Title VI: Which Clerics or Persons under Vows Can Contract Marriage

Latin source headnote: A deacon or subdeacon cannot contract marriage and, if they have contracted, even if they have become irregular, they ought to be separated.

Alexander III, to the Archbishop of Reims.

Concerning the deacon indeed who on Holy Saturday wounded a certain other deacon and took a wife, we respond this to your prudence: if, with contrite and humbled heart, he wishes to return to the Church, after dismissing her whom he took as wife and obtaining absolution, and after penance has been enjoined upon him for each transgression, once he has performed it you will be able by dispensation to restore to him the office of the diaconate and, if he has been of perfect life and conduct, to ordain him as priest. But that a subdeacon, whether he has killed a man or not, cannot contract marriage, the censure of the sacred canons demonstrates. [The parishioners, etc. (Compare chapter 26, On Tithes, III. 30.)]

Latin source headnote: A subdeacon cannot contract marriage.

The same, to the Bishop of Le Mans.

From the tenor of your letters we received that F., bearer of the present letters, while constituted in the office of the subdiaconate, joined a certain woman to himself as spouse. Whence you, as a provident and discreet man, caused him to abjure the woman whom he had taken as wife. Concerning this deed we commend your prudence in the Lord, commanding you through the present writing that, if he wishes to pass to a canonical or monastic order, and if after his praiseworthy conduct it seems good to you, you permit him to be promoted to the higher orders. But if he is unwilling to transfer himself to religion, permit him neither to minister in the subdiaconate nor to be promoted to higher orders; nevertheless, he will be able to minister in the minor orders.

Latin source headnote: A solemn vow impedes and dissolves marriage after it has been contracted; a simple vow only impedes a marriage to be contracted but does not dissolve it after it has been contracted.

The same, to the Bishop of Worcester.

We remember that on your part we heard a question of this kind, namely whether those who before a bishop devoted themselves to passing to religion and receive the habit of religion, if afterward they take wives, are to be compelled to dismiss them and to return to the church to which they had conveyed themselves. Concerning this, therefore, We respond that, if anyone who devoted himself to religion and, having received the habit, made profession, afterward joined a woman to himself, he is to be compelled to withdraw from her, and ought to pass without contradiction to the church to which he conveyed himself. But if he neither received the habit nor made profession, but made only a vow and promised that he would pass to religion, although he afterward contracted marriage, he is not to be compelled to pass to religion and to break the matrimonial vow.

Latin source headnote: The reception outside a religious house of the habit of professed persons from one who does not have the power of incorporating into religion impedes, in a doubtful case, a marriage to be contracted, but does not dissolve one already contracted. This the chapter says according to the understanding which Panormitanus holds.

The same, to the Bishop of Lucca.

Your fraternity consulted us as to what is to be done concerning a noble woman who, after the death of her husband, having cast aside precious garments, changed her habit and received a veil from the hand of a priest, but did not renounce her own property, enter a cloister, make profession into the hand of any bishop, abbot, or abbess, or upon an altar, or promise obedience; but afterward, when a year had elapsed, because she could not bear the disturbances of many persons and feared a lapse of incontinence, having cast aside the religious habit, she married a certain nobleman solemnly by license of the Church. Concerning this, therefore, We respond to your consultation in this manner: just as a simple vow impedes a marriage to be contracted and does not dissolve one already contracted, so the habit, received without profession, impedes one from being contracted, but by no means dissolves one contracted. [Concerning the rest, etc. (Compare chapter 11, On Homicide, V. 12.)]

Latin source headnote: A vow of chastity made in the present impedes a marriage to be contracted; nevertheless, for cause the Church sometimes permits marriage to be contracted. This the chapter says by adhering to the letter.

The same.

