View source for Ne Temere

{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2025}}
{{Short description|1907 Roman Catholic decree}}
{{Title language|la}}
{{canon law}}
'''{{lang|la|Ne Temere}}''' was a [[Papal bull|decree]] issued in 1907 by the [[Roman Catholic]] [[Congregation of the Council]] regulating the canon law of the Church regarding [[marriage]] for practising Catholics. It is named for its [[incipit|opening words]], which literally mean "lest rashly" in [[Latin]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Ne Temere|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ne-temere|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005074252/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Ne-Temere|url-status=dead|archive-date=5 October 2015|publisher=Oxford Dictionaries|access-date=11 February 2016}}</ref>

==Issue==
The decree was issued under [[Pope]] [[Pius X]], 10 August 1907, and took effect on Easter 19 April 1908. It concerned the validity of all marriages involving Catholics. Marriages in [[Germany]] were exempted by the subsequent decree {{lang|la|Provida}}.<ref>{{cite web|title=Mixed Marriages|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09698a.htm|website=Catholic Encyclopedia|access-date=11 February 2016|date=1911}}</ref>

==Differences from {{lang|la|Tametsi}}==
To the [[Clandestinity (in Canon Law)|clandestinity]] requirements of the decree {{lang|la|[[Tametsi]]}} of the [[Catholic Reformation|Counter-Reformation]] [[Council of Trent]], the decree reiterated the requirements that the marriage be witnessed by a priest and two other witnesses (adding that this requirement was now universal), added requirements that the priest (or bishop) being witness to the marriage must be the pastor of the parish (or the bishop of the diocese), or be the delegate of one of those, the marriage being invalid otherwise, and the marriage of a couple, neither one resident in the parish (or diocese), while valid, was illicit. It also required that marriages be registered.<ref>[https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35103 "Ne Temere Decree", Catholic Culture]</ref>

On the success of a [[divorce]] action brought by a non-Catholic spouse, the Catholic spouse was still considered married in the eyes of the Church, and could not remarry to a third party in church.

It explicitly laid out that non-Catholics, including baptized ones, were not bound by Catholic canon law for marriage, and therefore could contract valid and binding marriages without compliance.

==Conflicts of laws==
In 1911, {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} was criticised by [[Richard Hely-Hutchinson, 6th Earl of Donoughmore]] in the then [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] for declaring that the Catholic Church would consider invalid for a Catholic a marriage that they entered into in any way other than before the parish priest or a Catholic priest delegated by him, even if in civil law it was valid.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1911/feb/28/marriage-law-the-ne-temere-decree|title=MARRIAGE LAW—THE "NE TEMERE" DECREE. |website=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|date=28 February 1911|access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref>

In March 1911, the issue of the Roman Catholic Church's [[Canon law (Catholic Church)|canon law]] declaring invalid marriages that were recognised as valid by the State raised political and judicial issues in [[Canada]] when a judge of [[Quebec]]'s Superior Court confirmed the annulment by the Roman Catholic Church of the marriage of two Catholics which had been performed by a Methodist minister. The wife subsequently appealed the decision, saying that she had offered no defense in the original civil suit because she feared she might lose custody of her child. The appeal's judge declared that the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} decree had "no civil effect on said marriage," and that the Archbishop's ecclesiastical decree of annulment had "no judicial effect in said case". The previous civil judgement was declared nullified.<ref>John S. Moir. [http://umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1981/Moir.html "Canadian Protestant Reaction to the Ne Temere Decree"], ([https://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1981/Moir.pdf PDF]) ''CCHA Studv Sessions'', 48(1981), 78-90. (Retrieved 2018-07-22.)</ref>

In [[New South Wales]] in 1924, the legislature came within one vote of criminalising the promulgation of the decree.<ref>Brigid Moore. [https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=880810726;res=IELAPA Sectarianism in NSW: the Ne Temere legislation 1924-1925], ''Journal of the Australian Catholic Historical Society'', 9 (1987), 3-15.{{subscription required}}</ref>

===McCann Case===
The McCann case of 1910 served as an example to Protestant Unionists of what would happen if Home Rule, or "Rome Rule" as they saw it, was implemented.<ref>Edited by Vaughan, W. E. A new history of Ireland Vl: Ireland Under the Union 1870-1921. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.</ref> The case concerned a couple in Belfast that had been married in a Protestant ceremony. The husband, who was Catholic, allegedly left his Protestant wife by the urging of a priest to the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} decree, taking their children with him. The controversy sparked outrage among the Protestant Unionists, and more than likely increased opposition to Home Rule.

===Tilson case===
{{lang|la|Ne Temere}} focused on the validity of marriages in which only one party was a Catholic. Although it did not specifically make any mention of children born to such marriages, it did require the issuance of a dispensation. A condition of the granting of said dispensation was a promise that any children born of such union would be raised in the Catholic faith.

