PAULINE PRIVILEGE. — The Pauline privilege is the case of dissolution of a legitimate marriage, granted in favor of the faith by positive divine law; a privilege proclaimed by St. Paul (I Cor. 7:12–15), from whom it has accordingly taken its name. It is also called casus Apostoli, privilegium Christi, privilegium fidei.
The marriage of infidels (a legitimate marriage to which no impediment of divine or natural law is opposed) is valid and indissoluble and cannot be dissolved by the arbitrary abandonment of either party or by the mutual consent and will of the spouses (Holy Office, 18 September 1824, ad 3; Holy Office, 18 June 1866, ad 8).
Mixed marriages, however, when in no way safeguarded by prior agreements, can give rise to extremely serious difficulties, since often, owing to the ill will of the one who remains an infidel, peaceful cohabitation is no longer possible; the neophyte’s faith is placed in danger, and the children become objects of conquest for one or the other spouse, in order to draw them toward different and opposing forms of moral and religious education.
Then, when a good of a higher order is at stake, the preservation of indissolubility no longer remains the principal objective but automatically passes into second place; and natural law itself gives the neophyte the right and the duty to depart, rather than lose the gift of faith. This law was interpreted by St. Paul so that a person would not be driven away from the faith, or from persevering in it, by the prospect of having to observe perfect chastity; and for this reason he promulgated the exception according to which the marriage of infidels, when only one of the spouses converts to the faith and peaceful cohabitation is no longer possible, is dissoluble externally.
I. NOTION
In view of this Pauline privilege, therefore, the marriage of the unbaptized or infidels, although consummated, may be dissolved when one party, who is unbaptized, either does not wish to cohabit with the converted party or does not wish to cohabit peacefully, that is, without offense against the name of God or contempt for the Creator. Contempt for the Creator may arise in various ways, either by leading the converted party into mortal sin or by preventing the Catholic education of the offspring (Holy Office, 14 December 1848), or by persisting in concubinage (Holy Office, 4 July 1853 and 11 July 1866), etc. Nor does the privilege cease if, after one of the spouses has been baptized, the spouses continued to cohabit and subsequently the infidel party (provided that the convert had not given reasonable cause for leaving) not only refuses to convert but also, by failing to keep the promise given to cohabit peacefully, departs either out of hatred for religion or for other reasons, or no longer wishes to remain together without contempt for the Creator, or has attempted to lead the faithful party into mortal sin or infidelity. But this privilege no longer has any reason to exist if both spouses, having subsequently converted and been baptized, have made use of the marriage.The privilege applies to the valid marriage of two infidels, one of whom converts to the faith; it does not, however, include the marriage of two heretics, one of whom embraces the Catholic faith, because the marriage of the latter is ratified (a Sacrament), and therefore, once consummated, can no longer be dissolved for any reason. The privilege does not apply to a marriage contracted by a member of the faithful, after obtaining the proper dispensation, with an infidel, even if the infidel party subsequently no longer wishes to cohabit peacefully (can. 1120 § 2). Nor does the privilege apply to a marriage contracted between two baptized parties, one of whom has fallen into apostasy or infidelity. Neither does it apply in the case of an invalid marriage between two infidels. When the Pauline privilege applies, the matrimonial bond is dissolved as soon as the convert contracts another valid marriage (can. 1126).
