Celibacy of the Clergy

THE celibacy of the clergy rests on a positive enactment of ecclesiastical law which, nevertheless, supposes the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles about the excellence of virginity and its superiority to marriage. From the first ages of the Church it was felt that there was an incongruity between the Christian priesthood, with its duties of offering up the eucharistic sacrifice, and of whole-hearted devotion to the service of God, and the use of marriage. The example of our Lord and the counsels of St Paul told powerfully in the same direction. Already in the fourth century the law of celibacy existed which was formulated by Leo the Great in his letter to Anastasius written about the middle of the fourth century: “ Although,” he says, “ those who are not clerics may freely give themselves to marriage and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of perfect chastity marriage is not allowed even to subdeacons, so that those who have wives should be as those who have them not, and those who have them not should remain single.” All the more stringently, he goes on to say, does the same law bind the higher clergy, deacons, priests, and bishops. This law was frequently inculcated by subsequent Popes, re-enacted in many ecclesiastical synods, and at latest in the Second Council of the Lateran (1139) marriage of the higher clergy was prohibited under pain of nullity. By ecclesiastical law, then, clerics in sacred orders are bound to observe perfect chastity, and marriage attempted by them is null and void. This law is known to all who aspire to sacred orders, and so those who choose the clerical state voluntarily embrace the law of continence. Indeed, a vow of perfect chastity is by ecclesiastical usage annexed to the reception of sacred orders, so that all who are ordained subdeacons, by the very fact of receiving ordination, take a solemn vow of chastity. The discipline of the Eastern Church is somewhat milder. Clerics belonging thereto may marry before the reception of sacred orders, and if they have already done this (Can. 132, 1072) they may keep their wives, except bishops. Even in the East clerics in sacred orders cannot contract a valid marriage.

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.

(St. Thomas, II-II, q. 152, aa. 1-5; Supplementum, q. 41, a. 2; Contra Gentiles, book 3, c. 136 sq.; on book 4 of the Sentences, dist. 26, q. 1, a. 2; Opusc. 18, De Perfectione vitae spiritualis, c. 8; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 806-812.)

I. Notion. Celibacy is understood as the state of major clerics, insofar as they are bound to abstain from entering marriage, or, if perhaps before the reception of the subdiaconate they entered it, from the use of it. Sometimes celibacy is taken for the state of perfect chastity, to which major clerics are bound.

II. Origin. The author of the law of celibacy is the Church, not Christ. This is already deduced from the fact that the Church tolerates the practice of the Greeks, and also in the Latin Church has several times dispensed in celibacy; indeed, it even concedes to inferior ministers the faculty of dispensing in some cases, except nevertheless if there is question of the presbyterate (cf. cann. 1043-1045).

III. History. In both the Greek and Latin Church it has always been prohibited that a cleric enter marriage after receiving the diaconate.¹ Leo I extended the same thing to subdeacons.² Besides, from the beginnings of the Church the practice was that major clerics abstain from the use of a marriage perhaps contracted previously.³ But in the Greek Church the contrary practice gradually prevailed to such a degree that the Trullan Synod, also called Quinisext, issued a decree by which the use of a marriage previously entered is conceded to Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters.⁴ The Holy See tolerated that decree, although it desires that perfect chastity be observed by clerics also in the Greek Church.⁵ For the rest, major clerics cannot enter marriage, and Bishops are bound to perfect chastity.

¹ Cf. Thomassinus, Vetus et nova Ecclesiae disciplina, part I, book 2, c. 60 sq.; Vlaming, Institutiones iuris ecclesiastici, part 3, n. 495 sq.

² De Jong, Handboek der Kerkgeschiedenis, vol. I, § 14, 50.

³ De Jong, loc. cit.; witnesses are Origen (Homily 23 on Numbers, n. 3), Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica, book 1, c. 9), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 12, n. 24 sq.).

⁴ Canon 13.

⁵ Constitution Etsi pastoralis, 26 May, § 7, n. 25.

IV. Suitability. Celibacy is especially fitting for clerics: 1° because a more perfect state, such as celibacy is, is fitting for those who excel others in dignity; 2° because the state of continence is especially desired in those who are bound to be occupied continually with holy and pure mysteries; 3° because one who is free from the cares of marriage better can fulfill his duties of praying, preaching, teaching, administering the sacraments, visiting the sick, etc.¹

Objection 1. Celibacy is opposed to the precept of preserving and propagating the human species; therefore it is dishonorable.

Response 1. If the conclusion were valid, all who, being capable of entering marriage, refused to enter it would act dishonorably.

Response 2. The precept of preserving and propagating the human species does not oblige individual persons, because that precept alone obliges individual persons which first of itself regards the good of individuals. But the precept of preserving and propagating the human species does not first of itself regard the good of individuals, but the good of the multitude or species (St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, book 3, c. 137; II-II, q. 152, a. 2). For the rest, even if the said precept does not regard individual persons, no danger from it threatens the propagation of the species or the end intended by God instituting marriage; for, considering the very great inclination of men toward the act of generation, the number of those who will remain in celibacy will always be relatively very small.

For the rest, note that the common good consists not only in a number raised to the highest point, but in the happiness of the multitude, which indeed is promoted more by clerics who observe celibacy than by those who are entangled in the cares of marriage and family (St. Thomas, II-II, loc. cit.).

Objection 2. The law of celibacy does injury to clerics.

Response. I deny the assertion, since the Church does not impose the burden of celibacy on the unwilling, but on those freely embracing the clerical state.

Objection 3. The law of celibacy involves what seems morally impossible.

Response. Experience proves the contrary. Then, the adversaries do not think about the special grace of state. Further, the obligation of celibacy is undertaken at that age and after such a testing of life that it is lawful to hope safely that, with divine grace assisting, it can be observed without difficulty.

Objection 4. Celibacy provides occasion for sins of lust.

Response. The said sins are first indeed exaggerated; then they are compensated by the countless goods arising from celibacy.

Finally, experts testify that celibacy also does not harm health.²

¹ Cf. 2 Tim. II, 3; 1 Cor. VII, 32.

² Cf. our little work De virtute castitatis et de vitiis oppositis, n. 18.

V. Excellence. Celibacy is preferred to the matrimonial state.¹ It is de fide from the Council of Trent: If anyone says that the conjugal state is to be placed before the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in Matrimony, let him be anathema.² This is established first from Sacred Scripture: "His disciples say to him: If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry. He said to them: Not all receive this word, but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs ... who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven. He who can receive it, let him receive it."³ Then it is proved from this, that celibacy, that is, immunity from spouse and family with the things annexed to them, when undertaken with a right intention, favors a more intense service of God and neighbor.

¹ Cf. our little work De virtute castitatis et de vitiis oppositis, n. 18.

² Session 24, can. 10.

³ Matt. XIX, 10-12.

The Precept of Clerical Celibacy.—(a) Origin.—This law is not divine but ecclesiastical, since it arose, not from any command of Christ, but from a custom of the Church that goes back to the first centuries. Nevertheless, celibacy of the clergy is an imitation of Christ and the Apostles, a following of the counsel given by the Lord, an honor to the sacrifice of the altar, and an example that single chastity is possible. Moreover, by means of it the priest is freed from domestic relations and better enabled to minister as the father, pastor, confessor and counsellor of his people. The celibate is unencumbered by family responsibilities and expenses, and is therefore better able to respond to difficult and dangerous tasks, such as mission work in pagan lands and ministrations to the dying in fire, wreck, or plague, The Church does not denounce or condemn the married clergy of non-Catholic bodies; on the contrary, she permits to some extent a married clergy among the Oriental Catholics, who for many centuries have been accustomed to a married priesthood. But the law of celibacy for the Catholic clergy has not only proved itself more suitable for their work, but it has also justified itself by the general fidelity with which it has been observed and the attachment to it of clergy and laity alike.

(b) Obligation.—The law commands chastity as a grave duty of religion (Canon 132); it forbids the contract or use of marriage (Canon 1072). It forbids, where there is danger to chastity or scandal, cohabitation and companionship with women (Canon 133). Cohabitation refers to dwelling in the same house, even though it be only during the day, and the woman be a servant; companionship refers to visits, conversations, signs of friendship, and the like. The danger to good name or virtue depends on circumstances, such as age, beauty, levity, and privacy of association; and the law presumes that a relationship is suspicious unless a woman is a near relative by blood or by marriage (i.e., in the first or second degree), or is mature in age (about forty years old) and proved in virtue and of good repute.

