remains an enduring monument of the Faith and piety of our people. In 1734 Dr. O'Rorke returned to Belinagare, where he died, probably in 1742, of a complication of diseases, contracted by the hardships which he had undergone, sleeping in the open air or in wretched hovels among the bogs and marshes of Connemara, He was interred within the consecrated precints of Creevelea, the foundation of his family, and the "sacred storehouse of his ancestors.." His tomb has been recently discovered there with the following epitaph : "Here lieth ye body of Thady O'Rorke March ye 2nd 17391 aged 76. Filius atque regis princeps Thadeus trumphis' J. J. KELLY. НЕ THEOLOGICAL NOTES. FULMINATION IN FORO INTERNO. ERE the delegate must be in possession of the necessary powers before acting. But how is he to have them? Will an oral commission suffice, or must a written document, containing the special faculties, have come into his hands? The question occasions scarcely any difficulty in connection with Papal dispensations. Commissions from Rome are, by a rule of the Apostolic 1 Regarding the date 1739, it may be observed that we find in the Supplement to the Hibernia Dominicana, that Benedict XIV. addressed a brief, dated 31st of October, 1742, to Michael O'Gara, Archbishop of Tuam, Peter O'Donohoe, Bishop of Clonfert, and Thadeus O'Rorke, Bishop of Killala. We learn from the same work, p. 506, that Father John Brett was appointed Bishop of Killala by the same Pontiff, and was consecrated in Rome on the 8th of September, 1743. He proceeded at once to his See, over which he presided until 1748, in which year he was translated to Elphin. The tomb of Bishop O'Rorke was restored by the Rev. Cormack McSharry, P.P., in 1883. 2 For a copy of this epitaph and other information regarding Dr. O'Rorke, we are indebted to the kindness and courtesy of the Rev. C. P. Meehan, M.R.I.A., of whose life-long devotion and invaluable services to Irish historical studies it would be superfluous and presumptuous here to speak. Chancery,1 in writing.-" Nulli suffragetur dispensatio nisi litteris confectis." And we have already seen that the delegates in such cases cannot act before the original itself of the mandate is presented. Still it is right to add that in the opinion of some, the Chancery rule, just quoted, applies to the external forum alone.2 But With these few words let us pass to Episcopal dispensations. At first sight it might appear strange to make any distinction between them and those which come from the Holy See. For, are not Bishops expected to conform to the practice of the Roman Courts? Yes, in the exercise of their delegated faculties, unless so far as we may have good grounds for holding that conformity in every detail is not exacted. All, of course, are agreed about the inconvenience in ordinary circumstances of giving commissions to dispense otherwise than in writing. occasionally a case may occur of such urgency that a prelate will deem it best to use his power in the way that will be of earliest benefit to those concerned. Such emergencies may, indeed, generally be met by telegraphing, not a mandate to dispense, but news that the favour has been actually granted. This, however, supposes the case to have been satisfactorily sifted beforehand. It does not, therefore, suffice for one in which something further remains to be investigated and explained before fulmination becomes allowable. Now it is just for a contingency of this kind in particular, that bishops, instead of dispensing immediately themselves, send commissions to their priests to examine the circumstances and fulminate a dispensation if everything required be present. Let us keep the point at issue in view. We are not as yet speaking of the form which the act of fulmination should take. We here look only to the form in which the delegate must receive his mandate. And although this paper is concerned with the forum internum, it seems right not to forget the forum externum until we pass from the present difficulty. Well, a few authors hold that a delegate can act validly on an oral commission even for the external forum. Why require writing, they say, unless it be made a sine qua non in the indult? Again, oral dispensations, or mandates to dispense, are stated to be customary in certain districts. 1 Brilland-Traité Pratique des Empéchements et des Dispenses de Mariage. p. 192, n. 220. 2 Idem. Ibid, p. 193. * Planchard, pp. 233-4, n. 543. To us such practice seems very unsafe, unless it be known to the Holy See, or of long standing. On the other hand, although there is some authority on the opposite side, the delegate in foro interno does not seem to require a written commission under pain of invalidity. Even for Papal dispensations the necessity of their being consigned to writing before the "commissaries" can act validly, is not altogether certain. Besides, oral commissions pro foro interno are undoubtedly common enough in a variety of Episcopal Curiae. But most of all the bishop himself can dispense orally, and there does not appear any sufficient reason for holding that when instead of doing so he merely gives a commission to some other, he must therefore resort to pen and ink under pain of nullity. As Planchard, speaking of indults, has it :— "Comme il ne doit pas rester de traces de la dispense d'un emprchement occulte, les auteurs admettent que l'ordinaire pourrait, a la rigeur, dispenser ou déléguer a vive voix." What is true of commissions given in virtue of Indults for the internal forum is, a fortiori, certain for those communicated on the strength of quasi-ordinary power. Oral delegation in those cases, when the Bishop so wills, undoubtedly' suffices to secure valid fulmination. The act itself of fulmination in foro interno next claims attention. It usually takes place in tribunali. This, however, is