II. FOUNDATION OF THE P
The foundation is found in the scriptural text of I Cor., 7:12: «To the others I say—not the Lord. If a brother (= that is, a Christian) has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if a faithful wife has an unbelieving husband who is content to dwell with her, let her not leave him. But if the unbeliever departs (discedit), let him depart (discedat): for the brother or sister in such a case is not subject to bondage; but God has called us to peace». That by this last verse the Apostle permits either the departure of the faithful party or the dissolution of the bond itself is proved by the context of the Letter to the Corinthians, by the common interpretation of the Fathers and theologians, by the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, and by the practice of the Church.1. The context of the Letter to the Corinthians
Whereas in the preceding verses, speaking of the separation of Christian spouses, the Apostle commands that the wife should not marry again, that is, should remain without marrying, in these verses he instead permits her to depart, without imposing any further restriction; and therefore without any longer imposing the condition that she remain unmarried, since otherwise there would be no difference at all from the preceding case. This interpretation is also confirmed by the words that follow, «because in such a case the brother or sister is not subject to bondage». The bondage in question is none other than the conjugal bond that united the two spouses. If now the faithful spouse is no longer subject to bondage, this means that he or she is no longer subject to the matrimonial bond with the unbeliever who is unwilling to cohabit peacefully. In other words, in such a case the bond is dissoluble.2. Interpretation of the Fathers and theologians
The common interpretation and the constant teaching of the Fathers and doctors have understood the text of s. Paul in this way. There is a brief indication in s. Justin (II Apol., 2: PG 6, 443); in can. 10 of the Council of Elvira (Mansi, II, 38); in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mand., IV, 9; Funck, I, 477); in s. Ambrose (In Lc., 16, 18: PL 15, 1765-67) and in s. John Chrysostom (Hom. 19 in Epist. I ad Cor., n. 3: PG 61, 155). But the Ambrosiaster is clearer, writing: «It is not a sin for one who has been abandoned for God’s sake to unite himself to another» (Comm. in s. Paulum, I Cor., 7, 10 sgg.; PL 17, 219), and after him (7th century) Pseudo-Theodore (Poenitentiale Theodori, 5, 12: PL 99, 902 sgg.).3. The ecclesiastical Magisterium
This is apparent from the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs (particularly noteworthy are the decretals of Innocent III: A. Potthast, Regesta, I, nn. 685, 1325) and from the constant practice of the Church, manifested above all in the numerous replies of the S. Congr. of the Holy Office, and now collected in can. 1120 of the CIC and in the Code for the Eastern Church, can. 109 sgg. (AAS, 41 [1949], pp. 113-14).It is disputed whether the origin of this P. is immediately of divine law, sanctioned by Christ and promulgated through the Apostle, or whether the P. was granted by the Apostle, by virtue of a special apostolic faculty, to the Corinthians and (with the approval of s. Peter) extended to the entire Church. More recent authors incline toward the second opinion, but the first perhaps accords better with the replies of the S. Congr. of the Holy Office.
III. EFFECTS OF THE P. P. — The p. p. has a twofold effect: one immediate, namely, the right to contract a new marriage, and the other mediate, namely, the dissolution of the first bond. This is not a dissolution ab intrinseco, but ab extrinseco, produced by positive divine law, by virtue of the p. p., when the conditions established by the Apostle are fulfilled, and taking effect at the very moment when the second marriage is contracted. Consequently: 1) the exchange of consent that takes place in the second marriage between the new spouses dissolves the first marriage and perfects the second. Although the two effects take place at the same time, nevertheless, by nature, the dissolution of the bond of the first marriage is prior, since it opens the way for and makes the second possible. The exchange of consent for the second marriage is not the cause, but the occasion, of the dissolution of the first bond, which, as has been said, takes place ab extrinseco, by divine law, at the moment when the second spouse gives his consent (cf. can. 1069 § 1). Therefore, if in the meantime the unfaithful spouse converts and is baptized, the spouse who converted first can no longer aspire to a second marriage (unless dispensation from the ratified marriage is granted) and must return to conjugal life, even if he had embraced religious life or received Orders. 2) The unfaithful spouse becomes free from the matrimonial state only when the baptized spouse contracts a second marriage. If, therefore, the spouse who converted prefers celibacy, the unfaithful spouse cannot remarry. 3) « The faithful spouse, even if, after having received Baptism, he has again lived maritally with the unfaithful party, nevertheless does not lose the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic person; therefore, he may exercise this right if the unfaithful spouse, changing his mind, subsequently abandons him without just cause, or no longer wishes to continue living together peacefully without offense against the Creator » (can. 1124). 4) As cann. 1123–24 make clear, the p. p., by ecclesiastical law, in itself applies only with regard to a new marriage with a Catholic person, because it is in Marriage as a Sacrament that the newly converted person can find the most favorable environment for the practice of his faith. Nevertheless, since this exclusion is not in itself established by divine law, the Church, when serious guarantees exist, customarily grants dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship for marriage with an infidel (S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, 28 May 1846; S. Ufficio, 5 March 1852, 12 September 1855, etc.).
