PRIVILEGE OF PAUL
The **Privilege of Paul** is the case of dissolution of a valid marriage granted in favor of the faith by divine positive law; a privilege proclaimed by St. Paul (1 Cor 7:12–15), from whom it takes its name. It is also called the *casus Apostoli*, the *privilegium Christi*, or the *privilegium fidei*.
The marriage of the unbaptized (a valid marriage not impeded by any divine or natural law) is valid and indissoluble and cannot be dissolved by the arbitrary abandonment of one party or by mutual consent and will of the spouses (Holy Office, 18 Sept. 1824 ad 3; Holy Office, 18 June 1866 ad 8).
From mixed marriages, however, not duly safeguarded by prior agreements, the gravest inconveniences may arise, since often, because of the bad will of the party who remains unbaptized, peaceful cohabitation is no longer possible, the faith of the neophyte is endangered, and the children become the object of contention between the spouses, drawn as they are to opposing moral and religious upbringing.
In such a case, where a higher good is at stake, the maintenance of indissolubility is no longer the primary objective but automatically recedes into second place; and natural law itself grants the neophyte the right and duty to depart rather than lose the gift of faith. This law was interpreted by St. Paul so that a man might not be deterred from the faith or perseverance in it by the prospect of having to observe perfect chastity, and for this reason he promulgated the exception by which the marriage of the unbaptized, when only one spouse converts to the faith and peaceful cohabitation is no longer possible, may be dissolved externally.
### I. Notion
In view of this privilege, therefore, the marriage of the unbaptized or infidels, even if consummated, may be dissolved if one party, unbaptized, either refuses to cohabit with the converted party or refuses to cohabit peacefully—that is, without offense to the name of God or contempt for the Creator. Contempt for the Creator may be shown in various ways: by dragging the converted party into mortal sin, by hindering the Catholic education of the children (Holy Office, 14 Dec. 1848), or by persisting in concubinage (Holy Office, 4 July 1853 and 11 July 1866), etc. The privilege does not cease if, after the baptism of one spouse, the couple continued to cohabit and subsequently the unbaptized party (though the converted party gave no reasonable cause to depart) not only failed to convert but, breaking the promise of peaceful cohabitation, departed 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 draw the faithful party into mortal sin or unbelief. But this privilege no longer applies if both spouses have been converted and baptized and have then made use of the marriage.
The privilege applies to the valid marriage of two unbaptized persons, 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 rare (see SACRAMENT) and therefore, once consummated, cannot be dissolved for any reason. The privilege does not apply to a marriage contracted by a faithful party, having obtained the proper dispensation, with an unbaptized party, even if the unbaptized party later refuses to cohabit peacefully (can. 1120 §2). Likewise, it does not apply in the case of a marriage contracted between two baptized parties, one of whom has lapsed into apostasy or unbelief. Nor does it apply if the marriage in question is invalid between two unbaptized persons. When the privilege of Paul applies, the marital bond is dissolved as soon as the converted party contracts another valid marriage (can. 1126).
### II. Foundation of the Privilege
The foundation lies in the scriptural text of 1 Cor 7:12: *“To the rest I say, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is content to live with him, let him not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is content to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; for the brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases. God has called you to peace.”* That in this last verse the Apostle permits the departure of the faithful party or even the dissolution of the bond itself is proven by: the context of the letter to the Corinthians, the common interpretation of the Fathers and theologians, the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, and the practice of the Church.
1. **The context of the letter to the Corinthians.** While in the preceding verses, speaking of the separation of Christian spouses, the Apostle commands that the wife not marry again but remain as she is, here he permits departure without imposing any further restriction; thus he no longer even imposes the condition that she remain unmarried, otherwise there would be no difference from the previous case. This interpretation is confirmed by the words that follow: *“for in such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.”* The servitude in question is none other than the marital bond that once united the two spouses. If now the faithful spouse is no longer enslaved, it means that he or she is no longer bound by the marital tie to the unbeliever who refuses peaceful cohabitation. In other words, the bond, in such a case, is dissoluble.
