Case 17. Sacred Orders

Caius, a missionary priest, when he noticed that Julius, a head of a family, attended church with his wife but never approached the sacraments, cautiously inquired into the cause. At length Julius acknowledged that he was a priest ordained in Australia, but that in the ordination itself he had explicitly excluded within himself the vow of chastity, so that he considered beyond doubt that the marriage he had entered after some years of priesthood was valid. Caius, however, asks whether there is any foundation for Julius’s opinion, and whether perhaps he can admit him to the sacraments of the Church. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the impediment of sacred order, and by what law is it constituted?

2. Is the same impediment dispensable?

3. Is the force of the impediment in the order itself received, or in the vow annexed to it?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the impediment of sacred Orders, and by what law is it established?

The solemn vow of chastity taken implicitly when sacred Orders are received is a diriment impediment of marriage by ecclesiastical law.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 307.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 308.

2. May a dispensation be had from this impediment?

Inasmuch as the impediment has been established by the authority of the Church, it may be dispensed by the same authority, but the Church rarely dispenses deacons and still more rarely priests from this impediment.

3. Is the impediment in the sacred Orders, or in the vow of chastity annexed to sacred Orders.

It is in both, in this sense, that in the Western Church a solemn vow of chastity which annuls subsequent marriage is implicitly taken by all who receive sacred Orders, but apart from this vow and independently of it, sacred Orders are a diriment impediment of marriage by ecclesiastical law.¹

4. The case. Julius acknowledges that he was ordained a priest in Australia, but he also asserts that when he was ordained he mentally but expressly excluded the vow of chastity, so that he holds for certain that the marriage which he subsequently contracted is valid. Julius' opinion can not be maintained. He can not prove his mental withholding of his consent in the matter of the vow, and he would not be listened to in an ecclesiastical court. Besides, sacred Orders in themselves, apart from the vow, are a diriment impediment of marriage, so that the marriage is null and void whether he took the vow of chastity or not. Julius is therefore living in concubinage, and may not be admitted to the sacraments while living in that state.²

2 Wernz, Jus Decretalium, lib. iv, n. 393.