IV. THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING THE P. P. — The use of the p. p. is subject to three conditions: 1) the first is that one of the parties be baptized. Thus this p. does not apply if both spouses are baptized together, because in that case their marriage becomes ratum (= a Sacrament). Nor can it be applied to catechumens who have not yet been baptized. 2) The second is that the party who persists in remaining in infidelity withdraw. This withdrawal may be physical or moral. It is physical if the infidel party abandons the marital home and never returns to II. It is not necessary that this withdrawal by the infidel party be culpable; simple absence is sufficient, provided, however, that the converted party has not maliciously caused this absence itself, and that this occurred after Baptism.
Moral withdrawal, on the other hand, may occur in two ways: a) if the infidel party is the cause of quarrels, disputes, and other harms; b) or when that party attempts to induce the baptized party to commit something gravely unlawful, such as apostasy, adultery, or the upbringing of the children in paganism. This moral withdrawal makes conjugal life impossible, so that the separation of the spouses becomes morally necessary because of the malice of the unconverted party. 3) The third condition is that the flight or physical or moral withdrawal of the infidel party be legally established. This is achieved through the interpellations.
V. LE INTERPELLANZE
1. Necessity of the interpellations. — Even if one considers only divine law, the interpellation is ordinarily required as the ordinary means of acquiring certain knowledge of the flight or withdrawal of the unfaithful party. This is currently the common opinion of theologians. Nevertheless, an interpellation made in any manner, even privately, is sufficient, although, if it is not fully proved, the celebration of the new marriage cannot be permitted in the external forum, nor can the previous marriage be considered dissolved.Some observe, however, that although divine law requires the flight or withdrawal of the unfaithful party, the scriptural text does not establish how knowledge of this withdrawal or flight is to be obtained (cf. F. M. Cappello, De matrimonio, 5ª ed., Torino-Roma 1947, p. 778). Consequently, once the actual withdrawal of the unfaithful party has been established, a marriage subsequently contracted by the baptized party, even if the interpellations had been omitted, would not seem to be invalid, since it would not run contrary to the p. p. In practice, however, if the new marriage had been celebrated without a prior interpellation or dispensation from it, even though the unfaithful party had in fact departed, recourse must be had to the Holy See because of the violation of can. 1121, and it will indicate what must be done.
In every case ecclesiastical law requires the interpellation, ordering in can. 1121 § 2: «These interpellations must always be made, unless the Holy See has declared otherwise».
And if the unfaithful spouse cannot be legally interpellated, as when it is unknown where he has gone or whether he is still alive, or because it is judged morally impossible for the regular interpellation to reach him, or because the interpellation is feared to cause extremely serious harm, then the party who has converted to the faith may contract another marriage, but not before obtaining a pontifical dispensation from either one or both interpellations. And the Holy See, if there is a just cause, is not reluctant to grant such a dispensation (cf. Benedetto XIV, De Synodo diocesana, Roma 1748, I. VI, cap. 4, n. 3).
2. Object of the interpellations. — This object is twofold, or rather a double interpellation of the unbaptized party is required, namely: a) whether he too wishes to convert and receive Baptism; b) whether at least he wishes to live peacefully with the other spouse without offending the Creator (can. 1121 § 1, nn. 1 and 2). Here a great many cases may arise: a) if the unfaithful party answers affirmatively to both questions, there is no longer any place for the Apostle’s case; b) if he answers negatively to both, then one has properly the case of the p. p.; c) if he answers negatively to the first question but affirmatively to the second, there is no place for the p. p.; the convert’s right to enter a new marriage as soon as the unfaithful party no longer observes the promise made nevertheless remains intact, and then the interpellations, if they were made previously, need not be repeated.
3. Manner of making the interpellation. — a) As regards the time. — The interpellations must be made after the Baptism of the party who has converted, in accordance with can. 1121 § 1.
b) As regards the form. — The form to be used may be threefold: judicial, which is not required; summary or extrajudicial (which is the ordinary form); and private (can. 1122 §§ 1-2). The unfaithful spouse must be granted an interval of time for deliberation, if he requests it, but he must first be warned that, once this period has elapsed without result, the answer will be presumed negative. Interpellations made even privately by the convert himself are valid, and indeed are also lawful, if the ordinary form cannot be observed; in this case, however, for the external forum their having been made must be established either by at least two witnesses or by another legitimate means of proof.
c) As regards the number. — In justice, it is sufficient for the interpellations to be made once.