2. **Interpretation of the Fathers and theologians.** The common interpretation and constant teaching of the Fathers and doctors has understood St. Paul’s text in this way. There is a brief indication in St. Justin (2 Apol. 2: PG 6, 443); in canon 10 of the Council of Elvira (Mansi, II, 38); in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mand. IV, 9; Funk, I, 477); in St. Ambrose (In Luc. 16.18: PL 15, 1765–67); and in St. John Chrysostom (Hom. 19 on 1 Corinthians, no. 3: PG 61, 155). But clearer still is Ambrosiaster, who writes: *“It is not a sin for one who has been abandoned for God’s sake to join himself to another”* (Comm. in s. Paulum, 1 Cor 7:10 ff.: PL 17, 219), and after him (7th c.) the Pseudo-Theodorus (Poenitentiale Theodori, 2.12: PL 99, 902 ff.).
The same doctrine was constantly taught by the scholastic theologians and canonists from Peter Lombard to Roland Bandinelli, from St. Raymond of Peñafort to Poncius and Sanchez, without any dissenting voice until the mid-18th century, when some French and German writers, influenced by Jansenism, began to teach the contrary. But this was a brief interlude, soon closed by violent events such as the French Revolution and by the intervention of the Church’s magisterium.
3. **Ecclesiastical magisterium.** This is evident from the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs (notable are the decretals of Innocent III: A. Potthast, *Regesta*, I, nos. 685, 1325) and from the constant practice of the Church, manifested especially in the numerous responses of the Holy Office of the Holy Inquisition, now collected in can. 1120 of the *Codex Iuris Canonici* and in the Code for the Eastern Church, can. 109 ff. (AAS 41 [1949], pp. 113–14).
There is debate whether the origin of this privilege is of immediately divine right, sanctioned by Christ and promulgated through the Apostle, or whether the privilege was granted by the Apostle by virtue of a special apostolic faculty to the Corinthians and (with the approval of St. Peter) extended to the whole Church. Recent authors tend toward the latter opinion, but perhaps the responses of the Holy Office of the Holy Inquisition better accord with the former.
### III. Effects of the Pauline Privilege
The Pauline Privilege has a twofold effect: one immediate, namely the right to contract a new marriage, and the other mediate, 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 Pauline Privilege upon the fulfillment of the conditions established by the Apostle, and operative at the very moment in which the second marriage is contracted. Consequently:
1) The exchange of consent that occurs in the second marriage between the new spouses dissolves the first marriage and perfects the second. Although these two effects occur simultaneously, by nature the dissolution of the first marriage bond is prior, as it opens the way and renders the second marriage possible. The exchange of consent for the second marriage is not the cause, but the occasion for the dissolution of the first bond, which, as stated, occurs *ab extrinseco*, by divine right, at the moment when the second spouse gives consent (cf. can. 1060 § 1). Therefore, if in the meantime the infidel spouse converts and is baptized, the spouse who converted first can no longer aspire to a second marriage (except by dispensation of the ratified bond) and must return to conjugal life, even if he or she had embraced religious life or received Holy Orders.
2) The infidel spouse becomes free from the marital state only when the spouse, having been baptized, contracts a second marriage. If, therefore, the converted spouse prefers celibacy, the infidel spouse will not be able to remarry.
3) The infidel spouse, even after receiving Baptism, if he or she has again cohabited conjugally with the infidel party, does not thereby lose the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic; hence, he or she may avail himself or herself of this right if the infidel spouse, changing his or her will, subsequently abandons without just cause, or no longer wishes to cohabit peacefully, without offense to the Creator (can. 1124).
4) As can. 1123-24 makes clear, the Pauline Privilege, by ecclesiastical law, in itself applies only with a view to a new marriage with a Catholic, because it is in the sacramental marriage that the neophyte can find the most favorable environment for the practice of the faith. However, since this exclusion is not in itself sanctioned by divine law, the Church, whenever serious guarantees exist, is wont to grant a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship for marriage with an infidel (S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, 28 May 1846; S. Office, 5 March 1852, 12 Sept. 1855, etc.).
