Question II: From what time the solemn vow of chastity began to make a subsequent marriage invalid

Those who deduce the incapacity for contracting marriage from the very nature of the solemn vow, by which the whole man is so alienated from himself and devoted to the divine service that he can do nothing regarding marriage, show that the antiquity of this diriment impediment is equal to that of the Religious state itself. Thus Sotus, de Iustitia, lib. 7, quaest. 2, art. 3, where he holds that he is not truly a Religious whose cause for dispensation from Chastity rests with the Supreme Pontiff; in such a way that he excludes from this state the Knights of S. John, who indeed observe Celibacy from a special Constitution of the Pontiff, not from the force of a vow.

But whatever may be said of this opinion, which we discussed above, where we treated of the dispensation of a vow.

The other opinion is that from the time of Innocent II alone, who obtained the Pontificate in the year 1140, this vow constantly dissolved marriage, whereas before it only impeded contracting it; so Suarez reports, cap. 21, where he adduces various Fathers and decrees of councils seemingly supporting this.

I assert, however, that from time immemorial, and therefore from the very beginning of the Church, this vow has had the force of dissolving a subsequent marriage.

It is proved by various Councils and Fathers, whom I shall cite in tomo 7, tract. ult., disp. 7, quaest. 7; which Fathers and Councils existed before Innocent II, and notably Innocent I, who in cap. 12 and 13, epist. 2, recalls that by the vow of solemn profession a subsequent marriage is made void.

It is proved secondly, because the adverse opinion is gathered from nothing else than a certain text of Innocent II, which reads thus: But such a union, which is known to have been contracted against the Ecclesiastical Rule, we do not judge to be marriages. But it is badly inferred from this text: Therefore. The minor is proved. Because wherever a declarative word is employed in some law, no new constitution is understood, but either a declaration or a renewal of the old: but in that text only a declarative word is employed; for instance, we judge (Censemus), therefore.

Nor does it stand in the way that the word Censeo in the Gloss on Clement. 1, de concess. praeb. suggests a new law; and also to censure (censere) in the law ff. de verborum signif. indicates the same as I command. For in the former passage the urgency is not pressing; because it signifies indeed a new law, which it supposes the old one to have been extinguished; and thus it can declare that it revived anew, and therefore constitute it anew.

But that in civil law Censeo signifies the same as I command cannot be drawn by any consequence to canonical law, in which the propriety and simplicity of words is more observed: properly, moreover, Censeo among Cicero and other experts of the Latin tongue denotes to opine, or to judge: Besides, I urge that strong Authority of D. Augustine: What the whole Church holds and is not held to have been instituted by any Council, is believed to be derived from Apostolic tradition; as is found in lib. 4, de Baptismo, cap. 24; but not even a trace is found in any Council in which this Chastity first dissolves marriage by Ecclesiastical institution; therefore it must be believed to be derived from the Apostles themselves: that the Church has always believed and held this is evident from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, saying of it that it has always been retained.

Nor is it credible that the Fathers, who cultivated chastity with such severity, could have, up to Innocent II, celebrated marriage, undissolved, for those bound by vows, or have been ignorant of its excellence: It is confirmed from D. Basil, lib. de vera virgine, where he upbraids adulteries and deflorations to women marrying after the profession of Virginity. Likewise from Chrysostom, epistola 6, ad Theodorum, where he speaks thus, for if a woman has not power over her own body, but the man; much more they who live more safely for Christ than for themselves cannot have the condition of their own body, which words splendidly show that before the times of Chrysostom it was in use that the profession of Chastity would leave no way open to marriage; and moreover that from the very origin of the Religious state this was customary: nor does the S. Doctor seem to me to disagree with this last opinion, who in dist. 37, art. 1, quaest. 2, teaches that sacred Order has the virtue of dissolving a subsequent marriage, with the reason of a vow, rather than by the obligation of an Ecclesiastical statute; as we saw in the preceding question, which difference he would not have indicated so expressly unless he had judged it to be intrinsic to the vow, that from the very instant at which it is solemnly emitted it draws with itself, by its own force, every incapacity for marriage: the opposite, however, I shall indicate probabiliter from his own mind in tomo 7, tract. ult., where we treat of the impediments of marriage.

Nor can it be objected that the aforesaid Fathers understood this of the simple vow of Chastity, whose violation even in a valid marriage can be called adultery, insofar as it alienates the faith given to Christ. I say this cannot be objected: For, as Suarez remarks, cited above, D. Ambrose, who spoke in the mind of the other Fathers, is understood signally of the solemn vow of virgins, cap. 5, ad virginem lapsam, where he has thus: She who has promised herself to Christ, and has received the sacred veil, has already married, has already been joined to an immortal spouse, where sacred veil denotes solemn and Religious Chastity; for in the simple vow no veil intervenes; as is known to all.

And although some Fathers, and Councils, even ancient ones, speak of the marriages of made Virgins only as illicit, not as void, as is seen in the Councils, Toletanum I, Arelatense II, and others in Suarez, loco cit., nevertheless nothing is concluded from that against the antiquity of this Chastity, since their authorities are only negative, not positive: Besides, it could happen that in the first centuries, while the power of pagan princes was flourishing and luxuriating, such marriages were tolerated; but that they were approved is found nowhere.