4. Effects of the interpellation. — These are to sanction and more precisely determine the effects of the p. p. (can. 1123).
When the interpellations are omitted by declaration of the Holy See, the marriage contracted by the convert is and remains valid, even if it subsequently becomes known that the unfaithful spouse had converted to the faith, including at the time when the marriage was celebrated. Gregory XIII so decreed in the constitution Populis, 25 genn. 1585: CIC, Appendix, Doc. VI.
5. Dispensation from the interpellations. — The word «dispensation» is used according to common usage, because the Code refrains from this term (it uses declaraverit instead of dispensaverit). The dispensation is not granted without a just cause, of which at least summarily and extra-judicially there must be certainty. If the p. p. is used, the just cause is not required for validity; if, instead, the exercise of vicarious power is involved (as discussed below), then it is very probably required for validity.
The dispensation must be granted by the competent authority: a) besides the Supreme Pontiff, by virtue of can. 247 only the S. Congr. of the Holy Office handles cases which directly or indirectly, in law or in fact, concern the p. p., the impediments of mixed religion and disparity of worship; likewise, it alone possesses the power to dispense from them. Therefore every matter of this kind is to be referred to this dicastery, which nevertheless, if it deems it opportune, may refer the matter to another dicastery or tribunal (e.g., to the S. Romana Rosa, the Congr. of the Sacraments, etc.). b) Moreover, all bishops and apostolic vicars, by delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, are granted the power to dispense from the interpellations in urgent cases, whenever it is known with certainty that the unfaithful spouse neither wishes to embrace the faith nor to live with the converted spouse without offending the Creator (S. Congr. S. Uff., 11 ag. 1859: Collectanea, p. 1351). c) Particular indults are granted to the Ordinaries of mission territories. Here it should be noted that the granting of the dispensation requires a just cause, such as the impossibility or uselessness of the warning or an evident danger of grave harm to the party who has become Christian.
VI. RELATED QUESTIONS: «PETRINE PRIVILEGE»? — Mention has already been made of Gregory XIII’s constitution Populis (25 genn. 1585). Alongside it are placed two other constitutions, slightly earlier in date: Paul III’s constitution Altitudo (1° luglio 1537) and Romani Pontificis (2 ag. 1571). By these three constitutions special faculties were granted for particular places (today made part of common law, can. 1125) concerning the dissolution of legitimate marriages, either, according to some, as an extension of the p. p., or, according to others, as an exercise of the vicarious power of the Roman Pontiff.
By his constitution (CIC, App., Doc. IV), Paul III granted those polygamists who, at the time of Baptism, could not remember which among their various wives had been the first, permission to take any one of them. Pius V, in his new constitution (CIC, App., Doc. V), declared that the aforesaid polygamists could retain whichever of their wives was baptized with them, even if they clearly remembered which had been the first. Gregory XIII considered the case of spouses who, having been deported, either both of them or at least one, to distant regions, had no possibility of making the interpellations. For such cases the Pope granted certain priests (after the CIC, this right belongs to the local Ordinary, or to parish priests, or quasi-parish priests) the faculty of dispensing from the interpellations, after having established summarily, in an extrajudicial form, that the other spouse could not be interpellated or that, within the prescribed time, he or she had not responded to the interpellations. Such a marriage remained valid, even if it subsequently became apparent that the other spouse had been unable to respond to the interpellations or perhaps had already been baptized. Concerning these concessions, granted for particular places and peoples, the CIC established: «All those matters concerning marriage in the Constitutions of Paul III, Altitudo of 1 June 1537, of St. Pius V, Romani Pontificis, of 2 August 1571, and of Gregory XIII, Populis, of 25 January 1585, which were granted for particular places, are extended also to the other regions, in the same circumstances» (can. 1125). Thus the provisions of the three aforesaid Constitutions are extended to the whole world.
What is the juridical nature of the dispensations granted by the aforesaid constitutions?
Some erroneously interpret such a dispensation, as can easily be demonstrated, as an extension of the p. p.
The more common opinion among theologians asserts a more general power of the Supreme Pontiff in this matter, an exercise of his vicarious power (Mt. 16:18). The reasons for this opinion are intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic reason is that only the bond of a Christian marriage, ratified and consummated, is indispensable. But such a marriage is not ratified and consummated until intercourse has followed the Baptism of both spouses. The extrinsic reason is that the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly dissolved the bonds of such marriages, in which the conditions of the p. p. were almost entirely lacking.
