Celibacy: ecclesiastical law or tacit vow?

There is a dispute among theologians as to whether the obligation of celibacy, which binds clerics in sacred orders, should be ascribed immediately to ecclesiastical law or immediately to a vow of chastity tacitly taken when sacred orders are received according to the precept of the Church. The question is not of great practical importance, for in any case the obligation of celibacy is derived ultimately from ecclesiastical law, which binds all clerics in sacred orders to the observance of perfect chastity. The violation of such a law, at any rate by external act, is not morally different from a violation of a vow of chastity. The more common and more probable opinion is that the obligation of celibacy is derived immediately from a vow of chastity which every subdeacon takes tacitly according to the precept of the Church when he receives the first of the sacred orders. Tacit profession even of the essential vows of religion was admitted in certain cases until it was altogether abrogated by a decree of Pius IX dated June 12, 1858. Boniface VIII decided that the vow of chastity thus tacitly taken by subdeacons is solemn, and that it annuls subsequent marriage if attempted.

A man who was married but whose wife is dead may be promoted to sacred orders. ‘‘ Men who have a wife” are prohibited from receiving orders according to Canon 987, 2; and Canon 132, sec. 3, lays down that a married man who, without a dispensation from the Holy See has received holy orders even in good faith is prohibited from the exercise of the same.

1059. A law of this sort is indeed ecclesiastical, but, far from opposing the natural law, it seems altogether consonant with reason and faith.

The fundamental reason is taken from this, that the Christian priest acts in the place of Christ on earth, receives his power, and therefore ought to imitate his virtues, and in his manner of acting approach as nearly as possible the High Priest. But, from what has been said, Christ cultivated most perfect virginity, and not obscurely commended its practice. - And this indeed will appear more clearly if the functions of the priest are more intimately regarded on the part of God, of the faithful, and of society itself.

The FIRST opinion is of certain Theologians, and of almost all the Canonists, whom Suarez lib. 9. on the vow of chastity reports, with Sancio lib. 7. disp. 27.: that the difference between the chastity professed by Clerics and by Religious is this: that the obligation of the latter is by force of the vow, but of the former by the virtue of an Ecclesiastical statute alone.

The SECOND opinion is that of D. Bonaventure, and of as many Ecclesiastical writers as wrote on the 37th distinction of the Sentences: that Ecclesiastical Chastity differs from that which is vowed solemnly in Cloisters in that the former is at once by reason of the statute and of an implicit vow; the latter, however, arises from an explicit vow alone. To this opinion Suarez subscribes at the place cited, Azor. tom 1. lib. 7. cap. 12. question 6. Vasquez tom. 3. on the 3. part, disp. 246. cap. 3. Sancius loc. cit., to whom add others reported everywhere by these authors.

I ASSERT with this opinion that Religious chastity differs from Ecclesiastical in this: that the latter had its origin from the statute of the Church, but now draws its obligation both from a vow and from the precept of the Church: but Religious Chastity has its origin and progress from solemn and express profession.

It is PROVED by the Saintly Doctor here in the body, and in the doubts litt. by an efficacious reason, which the others who hold this opinion bring forward: He who receives the habit of Religion without any further express promise vows implicitly the chastity annexed to such a habit; therefore he who receives the Clerical order, to which perpetual continence is annexed by precept, vows it implicitly.

It is PROVED secondly from S. Bonaventure: where there intervenes a spontaneous promise, and the precept of a superior, there is found a twofold obligation, of vow and of statute; But in the continence of clerics there is a spontaneous promise, and a precept. The minor is proved by D. Bonavent. foundation 3., where he reports from Gregory, as is had in the letter: Let Bishops presume to make no Subdeacon except one who has promised that he will live chastely: Therefore the Saintly Doctor infers, he who promises himself into the hand of the Bishop vows continence: Hence of old they were not promoted to sacred Orders except those who, asked about keeping chastity, would promise it, as is clear from the Second Council of Arles cap. 2. Toledo II, cap. 1. Orange I. can. 22.

MOREOVER, in a Cleric the violation of Chastity has the malice of sacrilege, not precisely by reason of the Order — otherwise the Presbyters of the Eastern Church would be guilty of sacrilege as often as they approached their wives, which S. Bonaventure here in the body disapproves, since they use them licitly; nor yet precisely by reason of the precept, because thus only disobedience is committed: Therefore this malice is by reason of the Vow.

ADD that many Canons speak of the solemnization of the vow through the reception of Order, as Suarez notes after the Saintly Doctor in the body at the place cited, cap. 17. num. 4., as is clear from cap. unico on the vow, in 6., where a twofold solemn vow is enumerated, namely one of Order; another of Profession.

HENCE you have that in reality there is no difference between the Chastity of Clerics and of Religious, except that the former vow it implicitly, and by annexation; but these expressly, and with a certain principal intention.

There is however one notable difference: that from the beginning of the Church, the vow of religious chastity not only impeded a marriage to be contracted, but severed one already contracted; not so the Chastity annexed to the order made, as Bellarmine proves at the place cited, citing Suarez.

Likewise, that Religious Chastity is of such virtue that, while it is vowed, it dissolves a ratified marriage; not so the Chastity of sacred Order, nor even of the Episcopate itself; as is clear in the sole Extravag. on the vow under Ioan. XXII., as also all Theologians hold with D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 27. The reason of this difference shines forth principally from the will of the Church, which, as it could determine one, so also the other, and with the stronger right, because the Clerical state, at least in the Episcopate, is more perfect than the Monastic profession.

There are nevertheless several congruences why Chastity, which one vows in sacred Orders, is not of such efficacy as it is in Religion, for dissolving a ratified and unconsummated marriage. The first is taken from the repugnance of the Religious state with the use of marriage; since it makes its professor dead to the world: not so the Ecclesiastical state.

The second is taken from the perpetual tending of the Religious toward perfection, which would be too much retarded by the use of a wife. But Order, although out of the reverence due to it it requires separation from carnal acts, nevertheless does not of itself place man on the way, and in the tending, toward the state of perfection; and so it was not fitting that it should dissolve the bond of a ratified marriage; and although the Episcopate be at the very summit of perfection both exercised and acquired, since nevertheless it does not prescribe of itself the means for acquiring perfection, but only for exercising it; hence it is that it has not the virtue of vowing chastity to the prejudice of a ratified marriage; add that in Episcopal, or Priestly ordination no civil death intervenes through the abdication of one's own will.

There are also several other accidental differences in the modes, and means, by which the Chastity of either state is preserved unsullied, which are evident in practice.