"... Whoever diligently considers the genuine tradition concerning celibacy and continence of the clergy will certainly find that, even from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by morals and custom, it was established that not only Bishops and Presbyters, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolate preserve virginity or perpetual continence. For the same dignity of the sacred ministry, to which almost divine offices are attributed, seemed to demand this: that those who were to immolate and even to produce the immaculate victim, which itself is holiness and purity, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the very ample tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; whence they themselves also chose no other successors for themselves than those who had cultivated virginity or professed inviolate continence. Here there is no need to linger over what the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the others, taught by the example and institutions of the Apostles, did, since it never abandoned that obligation of preserving chastity, propagated it salutarily through the whole western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But also among the Orientals, celibacy or continence of clerics, besides the fact that it was always in the greatest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished by the diligence of Bishops. Indeed Epiphanius, a man distinguished in holiness and doctrine, and one who knew very well the discipline of the Eastern Church, in the exposition of the Catholic faith (n. 21), affirms in express words that 'the Priesthood chiefly consists from the order of virgins, or if not... from those who are continent from their wives, or who live in widowhood after one marriage.' For in the beginning, as Jerome speaks (book against Jovinian), 'because the Church was being formed as rude from the Gentiles,' some were assumed to the priesthood who had already been joined in marriage, but either continently in widowhood, or they led life as though they did not have wives. Whence the same Epiphanius (heresy 59) expressly acknowledges how 'the holy preaching of God does not receive into Deacon, Presbyter, Bishop, and Hypodeacon a man of one wife still begetting children, but him who has contained himself from one wife or has lived in widowhood, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere.' Nor does the contrary custom or nonobservance of some particular church stand in the way at all, when discourse is being instituted concerning the discipline of the Eastern Church; for the same Epiphanius aptly continues: 'But you will say to me: altogether in certain places Presbyters, Deacons, and Hypodeacons still beget children. But this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.' Wherefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics, from Hypodeacon to Bishop, cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most aptly confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, because of long residence in the East, had known most perfectly the customs and discipline of that Church. Moreover, the holy Doctor opposes to Vigilantius, most hostile to clerical continence, besides other arguments, the fact of the universal Church: 'What will the Churches of the East do, what those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See, which receive clerics either as virgins or continent; or if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? These finally were the tradition of the universal Church, these were the customs, where the prior discipline flourished.'

Certain of the Greeks think and too confidently assert that Bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, constrained by no law, which they say was first sanctioned in the Trullan Synod. But besides the clearest testimonies of the Fathers, even Justinian himself, who disposed laws long before the Trullan Canons, and who professes that he is the executor of prior Canons, repeatedly inculcates that Bishops be chosen either from the order of monks, or indeed from the clergy, but those who either do not have a wife or at least do not live with her (Book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novel 123, chapters 14, 29). Moreover, the same discipline flourishes among the eastern Sects which had defected from unity even before the times of Justinian; for all agree in this, that Bishops be chosen celibate (consult the Jerusalem itinerary of John Catovicus, who testifies to this in express words concerning the Nestorian Chaldeans and concerning the Maronites).

It happened quite otherwise as regards Presbyters and other clerics. For what in the time of Epiphanius was the nonobservance or lax custom of some particular Church, in the course of time began so to take root and be propagated that finally it invaded almost the whole eastern Church; and, custom growing strong, what had been permitted only to Cantors and Readers was also attributed to Presbyters and to other clerics constituted in sacred orders: namely, that they might live with wives whom they had taken before sacred ordination. Indeed, the heat of a laxer discipline in some Eastern Province advanced so far that some even after the reception of sacred Orders presumed to attempt marriage; which nevertheless by each law, namely Ecclesiastical and Caesarean, and indeed before the Trullan Canons, was severely disapproved and prohibited under most grave penalties, as even the laws themselves of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid Emperor complains gravely concerning certain clerics who, despising the sacred Canons, had presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, section Sacris Canonibus). Indeed the sacred Canons severely forbade, under penalty of privation of the sacred ministry, that any of the Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons could be married after an ordination of this kind. Whence, the same Justinian continues, 'just as such things are prohibited by the sacred Canons, so also according to our laws the thing itself is prohibited'; and, heaping civil penalties upon canonical ones, he decrees that sons received from such a wicked conjunction are illegitimate, as if they had been born from an incestuous marriage: 'so that they be understood neither as natural nor as illegitimate or spurious, but as altogether and from every side prohibited, and unworthy of the succession of their begetters.' Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical laws, as Benedict XIV most rightly says, there has been left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless in the matter of which there is question, the Emperor speaks relatively to the sacred Canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

Nor does it stand in the way that the Provincial Council of Ancyra, canon 10, permitted Deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not contain, to contract marriage even after Orders had been received. For granted that that Canon had the force of a concession for the Province of Ancyra, it certainly could not change the discipline of the Eastern Church, and in reality it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers testify together in clear words, and the Emperor himself most openly maintains. (Authentics, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: He who ordains not being able, at the time of ordination, to permit a Deacon or Subdeacon to take a wife after ordination, etc.) Wherefore even the Trullan Synod itself, canon 6, generally decrees under penalty of deposition that it is wholly lawful to no Subdeacon or Deacon or Presbyter to contract nuptials after ordination (Canon 6, Council in Trullo: Since in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, it is said that, of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only Readers and Cantors can take a wife; and we, observing this, decree that henceforth it is lawful to no Hypodeacon, or Deacon, or Presbyter at all to contract after his ordination. But if he shall have dared this, let him be deposed, etc.); whence also the Canonists of the Greeks freely acknowledge that the Canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others. Const. Arcudius, book 7, chapter 37, and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien that custom is from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church, namely, that hypodeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind should be promoted to higher orders, since this is wholly abhorrent even to the Trullan Synod itself.

Wherefore His Holiness, to whom it is supremely dear that the customs of that Province, every corruption having been removed, be arranged according to the norm of a purer eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises Your Excellency's repeatedly confirmed proposal, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred Orders, unless he is either altogether celibate, or one who before the hypodeaconate, according to eastern custom, has taken a legitimate wife. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that Province, remaining in the proposal, stand firmly; here cling..." Instr. S. C. de P. F. 24 March 1858, for a certain Province of the Greek rite.

“...He who diligently weighs the genuine tradition concerning the celibacy and continence of the clergy will certainly find that, even from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by morals and custom it was established that not only bishops and priests, but also clerics constituted in sacred orders, should inviolably observe virginity or perpetual continence. For the very dignity of the sacred ministry, to which offices almost divine are assigned, seemed to require that those who were to sacrifice and also to bring forth the immaculate Victim, who is sanctity and purity itself, should shine either with the splendor of virginity or with perpetual continence. Moreover, the most abundant tradition of the Holy Fathers shows that the Apostles were either virgins or perpetually continent after marriage; hence they themselves also chose as their successors none other than those who cultivated virginity or professed inviolable continence. There is no need to delay here over what the Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of the others, instructed by the example and institutions of the Apostles did: for she never relaxed that obligation of preserving chastity, salutarily propagated it throughout the whole Western Church, and finally sanctioned it by an inviolable law. But among the Orientals also, the celibacy or continence of clerics, besides always having been in the highest honor, was religiously observed from the most ancient time, especially in churches where discipline flourished through the diligence of the bishops. Epiphanius, indeed, a man distinguished in sanctity and learning and one who knew the discipline of the Eastern Church very well, in his exposition of the Catholic faith (no. 21) expressly affirms that ‘the priesthood consists principally of the order of virgins, or, if not...of those who abstain from their wives, or who after such nuptials live in widowhood.’ For in the beginning, as Jerome says (Against Jovinian, book 1), ‘because the Church was being established in a people untrained from among the Gentiles,’ some were also assumed into the priesthood who were already joined in marriage, but who either lived continently in widowhood or passed their life as though they had no wives. Hence the same Epiphanius (Heresies, 59) expressly acknowledges how ‘the holy preaching of God does not admit as a deacon, priest, bishop, or subdeacon a husband of one wife who still begets children, but him who has abstained from his one wife or has lived in widowhood, especially where the ecclesiastical canons are sincere.’ Nor does the contrary custom or nonobservance of some particular Church stand in the way at all when the discipline of the Eastern Church is being discussed; for the same Epiphanius appositely continues: ‘But you will say to me: In certain places, priests, deacons, and subdeacons still beget children. Yet this is not according to the canon, but according to the mind of men.’ Therefore it cannot be doubted that in the time of Epiphanius clerics—from the subdeacon to the bishop—cultivated celibacy or continence. This can also be most suitably confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who, on account of his long residence in the East, knew the morals and discipline of that Church most perfectly. For the Holy Doctor, against Vigilantius, the bitterest enemy of clerical continence, besides other arguments opposes the fact of the universal Church: ‘What will the Churches of the East do? What will those of Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which receive clerics who are either virgins or continent, or, if they have had wives, cease to be husbands? This, then, was the tradition of the universal Church; these were the customs where the former discipline flourished.’

“Certain Greeks think and assert with too much confidence that bishops in the East observed continence of their own accord, not bound by any law, which they say was first enacted at the Synod in Trullo. But, besides the most clear testimonies of the Fathers, Justinian himself, who established laws long before the Trullan canons and who professes himself to be the executor of the earlier canons, inculcates more than once that bishops are to be chosen either from the order of monks or indeed from the clergy, but such as neither have a wife nor at least cohabit with her (book 1, Code, On Bishops and Clerics, law 4; Novels 123, chapters 14 and 29). Moreover, the same discipline prevails among the Eastern sects which had fallen away from unity even before the times of Justinian; for they all agree in this, that bishops are chosen celibate. (Consult the Jerusalem Itinerary of John of Catovice, who expressly attests this concerning the Chaldean Nestorians and the Maronites.)

“Far otherwise did it happen with respect to priests and other clerics; for that which in the time of Epiphanius was nonobservance or the lax custom of a certain Church in the course of time began to take root and spread, so that at length it pervaded almost the whole Eastern Church; and as the custom gained strength, that which had been permitted only to cantors and readers was also granted to priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, namely, that they might cohabit with wives whom they had married before sacred ordination. Indeed, in a certain Eastern province the tide of laxer discipline advanced so far that some presumed to attempt marriage even after the reception of sacred orders. This, nevertheless, was severely condemned and prohibited under the gravest penalties by both laws—that is, ecclesiastical and imperial—even before the Trullan canons, as the very laws of Justinian clearly show. For the aforesaid emperor gravely complains of certain clerics who, “despising the sacred canons, presumed to attempt nuptials after ordination” (Code, book 1, title 3, On Bishops and Clerics, § Sacris canonibus). For the sacred canons severely forbade, under penalty of deprivation of the sacred ministry, any of the priests, deacons, and subdeacons to marry after an ordination of this kind. “Hence,” the same Justinian continues, “just as such things are prohibited by the sacred canons, so also according to our laws the thing itself is prohibited”; and, adding civil penalties to canonical ones, he decrees that children begotten from such a nefarious union are illegitimate, as though they had been born from an incestuous union: “so that they are understood to be neither natural children nor bastards or spurious children, but altogether and in every respect prohibited and unworthy of the succession of their parents.” Thus far Justinian. And although in ecclesiastical law, as Benedict XIV most correctly says, there is left to the lay power only the glory of obeying, not the authority of commanding, nevertheless, in the matter at issue, the emperor speaks with relation to the sacred canons. (Instruction Eo quamvis tempore, 1 May 1745.)

