Since you have been kind enough to set aside a portion of the
_Record_ for the insertion of correspondence upon theological and
liturgical subjects, I trust that you will allow me to offer a few
remarks upon a letter which has appeared in the number[21] for the
present month, regarding the method of applying for dispensations
_in gradu inaequali consanguinitatis_. Your correspondent justly
considers that the question is of great importance, and hence
it may be well to call attention to some inaccuracies which,
if uncorrected, would neutralize the good effects of his "hint
to fellow-labourers in the vineyard".
1. The question of which Gury treats at page 594, is the necessity
of mentioning the gradus _propior_, and not the gradus _remotior_,
as stated in your correspondent's letter.
2. According to the opinion now almost universally received,
this necessity does not exist--so far as the _validity_ of the
dispensation is concerned--except when the gradus propior is the
gradus _primus_, which should be always mentioned, whether it
concurs with the second, third, or fourth; and your correspondent
is quite correct in stating that a misapprehension of the
meaning of a constitution of Benedict XIV. has led St. Liguori
to adopt an opinion completely at variance with this. But it
is manifest that the Saint's mistake has not been "inserted in
the very latest editions of the works on moral theology most in
use at present--such as those of Gury and Scavini"; for, while
St. Liguori _extends_ the necessity to all those cases in which
the first _or second_ degree concurs with another more remote
(_Theol. Mor._, lib., n. 1136), Gury falls into the opposite
extreme by maintaining that in consanguinitate inaequali, even
the _first_ degree need not be mentioned, except when it concurs
with the _second_ (Gury, _Theol. Moralis_, 13th ed., p. 594,
n. 867, _not_ 876.)
3. Scavini certainly copied in the earliest editions of his work
the opinion of St. Liguori; but the mistake has been long since
corrected. In the Paris Edition of 1855, he says: "Declaravit
Benedictus XIV., Brevi _Etsi_, conjugium ... illicitum esse
sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit _primi_ gradus
consanguinitatis vel affinitatis, scilicet mixti cum caeteris
_usque ad quartum_ gradum"--t. 4, p. 503. I have examined several
editions which were published since the one from which I have
quoted, and in all these the same view is laid down.
4. Your correspondent states that the opinion of Gury was
adopted by Scavini. I think this statement is hardly correct.
Most certainly it is not correct with reference to any of the
editions of Scavini's works which are commonly used in Ireland.
5. In a late edition of Gury's work, which, I suppose, has not
yet fallen under the notice of your correspondent, the error in
n. 867 is corrected by the following note: "Invalidatur in genere,
dispensatio _si reticetur primus gradus_ ... pro foro interno,
expressio propioris gradus non requiritur nisi sit primus".
_Editio tertia Germanica_ n. 867, p. 465.
6. Cardinal Gousset undoubtedly followed the view of St. Liguori;
but the reference to his work should be t. 2, n. 865, _not_
n. 1136.
7. In conclusion, I may remark that the theory suggested by your
correspondent as a possible explanation of St. Liguori's mistake,
does not appear to be admissible. The constitution _Etsi Matr._
had reference indeed to a case in which two impediments existed;
and the Pope declared that the marriage was invalid, because no
mention had been made of the _double_ impediment in the petition
for the dispensation. He explained, however, at some length
that the invalidity was caused by this defect alone, and that
no difficulty would have arisen in case there had been but
one impediment--relationship in the third and fourth degrees,
although the dispensation had been granted for the fourth without
any mention of the third.
Amongst other reasons for this decision, he speaks of the
common consent of theologians, who agree that in the case of
a relationship in the _third_ and _fourth_ degrees, it is not
necessary to mention the _gradus propinquior_ when seeking the
dispensation.
There can be no doubt that it was this passage which induced
St. Liguori to conclude that if the gradus propinquior were the
_first_ or _second_, it should be expressed in the petition.
He could hardly have committed such a mistake as to suppose that
_duplex_ impedimentum, meant an impediment of consanguinity in
the _second degree_. It is evident that he did not fall into this
error, for immediately afterwards, when discussing the question
regarding a _duplex impedimentum_ (n. 1138), he adopts the opinion
of Benedict XIV. on this subject, quoting the same constitution,
_Etsi_, in support of his view.