

























Introduction: the salvation of souls 
The Church in her infinite wisdom gives ample 

opportunities for the proper reconciliation of souls in 
situations of danger of death. The last canon of the 1983 Code 

1
of Canon Law  while specifically dealing on the need to 
exercise clemency in the act of transferring a pastor from the 
Church he has governed well for some time, remarked 
wonderfully that nobody should forget the salient fact that 

2
“the salvation of soul is the supreme law” (canon 1752).  This 
mode of often placing last the most significant word of a 
sentence is typical of the Latin language from which the 
present code is derived. Even though the fonts of canon 1752 
attribute the source of this maxim to latter Christian authors of 

th ththe 12  and 13  centuries A.D. like Saints Ivo of Chartres, 
Raymond of Peñaforte and Thomas of Aquinas, deeper 
historical investigation reveals that the axiom was already 

thcited in the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law of the 5  century 
3

B.C.  In this Roman Law, Cicero posits thus: “the salvation 
4(safety/welfare) of the people shall be the supreme law”.  At 

the end of it all, it is the salvation, nor damnation, of souls that 

204

SOULS IN DANGER 

OF DEATH WHILE 

IN SOME 

IRREGULARITY

Paul I. ABHULIMEN



gives God the greatest glory. It would mean, ultimately, that 
the precious blood, suffering, crucifixion and death of Christ 
did not end in vain for such souls - most dear to the Incarnate 
Son of God. If there is a great joy among the angels over the 
initial repentance of a sinner, then there is undoubtedly a 
greater or immense joy in heaven when souls are saved.

The Paradigm of the Good Thief from Scriptural Basis
The event of the crucifixion of Christ on Calvary in 

between two thieves, one on his right and the other on his left 
(Lk 23: 32-34, 39-43), offers us a wonderful lesson in the 
possibility of the miraculous opportunities for souls in 
situations of danger of death to be reconciled to God. The bad 
thief crucified along with Jesus failed to utilize the grace of 
the moment for his salvation; but rather, remarked 
sarcastically: “are you not the Messiah, save yourself and 
save us” (v. 39). The good thief, conversely, profited from his 
proximity to the Saviour of humankind. This latter, having 
rebuked the erring bad thief while acknowledging his own 
faults as well, asked humanely, “Jesus remember me when 
you come to your kingdom” (vv. 40-42). William Barclay 
highlights the fact that:

Surely this story tells us above all that it is never 
too late to turn to Christ. There are other things of 
which we must say, “the time for that is past. I am 
grown too old now”. But we can never say that of 
turning to Jesus Christ. So long as a man's heart 

5
beats, the invitation of Christ still stands.

The verdict of Jesus was instantaneous; “truly I tell you, 
today you will be with me in paradise” (v. 43). Commenting 
further on this occurrence, G. B. Caird opined succinctly that:

The one criminal, lacking any sense of guilt, was 
ready to blame anyone for what he regarded as a 
vindictive twist of fate. The other, whatever else 
may be said of him, at least knew that he was guilty 
and Jesus innocent. But did he really believe that, 
beyond the present travesty of justice, the future 
held for Jesus the royal triumph of the Messiah? If 
so, the approach of death must have given him an 
acuteness of vision denied as yet to Jesus' closest 
friends. Perhaps he simply wanted to be kind to this 
innocent enthusiast who had fallen victim to 
passion and intrigue, and seized upon the words of 
the placard over his head as a means of saying 

205



something to offset the taunts of his companion. In 
this case, his was the cup of cold water that did not 
go without its reward. Whatever he expected, the 
promise of Jesus was out of all proportion to his 
request. Not in some far-off assize but now he is 
acquitted before the divine tribunal, and his reward 
is not in some age to come but today and in 

6Paradise.

Thus, the salvation of the good thief is made manifest after his 
sincere admittance, confession and contrition for his sins. We 
cannot be certain about the fate of the bad thief who wasted 
the golden opportunity for conversion and salvation.

The good thief is commonly believed to have stolen 
heaven at his final moment. He must have led a very contrary 
life, according to the roman-jewish expectations of the time, 
to the extent that he was given the maximum penalty of 
execution by crucifixion. Nevertheless, he won salvation in 
the final hour by his acceptance of the fact that he had been 
condemned to death justly for his deeds, unlike the innocent 
Christ (v. 41). The foregoing biblical incidence offers us a 
foundation in the understanding of the Church's insistence on 
the need to reconcile souls in danger of death.

Faithful in situations of Danger of Death while also in 
Irregularity

Ordinarily, the Church makes it very obligatory for 
pastors of souls not to hesitate to come to the aid of the souls in 
danger of death since this is of the greatest advantage for the 
salvation of such souls which is the supreme law. To this 
effect, Canonical legislation prescribes thus: 

§1. The Christian faithful who are in danger of 
death from any cause are to be nourished by Holy 
Communion in the form of Viaticum.
§2. Even if they have been nourished by Holy 
Communion on the same day, however, those in 
danger of death are strongly urged to receive 
communion again.
§3. While the danger of death lasts, it is not to be 
delayed too long; it is recommended that Holy 
Communion be administered often, but on 

7separate days.