“Nor does it stand in the way that the provincial Council of Ancyra, in canon 10, permitted deacons, if at ordination they had declared that they could not be continent, to contract marriage even after receiving orders. For, granted that that canon had the force of a concession for the province of Ancyra, it certainly could not change the discipline of the Eastern Church, and in fact it did not change it, as Epiphanius, Jerome, and other Fathers together testify in clear words, and as the emperor himself most openly maintains (Authenticae, collection 9, title 4, Novel 123, chapter 14: ‘He who ordains is not competent at the time of ordination to permit a deacon or subdeacon to take a wife after ordination,’ etc.). Therefore, the Trullan Synod itself, in canon 6, decrees generally, under penalty of deposition, that it is wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract nuptials after ordination (canon 6 of the Council in Trullo: ‘Since it has been said in the Apostolic Canons, canon 27, that of those who are promoted to the clergy without having taken a wife, only readers and cantors can take a wife, We also, observing this, decree that henceforth it shall be wholly unlawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or priest to contract marriage after his ordination. But if he should dare to do this, let him be deposed,’ etc.). Hence even Greek canonists freely acknowledge that the canon of the Council of Ancyra was wholly abrogated by the Quinisext Council (Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and others; Arcudius, Constitution, book 7, chapter 37; and Benedict XIV, Instruction Eo quamvis tempore).

“Since these things are so, anyone easily sees how alien from the genuine discipline of the Eastern Church is that custom by which subdeacons contracting marriage after an ordination of this kind are promoted to higher orders, since even the Trullan Synod itself wholly abhors this.

“Therefore His Holiness, who has very greatly at heart that the customs of that province, every corruption having been wiped away, be composed according to the norm of the purer Eastern discipline, cannot but follow with deserved praises the repeatedly confirmed purpose of Your Excellency, namely, henceforth to admit no one to sacred orders unless either wholly celibate or one who, before the subdiaconate, has married a lawful wife according to the Eastern custom. Here, therefore, let Your Excellency and the other Prelates of that province, remaining in this purpose, stand firmly; adhere to this....” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 24 March 1858, to the Archbishop of Făgăraș and Alba Iulia of the Greek-Romanian rite.

Are clerics bound to preserving celibacy? - In the Latin Church all clerics, from the episcopate to the subdiaconate inclusive, are held under a most grave precept to preserve perpetual chastity, so that they neither can licitly use a marriage contracted before sacred ordination, nor licitly nor validly afterward contract it. This is established from several chapters of Canon Law, especially C. 1, Dist. 28; C. unic. de Voto in 6; Trent s. 24, c. 9.

In the Latin Church. For some exception is given by tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. In the Oriental Church priests can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, nor deacons after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be promoted to further orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, all of whom must constantly preserve perfect chastity. Hence among the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred orders; and upon unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed. In some provinces, in which the ancient discipline of the Western Church has been restored, the same obligation is imposed in the ordination of the subdiaconate. Cf. 1015. L. l. 6, n. 806; S. Th. Suppl. q. 53, a. 3; C. Ut Clericorum 13 de Vit. et honest. cler., C. A crapula 14 e. t.; C. 1, 2 Qui cler. vel vov.; C. 1, 4 de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. for the Italo-Greeks Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n.

26; Instruction for the Copts Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, § 30 ff.; E. M.

Ruthenian clerics in the Canadian region cannot be admitted into the Seminary unless they have promised before the Bishop that they will preserve celibacy perpetually; and only celibates will be able to be promoted to sacred orders in the Canadian region. For exercising the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian rite, none can be admitted except celibate priests, or at least widowers and without children. S. C. de P. F., August 8, 1913, art. 10, 11; A. A. S. v. 5, p. 395. Celibacy is prescribed in the very same way for the Ruthenian clergy in the United States of North America by Pius X, C. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, c. 2, art. 10, 12; Supplem. 369.

During the first five centuries in the Western Church the obligation of preserving continence attached to the order of subdiaconate is not found. The first to command subdeacons to preserve it was St. Leo the Great, around the year 440, as is clear from his Epistle 84 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. But since St. Leo's precept was no longer being sufficiently observed, D. Gregory the Great renewed it, around the year 581, further declaring that the subdiaconate is a sacred order and aggregated to the major orders. And then it is expressly and determinately established in the Decretals of Innocent III, C. Miramur 7 de Serv. non ordinandis. De Iustis de Dispens. Matrim. l. 3, c. 15, Appendix n. 11.

Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law? - Reply: Negatively; for if this law were of divine law, it would not vary concerning it between the Latin and Greek Church, since divine law does not vary according to diversity of places. It is therefore from the ordinance of the Church. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation.

Whether that obligation is immediately from a precept of the Church, or immediately from a vow to be emitted by precept of the Church? Trent s. 24, c. 9 refers to both, but does not define. There are those who teach that those ordained in sacred orders are held to chastity not from a vow, but from the sole ordinance of the Church, both because no mention of a vow is made, and because a precept of the Church is sufficient for this. But others commonly, with S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88, a. 11, derive this obligation immediately from a vow of chastity, which is emitted in the very fact of ordination according to the mind of the Church, and this is expressly had in the Law. C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, § 41. And Boniface VIII declared this vow to be solemn. C. un. de vot. et vot. redempt. in 6. Wherefore a cleric initiated into sacred orders, sinning against chastity, sins also against religion by acts both external and internal. Therefore the obligation of celibacy extends to preserving all chastity. Cf. L. l. 6, n. 807, 808; Albit. de Inconst. in Fide c. 36, n. 132 ff.

1. Ambrosius, a bishop, for reforming the morals of many from the clergy of his diocese, established the following things in the diocesan statutes, first promulgated by him: 1.º That clerics initiated in sacred orders and all beneficed clerics and religious clerics should not omit wearing the crown. — 2.º Under penalty of suspension incurred by the fact itself, he prohibited the same from omitting the cassock after sunset, even a single time. — 3.º He prohibited parish priests and other clerics constituted in sacred orders, whether seculars or regulars, from living alone with a maidservant who has not reached the fortieth year, adding that he prohibited this under grave obligation. — 4.º Having built and founded at his own expense a house of exercises, he prescribed that all clerics, whether seculars or regulars, should every three years perform exercises there for the space of eight days, with no payment, however, made for food, lodging, and other necessary things, but with a fine of five lire to be paid by transgressors. Now Rusticus, a parish priest in the country, since he himself has been the only cleric in his parish for many years, and there are not there distinguished families or persons, but simple farmers; since besides he is still far from cities on account of the absence of a railway, and finally the place is mountainous and cold, thinks that by legitimate epikeia he is exempted from the 1st, 2nd, and 4th statute. Moreover he thinks himself free by every right from the 3rd statute, although he has with him a woman not yet forty years old, who serves him in domestic matters; for he says that she is not a maidservant, but his blood-relative, although in a more remote degree.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The bishop could rightly enact those statutes. For the bishop, as endowed with true power of jurisdiction in his diocese and over the clergy of his diocese and over the priests themselves, can establish those ecclesiastical laws which regard the right government and good of souls, provided however they are not opposed to common law. Cap. Institutionis 7, Cap. Ecclesiasticae 12, caus. 25, q. 2; Cap. Quod super his 9, de Maiorit. et obedientia; S. C. in Asc. 11 July 1767, § 4; Reiff., tit. 2, lib. 1, Decret. n. 69; Benedict XIV, de Syn. dioec., l. 13, c. 1, n. 3; Bouix, de Episc., v. 2, c. 5. But those statutes are not opposed to common law, as is clear to all as regards the tonsure or crown, clerical habit, and cohabitation with women. Cf. I. M. 100–103, 181.