In brief, the power of the Supreme Pontiff to dispense from the bond may, at least theoretically, be presumed in all cases in which at least one of the spouses is baptized, and also in cases in which the marriage of two persons, both already baptized, was not consummated after Baptism.
This question of the vicarious or ministerial power of the Supreme Pontiff over a marriage lacking the requirement of sacramentality (parallel to the other question concerning a ratified and non-consummated marriage, V. MATRIMONIO, VII. M. RATO E NON CONSUMATO, in Enc. Cott., VIII, cols. 463–71) was the subject of an opinion by the consultors of the Congr. of Prop. Fide, which was negative (8 October 1631), but which the Congregation did not adopt (5 December 1631); it was also the subject of lively disputes among theologians. Famous was the dispute held at the Roman College in the seventeenth century, under the direction of distinguished theologians of the time, whose conclusions, fully affirmative concerning the existence of ministerial or vicarious power, were presented to the Supreme Pontiff. The affirmative opinion gained ever more ground, especially since the Supreme Pontiffs’ use of this power became increasingly constant after the three Constitutions mentioned above, which cannot be confined within the limits of the p. p.; thus today it may clearly be said to be proven that the marriages of infidels do not become absolutely indissoluble before the vicarious power of the Roman Pontiff unless they are consummated again after both spouses have been baptized. Consequently, alongside the p. p., people now commonly speak of the existence of a «Petrine privilege», belonging, that is, to the fullness of the powers of Peter’s successor, and supplementing the former in all those cases that would not fall within the conditions opposed to the p. p. A numerous body of cases, which could document the assertion made above, escapes the investigation of canonists and theologians because of the secret procedure followed by the Holy Office, the Dicastery competent in this matter, as has been said. Two known and relatively recent cases (10 July and 5 November 1624), however, in which marriages contracted between a baptized non-Catholic and an infidel were dissolved, may provide an eloquent example of this practice.
VII. ASSOCIATED QUESTIONS: THE «FAVOR FIDEL»
The conditions of the p. p. must be interpreted strictly. It is, in fact, a privilege granted by way of positive-divine law, but at the same time contrary to both the natural (Gen. 2:24) and positive (Mt. 5:32; Mc. 10:11; Lc. 16:18) law of the indissolubility of the conjugal bond. It would therefore be illicit, on the basis of a mere probability, to conclude in a particular case, by means of a reflex principle, that a bond does not exist, when it certainly arose and must continue to exist until the existence of the conditions of the p. p. has been established with certainty. This is not a case for applying probabilism, since it involves a conflict of laws, one of which is unquestionably certain. Nor is it permissible in the event of doubt about the existence of the conditions of the p. p.; for doubt cannot alter the objective reality of things, and acting otherwise would remove the p. p. from its proper sphere. Nevertheless, can. 1127 establishes: «in doubt the privilege of the faith enjoys the favor of the law». In other words, in case of doubt judgment must be made in favor of the freedom of the convert, in order to permit that person to enter a new marriage or to remain lawfully in a new marriage already contracted. After what has been said, it is evident that this principle embraces not so much the p. p. as the exercise of the vicarious power of the Supreme Pontiff, insofar as it concerns all cases in which the p. p. cannot be applied with certainty but which are subject to the Pope’s vicarious power.Nevertheless, the favor of the law does not apply in those doubtful cases in which permitting the new marriage would give rise to general or particular scandal, or to the danger of violating the bond of a marriage ratified and consummated after both parties had been baptized.
According to the decree of the Holy Office of 10 June 1937 (AAS, 29 [1937], p. 305), when the doubt concerns the existence or validity of the Baptism conferred on both parties before the marriage, the privilege of the faith cannot be applied, since there is a proximate danger of violating divine law, from which no one can dispense. 1) If the marriage was contracted by both parties in paganism, and the doubt concerns the Baptism subsequently conferred on only one party, when that party is baptized again, one must stand for freedom, after the other conditions have been observed. 2) When the marriage was contracted between a certain infidel and one who is doubtfully baptized: a) if the doubtfully baptized person is regarded as belonging to the Catholic religion and the doubt concerns the very fact of Baptism, the p. p. applies, because the marriage is either null on account of the lack of a dispensation from disparity of worship, or was in fact contracted between two infidels; if, however, the doubt concerns the validity of the Baptism actually conferred, according to the responses of the Holy Office, before the marriage one must stand for the validity of the Baptism, and therefore the dispensation from disparity of worship must be requested; after the marriage, in order to dissolve it, if the dispensation from disparity of worship was granted, recourse must be had to the Holy See to request dissolution of the legitimate but non-ratified bond; if this dispensation was not granted, both parties may enter new marriages.
