Article — Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis
Article V: On Sacred Order and Solemn Vow
S. Th., Suppl., q. 53, a. 2-4.
889. Notions. - This double impediment has a certain likeness, because each is connected with the obligation of chastity: it is an incapacity for contracting matrimony arising from the reception of sacred order or from the emission of a solemn vow in religious profession.
1° From sacred order (ordre sacre; heilige wijding). From the beginnings of the Church, both in the East and in the West, after sacred order had been received, it was forbidden to enter matrimony, conformably to the saying of the Apostle, I Tim. III, 2; which impediment, at least impeding from the beginning, gradually became diriment. In the Latin Church it was always observed, although not always by all, that those who, joined in matrimony, received sacred orders should thereafter be separated from their wives; and from ancient times (from the sixth century) the obligation of celibacy was attached to the subdiaconate, to which afterward there was added the impediment diriment of matrimony to be contracted, at least from the twelfth century. But among the Orientals the obligation of celibacy was not generally imposed, nor is the subdiaconate a sacred order; they preserved the custom that, bishops excepted, presbyters and deacons should retain wives taken before ordination; nevertheless, when the wife has died, they cannot enter a new matrimony. This they sanctioned in the year 692 in the Trullan Council.
2° From solemn vow (voeu solennel; plechtige gelofte). The vow of perfect and perpetual chastity, which is emitted in solemn religious profession, such as occurs only in religious Orders, is not only, like a simple vow, an impeding impediment of matrimony, but also diriment, which renders matrimony invalid, as was authentically declared at least from the twelfth century.
Three conditions are required in order that the impediment be incurred:
1° That the ordination be valid;
2° That it be received freely, without coercion or grave fear;
3° That it be received with at least confused knowledge of the obligation connected with the order: for the Church does not will to impose this obligation on the cleric unless he himself wills it.
Hence: a) "A cleric who, compelled by grave fear, received sacred order and afterward, the fear having been removed, did not ratify the same ordination at least tacitly by the exercise of the order, yet willing through such an act to subject himself to clerical obligations, is to be reduced to the lay state, the coercion and the defect of ratihabition having been legitimately proved, by sentence of the judge, without any obligations of celibacy and of canonical hours," can. 214, § 2.
b) Similarly in a case of ignorance of the obligation, although this ignorance can scarcely be present except in infants who would be ordained, or in the prepubescent.
The impediment, insofar as it is diriment of matrimony to be contracted, is of ecclesiastical law; nevertheless, for the order of the episcopate, dispensation has never been given from it, so that one could suspect that there is present there a disposition of divine law. But insofar as order is a prohibitive impediment of matrimony to be contracted, it seems to rest upon fittingnesses of divine law; yet the obligation of celibacy which in the Latin Church is attached to the subdiaconate is most certainly of ecclesiastical law. Moreover, it can be disputed whether the impediment rests immediately upon the vow which is attached to the order of subdiaconate, or rather upon ecclesiastical law, although it matters nothing for practice; now the obligation of continence rests immediately upon the vow, yet in such a way that he who did not wish to elicit the vow would be held by ecclesiastical law, but the incapacity itself for matrimony nevertheless seems to arise immediately from ecclesiastical law.
Hence St. Thomas: "Sacred order of its own nature has, from a certain congruity, that it ought to impede matrimony; because those constituted in sacred orders handle sacred vessels and sacraments, and therefore it is becoming that they preserve bodily cleanness through continence. But that it impedes matrimony it has from the constitution of the Church. Yet otherwise among the Latins than among the Greeks. For among the Greeks it impedes matrimony to be contracted only from the force of the order. But among the Latins it impedes from the force of the order, and further from the vow of continence, which is attached to the orders: which even if someone does not emit it in words, from this very fact that he receives order according to the rite of the Western Church, he is understood to have emitted. And therefore among the Greeks and other Orientals sacred order impedes matrimony to be contracted, but not the use of matrimony previously contracted: for they can use matrimony previously contracted, although they cannot contract anew. But in the Western Church it impedes matrimony and the use of matrimony: unless perhaps, with the wife ignorant or contradicting, the husband received sacred order; because from this no prejudice can be generated to her... For order everywhere impedes matrimony to be contracted, although not everywhere does it have a vow attached" q. 53, a. 3 and ad 2.