And these things in general. Let us now weigh each statute in particular. The first Statute does not seem to bring with it of itself a grave obligation, since that grave obligation is neither declared nor confirmed by a grave sanction. Both are present in the other Statutes. Therefore that diverse manner of speaking indeed shows that the bishop strongly wishes all those clerics to wear the tonsure or crown, but that in this matter he does not impose a grave obligation, beyond that which is otherwise present from common law. A difficulty can be raised as regards religious, whether the bishop could legitimately establish the same thing for secular and regular clerics. He certainly could do this as regards religious who are not exempt; and this is clear. But could he do the same as regards exempt religious themselves? It is answered that he indeed could not do this directly, by reason of the very privilege of exemption. For this matter is not excepted from such a privilege, as are many others, in which regulars even though exempt are subjected to the jurisdiction, either ordinary or delegated, of bishops. If therefore regulars are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, certainly the bishop cannot directly touch them by his jurisdiction with a precept or law or even a simple statute. Nevertheless the bishop could do this indirectly, insofar, namely, as although he cannot prescribe, he can nevertheless punish. For regulars, even exempt, are subject to bishops if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters, so that they can be visited, punished, and corrected by the Ordinary of the place, as delegated by the Apostolic See over this matter according to the canonical sanctions. Trent, sess. 6, de R., c. 3. It is said: if they dwell and offend outside the cloisters; for if they dwell within the cloisters and notoriously offend outside them with scandal of the people, they must be punished by their superior, and only in the case of negligence of the regular superior can they be punished by the bishop himself, as is held from the same Trent, sess. 25, de R., c. 14, and from the Motu proprio of Benedict XIII, 26 March 1729. But a regular not wearing the clerical crown or monastic crown through the city is one offending outside the cloisters. This is confirmed from S. C. EE. in Andrien., 15 Dec. 1584, and in Ravennaten., 12 Sept. 1594, apud Monacel., tom. 1, tit. 6, Formul. 20, n. 131; Ferraris, v. Regulares, art. 2, n. 48, whence it is held that regulars walking through the city and places without a companion, or by night, or indecently clothed and without due religious modesty, can be committed by the bishop to prisons as offending outside the cloisters, the form of Trent, sess. 25, c. 14, de R. R., nevertheless being observed. — “But if regulars offend within the cloisters, let the bishop admonish the regular superior, and insofar as he himself does not provide, let him have recourse to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.” S. C. EE. et RR., 26 March 1897.

The second statute concerning habit brings with it a grave obligation; for this is drawn from the grave penalty of suspension, which is added. But can the bishop establish this penalty? It must be altogether affirmed from Trent, sess. 14, c. 6, de R., which explicitly grants this power to bishops. But as regards regulars, the same must be said as in the preceding statute.

The third statute concerning cohabitation with women brings a grave obligation, as is explicitly stated in the very enunciation. The matter is grave of itself, and not without scandal, if one cohabits with some young woman. As regards regulars, the matter is clear from what was said in the first statute. Only this must be noted: that regulars of this sort, living alone with women, are already dwelling and offending outside the cloisters.

Finally the fourth statute, by which the bishop orders the priests of his diocese to perform sacred exercises, neither exceeds the limits of ordinary episcopal power, nor is opposed to common law, but on the contrary is very much conformed to it, as is clear from the Encyclical Letter to all the Ordinaries of Italy, 1 Feb. 1710; Lucidi, de Visit., v. 3, p. 381 seqq., 3rd ed. It is confirmed from the response of S. C. C., 20 Sept. 1878, A. S. S., v. 12, p. 612. But it does not seem that the bishop can also bind exempt regulars. For those things which pertain to the observance of regular discipline are not subject to the jurisdiction or correction of the bishop. Moreover to perform spiritual exercises is a thing which pertains to regular observance and discipline, especially if it is noted that exercises of this sort would have to be performed outside the monastery, in a house built and founded by that bishop. The regular parish priests themselves, in those things which pertain to regular observance, are exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, visitation, and correction. Benedict XIV, C. Firmandis, VIII Id. Nov. 1744, pars. 8, 10; C. Apostolicum ministerium, 30 May 1753, par. 15. But does a statute of this sort bring a grave obligation? It seems it must be denied from the light penalty added, a fine of 5 lire.

Now the excuses of Rusticus cannot be approved. On account of a mountainous and cold place he is not dispensed from the tonsure or crown. Let him use a square cap and skullcap; and he will suffer no inconvenience from the inclemency of the air. That his parishioners are simple farmers and not noble citizens does not therefore dispense him from wearing the cassock outside the house, especially at night-time. Indeed, for guarding against many dangers and inconveniences, the lower in condition the parishioners are, the more necessary is greater exterior decorum in the parish priest. And exterior decorum of this sort is also necessary so that simple farmers may hold the parish priest in a certain greater veneration and show him greater reverence, owed to the priestly degree and apostolic ministry. That he is the only cleric in the parish, and the distance and difficulty of the journey, do not excuse him from the spiritual exercises, to be performed only every three years. Perhaps he himself undertakes other longer and more difficult journeys. Therefore let him ask a vicar from the bishop for the time of absence, let him call some nearer priest, and let him go to the episcopal city to perform the exercises, at least every three years according to the episcopal statute. Nor indeed will great expenses have to be made by him, since everything is furnished gratuitously during the whole time of the exercises. Although the railway is lacking, certainly other public carriages will not be lacking, which will carry him, even at modest expense, into the episcopal city. But although in full rigor he does not seem to act against the third statute, namely against the written letter, for by maidservant an outside person is ordinarily understood; nevertheless one must see carefully, lest, the circumstances considered, the association of that blood-relative in fact be a scandal to him and to others, and gravely harm his own reputation and good estimation, which all parishioners ought to have as very good concerning their parish priest. Let him set forth his case to the most reverend bishop.

2. Arcontius, a priest, suffering grave temptations against chastity, of which he previously was altogether free, fell into many sins against the same virtue; nevertheless he does not think that he commits sacrilege, first because, he says, ecclesiastical celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but from mere ecclesiastical law; but positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. Secondly, because, although there is a vow, its obligation nevertheless ceases on account of changed circumstances of things, and on account of a supervening grave inconvenience which, if it had been foreseen, the vow would not have been emitted.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Arcontius is egregiously deceived in all things. He errs first when saying that ecclesiastical celibacy does not oblige except from mere ecclesiastical law, namely with no vow intervening. This is openly opposed to C. Quod votum un., de Voto et Voti Redempt., and Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, par. 1, 3 Dec. 1749.

He errs secondly, when he thinks that he does not commit sacrilege because celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but only by force of ecclesiastical law itself. For 1.º since that law rests upon a motive of religion, its transgression is sacrilege, at least broadly such. 2.º Since, according to the opinion of all, that law solemnly consecrates the person himself to God by the public authority of the Church, its transgression is also sacrilege strictly and properly such.

He errs thirdly, when he thinks that on account of the grave temptations which he experiences he is not held by that law, since positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. This is not true, when there is question of a law depending upon the proper and free consent of the will, as this law is. Thus enclosure is prescribed to nuns, which certainly is a most grave thing; but it is free to nuns to enter religion, just as it is free to clerics to be initiated in sacred orders.

He errs fourthly, thinking that the vow of chastity ceases on account of changed difficulties of things. For generally the difficulty of observing chastity is intrinsic to chastity itself; it is for all. And only some special difficulty can be had for someone, but for him who is unwilling to use the necessary means, as especially prayer and flight from occasions. Since therefore that special difficulty is voluntary, namely depending upon the will, the matter is evident that on account of it the vow cannot cease; for otherwise the vow would cease on account of its voluntary violation, which cannot be. Hence it does not avail to say that such a difficulty was not foreseen; for although this difficulty was not foreseen, since it is from the will, it can always cease by the will, if one seriously wishes to apply the due remedies. Likewise a special difficulty can be had independently of one’s own negligence, on account of merely subjective circumstances of temperament. But neither does this special difficulty exempt from the vow of chastity. For first, if there is question of a vow of chastity generally, even of a simple vow of chastity outside Religion, this always remains firm, even if one is agitated by unusual and unforeseen impulses of the flesh; for speaking of itself, this difficulty is foreseen at least confusedly, since in fact it is neither extrinsic to this matter nor altogether rare, insofar as those who vow chastity, even the more holy and pure, ordinarily speaking, at least at some time in life experience this difficulty. Besides, there is added the grace of God, which is not denied to him who does what is in him; and if anyone freely cooperates with it, certainly there will be no danger of incontinence, and that special difficulty of resisting temptations is diminished. Wherefore the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 9, condemns those who assert that “all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it, can contract marriage; since God does not deny this to those rightly asking, nor permit us to be tempted above that which we can bear.” But here it must be noted that, if notable difficulty and change did not proceed directly and from within the vow of chastity itself, but only indirectly and from without, for example, if a woman who had emitted a vow of chastity had been oppressed by force by another, and therefore unless she married would be in a most miserable condition, there are some who hold that the vow of chastity then is extinguished. For this circumstance is not included in any way in that matter, nor could it in any way have been foreseen. If it had been foreseen, certainly the vow would not have been emitted. But vows, special conditions being excluded, of themselves do not oblige beyond that which here and now was promised by the one vowing. But what has been said concerning the firmness of a simple vow of chastity, notwithstanding grave temptations afterwards arising, much more holds of solemn vows, validly emitted in religious profession or in the reception of orders, which are always valid, whatever notable circumstance supervenes. For the religious and ecclesiastic in this case is not considered as a private person for whom it would then be better not to be bound by vow, but as a part of the community of the Church, for whom it is fitting to postpone private good; otherwise, as is clear, how many inconveniences, how many scandals and disturbances! The same must be said by the same reason of the common good concerning simple vows which are emitted by men or women in some Congregations, especially if an oath of perseverance is added; for then an explicit onerous contract intervenes. Wherefore, just as the Congregation cannot dismiss a student on account of supervening circumstances, except circumstances of crimes, so neither can the student on account of those same circumstances desert the Congregation. — Scavini, l. 2, n. 64, ed. Milan, 1874; Gury, v. 1, n. 311; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 481; I. M. v. 1, n. 575.

