Hujusmodi autem doctrinae adamussim consonat hujus Datariae Apostolicae praxis."

Thus, according to the practice of the Apostolic Datary, a fixed distance is required only in dealing with suburban districts, and for them it need merely approach an Italian mile in length, or be something more than three-quarters of a mile English. But this seems strange when placed side by side with the following decision given by the S. C. C. in 1876:

Angustiam loci non esse desumendam a numero focorum cujusque Parochiae sed a numero focorum cujusque loci vel etiam plurium locorum, si non distent ad invicem ultra milliare."

How are these documents reconciled? The practice of the Datary should be a safe guide to follow. But, on the other hand, an explicit reply from the S. Congregation seems to run counter to it, and more in harmony with the prevalent notion, appears to require that the locus angustus should be a mile distant from any other place or places, whose addition would bring the joint number of families beyond three hundred. In reality, however, the variance is only apparent, as will be more conveniently shown further down, after clearing the way which leads to this conclusion.

Adopting Feije's description, "haec causa existit quando, propter loci originis vel domicilii angustiam, non potest ibi femina invenire virum paris conditionis cui nubat, et idcirco desiderat consanguini, affini, &c., nubere, ne innupta manere, aut extra proprium locum nubere, aut disparis conditionis ex proprio loco virum habere cogatur." This ample definition almost explains itself.

1. Like most of the others, this cause is available only for females. Some held that it might be alleged ex parte sponsi as well. But the contrary is certain, both from the uniform practice of the Holy See and the motives which underlie angustia loci.

2. For if not allowed ex parte mulieris, then consistently with female modesty the only option, in many cases, should rest between undesired celibacy, an unequal alliance, and marriage far from home. Now, it is not the legislator s intention to make light estimate of these inconveniences. Of the first of them nothing need be said. The evil consequences of ill-sorted unions are also well known. And, as for the third, the Holy See does not wish to under

rate in any way the disadvantages a woman suffers by leaving the neighbourhood of her father's family and going to live at a distance among strangers. But plainly for all this there is no parallel in the hardier sex.

3. Considering the object in view, it is not surprising that angustia loci could for a long time be put forward, as a canonical cause for a dispensation, in supplications sent from large cities, even from Rome itself. The number of persons of the same social standing as petitioner might be sinall, no matter how dense the general population. But since the time of Paul V. angustia loci may not be alleged for a large town or city, although at such centres, when the circumstance of rank exists, this latter point can still independently be put forward with good hope of obtaining a dispensation, especially when the blood of petitioner is largely diffused among persons of the same grade. Indeed, that Pontiff excluded all civitates in the canonical sense, i.e. diocesan capitals in which bishops reside, from the cause of which we are writing. Soon a question was put about the suburbs of these cities, and the Datary, by order of Clement VII., replied that they should be a mile (milliare) distant for angustia loci to exist. All this time the inconvenience of civitates without distinction being cut off, was keenly felt, and soon the exclusive line for towns generally, as well as for rural districts, was fixed by the canonists at a population of three hundred families or fifteen hundred individuals. The arrangement was definitely declared by Pius IX. in 1849, and the only important utterance on this subject since then is the one to which we above referred as recently reported in the Acta Sanctae Sedis.

4. The reason for that decision is clear from the outline just giver of the motives and history of angustia loci. Although Rocca Calasii and Calasium are not a mile distant from each other, and have a joint population exceeding the maximum limit, this cause is nevertheless admissible on account of the natural difficulties of the way that lies between them. Indeed, considerably less difficulties of intercommunication, than were present in this case, would seem to suffice. All the Datary requires is that the places be distinct, and have each its own name, unless there be question of suburbs, when the distance of an Italian mile from the civitas, even though they be part of it, is as much as is needed. A precise distance therefore is only required for suburban districts, and the decision of 1867 in “"Oveten, Dubio" is no more than an instruction pointing out the

mile-radius rule as a safe guide in other cases also. This is the opinion held by the erudite editor of the Acta, and its reasonableness is evident when the reply is read in connection with the fact, that the real question before the Congregation was whether angustia should be verified of parishes, rather than of places with scattered populations, in each case of not over three hundred families. And, as a matter of course, parochial divisions were held to have no bearing on the subject.

5. The inference from all this, for our own country, is important. Not alone in parishes where the inhabitants within a mile-radius of sponsa's abode do not exceed fifteen hundred, can the cause be safely assigned, but as well for islands, mountain tracts, and other districts of isolated situation, though considerably less than a mile apart from densely populated lands.

6. Moreover, in reckoning the people of a place for the purpose here in view, unbaptised persons, Heretics and Schismatics, do not count. But Catholics of both sexes and every age come within the calculation.