### IV. The Conditions for Applying the Pauline Privilege
The use of the Pauline Privilege is subject to three conditions:
1) The first is that one of the parties be baptized. Hence, this privilege does not apply if both spouses are baptized together, for then their marriage becomes ratified (i.e., sacramental). Nor can it be applied to catechumens not yet baptized.
2) The second is that the party who persists in remaining in infidelity departs. This departure may be physical or moral. It is physical if the infidel party abandons the conjugal home and does not return. It is not necessary that this departure of the infidel party be culpable; mere absence suffices, provided, however, that the converted party did not maliciously cause this absence, and this after Baptism.
Moral departure, 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 it attempts to drag the baptized party into committing something gravely illicit, such as apostasy, adultery, or the education of offspring in paganism. This moral departure renders conjugal life impossible, so that the separation of the spouses becomes morally necessary due to the malice of the unconverted party.
3) The third condition is that the flight or physical or moral departure of the infidel party be legally established. This is obtained through the *interpellations*.
### V. The Interpellations
1. Necessity of the Interpellations
Even if one considers only divine law, the *interpellatio* is regularly required as the ordinary means of ascertaining with certainty the flight or departure of the infidel party. This is currently the common opinion of theologians. Nevertheless, an *interpellatio* made in any manner, even privately, suffices, although if this is not fully proven, in the external forum the celebration of a new marriage cannot be permitted, nor can the previous marriage be considered dissolved.
Some, however, observe that although the flight or departure of the infidel party is required by divine law, it is not established in the written text how this departure or flight is to be known (cf. F. M. Cappello, *De matrimonio*, 5th ed., Turin-Rome 1947, p. 778). Consequently, given the true departure of the infidel party, the marriage contracted by the baptized party, even if the *interpellations* were omitted, would not seem invalid, because it does not contravene the Pauline Privilege. In practice, however, if the new marriage were celebrated without prior *interpellatio* or dispensation therefrom, even though the infidel party had in fact departed, recourse must be had to the Holy See for violation of can. 1121, and this will indicate what is to be done.
Ecclesiastical law, in any case, requires the *interpellatio*, commanding by can. 1121 § 2: “These *interpellations* must always be made, unless the Holy See has declared otherwise.”
If the infidel spouse cannot be legally *interpellated*, as in the case where his or her whereabouts are unknown, or whether he or she is still alive, or because it is judged morally impossible for the regular *interpellatio* to reach him or her, or because the *interpellatio* is feared to cause very grave harm, then the party who has converted to the faith may contract another marriage, but not before obtaining a papal dispensation from one or both of the *interpellations*. And the Holy See, if there is a just reason, is not reluctant to grant such a dispensation (cf. Benedict XIV, *De Synodo dioecesana*, Rome 1748, lib. VI, cap. 4, n. 3).
2. Object of the Interpellations
This object is twofold, or rather a double *interpellatio* of the unbaptized party is required, namely:
a) whether he or she also wishes to convert and receive Baptism;
b) whether at least he or she is willing to live peacefully without offense to the Creator (can. 1121 § 1, nn. 1 and 2).
Many cases may arise here:
a) if the infidel party answers affirmatively to both questions, there is no longer room for the Pauline case;
b) if he or she answers negatively to both, then the case of the Pauline Privilege properly obtains;
c) if he or she answers negatively to the first question but affirmatively to the second, the Pauline Privilege does not apply; however, the right of the convert to enter into a new marriage remains intact as soon as the infidel no longer observes the promise made, and in that case the *interpellations*, if made previously, need not be repeated.