3. Pomponius, a parish priest, very pious and good, used to have spiritual conferences with a certain very pious and good woman. The friendship from spiritual degenerated into sensual, and gradually became wholly carnal. To remove every scandal before it should arise, he went away into a distant region where the Council of Trent as regards clandestine marriages has not been promulgated. That woman went away with him, because she was publicly held as his sister. Since the aforesaid parish priest was not lacking in talent and art, he soon became familiar to the bishop, and vicar general of the whole diocese, enjoying among all, both he himself and his reputed sister, public reputation and estimation of piety and sanctity. Placed in these circumstances of things, greatly fearing for his soul and that of the woman, he contracts marriage with her, persuading her that he had sought and obtained Apostolic dispensation, but deceiving himself, on account of so great a difficulty of the matter and on account of the scandal which otherwise would be present, that by legitimate epikeia he was exempt from the ecclesiastical law of celibacy, and consequently had been able to contract both licitly and validly.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. The legitimate epikeia of Pomponius, parish priest and afterwards vicar general, is null; for there is no scandal except one altogether voluntary, namely depending upon his free will. For first, as is clear, there is no necessity of sinning with that woman. The whole sin depends upon his depraved will. Besides, he can very well be separated from that woman in residence, although she is publicly held as his sister, by simulating some pretext; and because she is publicly held as his sister, the separation is still easier, and there can be no scandal. Moreover, since he went to a distant region to sin, which that woman similarly did, why now should he not undertake another journey, for example to Rome, in order to convert himself sincerely to God? It will be easy for him to declare to that woman that he did not obtain Apostolic dispensation; perhaps she never even persuaded herself of this, since the matter is so foreign to practice. And thus by his own example let him induce to sincere conversion that woman whom he himself perhaps first induced to sin, and let him repair the scandal given to her. Finally, as is clear from what has been said, here the reason principally considered is that of the state itself and of the common good. Wherefore, on account of a private inconvenience, although grave, the vow does not cease. Much less indeed does the diriment impediment cease, directly regarding the common good, on account of an inconvenience, although grave, in the particular case of a private person, and especially a voluntary one.

4. Titius, a young man, called into the lot of the Lord, having entered the diocesan seminary by the counsel of his confessor, there led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But by evil fate, circumvented by the blandishments of a very bad fellow-resident, he contracted a base friendship with him and more than once miserably fell with him into sin of the flesh. Having then been assigned to another residence by reason of studies, he escaped indeed free from the occasion, but, still addicted to the base passion, often clings to depraved thoughts and secretly sins with himself. The master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, exercises every diligence to draw Titius back from the depraved custom, but with no happy outcome. For while this man restrains himself for one or another week, then he returns again and again to sin from fragility.

Meanwhile the rector, according to the practice of the seminary, calls Titius, who had already completed the course of theology and recommended himself greatly by the exterior manner of his life, with other companions to receive the order of subdiaconate. Nevertheless the master of piety opposes and imposes on him a delay of ordination. But Titius, while according to custom he approaches him for confession, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, shows himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor, and asks him to concede to him to approach the subdiaconate, lest otherwise he incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. The master of piety, at first uncertain, hesitates; but then shows himself ready to gratify Titius. Indeed, as he reasons with himself, the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced; and if Titius, on account of indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can also be admitted to Sacred Orders, since for duly receiving the sacrament of Order, as a sacrament of the living, no more is required than the state of grace. Hence he bestows upon Titius the benefit of absolution and permits him to be promoted.

It is asked: 1.º What dispositions are required in the subject for licitly and fruitfully receiving Sacred Orders? — 2.º Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in sins of lust, who wishes to approach Sacred Orders without a preceding trial of continence? — 3.º Whether the master of piety conducted himself rightly with Titius, and reasoned rightly?

Resp. To the 1st: In order that sacred Orders be received licitly and fruitfully, there is need 1.º of divine vocation. This is commonly asserted by the doctors and is founded in the words of the Apostle to Hebr. c. 5, v. 4: “Nor does anyone take honor to himself, but he who is called by God as Aaron.” Hence the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 4, after it has stated who are to be judged to approach Sacred Orders wrongly, finally concludes: “But they are deservedly said to enter the Church by the door, who, legitimately called by God, undertake ecclesiastical offices for the sake of this one thing, that they may serve the honor of God.” But the reason of this divine vocation is that no one can spontaneously undertake an office and duty to be exercised, unless he has aptitude for it. But aptitude for divine ecclesiastical offices and duties is especially from divine grace. And this certainly will not be lacking to those whom God himself calls into his lot.

2.º There is need of the mind of becoming a cleric, namely of committing oneself to the service and worship of God. Hence the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 4, de Reformat., says that those are not to be initiated “concerning whom there is not a probable conjecture that they have chosen this kind of life not by the fraud of fleeing secular judgment, but that they may furnish faithful worship to God.”

3.º “It is necessary to have a good testimony from those who are outside”; 1 Tim. c. 3, v. 7. For this reason the Council of Trent, sess. 23, c. 5, de Reformat., prescribes that “those who are to be assumed to each of the major Orders should approach the bishop a month before ordination; and he should commit to the parish priest or to another, to whom it shall seem more expedient, that, the names and desire of those who wish to be promoted having been publicly set forth in the Church, he should diligently inquire from trustworthy persons concerning the birth, age, morals, and life of the ordinands themselves; and that he should transmit to the bishop himself as soon as possible testimonial letters containing the inquiry made.”

4.º Suitable doctrine is required, which is various for various Orders. This is openly clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 23, cc. 4, 11, 13, 14, de Reformat. For how indeed could ministers of the Church teach others those things which are necessary for salvation, and rightly administer the sacraments for their office, unless they had the knowledge necessary for this?

5.º Integrity of life is required. Wherefore negative sanctity and immunity from sin is required, and therefore the state of grace, since order is a sacrament of the living. Consequently immunity is required not only from censure, but also from irregularity, whether strictly or broadly such. Indeed from various decrees of both the S. C. of the Holy Office and the S. C. of Bishops and Regulars it is required at present that those to be initiated in sacred Orders be free from military service. And by the same reason of required sanctity, especially before sacred Orders, Spiritual Exercises are premised. — But besides negative sanctity, positive sanctity also is required. For this reason, besides Confirmation there is demanded a life altogether proved, not by an ordinary and common manner of living honorably, but altogether above it; not of any sort whatever, but excellent, as the Angelic Doctor says, Suppl. q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.

Concerning this eminent sanctity there is a question among the doctors. But to me it is altogether wonderful that such a question can exist in so evident a matter. Let us omit the doctors, because in this way we would always be occupied among opinions, and let us dwell only in the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Therefore let us see whether from the Council of Trent only immunity from sin suffices, or whether besides true sanctity of life, and indeed eminent sanctity, is required. Certainly this sanctity is manifestly carried before it by all those examinations to be made by the bishop. Sess. 23, cc. 5, 7, 13, de Ref. And if someone is to be ordained by another bishop, the Tridentine Synod prescribes in the same place, c. 8, that “his probity and morals be commended by the testimony of his Ordinary.” Testimonial letters, however, must be given for receiving orders, and not generally. S. C. C., 8 Aug. 1733.

But positive sanctity, and indeed conspicuous sanctity, the Council of Trent expressly requires in the ordinands in the cited places. For first, concerning those to be initiated with first tonsure, it says that there must be concerning them a probable conjecture that they will furnish faithful worship to God, c. 4. As regards those to be promoted to minor Orders, the Council wishes in them an ascent from degree to degree, so that in them, with age, merit of life and doctrine may increase more: which both the example of good morals and assiduous ministry in the Church, and greater reverence toward presbyters and the superior orders, and more frequent than before Communion of the Body of Christ, will especially approve, c. 11. As regards those to be promoted to major Orders, it wishes that only those be ordained whose proved life is old age, who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves, cc. 12, 13. Lastly, as regards those to be assumed to the presbyterate, still graver are the words of the Council. Let those, it says, who have conducted themselves piously and faithfully in the ministries already passed, and are assumed to the order of presbyterate, have a good testimony... and be so CONSPICUOUS in piety and chaste morals that a distinguished example of good works and admonitions of life can be expected from them, c. 14.

But the reason is taken from the very dignity and ministry of the priest, who, as the Roman Catechism, de Ord., n. 5 says, “separated from the rest of the people, exercises himself in a ministry by far the greatest and most excellent of all.” The same Roman Catechism, in the cited place, n. 2, professedly declares the excellence of this dignity and ministry. “For,” it says, “since bishops and priests are, as it were, interpreters of God and certain messengers, who in his name teach men the divine law and precepts of life, and bear the person of God himself on earth, it is clear that their function is one than which none greater can be thought.” Therefore, as they are more excellent than all others of the people in dignity and ministry, so also they ought to surpass the rest of the people in honesty of morals and sanctity of life.

Wherefore the same Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1, de Ref., speaking of the life and honesty of clerics, says: “There is nothing which more continually instructs others to piety and the worship of God than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry. For since they are lifted from the things of the world to a higher place, the rest cast their eyes upon them as upon a mirror, and from them take what they imitate. For this reason it is altogether fitting that clerics, called into the lot of the Lord, so compose their life and all their morals, that in habit, gesture, gait, speech, and all other things, they show forth nothing except what is grave, moderate, and full of religion; that they avoid even light offenses, which in them would be greatest, so that their actions may bring veneration to all.” And the Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 658, unhesitatingly affirms that those who have given their name to the clerical militia “ought to shine with the adornment of all virtues and especially with the highest piety.”

And this eminent honesty of morals and sanctity of life ought especially to shine forth in perfect observance of continence and chastity. Whence before all things a priest ought to be modest, continent, 2 Tim. c. 3, vv. 2, 8. And, as the cited Plenary Council of Latin America, n. 644, says, chastity “is the proper and angelic ornament of the priestly order.”