Unfortunate incidences, however, do occur along the line 
whereby souls of the faithful who are in danger of death who 
must be given Holy Communion without delay are also in the 

206



category of those prohibited by canon 915: “those upon 
whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been 
imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in 
manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy 
Communion”. Accurate understanding of the foregoing 
canon reveals that those considered for exclusion from Holy 
Communion are the formally excommunicated or interdicted 
persons (cf. canons 1331 and 1332) and those who glaringly 
contradict in grave manner the sound practices of the Church. 
Persons who are divorced and remarried find themselves in 

8
this situation.  

Canonical prescriptions, under normal circumstances in 
the foregoing cases, recommend deferring the reception of 
Holy Communion in such situations in order to avoid scandal 
and unworthy communication that could be unfruitful to the 
soul of the recipient. This holds true until requisite 
dispositions are attained before fruitful communication can 
be made. Moreover, “of its very nature celebration of the 
Eucharist signifies the fullness of profession of faith and the 

9fullness of ecclesial communion”.  
Laudable as the foregoing might be, the unusual 

occasions of danger of death and irregularity for the reception 
of the sacraments especially that of the Eucharist, may 
engender great conflict against the perennial doctrine of 
salvation of souls as uppermost in the Church's consideration. 
These may call for special application of the law and 
adjustments by way of dispensations in order to meet up with 
the supreme law of salvation of souls in the Church. The law 
forbidding communication of canon 915 may therefore need 
to be reconciled with that of the salvation of souls of canon 
1752 whenever there is danger of death of canon 921. 
Summarily put: there is obvious conflicts between canon 915 
prohibiting communication in the Eucharist for souls in some 
irregularity and canon 921 which encourages prompt 
ministration of Holy Communion as Viaticum for souls in 
danger of death.

Sacraments of Healing: Penance, Anointing of the Sick and 
the Eucharist 

There is a general relaxation of the law prohibiting 
reception of the last rites of penance, anointing of the sick, 
and the Holy Eucharist in certain situations of peril, in order 

10
to help the soul towards attainment of salvation.  The Code 

11does not define the meaning of danger of death  and this is 

207



therefore left to the prudential judgment of the sacred 
ministers. Danger of death or periculum mortis in Latin, 
maybe considered as such conditions in which the soul of an 
individual is relatively more prone to death than ordinarily 
the case. This may be the case at the advent of illnesses or 
severe sicknesses, accidents or during emergencies like war 
times. Souls are considered to be in danger of death when they 
are scheduled to undergo certain surgical operations, be it 
major or minor. Such dangers are also discernable even when 
they take some means of transportation like aeroplanes or 
vehicles in some risky terrains. In general, when there is 
danger of death and pending the duration of such situation of 
danger of death, the law is usually relapsed to allow 
penitential reconciliation, anointing of the sick and the 
reception of Holy Communion.

Due to the wide range of applications of the term 
'danger of death' it has occasioned great doubts in the hearts of 
ministers and people alike, as to the precise manner of 
knowing when souls are in danger of death. The prudent 
judgment is left to the ministers of souls and in some cases 
too, to the faithful themselves, to discern when there is danger 
of death. The canonical understanding however recommends 
that in situations of doubt, in any of the cases at hand, the 
benefit of doubt should be given to the soul of the recipient of 
the sacramental grace. That is, if one entertains doubt whether 
there is actual situation of danger of death in a particular case, 
that one should, nevertheless, go on to administer the 
particular sacraments required, baptism, confirmation, 
Eucharist, confession, anointing of the sick, as long as the 
basic requirement of right intention is melt. More good would 
be done than harm if one administers in error than if one 
abstains from acting and then later discovers that one may 
have jeopardized the salvation of a soul due to negligence or 
over-scrupulosity.

The canonical term 'danger of death' or periculum 
mortis has a very wide range of prudential or subjective 
applications and it is to be distinguished from the previously 
used term 'point of death' or articulum mortis. This latter term 
in the old legislation was required for the administration of 
the so called 'extreme unction'. Due to the non- repeatability 
of extreme unction then it was therefore highly emphasized 
that ministers of souls must be very certain that souls were 
actually at the final hour or point of death before its 
administration. It was then given along with the still popular 

208



practice of Viaticum, otherwise known as “the last sacrament 
of Christian life, Holy Communion given to those at or near 

12death”.  One may not be certain therefore that it is a viaticum 
until after the subsequent occurrence of death and so it is wise 
to simply refer to it as Holy Communion to the Sick until the 
advent of death thereafter. These days in the light of recent 
understanding, 'extreme unction' has been replaced by the 
new doctrinal terminology of anointing of the sick as a 
sacrament. No emphasis is laid anymore on 'point of death' or 
articulum mortis and the consideration is now rather given to 
danger of death or periculum mortis. While Viaticum remains 
but is generally now intended as Communion to the sick who 
need this all-important nourishment to sustain them in this 
life and in eternity. The problem with the old practice was that 
many incidences of deaths occurred without the 
administrations of the required last sacramental aids of 
'extreme unction' because no one could be actually sure of 
when it was 'point of death' or articulum mortis. Even several 
souls at the dawn of such critical points of death could not 
receive the scrupulously-reserved-for-final-moment 
sacrament and Viaticum. 