3. Manner of Making the Interpellations
a) As to time. The *interpellations* must be made after the Baptism of the party who has converted, according to the provision of can. 1121 § 1.
b) As to 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). A period of time must be granted to the infidel spouse for deliberation, if requested, while warning that, if this time is allowed to pass without response, the answer is presumed negative. *Interpellations* made even privately by the converted party themselves are valid, and indeed licit, if the ordinary form cannot be observed; in this case, however, for the external forum, proof must be furnished either by at least two witnesses or by another lawful means of proof.
c) As to number. For justice, it suffices that the *interpellations* be made once.
4. The effects of the interpellations
These are to sanction and better determine the effects of the Pauline Privilege (can. 1123).When, by declaration of the Holy See, the interpellations are omitted, the marriage contracted by the converted party is and remains valid, even if it later comes to light that the infidel spouse had converted to the faith at the time of the marriage’s celebration. Thus Gregory XIII decreed in the constitution *Populus*, 25 January 1585: *CIC*, Appendix, Doc. VI.
5. Dispensation from the interpellations
The word “dispensation” is used here in the common manner of speaking, since the Code avoids this terminology (it uses *declaraverit* instead of *dispensaverit*). Dispensation is not granted without just cause, of which at least a summary and extrajudicial certainty must be had. If the Pauline Privilege is used, just cause is not required for validity; if, however, it concerns the use of vicarious power (which will be discussed below), then it is very likely required for validity.Dispensation must be granted by the competent authority: a) besides the Supreme Pontiff, by virtue of can. 247, only the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office handles matters that directly or indirectly, in law or in fact, pertain to the Pauline Privilege, to mixed religion impediments, and to disparity of cult; likewise, it alone has the faculty to dispense from these. Therefore, every matter of this kind must be referred to this dicastery, which, however, if it deems it opportune, may remit the matter to another dicastery or tribunal (e.g., the Sacred Roman Rota, the Congregation of the Sacraments, etc.). b) Moreover, all bishops and apostolic vicars, by delegation of the Supreme Pontiff, are granted the faculty to dispense from the interpellations in urgent cases, whenever it is certain that the infidel spouse neither wishes to embrace the faith nor to live with the converted spouse without offending the Creator (*S. Congr. S. Officii*, 11 August 1859: *Collectanea*, n. 1351). c) Ordinaries of mission territories are granted special indults. It must be noted here that for the granting of dispensation, just cause is required, such as the impossibility or uselessness of the admonition or an evident danger of serious harm to the party who has become Christian.
VI. RELATED QUESTIONS. THE “PETRINE PRIVILEGE”? — Mention has already been made of Gregory XIII’s constitution *Populus* (25 January 1585). Alongside it stand two other constitutions, slightly earlier: the constitution *Altitudo* of Paul III (10 July 1537) and the constitution *Romani Pontificis* of Pius V (2 August 1571). Through these three constitutions, special faculties were granted for certain places (now rendered common law, can. 1125) regarding the dissolution of legitimate marriages, either as an extension of the Pauline Privilege, according to some, or as an exercise of the vicarious power of the Roman Pontiff, according to others.
With his constitution (*CIC*, App., Doc. IV), Paul III granted to those polygamists who, at the time of baptism, could not recall which of their several wives had been the first, the faculty to take any one of them as their spouse. Pius V, with his new constitution (*CIC*, App., Doc. V), declared that the aforementioned polygamists could retain the wife who 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 or at least one of them—to distant regions, were unable to make the interpellations. For such cases, the Pope granted to certain priests (after the *CIC*, the right pertains to the local Ordinary, or to pastors, or to quasi-pastors) the faculty to dispense from the interpellations, after having ascertained summarily, in an extrajudicial manner, that the other spouse could not be interpellated or that, within the fixed time, had not responded to the interpellations. Such a marriage remained valid, even if it later transpired that the other spouse had been unable to respond to the interpellations or perhaps had already been baptized. Regarding these concessions, granted for particular places and peoples, the *CIC* decreed: “All those things that pertain to marriage in the constitutions of Paul III, *Altitudo* of 19 June 1537, of St. Pius V, *Romani Pontificis*, of 2 August 1571, and of Gregory XIII, *Populus*, of 25 January 1585—which were granted for particular places—are extended also to other regions, under the same circumstances” (can. 1125). Thus, the provisions of the three aforementioned constitutions are extended to the entire world.
