Since you have been kind enough to set aside a portion of the _Record_ for the insertion of correspondence upon theological and liturgical subjects, I trust that you will allow me to offer a few remarks upon a letter which has appeared in the number[21] for the present month, regarding the method of applying for dispensations _in gradu inaequali consanguinitatis_. Your correspondent justly considers that the question is of great importance, and hence it may be well to call attention to some inaccuracies which, if uncorrected, would neutralize the good effects of his "hint to fellow-labourers in the vineyard". 1. The question of which Gury treats at page 594, is the necessity of mentioning the gradus _propior_, and not the gradus _remotior_, as stated in your correspondent's letter. 2. According to the opinion now almost universally received, this necessity does not exist--so far as the _validity_ of the dispensation is concerned--except when the gradus propior is the gradus _primus_, which should be always mentioned, whether it concurs with the second, third, or fourth; and your correspondent is quite correct in stating that a misapprehension of the meaning of a constitution of Benedict XIV. has led St. Liguori to adopt an opinion completely at variance with this. But it is manifest that the Saint's mistake has not been "inserted in the very latest editions of the works on moral theology most in use at present--such as those of Gury and Scavini"; for, while St. Liguori _extends_ the necessity to all those cases in which the first _or second_ degree concurs with another more remote (_Theol. Mor._, lib., n. 1136), Gury falls into the opposite extreme by maintaining that in consanguinitate inaequali, even the _first_ degree need not be mentioned, except when it concurs with the _second_ (Gury, _Theol. Moralis_, 13th ed., p. 594, n. 867, _not_ 876.) 3. Scavini certainly copied in the earliest editions of his work the opinion of St. Liguori; but the mistake has been long since corrected. In the Paris Edition of 1855, he says: "Declaravit Benedictus XIV., Brevi _Etsi_, conjugium ... illicitum esse sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit _primi_ gradus consanguinitatis vel affinitatis, scilicet mixti cum caeteris _usque ad quartum_ gradum"--t. 4, p. 503. I have examined several editions which were published since the one from which I have quoted, and in all these the same view is laid down. 4. Your correspondent states that the opinion of Gury was adopted by Scavini. I think this statement is hardly correct. Most certainly it is not correct with reference to any of the editions of Scavini's works which are commonly used in Ireland.