To the 2nd: An affirmative response to the second question is a necessary corollary of the response already given to the first question. Concerning a cleric habituated in base sin and with the habit not yet extirpated, it certainly cannot be said that his life is proved, that his proved life is old age, nor certainly does a reasonable hope shine that he will be modest and continent. He is not conspicuous in chaste morals; nor can it reasonably be hoped that he will be conspicuous in the future. How therefore can ascent to sacred Orders prudently be permitted to a cleric of this sort, habituated in base sin, the habit of vice not yet changed into a habit of virtue? “No one,” says Innocent III in the Decretal A multis 9, de Aetate et qualit. et ord. praefic., “should be permitted to approach Sacred Order, unless he exists either a virgin or of proved chastity.” The aforesaid cleric certainly does not exist of proved chastity.

And hence it is clear why, although one habituated in base sin, if he has sincere sorrow and purpose, can be absolved, he can no longer be absolved if he wishes to be promoted to sacred Orders; namely, because he does not exist of proved chastity. Therefore it is altogether necessary that a serious trial of chastity to be observed should precede.

Indeed, an experiment of this sort can be supplied by some extraordinary grace of compunction, concerning which valid conjectures are available to the confessor. For by that more fervent penitence and contrition of soul a reasonable hope certainly shines that a cleric of this sort, constant in his purpose, will be chaste and modest. But because sincere and true conversions of this sort, extraordinary ones, are rare, and cannot always be discerned from their exterior signs even with evident certainty, hence the confessor must proceed cautiously in this matter. Wherefore no other counsel can be furnished to that confessor than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of the person, things, and cases, and implore with earnest prayers the help of Divine Light in so grave a matter. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 2, n. 18.

And nevertheless “the confessor must strive with every effort to render persuaded one of this sort to be initiated, although extraordinarily compunct, that he defer receiving Orders, until by the proof of some notable delay he shows himself more purged from the crimes committed.” Thus St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 77, where he concludes the Dissertation concerning this matter in these very grave words: “Moreover I confess that great caution must be applied in absolving clerics of this sort, who, scarcely emerged from the filth of vices, desire to ascend to the ministry of the Altar; for no one doubts that frequently a bad outcome of these men is deplored, not without the greatest detriment of the Church and ruin of peoples.”

To the 3rd: As regards the third question, it must be noted first of all that when Titius entered the diocesan seminary he was not only a good but an excellent young man, since it is said that there he led for some years a life commendable for piety and purity of morals. But he was corrupted by the companionship of a very bad fellow-resident. Indeed the master of piety, who used to receive the confessions of the students in the seminary, did very well to exercise every diligence that he might draw Titius back from the depraved custom. But he certainly ought also to have acted, and perhaps did act, so that that destructive student would be denounced to the Rector of the seminary, so that he would immediately be expelled from the seminary. Likewise the master of piety acted well when he imposed upon Titius a delay of Ordination. For Titius was found precisely in that miserable condition of a cleric habituated in the sin of lust, and habituated already for several years, without any preceding trial of continence. The same master of piety is likewise to be praised when afterwards he hesitates uncertainly concerning imparting absolution to Titius on account of those graver circumstances in which Titius is found. For from this it appears that the aforesaid master had the gravity and difficulty of the matter well known.

And as regards the fact of absolution having been imparted, the master of piety certainly cannot be absolutely reprehended, if the Case is considered speculatively and as it lies. For on the one hand, as is said in the Case, Titius, dissolved into tears, gives indubious signs of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, showing himself ready faithfully to execute all things which are proposed to him by the confessor. On the other hand, it is affirmed in the Case that Titius otherwise would incur great infamy among his companions and family, since the delay of ordination could be made honorable by no reason. For if Titius shows altogether indubious signs of sorrow and purpose, truly ready to execute all necessary means in order that he may live chastely, what more can be required from him, so that a reasonable hope is present that, with God as author, he will lead a chaste life hereafter? If besides infamy would truly follow from the delay of Ordination, neither would St. Alphonsus himself make any difficulty in granting absolution. The Holy Doctor, in the cited place, after affirming that absolution must be deferred, even for an extraordinarily compunct cleric, if the cleric wishes to be Ordained immediately, so that by the trial of time he may show himself more purged from the crimes committed and be more firmly proved; soon excepts the case of infamy to follow: “Provided however,” he says, “I except, that he himself from this delay of Ordination is not to undergo a mark, or proximate danger of infamy.”

Hence, practically speaking, it is indeed difficult to reprehend the master of piety, if in truth he was deceived. Nevertheless, if he himself had applied greater severity and had delayed the Ordination of Titius altogether to another time, after the chastity of Titius already proved by fact, and so that Titius himself might better apprehend the immense gravity of the matter, that master, truly a master of piety, would be fully approved and praised by me. For practically speaking, that solemn affirmation of Titius, and without any restriction, of following the counsels of the confessor, even those poured-out tears of Titius, in those straits of proximate Ordination already prepared and expected, can easily be suspect. But the infamy is rather apparent than real, since there can always be some honorable cause of the delay of Ordination, and the true cause can always be concealed under at least some pretext. “Then it will be necessary,” says Benedict XIV in the cited place, “and this certainly will not be very difficult for a prudent confessor, to place before the eyes of an Ordinand of this sort not only that eternal salvation ought to be preferred to any human respect, but also that there is nothing of infamy in this, if someone says and acknowledges that he wishes to think more maturely about entering an institute of life of this sort, which carries with it graver burdens, and which, once undertaken, will necessarily have to be observed through the whole life.”

Finally, as regards the reasons by which the master of piety was moved to granting absolution and permitting proximate Ordination, the first of them, that the vice of impurity is not a crime from which irregularity is induced, is of no moment. For although the vice of impurity, taken generally and of itself, does not induce irregularity properly such, or a canonical impediment, nevertheless it certainly induces irregularity in a broad signification, or unworthiness and unsuitability for receiving sacred Orders. And this unworthiness and unsuitability certainly suffices that someone be removed from sacred Orders.

Nor is the other reason better, that Order is a sacrament of the living, for the due receiving of which no more is required than the state of grace. For Order is indeed a sacrament of the living, but it is a sacrament which confers the most excellent power, the most noble dignity, and the most divine office; for the execution of which no one is apt and suitable, as St. Dionysius says apud St. Thomas, Suppl. q. 36, a. 1, “unless according to his whole habit he has been made God-formed and most like to God.”

39. • All clerics receiving sacred Orders contract by that very fact the obligation of celibacy. This is clear from various Decrees of Canon Law, but especially from ch. 1, dist. 28, where St. Gregory prescribed thus: “Let Bishops presume to make no one a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the Altar unless his chastity has been proved before the ministry has been received.” Likewise from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, ch. 9, where it is defined thus: “If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or Regulars solemnly professed in chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema.”

40. Questions. - QUESTION 1º. Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law?

Resp. No, with the common opinion against some; but it is from merely ecclesiastical institution, namely from the force of a precept of the Church, or also from the vow annexed to sacred Orders. The reason is that celibacy was introduced only from the precept of the Church or of the Apostles. It is further plain from the Council of Trent reported above, where it is said: “Notwithstanding ecclesiastical law.” Therefore, etc. - Thus commonly the theologians. St. Ligorius, On Order, Bk. 6, n. 807. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation. But she never dispenses with those constituted in sacred Orders so that they may be bound by the bond of matrimony, unless under this law, that they be altogether excluded from clerical offices. Thus Pius VII convalidated the sacrilegious marriages of some Priests who had entered into nuptials during the French disturbance.

41. • QUESTION 2º. Does the obligation of celibacy proceed immediately from a precept of the Church, or mediately, namely from the vow which is emitted in the ordination itself ¹?

¹ The controversy is more aptly and clearly proposed by asking whether this obligation of chastity arises from the mere precept of the Church, or also from a vow annexed to sacred Orders. To this question an easy answer offers itself, that the Church wills both that clerics keep chastity and that they profess chastity from a vow. Wherefore ecclesiastical law commands clerics both chastity and at the same time the manner of professing chastity, namely from a vow.

Resp. Certain ones have thought it probable that the obligation is from ecclesiastical law alone; yet this opinion seems to have its origin from the doctrine of certain older authors understood wrongly. But the more common and to-be-held opinion says that this obligation arises from a vow. And indeed unless you derive it from a vow, it would be probable that a cleric is not guilty of sacrilege in internal sins against chastity, which is against the opinion of all ².

² When you establish that clerics are probably obliged to keep chastity only by force of ecclesiastical law, another perhaps will subsume that human laws do not reach acts merely internal, as the opinion has it which is at least extrinsically probable from authority. And if indeed ecclesiastical law does not extend itself to these acts, therefore through them a cleric will certainly sin against natural law, but not against ecclesiastical law, from which alone the guilt of sacrilege could be deduced for those acts. Therefore acts merely internal will not be infected with the malice of sacrilege; whence it will also follow that the circumstance of Sacred Order in the confession of these sins is not necessarily to be expressed.

But since a consequence of this sort openly conflicts with the doctrine which doctors most commonly have as certain, namely that a cleric constituted in sacred Orders by sins even merely internal against chastity also incurs the guilt of sacrilege, necessarily to be expressed in confession (see Tamburini, On the Sacraments, bk. 7, ch. 3, § 3, n. 7; Verricelli, tr. 4, Quaest. Mor. 5, n. 2; St. Alphonsus, Bk. 3, n. 454), therefore one must conclude that, if not in both, at least in one of those premises from which that consequence flows spontaneously and legitimately, a defect lies hidden, and probability is wrongly attributed to it. For the probability of the premises would make the consequence probable; but probability of that consequence cannot cohere with the certainty of its contradictory.