A Relaxation of the Law in Danger of Death
Canon 844 § 4 actually prescribes that:

If there is a danger of death or if, in the 
judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the 
Bishops' Conference, there is some grave 
danger and pressing need, Catholic ministers 
may lawfully administer these same 
sacraments [of penance, anointing of the sick 
and the Eucharist] to other Christians not in 
full communion with the Catholic Church, 
who cannot approach a minister of their own 
community and who spontaneously ask for 
them, provided that they demonstrate the 
Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments 

13
and are properly disposed.

The foregoing section of the canon is intended for other 
Christians mainly of the western extraction such as the 
protestants who do have the required Catholic faith regarding 
the recommended sacraments who in danger of death, in the 
absence of their own minister, have spontaneously asked 

14them for them and are well disposed.  If these sacraments of 

209



healing could be administered to non-Catholics, how much 
more should they be given to repentant Catholics in danger of 
death even though they have being in some irregularity such 
as, those living in concubinage, mere customary or civil 
marriages, and the divorced and remarried. At least, it is 
recommended that “sacramental absolution is not to be 
denied to those who, repentant after having gravely sinned 
against conjugal chastity, demonstrate the desire to strive 

15
from sinning again, notwithstanding relapses”.  This latter 
recommendation is irrespective of whether there is danger of 
death or not; it regards ordinary daily practice of giving room 
to these Christians in suchlike irregularities. Wider margin for 
reconciliation through the reception of the sacraments of 
penance, anointing and the Eucharist is given to the faithful 
when there is danger of death.

By Christ's faithful or Christifideles, it is meant those who 
have been incorporated through Baptism into the Church, or 
those formally received into the Church with valid Baptism of 
other ecclesial bodies, and who have not by a formal act of the 
will separated themselves (cf. canon 1117) and who have not 
incurred the maximum sanction of excommunication 
officially declared or irrogated by the competent 
ecclesiastical authority (cf. canon 96). While the Holy Mother 
Church hardly inflicts officially the maximum penalty of 
Excommunication but if done, separates one from the 
communion of the faithful until remission of it is received (cf. 
canon 1331). The sole actual known case to me of a faithful 
who has been officially excommunicated from the Church is 
Archbishop Milingo, former Archbishop of Lusaka in 
Zambia. 

Moreover, canon 915 states categorically that, “those 
upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has 
been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist 
in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy 
Communion”. The reason for such restriction is obvious, 
since worthy external communication at the Eucharist can 
only be fruitful if the inner channel of grace has not been 
ruptured in the soul. It would therefore amount to an absolute 
contradiction to feign external communion through 
participation at the Eucharist when such act harms the soul 
internally due to non-disposition for worthy reception. 
Therefore, let everyone examines his conscience thoroughly 
before partaking of the Body of Christ, lest he eats damnation 
unto himself (1 Cor 11:27-29).

210



However, according to canon 1352 § 1,
if a penalty prohibits the reception of the 
sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is 
suspended for as long as the offender is in danger 
of death.

 Thus, in danger of death, there is a general suspension of 
the law in order to minister sacramentally to the souls of the 
faithful irrespective of their spiritual condition in the 
preservation of the obligation of communion: of the bond of 
faith, sacraments and ecclesiastically discipline (cf. canon 
205). In danger of death, a baptised person who in whatever 
irregularity: be it concubinage, polygamy, occultism, 
censures, lapsed practise of the faith or even notorious 
abandonment of the faith, is allowed, as long as the danger 
lasts and as long as such soul is willing to embrace the part of 
reconciliation, to the sacramental life of Confession, 
Anointing of the Sick and even Communion. The reason 
given such relaxation of law is understandable since the 
supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls (cf. canon 
1752) and the purpose of penalties or disciplinary restrictions 
is to reform the offender and to repair the damages done by the 
scandal caused, the law therefore wisely foresees some 
circumstances like during danger of death in which a 
suspension or relaxation of the law becomes preferable in 
order to guarantee the ultimate end of the Church for 

16salvation.  However, due caution is to be observed to avoid 
putting in jeopardy the veritable beliefs of the faithful and as 
such the admittance to sacramental life while the danger of 
death lasts is to be done discretely and most probably in 
private.