891. Observations. - 1. Dispensation from this impediment is never conceded to bishops, very rarely to priests and rather on account of a public cause, less rarely to deacons and subdeacons, even on account of a private cause.
- Although order irritates matrimony to be contracted, nevertheless matrimony contracted of itself does not impede order. Yet, according to the present-day discipline of the Latin Church, men having a wife are simply impeded from orders (can. 987). Hence a married man who without apostolic dispensation received major orders, although in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those same orders (can. 132, § 3); but if he is legitimately promoted to them, the wife living and consenting, he is held to the same continence as if he had been ordained before matrimony and is bound to abstain from the use of matrimony (can. 132, § 1), so that the offspring would be sacrilegious and illegitimate (can. 1114).
- One deposed, degraded, or reduced to the lay state is not thereby liberated from the obligation of celibacy (can. 213, § 2), unless at the same time he has obtained dispensation from it.
Three conditions are required for the impediment:
1° That someone be a professed religious, which is to be understood of religious of either sex (can. 490);
2° That he have professed validly, from spontaneous and full liberty and according to the other conditions indicated by can. 572;
3° That he have professed perfect chastity through solemn vows, which are recognized by the Church as such (can. 1308, § 2), and which are made only in religious Orders, although in them simple vows are sometimes emitted.
Sometimes to a simple vow there is added the force of irritating matrimony, as to simple profession emitted in the Society of Jesus; but thus it is done from a special precept of the Supreme Pontiff rather than from a canonical impediment properly so called.
From what law the impediment of solemn vow arises was long disputed. More recent authors generally hold as certain that it arises from ecclesiastical law alone, both because a solemn vow does not differ by its nature from a simple vow, but the whole solemnity is from the will of the Church and from the juridic effects attached by her, and because the Church has sometimes dispensed from this impediment, even on account of a private good. Others, especially in ancient times, posit an essential difference between solemn and simple vow: the latter consists in the simple promise of a thing to be handed over to God, the former besides in the actual handing over, of itself irrevocable, into the dominion of God and in the spiritual consecration of the one vowing, which the Church accepts in the name of God; which, so long as it endures, irritates matrimony, and therefore from natural and divine law. Hence the Church cannot take away the impediment, unless first in the name of God she remits the special obligation of solemn vow.
This seems more conformable to St. Thomas, who writes thus:
"1° He who makes a solemn vow contracts spiritual matrimony with God, which is much worthier than material matrimony. But material matrimony previously contracted diriments matrimony contracted afterward. Therefore a solemn vow does so.
2° All say that, just as solemn vow impedes matrimony to be contracted, so it diriments it already contracted. But certain men... say that this is on account of the statute of the Church. But this does not suffice; because according to this the Church could also establish the contrary. Which does not seem true.
And therefore it must be said, with others, that solemn vow from its own nature has that it diriments contracted matrimony: insofar, namely, as through it a man has lost power over his own body, handing it over to God for perpetual continence. And therefore he cannot hand it over into the power of a wife by contracting matrimony. And because the matrimony which follows such a vow is null, therefore the aforesaid vow is said to diriment contracted matrimony... Therefore solemn vow has an actual exhibition of one's own body, which simple vow does not have" q. 53, a. 2 and ad 3.
893. Penalties against transgressors. - 1. "Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract matrimony, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See," can. 2388, § 1.
- Clerics besides, if, after being admonished, within a time prefixed by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, they have not come to their senses, are to be degraded (can. 2388, § 1).