b) If one party is dubiously baptized in a non-Catholic sect, once again a distinction must be made: if the marriage was contracted before the Code, what was said above concerning doubtful Catholic Baptism must be applied; if, on the other hand, the marriage was contracted after the impediment of disparity of worship was abolished in the Code for non-Catholics baptized in their own sect (can. 1070, § 1), whether the doubt concerns the fact itself or the validity of the Baptism, in individual cases recourse must be had to the Holy Office, in accordance with the decree of 10 June 1937.
But as Cappello rightly notes: «this response does not at all settle the theoretical question of whether or not the principle of can. 1127 is to be applied; it merely gives a practical rule to be observed. It is not known, moreover, whether recourse is required for validity» (F. M. Cappello, op. cit., n. 788).
VIII. THE P. P. IN THE ITALIAN CONCORDAT. — The p. p. is not expressly mentioned in the Italian Concordat, whereas the pontifical power to dispense from a ratified marriage is explicitly recalled. It is evident, however, that, having recognized, under art. 34, marriage as regulated by canon law, the Italian State implicitly also committed itself to recognizing the p. p. This is likewise the view of authoritative civil and canon lawyers (Boggiano Pico, Bruzzo, Capalti, Cappello, etc.). Since, however, the Italian law of 27 May 1929 omitted all mention of the p. p., the Italian Courts of Appeal have thus far refused to transcribe the few cases of p. p. that have occurred in Italy, supported in this by the opinion of many scholars of ecclesiastical law, such as Jemolo, Falco, Vassalli, etc. All this, however, is at least not in conformity with the spirit of the Concordat, which aims to «restore to the institution of marriage... a dignity in conformity with the Catholic traditions of its people».
de st. Paul, I, Paris 1924. The subject is also treated by dogmatic theologians, moral theologians, and canonists; the latter in their commentaries on the CIC, and the others in the treatises de matrimonio. In addition, the subject has given rise to an extensive literature in monographs and journal articles, which are listed here indicatively and by no means exhaustively: A. Vermeersch, De casu apostoli seu fidei privilegio, Bruges 1911; C. A. Jemolo, Il p. p. dal sec. XI agli ulbori del sec. XV, Sassari 1923; I. Creusen, Privilege paulinica et mariages mixtes, in Nouv. rev. théol., 5 (1923), pp. 88-95; F. Gilsmann, Zum Problem von Privilegium Paulinum, in Archiv. f. kath. Kirchner., 102 (1924), pp. 27-32; 104 (1924), pp. 242-61; E. Jombart, Casus de dissolutione matrimonii paganorum, in Period. de re mor. can. liturg., 14 (1926), pp. 68-74; J. D. Gregory, The pauliniae privilege, Washington 1931; G. Vromant, De applicatione canonis 1127, in Ius pontif., 12 (1932), pp. 114-21; V. Dalpiaz, Ab baptizatis extra Ecclesiam cathol, competet privilegii paulinum usus, in Apollinaris, 6 (1933), pp. 87-93; A. Beel, Indisolubilitus matrimonii et privilegium paulinum, I Cor., 7, 16-16, in Coll. Brug., 38 (1937), pp. 338-93; G. Vromant, Facultates apostolicae quas S. C. de Prop. Fide denegare solet ordinaris missionum, Louvain 1926, 3rd ed. Paris 1947; L. Chaussegras de Lery, Le privilege de la foi, Montréal 1939; F. I. Burton, A commentary on canon 1125, Washington 1940; E. M. Wecker, The interpellations, ibid. 1942; L. van De Beg, De infidelium polygamorum conversione. Documenta Rom. circa S. Psi V constitutionum - Romani Pontificis - quand missionem in insulis Gambier 1873-85, Maastricht 1951; A. A. Sego, Dispensation from the interpellations, Washington 1951.