Specific Dispensations for sacramental reconciliations 
during danger of death
Admittance to the Sacrament of Reconciliation in Danger 
of Death 

Any of Christ's faithful can be fully reconciled 
sacramentally when and as long as there is danger of death by 
any priest even though officially excommunicated. This 
canonical regulation shows the largesse of ecclesiastical 
practice at the service of the supreme law of salvation of 
souls. In this regard, canon 976 emphatically and extensively 
declares that

211



any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear 
confessions, can validly absolve any penitents 
who are in danger of death, from any censures and 
sins, even if an approved priest is present.

In the same way, canon 977 asserts that “the absolution of 
a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the 
Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death”. Previously, 
in the old legal disposition of canon 882 of the 1917 Code of 
Canon Law allowance was given for the valid absolution of 
all sins and censures when there was danger of death except 
for the absolution of one's partner in the sin against the sixth 
commandment of the Decalogue which was still retained as 
illicit under some circumstances (canon 2367 of the CIC/17). 
Unlike the code of the old dispensation, canon 976 of the new 
code places no restrictions on the confessor or on the penitent 
and so any priest may absolve, validly and licitly, of any sin or 
censure, of any penitent in danger of death even if such is an 

17accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment.  
However, the obligation remains to make recourse within one 
month of recovery from danger of death to the competent if 
one had been absolved from officially declared censures 

18reserved to the Holy See according to canon 1357.
Moreover, the faculty to hear confession is usually 

restrictive but “in danger of death, every priest is obliged” 
(canon 986 § 2) to hear the confession of Christ's faithful. 
This includes priests who may be under the sanction of 
excommunication since the urgency of the salvation of soul 
relapses such extant prohibition (cf. 1352 § 1). Ordinarily, 
“for valid absolution of sins, it is required that in addition to 
the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that 
power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution” 
(canon 966). Though integral and individual confession of 
one's sins is obviously the norm, in situation of death, general 
absolution may be carried out in so far the penitents are 
recommended to first make an act of contrition as long as time 
permits (canon 962). The individual confession and integral 
confession of sins constitute the only ordinary way for the 
reconciliation of the faithful but when the conditions required 
by canonical discipline of grave necessity occurs such as 
danger of death the extraordinary form of general confession 

19and absolution is allowed.
 

212



Anointing of the Sick in Danger of Death
The sacrament of the anointing of the sick is properly 

meant for those in danger death due to illness. So it not 
presupposed general cases of danger of death but only for the 
sick, and especially those sick and in danger of death. Thus 
canon 998 declares that

The Anointing of the Sick, by which the 
Church commends to the suffering and 
glorified Lord the faithful who are 
dangerously ill so that he may support and 
save them, is conferred by anointing them 
with oil and pronouncing the words 
prescribed in the liturgical books.

Even in the event of doubt as to whether the sick person 
has the use of reason or is dead, the sacrament is still to be 
administered (canon 1005). However, there is a particular 
prohibition which deviates from the general suspension of the 
law in danger of death since “the anointing of the sick is not to 
be conferred upon those who obstinately persist in a 
manifestly grave sin” (canon 1007). Thus the anointing of the 
sick requires a disposition of conversion which may be 
guaranteed if the sick person is penitent and accepts first to 
undergo confession of sins with perfect contrition and sincere 
resolution for amendment henceforth.

Admittance to the Holy Eucharist as Viaticum in Danger of 
Death

Canon 921 states succinctly and has been elucidated on 
earlier that,

Christ's faithful who are in danger of death, 
from whatever cause, are to be strengthened by 
Holy Communion as Viaticum (§1).
While the danger of death persists, it is 
recommended that Holy Communion be 
administered a number of times, but on 
separate days (§3).

The ordinary ministers of Viaticum, that is, Holy Communion 
to the sick is the parish priests, assistant parish priests and the 
superiors of a clerical religious community with regard to 
those who are members therein (canon 911 §1). However, in 
case of necessity, that is, there is need to give Holy 
Communion to a sick member of the faithful, the permission 

213



of the proper parish priest, assistant parish priest or religious 
superior of such faithful is presumed as long as one is able to 
notify any of them of the occurred act (canon 911 §2). 

Ordinarily, Holy Communion is administered to children 
who have reached the age of reason, have sufficient 
knowledge, have been carefully prepared and do have the 
requisite faith and devotion to participate worthily therein 
(canon 913 §1). However, canonical prescription allows that 
infants in danger of death, having earlier received baptism 
may be admitted to Holy Communion as long as they can 
distinguish it from ordinary food (canon 913 §2).

 
Confirmation in Danger of Death

Ordinarily, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, 
an adult who is baptised is to be confirmed immediately after 
baptism and is to participate in the Eucharistic celebration 
also by receiving Holy Communion (canon 866). This is the 
standard practice of the Church as regard full Christian 
initiation. The legitimate age for the reception of the 
sacrament of confirmation therefore is from when persons 
have reached the age of discretion, otherwise known as the 
age of reason, which is presumed at the attainment of seven 
years of age, having first received baptism, suitable 
instruction and being properly disposed.  Dispensation may 
be given for the use of reason, proper instruction and renewal 
of baptismal promises in the event of danger of death (cf. 
canon 889 § 2). The Bishop's Conference may decide on a 
different age for the reception of the sacrament of 
confirmation. 