not necessary unless required by the dispensing power. The Holy See, as a rule, does insist on it in commissioning priests to dispense. So do Bishops; indeed with them it frequently is not optional to act otherwise. For it often happens that an Indult which permits a Bishop or Vicar-General to dispense extra tribunale is so worded that the delegate of one or other must act in the confessional. Of course the absence of a limitation clause is enough to leave the Ordinary free to use his own discretion. Though not of itself strict precept, it is always well to conduct the process in writing, if it is gone through extra tribunale. In foro poenitentiae everything is done viva voce, but the confessor, provided he keeps it to himself, is free to read from a written sheet. To hand the document to penitent is forbidden, just as the mandate itself cannot be similarly delivered without a grave dereliction of duty. 1 Planchard n. 540. Feije, n. 757. 2 Id ibid. 8 Feije, n. 756. It is to be observed, however, that the clause, " Quod si restitueris, nihil ipsi praesentes literae suffragentur," does not make the dispensation invalid in the supposition of the mandate being given away. No; the sentence refers to the forum externum in which, as it conveys, no such document will be received as proof of a valid union. For in this, as in other cases of an impediment, which had been renewed in foro externo on becoming public, a new dispensation is required for the external forum.1 It is not enough for the confessor to abstain from giving away the mandate empowering him to dispense. "Sed praesentibus laniatis, quas sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae laniare tenearis, ita ut nullum earum exemplum extet;" or the clause: "Praesentibus. sub poena excommunicationis a te combustis vel laniatis," reminds him of his obligation to entirely destroy it. This should be done immediately after fulmination. By common? consent, however, a space of three days is allowed before incurring the penalty. Although tearing through the seal will suffice, burning is preferable. There is no law against making out a copy of the document for study. But obvious reasons will suggest the propriety of omitting the date. Sometimes the S. Penitentiary leaves out the word "laceratis," thereby indicating that destruction is not required. For instance, if a confessor explained that two persons, generally supposed to be man and wife, were invalidly united, because of secret clandestinity and some other impediment, the aforesaid Tribunal would probably send two documents, one to the confessor containing the word "laceratis," the other to the parish priest without it, and intimating that after private renewal of consent in forma Tridentina, he should enter the celebration in libro Matrimoniorum (secretorum). It makes matters less difficult in this complicated case if the same person be parish priest and confessor. In any event the strictest secrecy is of obligation. If an impediment affects only one of the parties, fulmination is not required for the other. Where common to both, fulmination in utramque partem becomes necessary if both are culpable in inducing it. But when either is innocent in this respect, the process need not be gone 'Planchard, p. 178, n. 406. 2 Cf. Auctores passim. 4 Id. n. 757; Van de Burght, p. 73. through for the guiltless person, whether that individual be conscious or unconscious of the existence of the impediment. Accordingly, the only case in which fulmination for both is prescribed, arises when the impediment has been contracted through the sin of both. But why require it even in this hypothesis? Does not such an impediment cease for the two when it ceases for one? The following answer1 of the Penitentiary in 1748 shows how fulmination in utramque partem is required not so much by way of something essential to validity as to prevent either delinquent from escaping "Poenitentiae salutares utrique imponendae." The decree is important for another reason. It lays down clearly the course to follow when the petitioners seek the ministrations of different confessors. The first, after fulmination, hands the mandate back to his penitent, with instructions to deliver it to the other party. From the latter's hands it passes to the second confessor, who will likewise fulminate and then destroy the document: "S. Poenitentiaria ad propositum dubium circa executionem literarum suarum, quibus committitur facultas dispensandi super occulto matrimonii impedimento cum duobus ejusdem impedimenti consciis respondet, quod quamvis hujusmodi literae dirigantur confessario per latores eligendo, necessarium tamen non est, quod unus idemque confessarius ab utroque eligatur ad eas literas exequendas: Sed potest unus confessarius ab uno ad id eligi, alter ab altero. Tunc autem prius confessarius post dispensationem uni ad formam literarum concessam debet literas Sacrae Poenitentiariae poenitenti tradere, ut per illum alteri parti tradantur, quae similiter easdem literas secum exsequi faciat per alium confessarium, cujus erit in hujusmodo casu, confecto negotio, literas lacerare. Et quamvis impedimentum ejusmodi esse soleat, ut sublatum quoad unum maneat et ipso sublatum quoad alterum, nihilominus mens Sacrae Poenitentiariae est, ut erga utramque personam literae executioni mandentur, sin minus ad auferendum impedimentum, quod per priorem cum una dispensationem jam ablatum praesupponitur, saltem ad congruas poenitentias salutares utrique imponendas, quas non convenit ab uno tantum exigi, ubi communis est culpa." Should a confessor foresee some serious difficulty in the way of double fulmination, he ought to state the fact in his petition. Besides, it is to be remembered, although a single process will suffice, unless where the fault is common, 1 In nearly all modern works on the subject. |