Gentlemen,
The following remarks on a subject of great importance to the priests of the mission may not be uninteresting to the readers of the Record. My attention was directed to the matter on reading the erudite work of Dr. Feye, of Louvain, on Matrimony.
The opinions of St. Liguori are looked upon as possessing high authority, and, as every one knows, very justly so. Hence it is that he is copied even in the casual mistakes he made; and all the casuistical works recently published have inserted in their pages those mistakes. Take, for example, the works on moral theology most in circulation at present, such as the works of Gousset, Gury, Scavini, and it will be found that in the very latest editions of these works those errors are left untouched.
At page 591, n. 876, of Gury, 13a ed., it is remarked regarding the gradus inaequalis consanguinitatis, vel affinitatis, that for the validity of the dispensation it is not required to mention in the petition the gradus remotior “nisi sint conjuncti secundo gradu attingente primum”. In the “Casus Conscientiae” he makes the very same observation. If the reader refer to Scavini he will find the same opinion adopted. It will appear from the remarks of Card. Gousset, t. 2, n. 1136, that he adheres to the opinion of St. Liguori.
At page 118, l. 6, t. 6, n. 1136, St. Liguori treats of the question, and cites the Breve of Benedict XIV., “Etsi Matr.”, of 27th September, 1755, upon which he remarks, “Matrimonium esse quidem illicitum sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit 1mi aut 2di gradus consanguinitatis”.
Now it is certain that Benedict XIV. held no such opinion, for in sec. 6 he expressly states, after St. Pius V., that the omission of the first grade alone, in the petition for dispensation, invalidates the dispensation. Again, Benedict XIV. in that Breve is speaking de duplici gradu consanguinitatis, not de secundo gradu, and states that a dispensation would be null, in the petition for which only one vinculum was expressed, whereas there existed two—duplex vinculum.
I believe St. Liguori was led into the mistake either by confounding the word duplex with secundum, or by the remarks made by Benedict de tertio gradu propinquiore, etc., of which there was question.
Gury's opinion also is wrong; for it is certain, from the decree of St. Pius V., as cited and confirmed by Benedict XIV., that the suppression of the mention of the first grade in the petition for dispensation in gradu inaequali consang. off., will equally annul the dispensation, whether the first grade concur with the second, third, or fourth.
In order then that St. Liguori's opinion be correct, it is necessary to erase the words “aut secundi” from the sentence.
Expecting you will give insertion to the foregoing observations, which are made through a desire to serve the Record, and give a hint to fellow-labourers in the vineyard,