Whenever there is a danger of death, confirmation may be 
conferred according to the prudent judgment of the minister 
to those about the age of discretion (canon 891) who have not 
previously been confirmed. Canon 883 outlines those having 
the faculty to confirm: 1° the diocesan Bishop and his 
equivalents within the confines of their jurisdiction; 2° the 
priest by virtue of his office or mandate may do so too when 
he baptises one who is no longer an infant or admits a person 
already baptised into full communion with the catholic 
Church; and 3° “in respect of those in danger of death, the 
parish priest or indeed any priest”. Consequently 
confirmation can be administered to the baptised (faithful) 
who are in danger of death by any priest (canon 883 n 3°). Be 
that as it may it remains the special function of the parish 

214



priest to administer the sacrament of confirmation to those 
who are in danger of death (canon 530 n. 2°).

Apart from the foregoing considerations made for the 
faithful in danger of death while also in some situations of 
irregularity, the Church is also desirous of the proper 
incorporation or integration of the non-baptised persons and 
catechumens. This latter category could be similarly helped 
in order to facilitate the salvation of soul. Special 
consideration is given to the non-baptised who is also in some 
form of polygamous relation.

Dispensation from Ecclesiastical Impediments and Form to 
Celebrate Marriage in Danger of Death

There are two basic ways regarding dispensations of 
matrimonial impediments of ecclesiastical origin and of 
canonical form during danger of death: through the official 
process of the local ordinary, parish priest, or confessor 
(canon 1079 §§ 1, 2, or 3); and secondly through the sworn 
declaration of couples that they have no impediments (canon 
1068). Canon 1079 § 1 states categorically that, “when 
danger of death threatens, the local Ordinary can dispense his 
own subjects, wherever they are residing, and all who are 
actually present in his territory, both from the form to be 
observed in the celebration of marriage, and from each and 
every impediment of ecclesiastical law, whether public or 
occult, with the exception of the impediment arising from the 
sacred order of priesthood”. The same faculty of dispensation 
in similar circumstances as the foregoing is given to parish 
priest, a properly delegated sacred minister, or any available 
priest or deacon even though may not possess the relevant 
faculty through delegation (canons 1079 § 2 and 1116 § 2). 
The dispensing power of confessors within or outside the 
internal-sacramental forum in the said circumstances regards 
only occult impediments (canon 1079 § 3). The second mode 
of personal dispensation concerns where there is “danger of 
death and if other proofs cannot be obtained, the affirmation 
of the contracting parties, even sworn if the case warrants it, 
that they are baptised and are not prevented by no impediment 
is sufficient unless there are indications to the contrary (canon 
1068).

The canonical form that is being referred to here is, the 
requirement by ecclesiastical law that valid marriages can 
only be contracted by the catholic faithful when done in the 
presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or the priest or 

215



the deacon delegated by either the first two (that is, local 
Ordinary or parish priest) as official representative in the 
name of the Church who ask the parties to manifest their 
consent, and in the presence also of two witnesses (canon 
1108 §§ 1 & 2). 

Furthermore, such marriages have to be celebrated in the 
parish which either parties has a domicile or quasi-domicile 
or a month's residence or, if there is a question of vagi (or 
nomads), in the parish in which they are actually residing 
(canon 1115). Thus with the permission of the local Ordinary 
or the parish priest, marriages may be celebrated elsewhere 
within or outside territory (canon 1115). Canonical form is 
therefore dispensable in some circumstances and danger of 
death by the competent authority so that undue delay will not 
be caused by the inability of the official representative of the 
Church of the sacred orders to be reached. 

When dispensation is granted, the marriage may be 
celebrated without observing the usual canonical form of an 
official assistant in the name of the Church, or of 
domiciliarity (canon 1118 §§ 1, 2 & 3) or the use of rites of the 
liturgical books (canon 1119). Canon 1116 § 1 which 
concerns extraordinary form of celebration of marriage still 
retains the aspects of two or common witnesses even when 
the competent or official assistant, domiciliary forum and 
liturgical rites are dispensed with. Thus, “as far as the two 
common witnesses are concerned, nothing specific is 
established for them ... any person (laypersons, clerics or 
religious; baptized or not, blood relations, et cetera) may 
undertake this commitment, provided that they have use of 

20reason and can give witness to the celebration of marriage”.  
Mere civil, customary, or similar marriages within the 
expected canonical framework of any two witnesses who 
have the use of reason to testify about its occurrence become 
valid and ipso facto it is sacramental according to the norm of 
canon 1055 § 2. 

