La quarta però non ammette interpretazione, e debbe essere per ogni conto proscritta. Si è risoluto, che ogni dispensa dai gradi proibiti di parentela sia concessa dall'Ordinario di ciascuna parte contraente. Dovevano pur i Vescovi riflettere, che essendo la parentela un vincolo, che lega due persone, e impedisce, che trà loro si possa contrarre [pg 392]il matrimonio; subito che una di esse èsciolta da questo vincolo, ne viene in conseguenza, che ne sia prosciolta anche l'altra, non potendo restarne avvinta una, e libera l'altra. Se dunque per autorità legittima, o della Sede Apostolica, o di uno degli Ordinarj è tolto il vincolo di parentela trà un uomo, e una Donna, non vi è più bisogno di altra dispensa, ne fà, mestieri ricorrere all'altro Ordinario per ottenerla. . . . . . . Prego il Signore che La conservi e feliciti.
Roma 30 Marzo 1782.
D. V. S.
Come Fratello,
L. Card. Antonelli, Prefetto,
Stefano Borgia, Segretario.
Mons. Troy, Vescovo Ossoriense.
Amministretore di Armach.
[translation.]
Having taken into its careful consideration the resolutions adopted at a meeting of the Suffragan Bishops of the Province of Armagh, held last year at Drogheda, on the 8th and 9th of August, this S. Congregation of Propaganda, by authority of our Lord Pope Pius VI., after a protracted examination, has finally given judgment thereupon. This judgment it now signifies to your lordship, as Administrator of that Metropolitan See, in order that you may speedily communicate to the above-mentioned Prelates the decision which it has been led to take. First of all, however, it has been established that the meeting cannot be called a provincial synod, seeing that it wanted all the formalities prescribed for the holding of synods, and especially the presence of the Metropolitan Chapter, which, when immemorial usage to the contrary has not interfered with its right, ought always to be invited to synods. But although this meeting of bishops may not claim the character or the authority of a provincial synod, nevertheless its resolutions could not be published without the consent and approbation of the Apostolic See, since the decrees even of provincial synods, lawfully convened and celebrated in canonical form, require at all times the approbation of the Holy See before their observance can be made obligatory. The example of St. Charles Borromeo in the Six Provincial Synods of Milan, is of itself a sufficient guide for Bishops in this matter.
In the first place, then, the third resolution passed by the above-mentioned Bishops appears very ambiguous and obscure. In case of a private marriage, both the Ordinary of the man and the Ordinary of the woman have power to dispense with the publication of the banns, and as a matter of fact this dispensation is granted by the Bishop in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated, whether he be the Ordinary of the one or of the other of the contracting parties. If, then, the sense of the resolution be to limit this power to the Ordinary of the man, to the exclusion of the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution ought not to be carried out, as being contrary to the canons [pg 393]and to custom. But if, on the other hand, the meaning be, that when once the dispensation has been obtained from the Ordinary of the man, there is no need to obtain it also from the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution thus interpreted may be put into practice, and is not deserving of censure.