In [[common law]] jurisdictions the father, by what is called the principle of "paternal supremacy", has the right to decide the religious upbringing of all the children of the marriage.<ref>{{cite news|author=David Jameson |title=The Religious Upbringing of Children of Mixed Marriages: The Evolution of Irish Law|url=https://www.academia.edu/15170610 |work=New Hibernia Review, 18.2 (summer 2014) |pages=65–83|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> At first, this held also in the [[Republic of Ireland]], even if he had entered into a contrary agreement in writing. The [[Supreme Court of Ireland]] still upheld paternal supremacy in 1945 in a judgement that the children, whose father had died, should be kept in a Protestant orphanage rather than be placed in the charge of the Catholic mother.<ref>''Frost'', [1947] IR 3, decided at first instance by Circuit Judge [[Cahir Davitt]] and in the Supreme Court by [[Timothy Sullivan (Irish judge)|Chief Justice Timothy Sullivan]]</ref> It attributed no force to the signed promises that the father had made before the marriage nor to the argument that the 1937 [[Constitution of Ireland]], adopted eight years earlier, declared that "the State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society", and that it "acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family".<ref>[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41 Constitution of Ireland, articles 41 and 42]</ref> Largely because this judgement ignored the promises made in the prenuptial agreement, it caused deep resentment in Catholic circles.<ref>Jameson (2014), p. 75</ref>

In 1951 the Irish Supreme Court made a contrary judgement, upholding on appeal a 1950 [[High Court (Ireland)|High Court]] decision in a suit brought by a Catholic mother seeking the return of the four children whom their Protestant father had placed in a Protestant home to be raised as Protestants. The High Court ruled that the father was bound by the written undertaking he had given before marriage. The Supreme Court directed its attention to whether the prenuptial agreement was binding. Its own reasoning was that, "in upholding the contractual validity of the pre-marriage promise given by [the father, it] was rejecting an archaic principle of British law that would be the object of public scorn if it still applied in Ireland today".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2006/0118/opinion/how-a-case-can-be-misinterpreted-to-put-the-church-in-a-bad-light-734434725.html |last=Mullen |first=Rónán |title=How a case can be misinterpreted to put the Church in a bad light |work=Irish Examiner |date=18 January 2006 |access-date=17 April 2019 |archive-date=17 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190417211056/https://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2006/0118/opinion/how-a-case-can-be-misinterpreted-to-put-the-church-in-a-bad-light-734434725.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> It ruled that under the Irish Constitution the parents had "a joint power and duty in respect of the religious education of their children" and that neither parent had a right to dissolve an established contract.<ref>Jameson (2014), pp. 79−80</ref> The 1950−1951 decision was confirmed in a 1957 ruling of the Irish High Court that was not appealed, and corresponds to a New York court's decree upholding the binding character of such a prenuptial undertaking.<ref>Jameson (2014), p. 81</ref>

In its 2010 documentary ''Mixing Marriages'', BBC Radio Ulster broadcast an account of how in 1908, although the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} decree did not declare invalid the marriages previously entered into otherwise than before the parish priest of the Catholic spouse, a Catholic father, who in vain demanded that his Presbyterian wife, whom he had married in a Presbyterian church, repeat the ceremony before a Catholic priest and allow their children to be brought up as Catholics, abandoned her and took away their two small children. Ensuing publicity by the local Presbyterian minister was a factor in turning Presbyterians against [[Irish Home Rule]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11705764|title=How a mother's children were taken away forever|work=BBC News |date=7 November 2010|access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0-iGAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Agnes+McCann%22+%22Home+Rule%22&pg=PA166 D.George Boyce, Alan O'Day, ''Defenders of the Union: A Survey of British and Irish Unionism Since 1801'' (Routledge 2002), p. 166]</ref>

=={{anchor|Mixta}}<!-- [[Matrimonia Mixta]] redirects here-->{{lang|la|Matrimonia Mixta}} (1970)==
{{lang|la|Ne Temere}} was superseded in 1970 with the [[motu proprio]] {{lang|la|Matrimonia mixta}} issued by [[Pope Paul VI]].

The Pope:<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/index.php/issues-and-reflections/number-4-april-2006/307-mixed-marriages-conversations-in-theology-ecumenism-canon-law-and-pastoral-practice.html | title=Mixed Marriages: Conversations In Theology, Ecumenism, Canon Law And Pastoral Practice The Lyndwood Lecture | author=The Most Rev John McAreavey, Bishop of Dromore | date=15 November 2004 | location=Archbishop's House, Westminster}}</ref>