Reserved Dispensation of Impediment of Holy Orders to 
Apostolic See even in Danger of Death 

Canonical regulations allow for wide dispensations by the 
local ordinary of sins, censures and impediments, including 
that of the perpetual vow of chastity in religious institute of 
pontifical right and that of crime, whenever there is danger of 
death in order to coherently uphold the axiom of the supreme 
law of salvation of souls in the Church. Nevertheless, the 

216



impediment of Holy Orders remains reserved to the Holy See. 
This means that even if the subject concerned is reconciled 
temporarily during danger of death and given useful 
sacraments penance, anointing of the sick and the Eucharist, 
there still cannot be the granting of dispensation from the vow 
of celibacy by the local ordinary thereby allowing him valid 
celebration of matrimony but strictly reserved to Holy See. 
Thus, those who are bound by the vow of sacred orders 
invalidly contracts marriage, be it civil or otherwise (canon 
1087).

On this margin of dispensability of impediments during 
danger of death by the local ordinary, canon 1078 elucidates 
the following facts that

§ 1 The Local Ordinary can dispense his own 
subjects wherever  they are residing, and all who 
are actually present in his territory, from all 
impediments of ecclesiastical law, except for those 
whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic 
See.
§ 2 The impediments whose dispensation is 
reserved to the Apostolic See are:
1° the impediment arising from sacred orders or 
from a public perpetual vow of chastity in a 
religious institute of pontifical right;
2° the impediment of crime mentioned in cann. 
1090.

The impediment of public perpetual vow of chastity in a 
religious institute of pontifical right is ordinarily not 
dispensable by the local ordinary as attested to by subsection 
one of section two of the foregoing canon. But when there is 
danger of death according to the proceeding canon 1079 § 1, 
the ordinary can dispense from all impediments in order for to 
allow proper celebration of marriage except from the 
impediment Holy Orders which therefore remains reserved. 
The foregoing canon gives the local ordinary who may not 
necessary be of Episcopal character the faculty to dispense 
from the impediments even of public perpetual vows of 
religious institutes of pontifical right given the temporary 
incidence of danger of death in the life of such religious in 
order to have valid matrimony. If the religious institute is of 
diocesan right, the local ordinary can dispense from perpetual 
vow anytime even when there is no danger of death. This 
impediment requiring dispensation does not in any way bind 

217



anybody, be it of society of apostolic life or secular institute 
who is under private vow. The local Ordinary therefore can 
dispense from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except 

21
only that arising from the priesthood.  

Equally, the impediment of crime as defined by canon 
1090 § 1 is the intentional killing of one's partner in marriage 
or that of another in order to contract marriage thereof with 
the intended spouse is not dispensable according to the norm 
of canon 1078 § 2 n° 2. Dispensation from the foregoing 
impediment of crime is under normal circumstances reserved 
to the Holy See. Be that as it may, a dispensation could be 
given by the local ordinary under situation of danger of death 
in order to validly contract a marriage. Nevertheless, care 
should be taken to exercise refrain where the murder is 
publicly known or likely to be known since it borders now on 
civil law or a criminal case. In suchlike situations, simple 
reconciliation, where possible, of the faithful in danger of 
death while also in irregularity could be given thereby 
allowing the three sacraments of penance, anointing of the 
sick and the Viaticum.

Indispensable Impediments of Divine or Natural Law even 
in Danger of Death

There are no dispensations for impediments of divine or 
natural order. The impediment of age of sixteen for males and 
fourteen for females in order to contract marriage being a 
human law allows for the possibility of dispensation, usually 
not more than one year (canon 1083 § 1). In fact, higher age of 
eighteen for either sex in order to contract matrimony validly 
is in force according to the canonization of civil prescription 
in Nigeria. Canon law gives this counsel to national Episcopal 
conferences to establish the required age for matrimony as it 
discourages except in necessity and with the permission of 
the local ordinary any marriage that cannot be recognized by 
civil law of the place of celebration (canon 1071 n. 2°).

Impotency, be it of natural or accidental cause, cannot be 
dispensed with in order to have legitimate validation of 
marriage (canon 1083 § 1). Antecedent and perpetual 
impotence contradict the very essence of the end of marriage. 
With impotency, a ratified marriage cannot be consummated. 
The Roman Pontiff using his petrine privilege or vicarious 
power can thus dispense with a ratified but not consummated 
matrimony due to the foregoing or any other cause (cf. canon 

218



1142). This is not so with sterility which does not invalidate 
marriage (canon 1083 § 3).

Impediment of a previous bond of marriage, that is, a 
ratified and consummated marriage being of a divine law 
cannot be dispensed by any human power (canon 1085 § 1). 
This fact is true even if the marriage was only ratified and not 
consummated. Dissolution of a previous bond of marriage 
can only be by death (canon 1141), or must be subjected to the 
decision of the ecclesiastical tribunal to resolve when 
suspected of nullity and no presumption is to be taken by 
anyone in this regard (canon 1085 § 2). Divine law is very 
lucid on especially from the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself 
that from the beginning God made them male and female and 
so man leaves his father and mother and becomes joined to his 
wife; thus what God has joined together no one must divide 
(Mt 19:6).

