Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 5. The Impediment of Sacred Order
811. Notion. The impediment of sacred order is an incapacity established by ecclesiastical law (in the Latin Church), by which clerics initiated into sacred order (namely, at least the subdiaconate) cannot validly contract matrimony, nor licitly use a matrimony perhaps contracted previously. But for the existence of this impediment it is required that the cleric have received the subdiaconate a) after attaining puberty, b) without coercion and grave fear, c) with knowledge of the celibacy annexed to it.
Explanation. It is said, 1. an incapacity established by ecclesiastical law. For the origin of this impediment is to be derived from ecclesiastical law and not from divine law, as some have wished. Hence St. Thomas briefly and succinctly teaches: "The debt of continence is not essentially annexed to sacred order, but by the statute of the Church."94 This is confirmed both from the practice of the Eastern Church, in which the use of a matrimony entered before the subdiaconate is permitted even to priests; from ecclesiastical history, in which examples are adduced, even from the Latin Church, of priests formerly living legitimately in matrimony; and finally from Sacred Scripture, where St. Paul writes: "It behooves a bishop, therefore, to be blameless, the husband of one wife, ... having his children subject with all chastity."95 But it is altogether absurd to say that in apostolic times something contrary to natural or divine law was permitted to clerics. - Besides, in this matter three questions are to be distinguished, which are not rarely confused and thus cause obscurities, not to say falsehoods. These three questions are: 1. Whence arose the power of diriming matrimony annexed to sacred order? 2. Whence arose the obligation of celibacy joined with the reception of sacred order? 3. Whence arose the obligation of perfect chastity joined with the reception of sacred order?
94 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 88, a. 11.
95 1 Tim. 3:2-4. Several authors, however, explain this text otherwise.
812. To the first question it is answered: The power of diriming matrimony was attributed to sacred order by ecclesiastical law; hence all teach that sacred order received freely with sufficient knowledge of the annexed obligations dirimes a subsequent matrimony, even if the ordained cleric expressly did not wish to make a vow of continence. In this case a vow of chastity would certainly be lacking, and nevertheless the diriment impediment would remain; this impediment therefore does not arise (at least uniquely) from the vow. If, however, the cleric, as commonly happens, also emits a vow of continence (at least tacit or implicit) in the reception of the subdiaconate, then that vow thus solemnized has the power of diriming matrimony, as is manifestly evident from the words of Boniface VIII cited below, n. 816. - It is not established at precisely what time sacred order became a diriment impediment of matrimony. From the particular laws of several regions, for example, Spain and Italy, sacred order was already held as a diriment impediment of matrimony in the fifth century. But by general law this impediment seems to have been established at the Second Lateran Council (1139). In the time of Gregory IX, and still more of Boniface VIII, there was already no reasonable doubt in the Latin Church concerning the diriment impediment arising from sacred order received. This impediment was confirmed again in the Code of Canon Law, can. 1072.
To the second question it is answered: The obligation of celibacy is annexed to the reception of sacred order likewise by ecclesiastical law alone. This is evident from the same arguments which were adduced above for the origin of the diriment impediment arising from sacred order. The celibacy of clerics in major orders already existed from the most ancient times and was held as at least an impedient impediment of matrimony, although it cannot be clearly proved that it already flourished thus from the times of the apostles.96
96 Bickell (in Innsbrucker Theol. Zeitschr. II, 26 ff., and III, 792 ff.) defended the opinion that celibacy flourished in apostolic times as a true precept. Funk wrote against him (in Tübinger Theol. Quartalschr., 1879, p. 208 ff., and 1880, p. 202 ff.).