Moreover the Author rightly detects a defect of this sort in the probability which, through mere equivocation, was attributed to the proposition deriving the obligation of chastity with regard to clerics immediately from mere ecclesiastical law. I said “through mere equivocation”; for if you diligently inquire, not with another’s eyes but with your own, into the opinion of those authors whom, as patrons of that opinion, you have enumerated in a long train apud Sanchez (On Matrimony, bk. 7, disp. 27, n. 9), and after Sanchez apud Aversa (On Order, q. 4, sect. 7, § Praeferendus), you will find that most of them are wrongly alleged, since they are treating a wholly different question. And indeed several of them by no means ask whence is the obligation of perfect chastity with regard to clerics, whether from a vow or from a mere precept of the Church, but whence is the force of diriment impediment or of rendering invalid the matrimony which a cleric perhaps contracts after receiving Sacred Order; namely, whether this is to be derived from the nature of Sacred Order, or by force of a vow, or only from ecclesiastical law. But they establish that this does not flow from the nature of Sacred Order, both because the custom tolerated in the Greek Church contradicts it, and because the Supreme Pontiff can dispense; likewise not by force of a vow, both because the matrimony even of that cleric who perhaps did not wish to vow, at least by internal will, is held invalid, and because not even the solemn vow of a monk of itself, but through a statute of the Church, has this force. Wherefore they rightly conclude that the invalidity of a matrimony of this sort can be deduced from ecclesiastical law alone; and this conclusion is wrongly confused with the opinion which derives every obligation of chastity, which can be present even apart from the force of diriment impediment, from the law of the Church alone. But lest these things seem to be tossed out wrongly, it will not be burdensome for the reader to have inspected here with his own eyes the genuine senses of these doctors who are objected to as contrary.

Therefore the conclusion of Scotus is this (In 4, dist. 37, single q.): “The Church makes such a person simply illegitimate, namely for nuptials.” Say the same about Innocent III and Henry of Ghent, of whom the former (In C. Placet 12, De Convers. Coniug.) merely says that it is from the constitution of the Church that a presbyter, after the death of his first wife, cannot take another; but the latter (Quodl. 5, q. 38), that the Church indeed exacts continence from a cleric, but nevertheless does not dissolve matrimony contracted before Orders were received. To these add Bellamera, who (In C. De illo 5, dist. 32, n. 4) establishes this one thing, that the Pope can dispense with a subdeacon, because the prohibition about not contracting matrimony is not of natural or divine law, but ecclesiastical. But Durandus (In 4, dist. 37, q. 1, ad 1) also merely concludes: “When they receive Sacred Order, from then they are unfit and illegitimate simply for contracting matrimony by statute of the Church.” And from Durandus Turrecremata transcribed (In C. Placuit 13, dist. 32, art. 1, n. 6, ad 5), saying: “Sacred order impedes matrimony to be contracted and dissolves one contracted, not by reason of order absolutely, nor by reason of the annexed vow, but it impedes completively by statute of the Church making the persons illegitimate for contracting,” etc. Nor otherwise Paludanus (In 4, dist. 37, q. 1, concl. 2), where he writes: “Each sacred order dissolves a contracted matrimony, not by reason of the annexed vow, but by statute of the Church.” But the hallucination of those who understood these things as if the annexed vow were denied is plain from q. 2, concl. 2, where Paludanus expressly even asserts this vow: “A solemn vow,” he says, “which dissolves, is only either that of Sacred Order, or of approved Religion, as the new Decretal says, namely of Boniface VIII, in the single chapter De Voto in VI.” You see this same thing apud Henry (In C. Ex litterarum, tit. Qui clerici vel voventes, n. 2), who has these things: “They, clerics, retain the character which is imprinted on the soul, nor can it be removed by deposition; whence a deposed cleric must live clerically, and the vow of continence is annexed to the character.”

But what is more remarkable, even those are alleged for the opinion denying the vow who, openly asserting the vow itself, then dispute whether that vow is annexed to order by divine or human law, or whether that vow dissolves matrimony by its own force, or only by ecclesiastical statute. Thus the Archdeacon, namely Guido de Baysio, while he refutes those who asserted that a vow is annexed to Order by its own nature, and on the contrary refers this to the constitution of the Church, grants the vow itself thus (In C. Cum in praeterito 3, dist. 84): “There is an argument that he who has accepted order by that very fact makes a vow of continence, even if it is not expressed: for since some things are annexed to it, he who accepts one, since it cannot be without the other, seems to accept the other.” Thus also the Provost, namely Ioannes Antonius de S. Georgio (In Rubr. Qui Clerici vel voventes, n. 6): “You have, therefore, that continence, even if someone is bound to it by a solemn vow, is not included by divine law, but by the positive law of the Church, and therefore a solemn vow dissolves matrimony rather by constitution of the Church than by divine law. For by divine law the Priests of the Synagogue could contract matrimony, and even the Eastern Church has it that Priests contract matrimony, that is, retain a wife previously taken.” But Valentia (Controv., single bk., De Caelibat., ch. 2) institutes the question thus: “Whether the solemn vow of continence is annexed to sacred Orders not only by ecclesiastical law, but also by divine law.” He repeats this in the Theological Commentaries (tom. 4, disp. 9, q. 5, punct. 5, § 1), establishing that the law of celibacy with regard to all those things which it includes is only of ecclesiastical law, not divine; and therefore that the vow of continence is annexed to Sacred Orders only by ecclesiastical law. And John Gutiérrez (Quaest. Canonic., bk. 2, ch. 7, n. 2): “Although clerics do not emit an explicit vow of chastity, nor is the debt of continence essentially annexed to Sacred Order, but by statute of the Church, implicit, namely hidden in the very reception of Order; therefore by constitution of the Church they are bound to observe it. For by that very fact that someone is promoted to Sacred Order, he is tacitly understood to vow continence, even if no mention is made of a vow of continence.”

Nor less beside the point are Aegidius de Coninck and Palaus alleged for that opinion, since they derive the obligation of clerical continence both from a vow and immediately from ecclesiastical law. Thus the former (On the Sacraments, disp. 20, dub. 13, n. 130): “Although the second opinion reported in n. 126, namely the one which deduces the obligation immediately from the vow alone, is probable because of the authority of very many doctors, nevertheless I believe it more probable that those receiving sacred Orders, besides the obligation of the vow there explained, are also immediately obliged to continence from ecclesiastical law.” And Palaus (tr. 27, single disp., punct. 17, n. 5): “I judge it truer with Aegidius de Coninck that those initiated in sacred orders are bound to keeping chastity not only from a vow, but from a special law.” These authors were moved, namely, by this: that if someone through ignorance or malice in receiving Sacred Order did not vow, this one would in no way be bound to chastity, contrary to what all the doctors teach. And this reason indeed moved some even of the older authors, about whom we spoke above, so that they said that the invalidity of matrimony contracted by a cleric flowed not from a vow but from an ecclesiastical statute; namely lest, if someone did not emit the vow, which must be emitted by each one’s will, his marriage would have to be held valid.

Therefore, for the opinion which attributes the obligation of clerical chastity solely to ecclesiastical law, only some jurists remain, whom Zabarella also hints at (in Clement. Ad nostrum De haereticis). While these men were asking of what crime, adultery or incest, etc., a fornicating presbyter was guilty, and of what penalty he was worthy, they advanced so far that, against the common opinion of all theologians, they ascribed to him no other guilt except that of simple fornication, led of course by empty little reasons, both because in ch. Presbyter, 5, dist. 82, this offense is called fornication, “A presbyter, if he has committed fornication,” and because clerics do not solemnly vow, although, as Decius adds in ch. At si clerici, De Iudiciis, n. 227, they promise chastity.

Since therefore no solid reason favors this opinion, and the authority on account of which some attributed to it some probability is finally resolved into the support of certain jurists who by vain reasonings declined to opinions opposed to the common doctrine of theologians; and since to the authority of Boniface VIII, in the single chapter De Voto in VI, there accedes the Constitution of Benedict XIV Inter praeteritos, 3 Dec. 1749, in which (§ 41) it is expressly said that a vow is solemnly emitted in the reception of Sacred Order; one must conclude that that opinion is wrongly called probable. And each one will admit this conclusion the more willingly, the more certainly it is established among all that to the sins against chastity of clerics initiated in sacred Orders, even if merely internal, the malice of sacrilege accedes.

** Nothing about St. Alphonsus, as is plain to the reader, had been said in this note. But because St. Alphonsus also held as probable the opinion which derives the obligation of keeping chastity, with regard to clerics, from ecclesiastical law alone, behold, the Vindicators (p. 327, note 1) judged that this note too must be attacked.

And indeed, 1º in order to weaken the argument which is taken from the very common opinion of the doctors, namely that clerics become guilty of sacrilege through acts even merely internal, which nevertheless human law, according to an opinion at least extrinsically probable, does not reach, they object that internal acts can be commanded by the Church at least indirectly, if they are connected with external acts as effects and cause.

Resp. Let the antecedent pass, and I deny the consequence. For it is very well known that even grave sins against chastity can be committed through acts merely internal, which are in no way connected with external acts as cause and effect. And nevertheless, by the unanimous consent of the doctors, these sins in those initiated in Sacred Order contract the malice of sacrilege. Therefore in that opinion one cannot avoid an absurdity of this sort, which of itself suffices to take away every probability from it.

2º The Vindicators add that the extrinsic value, namely the extrinsic probability of the opinion which is rejected in the note, is derived by St. Alphonsus chiefly not from certain old jurists, but from the very words of the Holy Council of Trent.