It is not quite clear whether the impediment of 
consanguinity be considered of natural law but with more of 
human specification. The impediment is certainly of natural 
divine law when it is of the direct line, that is between parents 
and children and similarly likely to be so between brothers 
and sisters. So canonical regulation declares the impediment 
of consanguinity not dispensable in all degrees of the direct 
lines; though it considers marriage invalid in the collateral 
line up to the fourth degree, it is never dispensable in the 
second degree collateral (canon 1091 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4). Thus, 
canon 1079 § 3 highlights the fact that “a dispensation is 
never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the 
direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line”. 

Generally, those who lack good use of reason (usus 
rationis) are unable to carry out any juridical act acceptable as 
valid by the law (canons 99, 124 § 1, 97 § 2). So insanity is an 
irregularity for the receptions of sacred orders (1041 n. 1°) 
while it is also incapability for the contracting of marriage 
(canon 1095). The impediment of insanity cannot be 
dispensed. 

The Baptism of the Non-Baptised and the Catechumen
In danger of death, the conditions required for the baptism 

of the non-baptised adults are: if such persons have some 
knowledge of the principal truths of the faith together with the 
manifestation, in some manner, of the intention to receive 
baptism (canon 865§ 2). A catechumen obviously qualify to  

be baptised ipso facto since the preparation for baptism 

219



already begun is an eloquent testimony of the manifest 
intention to be baptised. The principal truths of the faith are 
such general doctrinal knowledge of the trinity, the 
forgiveness of sins, eternal life and so on. 

Most people living in Christian environments may be 
presumed to have some basic awareness of such truths. Even 
in doubt, that is, if the minister has no certainty of the contrary 
being the case, the soul in danger may be given baptism. 
Accurate documentations of the event are to the forwarded to 
the parish records where the candidate is domiciled. In the 
event of recovery from the situation of the danger of death, 
the candidate should be encouraged to undergo further 
instructions and be admitted fully to the sacramental life of 
the Eucharist and the other sacraments.

Infants, that is, children below the age of reason of seven 
years, are usually baptised through the consent of their 
parents or guardian within the first few weeks of birth (canon 
867 § 1 ). If infants are in danger of death, the code prescribes 
that they should be baptised without any delay (867 § 2). The 
reason for the foregoing prescription is based on the supreme 
law of the salvation of soul which supersedes any legal 
barriers in such situations of emergencies. In fact, “an infant 
of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, is 
lawfully baptised in danger of death, even if the parents are 
opposed to it” (canon 868 § 2). The law of due process in such 
situation is ipso facto dispensed by the superior need of 
salvation in the mind of the Church.

Similarly, “an abandoned infant or a foundling is to be 
baptised unless diligent inquiry establishes that it has already 
been baptised” (canon 870). Moreover, “aborted foetuses, if 
they are alive, are to be baptised, in so far as this is possible” 
(canon 871). Holy Communion is usually allowed to baptised 
children who have been formally admitted to it having 
reached the age of reason. Canon 913 § 2 states that “the 
Blessed Eucharist may, however, be administered to children 
in danger of death if they can distinguish the Body of Christ 
from ordinary food and receive Communion with reverence”. 
The foregoing presupposes baptised children. 

It is a Christian obligation to ensure that souls in danger of 
death are duly baptised if need be but, in emergency or “in 
case of necessity, any person can baptise provided that he has 
the intention of doing that which the Church does and 
provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while 
saying: 'I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 

220



and of the Holy Spirit” (CCC, 1284). Due record of event 
should always be made in each case and forwarded to the 
relevant parish of the candidate.

If the non-baptised in danger of death is in an irregular 
union of concubinage or polygamy, he or she is still to be 
baptised as long as he or she, along with the basic demands 
already mentioned previously, accepts to regularize invalid 
unions as soon as possible. This is the case if such souls are 
conscious and are able to respond; otherwise, they are given 
baptism in hope of their reconciliation when recovered. If the 
non-baptised candidates along with the non-baptised 
spouse(s) accept to ratify their invalid unions then they can 
thus be allowed to the sacraments of full Christian initiation 
of Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. However, 
in the case of polygamy, he or she may retain one of them 
while the extra spouses are to be sent away (canon 1148 § 1) 
except if the permission of the local ordinary is given for the 
extra spouses to live together as 'brother and sister' under the 
same roof.

Conclusion
Indeed, the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the 

Church (cf. canon 1752). To re-echo Christ, the Son of Man is 
Lord even of the Sabbath. What the Lord wants is the merciful 
application of the law. That is, it should be done with a human 
face. Nevertheless, this is not an invitation to lawlessness, 
liberalism or anarchy. It only calls for a matured Christian 
obedience to the Law since the Son of Man has not come to 
abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them. And so 
every dot of the law needs respect and compliance within the 
limits of human possibility. 

