Title XXI: On Bigamists Not to Be Ordained

Latin source headnote: It is brief.

From the Council of Orléans.

Let bigamists, penitents, or husbands of repudiated women not ascend to the priesthood.

Latin source headnote: No dispensation is granted to a bigamist who has been ordained to sacred orders, and the one ordaining will be deprived of the power of ordaining unless a dispensation is granted to him.

Lucius III, to the Archbishop of Spalato.

Concerning the matter on which your fraternity asked us what is to be done about bigamists, we respond thus to your inquiry: those who ordain them are to be deprived of the power and office of ordaining, and those ordained, if they were promoted to sacred orders, are to be deprived of their orders for this reason, because it is not permitted to dispense contrary to the Apostle with bigamists so that they may be promoted to sacred orders or, if promoted, may remain in them in any way. But a dispensation can be employed with the one ordaining so that he is not deprived of the power and office of ordaining. [Concerning one simoniacally, etc.; cf. c. 22, On Simony, V.2.]

Latin source headnote: A bigamist is not ordained, whether his wife is living or dead.

Celestine III.

Concerning bigamist priests [however] and husbands of widows, we enact altogether the same: that they ought not to be admitted to the celebration of divine things whether their wives are living or dead, especially since this is alien to the doctrine of the Apostle and the institutions of the Church.

Latin source headnote: One who, after his wife's death, was promoted to sacred orders and then contracted de facto with a second woman and knew her carnally incurs the penalty of bigamy, although he is not a bigamist.

Innocent III, to the Bishop of Regensburg.

Recently by us—(And below: [cf. c. 29, On the Sentence of Excommunication, V.39.]) The third and final point of the inquiry seemed to contain no small question, because in contracting marriages it is not the effect of law but the purpose of the mind that is regarded; hence infamy accompanies the one who has two wives at the same time. This seems in part to be referred to the deed, just as what is read in the canon concerning a priest who is held by unlawful nuptials; by the same censure such persons seem to be reckoned among bigamists.

On the other side, however, it stands in the way that truth is to be preferred to opinion, and that according to the foregoing one who had no wife would have to be reckoned a bigamist, which would occur if someone contracted de facto with different women to whom by law he could not be joined matrimonially. We, however, respond to you in this question that, since it is not permitted to dispense with clerics of this kind as with bigamists—clerics who, insofar as it lay in them, matrimonially joined second women to themselves—although in truth they are not bigamists, this is not because of a defect of the sacrament but because of the disposition of intention with the deed following upon it. [Given at the Lateran, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of June, 1199.]

Latin source headnote: One who contracted with a virgin, although she had previously been espoused by another, is not judged a bigamist.

The same, to the Bishop of Metz.

The debt of the pastoral office—(And below: [cf. c. 4, On Baptism, III.42.]) The second point of your doubt contained the question whether one who matrimonially joined to himself a woman who had been led home by another man but not known carnally by him can be promoted to the priesthood.

Although one who has taken as wife a woman left by another, whether she had been known carnally by him or remained unknown, seems to have taken a widow as wife, inasmuch as her husband was dead when he married her—just as he seems to be a bigamist who lawfully contracted with two wives, whether he knew neither carnally or only one of them, because he was the husband of two wives—we nevertheless have decided to respond thus to your fraternity.

There are two things in marriage, namely the consent of minds and the mingling of bodies. One of them signifies charity, which consists in spirit between God and the just soul, to which pertains what the Apostle says: “He who cleaves to God is one spirit with him.” The other signifies the conformity that consists in flesh between Christ and the holy Church, to which pertains what the Evangelist testifies: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Therefore, that marriage which has not been consummated by the mingling of bodies does not pertain to signifying that marriage which was contracted between Christ and the Church through the mystery of the incarnation. Thus Paul, expounding what the first-formed man had said—“This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, and for this reason a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be in one flesh”—immediately adds: “But I say that this is a great sacrament in Christ and the Church.”

Therefore, since because of a defect of the sacrament it is prohibited that a bigamist or husband of a widow presume to be promoted to sacred orders—because neither is she the one woman of one man, nor is he the one man of one woman—certainly, where the mingling of bodies is lacking between spouses of this kind, the seal of this sacrament is not lacking. Hence, one who married a woman who had been married by another man but by no means known carnally by him, because neither she nor he divided their flesh among several persons, ought not on this account to be impeded from being promoted to the priesthood. [Given at Faenza, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, in the ninth year, 1206.]

Textual note: The source prints non deest huiusmodi signaculum sacramenti (“the seal of this sacrament is not lacking”), although the immediately preceding argument may appear to call for the opposite. The printed reading, also present in the Friedberg-derived reference, is retained.

Latin source headnote: One who has had several concubines is not for that reason a bigamist.

The same, to the Archbishop of Lyon, legate of the Apostolic See.

Because human understanding frequently fails concerning the least [and the greatest matters, it belongs to a prudent man to inquire where a scruple of doubt occurs]. Indeed, you sought to be taught by the Apostolic See whether priests successively having several concubines are to be judged bigamists, [so that you cannot dispense with them as irregular persons concerning execution of their office]. (And below:) To this we have decided to respond [thus]: since the aforesaid priests, whether at one or at different times, had several concubines, they did not incur the irregularity of bigamy. You will be able to dispense with them, as men marked by simple fornication, concerning execution of the priestly office, [if they take care to live continently. Concerning priests, etc. Given at Segni, on the fifth day before the Nones of October, in the sixteenth year of our pontificate, 1213.]

Latin source headnote: A subdeacon who contracted with a widow and knew her carnally incurs the penalty of bigamy, although he is not a bigamist.

The same.

It was by us—(And below:) But the man who, constituted in the order of subdiaconate, took a widow as wife only de facto, because by law he could not do so, certainly did not become a bigamist. Nor can he in truth be called the husband of a widow, since no marital bond was contracted between him and her. Nevertheless, contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, it is not permitted to dispense with him as though with the husband of a widow, not because of a defect of the sacrament but because of the disposition of intention with the deed following upon it.