You argue incorrectly since Canon Law explicitly prohibits retroactive legislation to cover a present exigency. Besides, if this had been done, it would have been pronounced openly. In fact, the entire issue was ignored and the marriages and confessions simply accepted as valid. This would be in keeping with the Church's own tradition of interpreting the laws on supplied jurisdiction extremely liberally, always in favor of the faithful.
I wasn't suggesting a law was passed.
Besides, if this had been done, it would have been pronounced openly. In fact, the entire issue was ignored and the marriages and confessions simply accepted as valid. This would be in keeping with the Church's own tradition of interpreting the laws on supplied jurisdiction extremely liberally, always in favor of the faithful.
The act of accepting them as valid was a retroactive validation of an objectively uncanonical situation.
All the talk about states of necessity and the like are subjective assertions which cannot be proven with certainty. Objectively, the confessions and marriages (and ordinations) were contrary to the canons and thus invalid. They only became objectively valid when Rome accepted them as such, using the power of the keys.