Any subscription to the law that leads to the destruction of 
the soul of man is meaningless and futile. Law is indeed 
supposed to be a guide to human development, freedom and 
salvation. Thus, God is maximally glorified over the 
salvation of a soul, for whom His precious Son, Jesus Christ, 
became incarnated in the human flesh, suffered severely the 
ignominious passion, crucified with great outpouring of 
blood, died forsaken on the shameful Cross, rose again to sit 
at the right hand of the Father in the glory of heaven, and 
poured forth graciously on the Church the living spring of His 
life giving Holy Spirit.

221



ENDNOTES
1.  Pope John Paul II, The Code of Canon Law, New revised English 

Translation, Theological Publication in India, Bangalore, 1983.
2.  Cf. Eduardo Labandeira, “commentary on canon 1752” in Code of 

Canon Law Annotated edited by Ernest Caparros, Michael Theriault 
thand Jean Thorn, second edition revised and updated of the 6  Spanish 

language edition, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montréal (Canada), 2004, 
p. 1374: “In order to bring the CIC/83 to a close, nothing is more 
appropriate than to remember that canonical equity  the spirit of the 
Gospel in dealing with particular subjective situations  can and should 
be applied in harmony with the supreme law of the Church which is the 
salvation of souls”.

3.  J. P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green (eds.), New 
Commentary on the Code of Canon Law commissioned by Canon Law 
Society of America, Paulist Press, New York, 2000, p. 1847.

4.  Cicero, De Legalibus 3.3.8: salus populi suprema lex esto, cf. Loeb 
Classical Library, 1977, pp. 466-467. Cf. also B. Nicholas, An 
Introduction to Roman Law, Clarendon, Oxford, 1962, p. 15. 

5.  William Barclay, the Gospel of Luke, Revised Edition, The Daily Study 
Bible Series, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia (USA), p. 287. 

6.  G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, the Pelican New Testament Commentaries, 
Penguin Books, London, 1963, pp. 251-252.

7.  Pope John Paul II, The Code of Canon Law, op. cit., canon 921. 
8.  Cf. Committee on the revision of the Code of Canon Law, 

Communicationes 15 (1983) 194 at canon 867, Vatican City, 1969-.
9.  Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Instruction “In quibus rerum 

circumstantiis” IV 1 in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 64 (1972) 518-525 [cf. 
Austin Flannery (ed.), Vatican Council II, vol. I, Revised Edition, 
Dublin, 1988, p. 557].

10.  Cf. Ecumenical Second Vatican Council, Constitution on the Sacred 
Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium, n. 74.

11.  J. P. Beal et alii (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 
op. cit., p. 1115.

12.  Ibid.
13.  Cf. Pope John II, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paulines, 

Nairobi (Kenya), 1994, no. 1401: “When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a 
grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of 
Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in 
full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their 
own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith 
regarding these sacraments, and possess the required dispositions. 

14.  Cf. Pope John Paul, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Libreria 
Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, no. 46: “these conditions from which 
no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though 
they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or 
more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, 
the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their 
validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately 
receive them”.

15.  Pontifical Council for the Family, The Pastoral Care of the Divorced 
and Remarried and Vademecum for Confessors concerning some 
aspects of the Moral Conjugal Life, Pauline Books & Media, Boston 

222



(U.S.A.), 1997, n. 11.
16.  Cf. “commentary on canon 1352 § 1” in Gerard Sheehy et alii (eds.), 

The Canon Law Letter & Spirit  A Practical Guide to the Code of 
Canon Law, Georffrey Chapman, London, 1995, p. 776.  

17.  Tomás Rincón, “commentary on canon 976” in Code of Canon Law 
Annotated edited by Ernest Caparros et alii (eds.), op. cit., p. 753.

18.  Pope John Paul II, The Code of Canon Law, op. cit., canon 1357: “§ 1 
Without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor 
can in the internal sacramental forum remit latae sententiae censure of 
excommunication or interdict which has not been declared, if it is 
difficult for the penitent to remain in a state of grave sin for the time 
necessary for the competent superior to provide. § 2  In granting the 
remission, the confessor is to impose upon the penitent, under pain of 
again incurring the censure, the obligation to have recourse within one 
month to the competent superior or to a priest having the requisite 
faculty, and to abide by his instructions. In the meantime, the confessor 
is to impose an appropriate penance and, to the extent demanded, 
require reparation of scandal and damage. The recourse, however, may 
be made even through the confessor without mention of a name. § 3 The 
same duty of recourse, when they have recovered, binds those who in 
accordance with can. 976 have had remitted an imposed or declared 
censure or one reserved to the Apostolic See”.

19.  Pope John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on 
Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church Today 
Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Pauline Boods & Media, Boston 
(U.S.A.), 2 December 1984, no. 33.

20.  Rafael Navarro Valls, “commentary on canon 1116” in Code of Canon 
Law Annotated edited by Ernest Caparros et alii (eds.), op. cit., p. 872.

21.  “Commentary on canon 1079 § 1” in Gerard Sheehy et alii (eds.), The 
Canon Law Letter & Spirit, op. cit., p. 594.

223