What is the juridical nature of the dispensations granted by the aforesaid constitutions?
Erroneously, as is easily demonstrated, some interpret such a dispensation as an extension of the Pauline Privilege.
The more common opinion among theologians affirms a more general power of the Supreme Pontiff in this matter, an exercise of his vicarious power (Matt. 16:18). The reasons for this opinion are both intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic reason is that only the bond of a ratified and consummated Christian marriage is absolutely indissoluble. But such a marriage is not ratified and consummated unless conjugal intercourse follows 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 Pauline Privilege were almost entirely lacking.
In short, the power of the Supreme Pontiff to dispense from the bond can, theoretically at least, be omitted in all cases in which at least one of the spouses is baptized, and also in cases where the marriage of two already baptized persons has not been consummated after baptism.
This question of the vicarious or ministerial power of the Supreme Pontiff over marriages lacking the requisite of sacramentality (parallel to the other question regarding ratified but not consummated marriages, *V. MATRIMONIO, VII. M. RATIO E NON CONSUMATO*, in *Enc. Catt.*, VIII, cols. 463–71) was the subject of a vote by the consultors of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 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. Notable is the debate held at the Roman College in the 17th century, under the direction of eminent theologians of the time, whose conclusions—fully affirming the existence of vicarious or ministerial power—were presented to the Supreme Pontiff. The affirmative opinion gained ever greater ground, especially as the use by the Supreme Pontiffs of this power became ever more constant after the three constitutions mentioned above, which cannot be confined within the limits of the Pauline Privilege, so that today it can be clearly proven that the marriages of the unbaptized do not become absolutely indissoluble in the face of the vicarious power of the Roman Pontiff unless they are again consummated after the baptism of both spouses. Thus it has come about that alongside the Pauline Privilege, there is now commonly spoken of the existence of a “Petrine Privilege,” namely, the proper exercise of the plenitude of powers of the successor of Peter, which supplements the former in all those cases not falling under the conditions opposed to the Pauline Privilege. A vast body of casuistry, which might document what has been asserted above, eludes the investigation of canonists and theologians, given the secret procedure followed by the Holy Office, the dicastery competent in the matter, as has been said. Two cases, however, known and rather recent (10 July and 5 November 1924), in which marriages between a baptized non-Catholic and an unbaptized person were dissolved, may serve as an eloquent sample of this practice.
VII. RELATED ISSUES: THE "FAVOR FIDEI" — The conditions of the Pauline Privilege (p. p.) must be interpreted strictly. It is, in fact, a privilege granted in the manner of a positive-divine law, yet simultaneously contrary to both natural law (Gen. 2:24) and positive law (Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18) regarding the indissolubility of the marital bond. It would therefore be illicit, based on mere probability alone, to infer through a reflected principle in a particular case the non-existence of a bond that certainly arose and must subsist until it is certain that the conditions of the p. p. do not exist. Probabilism is not applicable here, as it involves a conflict of laws, one of which is undoubtedly certain. Nor is it permissible in cases of doubt regarding the existence of the conditions of the p. p.; for doubt cannot alter the objective reality of things, and acting otherwise would extend the p. p. beyond its proper scope.
Nevertheless, canon 1127 stipulates: "In doubt, the privilege of the faith enjoys the favor of the law." In other words, in cases of doubt, judgment must favor the freedom of the converted party, so as to permit either a new marriage or to remain lawfully in a new marriage already contracted.
From what has been said, it is evident that this principle does not pertain so much to the p. p. itself as to the exercise of the vicarious power of the Supreme Pontiff, inasmuch as it applies to all cases in which the p. p. cannot be applied with certainty but are subject to the vicarious power of the Pope.
However, the favor of the law does not apply in those doubtful cases where permitting a new marriage would give rise to general or particular scandal, or where there would be danger of violating the bond of a marriage ratified and consummated after Baptism by both parties.