7. Again, it is not necessary that the sponsus should belong to the locus angustus. At the same time, when from beyond the border, that circumstance should be mentioned, as otherwise the wording of the dispensation may create a difficulty.

8. Either place of birth or where one has a domicile will suffice. But to avoid serious doubts afterwards, it should be clearly stated which angustia affects. If true of both, a dispensation is granted more readily, "propter angustiam locorum." The authorities generally presume there is question of the natal spot, unless the contrary be specified. A mistake in this matter would render the dispensation very doubtful.

9. The locus originis is easily dealt with. But when itself and the locus domicilii are different, several points must be looked to, if the petition be grounded on the circumstances of the latter place. Thus to guard against unsuitable wording in the dispensation it is right to state whether the parents of sponsa have also migrated to the new habitation, and more particularly whether it is a domicile or only a quasi-domicile. Continuance of residence in the place for some time is obviously necessary. And according to Feije, a quasi-domicile will not be enough, if the sponsa happen to have elsewhere a domicile in which she generally resides. But if the domicile

VOL. VI.

K

elsewhere be only de jure, with mere mention of its possession, angustia loci may be alleged for the quasi-domicile of actual residence. In short, the locus of continued habitation will suffice as well as the locus originis, but the sponsa's connection with the former requires clear though brief description.

10. It is not necessary to mention the rejection of several offers of marriage in the past, unless levity in an unusual degree had been the cause. That no perfectly eligible sponsus is forthcoming at the present time is all the dispensing superior demands. Moreover, according to Feije, the fact of one or even two such persons seeking the hand of sponsa will not constitute an insuperable objection, although the circumstance must be clearly mentioned. Suitors, who are not her equals on the score of worldly means, character, age, or disposition, are not reckoned. But even in regard to others, from what has been said, plainly the Holy See is anxious to leave some power of selection.

11. Lastly, the change which has occurred in the use of this cause deserves notice. The oratrix is still supposed to belong to a family free from any brand of infamy. But whereas formerly angustia loci was not available for obtaining a dispensation in near kindred, it is now admitted for relaxing so grave an impediment as the second degree of consanguinity. The circumstances of each particular case will here naturally count for a great deal. To dispense in any impediment a causa proportionate gravis canonibus consona is required. But accord with the canons once secured, the gravity due in motives is allowed to depend largely on the requirements of individuals and families in certain places and for certain times. In this way the wide diffusion of the petitioner's kindred, or more than ordinary social position, will enhance the force of angustia loci as a dispensing cause.1

PATRICK O'DONNELL.

1Cf. Feije et Caillaud passim de Angustia loci.

THEOLOGICAL DECREES.

Decisions of the S. Congregation of the Holy Office regarding 1o, the Abolition of Minor Excommunication; 2o, Absolutio ficta complicis ; 3°, Craniotomy.

MINOR EXCOMMUNICATION.

Since the publication of the Apostolicae Sedis, the canonists generally have held that the censure of Minor Excommunication has been abrogated. Some, however, for instance, M. Daris in his Treatise on Censures, and a recent writer in the Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques,1 have held that this is not so; and others, in fine, like M. Santis, Professor of Canon Law in the Roman Seminary, and M. Moulart, of Louvain, have taught that the matter is doubtful. The chief reason for continuing to hold its nonabrogation was based on the document issued by the Holy See on the 7th of July, 1882, containing the form of general absolution. In this formula occur the following words: "Absolvo vos ab omni vinculo excommunicationis majoris vel minoris . . .

The Congregation has now settled the discussion by declaring that it may be safely taught that Minor Excommunication has been abrogated.

ABSOLUTIO FICTA COMPLICIS.

This decision is important, seeing that the opposite opinion has been held by St. Alphonsus and many theologians who have adopted his view. We are informed in his Theology, that St. Alphonsus, doubting how he was to interpret the Constitution of Benedict XIV. on this matter, consulted the Sacred Penitentiary, and received the answer that the Fingens absolutionem does not incur the censure. Notwithstanding this reply, St. Liguori afterwards changed his opinion, because he believed that the decision of the Penitentiary was opposed to the Constitution Inter praeteritos of Benedict XIV.; and many modern theologians have followed him in this teaching.

The Sacred Penitentiary was again questioned on this matter in 1878, and made the same reply, "Simulantes absolutionem complicis . . . non effugere excommunicationem reservatam in Bulla Sanctissimi Benedicti XIV. Sacramentum Poenitentiae."

1Vol. xlvi., p. 270.

2 Throl, moralis, lib. vi., n. 556, ques. 1°.