Coming to our presence, M. the hermit proposed by his assertion to us that the woman I., with faith pledged to a certain absent man, promised that she would marry him, but afterward, hearing many things about the severity and inhumanity of the man himself, she was unwilling to be joined to him. Therefore, since she feared that she might be compelled to marry him, in his hands she simply promised a vow of continence, but did not change her place or garment. Upon hearing this, the aforesaid man joined another woman to himself, and received offspring from her. We, therefore, considering that it is safer that the aforesaid woman, after the pledge of faith and the vow simply offered, contract marriage than incur the guilt of fornication, by commanding through apostolic writings order your fraternity that, if she proceeded no further, and neither changed her garment or place nor made profession, you enjoin upon her fitting satisfaction for the faith falsified and the vow violated, and do not postpone granting her license in the Lord to marry whom she wishes.

Latin source headnote: A simple vow impedes betrothals of the future but does not dissolve the marriage that follows; it is otherwise in a solemn vow.

Celestine III.

Again, a certain man, as you say, having emitted a vow of chastity, swore that he would afterward take a certain woman as wife. Whence, having been asked by your fraternity, after consulting prudent men, we judge that, since a simple vow binds no less before God than a solemn one, he should do penance for the fact that he swore rashly, and should endeavor to observe the vow that he made to God. But if, after he furnished an oath of this kind, he had hastened to nuptials already by his own motion, since a simple vow [although] it impedes a marriage to be contracted, nevertheless does not dissolve one already contracted, your question appears to contain no ambiguity. [Moreover, as to that which, etc. Compare chapter 1, On the Conversion of Infidels, III. 33.]

Latin source headnote: A solemn vow impedes and dissolves marriage after it has been contracted.

Innocent III, to the Bishops of Lisbon and Coimbra.

It was represented to our apostolate by the intimation of the noble woman I. that, long ago, when she was a girl and constituted in tender years, she took M. Sancii as husband, who a short time afterward was killed by the enemies of the cross of Christ. After his death, supplication was made by certain courtiers to the King of León for union with her. When this came to the knowledge of her blood relatives, they urged her, under a royal adjuration, to take a husband. But she, protesting that she was then unwilling to marry, received counsel from them that she emit a vow of chastity, which she made into the hands of a certain one of the brothers of Saint Augustine, with this tenor added: that she would remain in her own house with all her substance. Indeed, she afterward remained for two years in the habit of the same order, although she asserts that she did this unwillingly and under compulsion, not so much from fear of the king as of her parents. After these things she indicated to the same king what she had done; approving it, he forbade anyone, against her will, to enter her house or to carry anything away from it. But meanwhile, after a little time had elapsed, the courtier P., carrying royal letters with him, and F. Ferdinandi entered the house of the said woman in order that the same P. might take her as wife at least by force, and they received from her the answer that, if the same P. took her, he would perish by her hands. But after these things, having abandoned her house and all the things that she had, she lay hidden for three weeks in the house of a certain Jew, and for six weeks in the church of Saint Mary of Veiga, in such a way that she did not dare even to go out from there on account of human necessities. At last, seeing herself compelled and destitute of all things, and considering nevertheless that she had emitted the vow unwillingly, having laid it aside, by the counsel of her parents she was publicly joined matrimonially to P. Michael, from whom in the course of time she bore four sons. But because she desires to prefer the salvation of her soul to all things, and fears that a union of this kind is not lawful, she humbly petitioned to be instructed by our response as to what she ought to hold concerning these things. We, therefore, considering that in the emission of the vow which preceded, no compulsion, or only slight compulsion, had been present, which the patience and perseverance of the time that followed entirely put to flight, and that the subsequent union was rather wrongful and violently extorted, through apostolic writings order your fraternity that, after the truth has been investigated more diligently, if the truth supports the foregoing, you take care to admonish and induce the aforesaid woman to resume the religious habit wrongfully cast aside and to observe what she vowed, and, if there is need, to coerce her through ecclesiastical censure. [But if not both, etc. Given at the Lateran, on the Kalends of December. 1199.]