813. To the third question it is answered: The obligation of clerics constituted in major orders to perfect chastity, so that any sin whatsoever (even internal) committed against chastity has the character of sacrilege, does not arise from ecclesiastical law alone, but from the vow annexed to the subdiaconate (which consequently also obliges to celibacy and which, because of its solemnity, furthermore constitutes a diriment impediment of any subsequent matrimony). Thus St. Thomas,97 St. Bonaventure,98 Peter Ledesma,99 and commonly the Thomists, Suarez,100 Reiffenstuel,101 Benedict XIV,102 St. Alphonsus,103 and among moderns, with many others, Feije,104 Freisen,105 Wernz-Vidal,106 and Lehmkuhl.107 Many authors, both ancient and modern, for example, Scotus,108 John of Torquemada,109 Hinschius,110 Scherer,111 Leitner,112 Sägmüller,113 Hollweck,114 Scharnagl,115 and De Smet,116 teach the contrary opinion, namely, that the obligation both of celibacy and of complete chastity, so that every voluntary violation of chastity is sacrilege, arises from ecclesiastical law alone. - The former opinion seems to be preferred, both because Boniface VIII in the text cited below speaks expressly of a vow solemnized through the reception of sacred order, and because otherwise it seems unintelligible how a cleric in major orders committing a merely internal sin against chastity truly perpetrates sacrilege, as the most common opinion and the Code of Canon Law, can. 132, § 1, teach. For the Church probably cannot command merely internal acts. Therefore, if someone posits an internal act against a merely ecclesiastical precept, he does not commit sacrilege. The authors of the second opinion indeed have recourse to some personal consecration, I know not what, which according to them the cleric receives in sacred order; but this particular consecration is fictitious, and it is not found in the sacred orders of the Eastern Church, nor is any trace of it found anywhere. Furthermore, even if this ecclesiastical consecration were admitted (not granted), it is not apparent how it could be violated by true sacrilege through a merely internal act. Finally, moralists quite commonly teach that a sin of lust committed by a cleric in major orders and the same sin committed by a solemnly professed religious do not differ essentially, so that a regular priest committing such a sin is not bound in confession to declare his religious state, provided that he confesses his priestly state. Moreover, it seems certain that the violation of a truly solemn vow really differs from the violation of some merely ecclesiastical consecration. Nor should anyone say: if the Church cannot command an internal act, neither can she command a vow, which essentially consists in an internal act of the will; for although the Church cannot absolutely command some vow, she can nevertheless annex a vow to some state to be undertaken, so that no one can licitly undertake that state unless he also emits the prescribed vow. Thus no one can undertake the religious state unless he emits the three customary vows. In like manner, no one can licitly undertake the state of sacred order unless he emits the vow of perfect chastity.
It is said, 2. in the Latin Church; for in certain Eastern Churches this impediment of sacred order does not exist, so that clerics can enter matrimony before receiving the subdiaconate and afterward use this matrimony even after receiving the orders of the diaconate and priesthood. But if the wife of an Eastern cleric in major orders has died, second nuptials are prohibited and invalidated.117 Besides, the practice is not the same in all the Eastern Churches, both with respect to the celibacy of clerics and with respect to clerics in major orders who attempt second nuptials.118 Eastern bishops must observe celibacy altogether.119
It is said, 3. clerics initiated into sacred order cannot licitly use a matrimony perhaps contracted previously. A husband can receive sacred orders, provided that his wife freely consents and emits a vow of perpetual chastity (either in a monastery, or, if suspicion of a violation of chastity is absent, in the world).120 Besides, according to the discipline now in force, a husband is impeded from receiving orders.121 Therefore, in practice the Holy See must be consulted, which determines what is to be done. Matrimony indeed is not dissolved as regards the bond by the reception of sacred order, but divorce as regards bed and even habitation is commanded.122
97 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 88, a. 11. Elsewhere (Suppl., q. 53, a. 3) the Holy Doctor says: "Sacred order ... has from the constitution of the Church that it impedes matrimony; nevertheless, differently among the Latins than among the Greeks; because among the Greeks it impedes matrimony to be contracted solely by the force of order, but among the Latins it impedes by the force of order and, further, by the vow of continence which is annexed to sacred orders; although someone does not emit this verbally, nevertheless, from the very fact that he receives the order according to the rite of the Western Church, he is understood to have emitted it."
