celebration of any marriage. Section III of this decree reads as follows:

"Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of these and at least TWO WITNESSES."

Section VII further adds: "When danger of death is imminent and where the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of these can not be had, in order to provide for the relief of conscience (and, should the case require it), for the legitimatization of offspring, marriage may be contracted validly and licitly, before any priest and Two WITNESSES." Again, Section VIII reads: "Should it happen that in any district the parish priest or the ordinary of the place or a priest delegated by either of them, before whom marriage can be celebrated, is not to be had, and that this condition of things has lasted for a month, marriage may be validly and licitly entered upon by the formal declaration of consent made by the spouses in the presence of TWO WITNESSES."

Hence it is clear that in every case of marriage witnesses are required, and therefore in the case before us the marriage would not be valid unless contracted in the presence of two witnessss.

The third question to which an answer is desired regards marrying the parties in their homes, which is forbidden by the statutes of the diocese.

The statutes of the diocese, forbidding "home weddings," evidently do not contemplate a case like this one. The purpose of the statute is to discourage home weddings, where there is no grave reason why the parties should not be married in the church. There is a grave reason here, in fact several grave reasons, why these people should be married at home, and the priest may, in the present instance, declare the statute suspended.

If there be any real hardship in approaching the bishop for a dispensation, for some particular reason, and if it be seriously difficult to provide prudent witnesses, then the law of having witnesses ceases to bind. But as this does not appear to be the case in the present instance, it would be better to procure a dispensation.

VI. A CLERIC IN MINOR ORDERS ACTS AS

SUBDEACON

John is a seminarian in minor orders. His home is in a country parish where there are two priests. The pastor asks John to act as subdeacon at the solemn Mass on Christmas Day. If John does not act, it will be impossible to have a solemn Mass. It is desirable that John should act. Is there any canonical prohibition, forbidding John, in these circumstances, to act as subdeacon? And if he acts as such, does he become irregular?

Answer. The general law of the Church forbids a cleric, under pain of incurring irregularity, to exercise solemnly, a sacred order that he has not received. The law reads thus: "Clericus qui scienter et sollemniter exercet ordinem sacrum, quem non habet, fit irregularis." In the first place it must be observed that the canon is directed against clerics, i. e., one must be at least a tonsured clerk, to fall under the canon. Therefore a layman, who, pretending to be a priest, should say Mass, or hear Confessions, would not incur any irregularity by such acts, although he would sin very grievously. Neither would a layman, even though he were a seminarian and wore the clerical garb, become irregular by acting as deacon or subdeacon at a solemn Mass. One must be at least tonsured to be affected by this canon. The next thing to be observed is that irregularity is incurred only when a cleric exercises a sacred order, which he has not received. Since the discipline of the Church to-day allows laymen to exercise solemnly the minor orders, clerics do not become irregular for exercising them. The irregularity begins with the solemn exercise of the subdeaconate by a minor cleric. The other terms of the canon that require an explanation are:

1. Scienter, i. e., the cleric must know that he has not the sacred order, which he is now exercising, and moreover he must be aware of the irregularity. If he be ignorant of the irregularity, he does not sin grievously, and therefore does not incur the censure.

2. Sollemniter. When do canonists consider a cleric to have solemnly exercised a sacred order? If the act which the cleric exercises, is never exercised, except by those who have received the order, then it is always done sollemniter. For instance, since Extreme Unction is never administered except by an ordained priest, a cleric not in priest's orders, who would attempt to anoint the dying, would necessarily act solemnly and become irregular. In like manner also a priest, who would administer Confirmation, would of necessity, be acting solemnly, and would become irregular. But if the order which the cleric exercises, is sometimes exercised by others than those who have received it, v. g. one in minor orders may sometimes act as subdeacon at a solemn Mass, then a cleric is said to exercise solemnly a sacred order, which he has not received if he exercises the act exactly like those do who have received the order and if he wears the distinctive ornament of the sacred order. Thus the distinctive ornament of a subdeacon is the maniple, and of the deacon the stole. If a clerk in minor orders acts as subdeacon at a solemn Mass and wears the maniple, he becomes irregular. If he omits the maniple, he does not incur any irregularity. Neither does a subdeacon become irregular for acting as a deacon at a solemn Mass, if he omits the stole, because the wearing of the stole renders the act a solemn exercise of the order and brings it under the canon.

On March 10, 1906, the Congregation of Rites issued a decree which was confirmed by the Holy Father, and which covers the points at issue here. The decree says:

"Clericus ad munus subdiaconi obeundum in Missa solemni, nunquam deputetur, nisi adsit rationabilis causa et in minoribus ordinibus sit constitutus, aut saltem sacra tonsura initiatus.”

The decree forbids laymen to act as subdeacons in a solemn Mass. The wording is "num-quam deputetur." That a man who is not in subdeacon's orders, may act as a subdeacon at a solemn Mass, two conditions are required:

1. That the man be at least tonsured.

2. That there be real need for him to act.

Here it might be inquired whether it be the purpose of the decree to forbid even seminarians, who are not tonsured, to act as subdeacons in a case of necessity. We hardly think it is. The decree seems to be intended primarily for those countries where every person who begins to study for the priesthood is immediately tonsured, even though he be but a young boy. In those countries, generally speaking, there are no seminarians who are not tonsured. The custom exists in some countries of Europe on solemn feasts, of having a layman, not a seminarian, but a man who has no notion of ever being a priest, act as subdeacon. Even a married man, v. g. the sexton of the church or the sacristan is at times permitted to take the place of the subdeacon. If there were a seminarian in the parish, he of course would be tonsured and very likely in minor orders and in a few years a subdeacon. His acting as subdeacon would not scandalize the faithful, whereas the participation of the layman in the sacred function does scandalize the faithful. In countries like the United States, young men, studying for the priesthood, live in the seminary and wear the cassock, although they may not be tonsured. They hold the same station among the laity as tonsured clerks do in other countries. They are looked upon as clerics and the same conduct is required of them as is