupied themselves with the question as to what was to be done in a case when the parochus proprius could not be had to perform a marriage ceremony (Gasparri, De Matrim., 1893, II, n. 965 et sequ.; Santi, Praelect. Juris. Con., 1886, lib. IV, tit. III, n. 47 et 48; Aichner, Compend. Jur. Eccles., 1890, p. 661).

The following rules had been adopted:

1. If the Catholic parish priest is not obtainable for the marriage ceremony the parties can give their consent validly and lawfully before two witnesses (without parish priest, even without any priest), provided, 1. That the emergency must be a universal one (namely for the whole region, not a personal only for the couple). The emergency does not have to be a physical one, a moral one suffices. The latter would be the case, if the parish priest can only be had difficillime and periculosissime (not difficile or periculose); so Pius VI to the Bishop of Geneva, October 25, 1793. Circumstances like the presence of an impediment, or the personal infirmity of one of the contracting parties, do not constitute of themselves cases of emergency; nor the fact that one or more parish priests refuse to assist.

2. This emergency must be expected to last at least for a month

so that the couple would have to postpone their marriage for a month at least (not merely for a few days or weeks).

3. That the parochus proprius or his delegate (curate or assistant) is not to be had.

4. Also the delegation (even by letter) of another priest by the ordinary is not possible.

All these four conditions must prevail together, not merely one or the other. If, for instance, in cases of emergency the delegation of a priest by the bishop is possible, then the couple can not be married merely before two witnesses and without a priest.

Even if in such cases a civil marriage, or a marriage before a Protestant minister are possible, Catholics can nevertheless marry validly and lawfully before merely two witnesses (without an official or clergyman), because the Catholic Church attributes no sacramental effect to the two forms mentioned. A declaration of consent merely between man and woman without witnesses would even in case of emergency be invalid and unlawful. Witnesses must be present. A case where no witnesses can be had is hardly possible, because even seven-year-old children, or women, or relatives, even the unbaptized, etc., may be valid witnesses.

In such a case of emergency a publication of the banns is of course out of the question..

The decree Ne temere, in Num. VIII, has simply assembled the law as expressed in the different Roman decisions and interpretations by canonists. But three new conditions have been added, namely:

1. The case of emergency is now present only when no Catholic parish priest can be had (formerly parochus proprius).

2. The contracting parties must formally declare their consent (formalis consensus); a tacit consent does not suffice. The declara