98 Bk. 4, dist. 38, tit. 2, q. 1.
99 De magno sacr. matrim., q. 53, a. 3.
100 De virt. relig., tr. 7, bk. 9, c. 17, n. 11.
101 Ius can., bk. 4, tit. 6, n. 15.
102 De syn. dioec., bk. 12, c. 4, n. 2.
103 Theol. mor., bk. 6, n. 808. The Holy Doctor calls this opinion more probable and more common.
104 De imped. et dispens. matrim., 384.
105 Gesch. des kan. Eherechtes, 767 ff.
106 Loc. cit. V, n. 284. Wernz treats this question excellently (with Ballerini).
107 Theol. mor. II, n. 782.
108 Bk. 4, dist. 37, sole q.
109 Comm. in Decr. Grat., c. 3, D. 84.
110 System d. kath. Kirchenr. I, 159.
111 Kirchenr. II, 367.
112 Lehrb. d. kirchl. Eherechtes, 189.
113 Kirchenr. I, 264.
114 Kirchenr., 257.
115 Das feierl. Gelübde als Ehehindernis, 207 ff.
116 Loc. cit., n. 574.
117 Benedict XIV, Constitution Anno vertente, June 19, 1750; cf. also Papp-Szilagyi, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath., 3rd ed., §§ 16 f. and 101.
118 Cf. Papp-Szilagyi, loc. cit., and especially Wojuki, Die Wiederverehelichung der Priester in der morgenl. Kirche, in Arch. f. kath. Kirchenr. (1908), p. 405 ff.
119 Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742.
120 c. 6, X, 3, 32.
121 Code of Canon Law, can. 987, n. 2.
122 Leitner, Lehrb. des kirchl. Eherechtes, 193.
814. Exceptions. The impediment of sacred order is not incurred:
a) if the subdiaconate was received before puberty, that is, before the fourteenth year of age, unless after the sixteenth year the obligation of celibacy was freely accepted.123 The ordination of those below puberty no longer occurs today.
b) if someone received the subdiaconate because of grave fear unjustly inflicted or because of coercion, unless afterward he freely accepts the obligation of celibacy. This free acceptance can be made either through express words or tacitly through conclusive acts, for example, if through the free exercise of sacred order someone freely accepts all the obligations of such an order. It is very equitable that a cleric initiated into sacred order because of grave fear (unjustly) inflicted is not held to celibacy, because it would be too harsh to subject an unwilling man, coerced by grave fear (unjustly), to the perpetual yoke of continence. Thus also the Code of Canon Law, can. 214, expressly establishes.124
c) if someone invincibly did not know that the obligation of celibacy was annexed to the reception of the subdiaconate.125 Today this case is almost impossible, since before the ordination of subdeacons the bishop expressly announces the obligation of celibacy to those to be ordained.
123 Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., bk. 6, n. 810.
124 In this canon it is said: "A cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order and afterward, when the fear had been removed, did not ratify that ordination at least tacitly through the exercise of the order, yet willing through such an act to subject himself to the clerical obligations, is to be reduced to the lay state by sentence of the judge, when the coercion and the absence of ratification have been legitimately proved, without any obligations of celibacy and the Canonical Hours."
125 Cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit., n. 809.
815. Cessation of this impediment. Although the impediment of sacred order was instituted by ecclesiastical law alone, nevertheless a dispensation is conceded with the greatest difficulty so that a cleric in major orders can contract matrimony. The reason is that otherwise wide doors would be opened to many abuses, with grave detriment to religion and great scandal of the people. Nevertheless, the faculty of dispensing subdeacons and deacons (but not priests) from the impediment of order is conceded if they or their accomplices are in grave danger of death and wish to celebrate matrimony in order to provide for their conscience.126 Matrimony is never permitted by the Holy See to bishops, but almost never to priests.127
The penalties established against violators of the impediment of sacred order are two:
Excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See. It is the same as that which is imposed against the solemnly professed (alleged in the following paragraph).
Irregularity from delict, as the Code of Canon Law, can. 985, n. 3, establishes.
Clerics constituted in sacred orders who attempt matrimony by that very fact lose their ecclesiastical offices, and if, after being warned by the Ordinary, they have not repented, they are to be degraded.128
126 Cf. below, n. 857 ff.
127 The examples frequently adduced of a dispensation conceded to bishops, for example, Talleyrand, John Butler, and Synesius, are spurious. Cf. Leitner, loc. cit., § 89, p. 192. - Pius VII conceded a dispensation to priests who entered matrimony during the first French Revolution.