# Took the view that "mixed marriages, precisely because they admit differences of religion and are a consequence of division among Christians, do not, except in some cases, help in re-establishing unity among Christians."
# Wrote that "there are many difficulties inherent in a mixed marriage, since a certain division is introduced into the living cell of the Church"
# Added that "in the family itself the fulfilment of the gospel teaching is more difficult because of diversities in matters of religion, especially in regard to those matters which concern Christian worship and the education of the children".
# Stated that "For these reasons the Church{{nbsp}}[...] discourages the contracting of mixed marriages, for she is most desirous that Catholics be able in matrimony to attain to perfect union of mind and full communion of life. However since man has the natural right to marry and beget children," the Church wished to make arrangements to ensure "that the principles of divine law be scrupulously observed and that{{nbsp}}[...] [the] right to contract marriages be respected".
# Stated that although the Church was relaxing ecclesiastical discipline in particular cases, "she can never remove the obligation of the Catholic party which, by divine law, namely by the plan of salvation instituted by Christ, is imposed according to the various situations".
# Stressed that "the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage is obliged{{nbsp}}[...] as far as possible, to see that the children be baptised and brought up in that same faith and receive all those aids to eternal salvation which the Catholic Church provides for her sons and daughters".
# Noted that "the problem of the children's education is a particularly difficult one, in view of the fact that both husband and wife are bound by that responsibility and may by no means ignore it or any of the obligations connected with it".
# Acknowledged that in this area "the canonical discipline{{nbsp}}[...] cannot be uniform" and "must be adapted to{{nbsp}}[...] the distinct circumstances of the married couple and the differing degrees of their ecclesiastical communion."

Section 15 revoked the automatic {{lang|la|[[latae sententiae]]}} [[excommunication]] imposed by the 1917 Code of Canon Law for marrying before a non-Catholic minister or for failing to secure the Catholic upbringing of the children.<ref name=MM1>{{cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19700331_matrimonia-mixta.html|title=Matrimonia mixta (March 31, 1970) - Paul VI|website=w2.vatican.va|access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=MM2>{{cite web|url=http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/mixed.htm|title=The Sacrament of Marriage in the Catholic Church|website=www.catholicdoors.com|access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref> The 1970 [[Ecclesiastical letter#Letters of the popes in modern times|apostolic letter]] made the granting of a dispensation by the [[ordinary (Catholic Church)|Ordinary]] conditional on a promise by the Catholic spouse to remove all danger of defecting from the faith and to do all that he or she can to have all the children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. The non-Catholic partner was to be made aware of these promises made by the Catholic spouse (sections 4 and 5).<ref name=MM1/><ref name=MM2/><ref>{{cite news|title=Vatican Asks Talks on Mixed Marriage |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/01/archives/vatican-asks-talks-on-mixed-marriage.html |access-date=27 April 2018|work=New York Times|date=1 May 1970|quote=The new rules eliminate the requirement that the non-Catholic partner promise to raise the children in the Catholic faith. Instead, they require only that the non-Catholic be informed of his spouse's commitment to bring up the children as Catholics.}}</ref>

This removed the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} requirement that both the Catholic and non-Catholic spouse must pledge to raise their children as Catholics during the wedding, which was criticized as "legislating for Protestants".<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/mixed-marriages-and-ne-temere-1.1632068 | title=Mixed marriages and 'ne temere (letter) | newspaper=Irish Times | date=19 December 2013}}</ref>

The regulations in {{lang|la|Matrimonia mixta}} have been maintained in the [[1983 Code of Canon Law]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM|title=Code of Canon Law – IntraText|access-date=7 November 2016}}</ref> In 1996, in a letter to the Irish Times, the Director of the Catholic Press and Information Office, Dublin stated "[T]he Catholic Church's current practice in relation to mixed marriages{{nbsp}}[...] the new [1991] [standard prenuptial inquiry] form includes the following questions to be asked of all Catholics{{nbsp}}[...] Do you promise to do what you can within the unity of your partnership to have all the children of your marriage baptised and brought up in the Catholic faith?{{nbsp}}[...] nothing more in the way of undertakings is required of the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage than is required of Catholics marrying one another."<ref>{{cite news |last=Cantwell |first=Jim |date=5 June 1996 |title=Mixed Marriages |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/mixed-marriages-1.55686 |work=Irish Times |location=Dublin |access-date=8 November 2020}}</ref> The letter therefore makes it clear that nothing less in the way of undertakings was required of the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage than was required of Catholics marrying one another.

In 1972, two years after the abolition of the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} decree, the [[New Ulster Movement]] publication "Two Irelands or one?", commenting also on the related 1957 [[Fethard-on-Sea boycott]], declared: The removal of the protection of the courts, granted since the Tilson judgement of 1950, to the {{lang|la|Ne Temere}} decree of the Roman Catholic Church. This decree which requires the partners in a mixed marriage to promise that all the children of their marriage be brought up as Roman Catholics, is the internal rule of one particular Church. For State organs to support it is, therefore, discriminatory.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/num/num72b.htm|title=CAIN: Issues: Politics: New Ulster Movement (1972) 'Two Irelands or One?', May 1972|first=Dr Martin|last=Melaugh|website=cain.ulst.ac.uk|access-date=25 September 2017}}</ref> The NUM dissolved in 1978.

==See also==
*[[Elopement]]
*[[Clandestinity (canon law)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/NETEMERE.HTM {{lang|la|Ne Temere}}]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04001a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' "Clandestinity (in Canon Law)"] – see section "New Legislation on Clandestine Marriage"

[[Category:Documents of the Congregation for the Clergy]]
[[Category:Catholic matrimonial canon law]]
[[Category:1907 documents]]
[[Category:1907 in Christianity]]