Resp. Someone perhaps would rightly prefer that certain jurists had been alleged by St. Alphonsus, rather than the theologians Scotus, Palaus, Valentia, etc. For the former, although less effectively, nevertheless seem in some way to pertain to the matter, because they touch this question; not so the latter.

But as to Canon 9, sess. 22, of the Holy Synod of Trent, this is brought forward much less to the matter. For even if you suppose what must be denied, that this canon does not stand in the way of saying that clerics in sacred Orders are kept from nuptials by ecclesiastical law alone, and that nuptials are contracted invalidly by them, can a law of this sort, keeping them from nuptials and establishing them as invalid, be confused with a law which makes clerics themselves guilty of sacrilege for any sin whatsoever committed by them against chastity? But I said that that hypothesis must be denied. For, as was indicated in the note, after the declarations both of Boniface VIII and Benedict XIV, it is not lawful to deny that clerics constituted in sacred Orders are bound by a solemn vow of chastity.

42. • QUESTION 3º. Is the obligation of celibacy universal in the Church?

Resp. Some exception is given from the tolerance of the Church among Easterners. For in the Eastern Church priests indeed can never enter matrimony after sacerdotal ordination, or even after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, who all must constantly keep perfect chastity. But apud the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among Sacred Orders. Hence the precept of chastity is imposed on unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate.

QUESTION 4º. Would one be bound to chastity who expressly did not wish to vow chastity?

Resp. This one nevertheless would be bound to chastity, if not from a vow, since no one can be bound unwillingly by a vow, then certainly from a precept of the Church, which from the motive of Religion would bind him to chastity when the vow was lacking ³. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, Bk. 6, n. 809. Others hold that he is bound to emit a vow of chastity; and no one will deny that the Church can oblige him to this.

³ “What certain ones have said, that if such a one sinned against chastity he would not commit sacrilege, this does not seem sufficiently probable, and is against the common opinion, because chastity would be commanded from the motive of the virtue of religion.” - St. Alphonsus, Bk. 6, n. 809, q. 2.

43. • QUESTION 5º. Whether or when can a married man, while his wife is living, receive Sacred Orders?

Resp. A married man can licitly be promoted to Sacred Orders with the express and altogether spontaneous permission of his wife, provided that she herself also vows chastity. But then the wife is not bound to enter Religion according to the more probable opinion ⁴, against Sanchez, etc. Nevertheless exception must be made unless the husband becomes a Bishop or a Religious, and the wife is young ⁵. - Thus St. Ligorius, Bk. 6, n. 812. Others say that then the wife indeed is bound to enter a Monastery, but not to profess; others finally exempt her from every obligation except the vow of chastity ⁶.

⁴ But now by received custom alone a man is not admitted to Sacred Orders unless the wife, if she is young, enters religion and professes, and if she is old, vows continence. Thus Pontius, On Matrimony, bk. 7, ch. 25, n. 7.

⁵ This limitation, “if the wife is young,” is to be understood only of the case of a husband professing religion, but not of one promoted to the Episcopate. For the wife of him who is chosen as Bishop must altogether pass to a monastery, even if she is old. For thus in ch. Sane 6, De Convers. Coniug., Alexander III established: “By Apostolic authority we prohibit you from presuming to ordain a married man as Bishop, unless the wife first, having professed continence, puts on the sacred veil for herself and assumes religious dress.”

⁶ But these authors seem to have been ignorant of what has been sanctioned in law (ch. Cum sis 4, De Convers. Coniug.). For thus Alexander III: “You ought not be ignorant that it is contrary to the constitution of the holy Fathers that a husband, with his wife not assuming the habit of religion, or a wife, with her husband not assuming it, should pass to religion. Hence it is that by apostolic authority we prohibit you from permitting a husband or wife in your episcopate to pass to religion, unless each shall have migrated to religion. But if the wife is so old and sterile that she can remain in the world without suspicion, you will be able to dissemble, so that with her remaining in the world and promising chastity, her husband may pass to religion.”

44. • QUESTION 6º. Can a wife who vowed chastity outside Religion after the ordination of her husband, when he has died, validly contract matrimony?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

The 1st OPINION denies, and rests on Canon Law, ch. Quia sunt, 10, dist. 28, where it is said of such a matrimony: “Let those who are badly joined be separated.” But the reason of this decision is that the Church, because of reverence for the Order assumed by the first husband, renders the wife incapable of a subsequent marriage. St. Ligorius, n. 812, calls this opinion the more common and very probable. The 2nd OPINION affirms. The reason is that it is not established that such a matrimony is invalid. For 1º it is not invalid by reason of the simple vow of chastity emitted by such a wife; 2º nor is it invalid from a special law of the Church; for from the fact that the spouses are ordered to be separated, it does not follow that their matrimony is invalid; for separation can be ordered as a penalty of a second matrimony contracted against the vow and prohibition. The same St. Ligorius, ibid., says this is sufficiently probable ⁷.

⁷ For this opinion St. Alphonsus had no one whom he could allege except Soto and Pontius. The former of these (On Justice and Law, bk. 7, q. 5, art. 3) writes scarcely a few words about this matter in passing, where he also supposes that a priest, unlike a religious, is not simply incapable of matrimony; but the latter (On Matrimony, bk. 7, ch. 25, n. 10) rests on this argument, that the Canons sometimes order spouses to be separated, although the matrimony is valid; but the Toledan canon grants the sacrament at the end of life to one sinning. But it would further have to be proved that separation of this sort and the interdict of the sacrament until the end of life were then imposed by the canons on delinquents only when the matrimony had existed validly, but by no means when, although invalidly, it had nevertheless been attempted. Since this cannot be proved, the argument of Pontius falls back into a mere sophism. Otherwise, St. Alphonsus does not deny that the former opinion is received by the common support of theologians and canonists, so much so that he scarcely, or not even scarcely, makes mention of the contrary opinion. See Schmalzgrueber, bk. 4, tit. 6, nn. 40-42.

1050. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, as today it flourishes in the Latin Church, consists in this, that major clerics, namely subdeacons, deacons, presbyters, and bishops, can contract matrimony neither licitly nor validly, but ought to cultivate perpetual continence, and, from a peculiar obligation of religion, are held to abstain from every act, whether internal or external, against chastity. Trent thus declares this:³ "If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that one contracted is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow... let him be anathema." By the Code, c. 132, the law was confirmed: "Clerics constituted in major orders are barred from nuptials and are so held by the obligation of observing chastity that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege." - Sacred ministers who attempt to contract matrimony incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See, and, if they do not repent, degradation. (Code, c. 2388.) - Wherefore here we shall explain only three things: 1. the origin and history of this law; 2. the motives on which it rests; 3. the means, especially canonical, by which celibacy may be observed.

² Among the almost countless works on ecclesiastical celibacy these can be consulted: A. de Roskovany, Coelibatus et Breviarium, Pest and Nitra, 1861-1888, where you will find the whole literature on celibacy recounted up to the year 1886, t. IV and VII; and the Supplements, t. III; A. Pavy, Du Celibat ecclesiastique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1852; Dufieux, Nature et virginite, considerations physiologiques sur le celibat religieux, Paris, 1854; Phillips, Colibat (i.e., on Celibacy), Freiburg, 1884.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; cf. sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reform.

I. Historical Survey Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy.

The law which prescribes celibacy to clerics is not divine, but ecclesiastical; nevertheless it has foundations in Scripture, and was gradually introduced into the Latin Church by custom, particular statutes, and finally by a universal decree; but in the Eastern Church, continence is imposed not upon all but only upon certain sacred ministers, as will be clear from what is to be said.

1051. 1. Continence is commended in Sacred Scripture. (A) Christ himself by his example commended perfect virginity: indeed, conceived from eternity by virginal generation in the bosom of the Father, in time he willed to have no mother except a virgin; he cultivated virginity throughout his whole life; dying on the cross, he committed his virgin mother to a virgin disciple. - Likewise by teaching purity of heart,¹ perfect self-denial,² the counsel of leaving all things, even parents, children, and wife,³ he laid the foundations of continence. This he intimated more explicitly when he said to the disciples:⁴ "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves (i.e., through continence) for the kingdom of heaven."

¹ Matt., V, 8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God."

² Matt., XVI, 24.

³ Matt., XIX, 29.

⁴ Matt., XIX, 12.

(B) Paul, adhering to the footsteps of Christ, cultivated continence himself, and gave his disciples the counsel of not marrying, so that they might serve God more fervently:⁵ "For I wish all of you to be as myself: but each one has his own gift from God... But concerning virgins I do not have a precept of the Lord; but I give counsel as one having obtained mercy from the Lord, that I may be faithful... He who is without a wife is solicitous for the things which are the Lord's, how he may please God. But he who is with a wife is solicitous for the things which are of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." Now one who wishes to expend himself wholly for the glory of God and the salvation of souls will try to bring a counsel of this sort into practice.

⁵ I Cor., VII, 1-38.

(C) Nevertheless neither Christ nor the Apostles commanded continence to clerics; indeed it cannot be proved that the use of marriage was forbidden to married men who received the priesthood; only bigamists, that is, those who had successively had two wives, were barred from sacred orders: "Therefore a bishop ought to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife... Let deacons be husbands of one wife."¹

¹ I Tim., III, 2, 12.

1052. 2. History of clerical continence up to the Council in Trullo (691). (A) Through the first three centuries virginity is indeed much extolled by the Fathers, and there are already found Christians of each sex who remain celibate, especially among clerics; for many of them, wishing to imitate the examples of Christ and the Apostles and to be immune from the solicitudes of the world, remained continent after receiving sacred orders, even when before ordination they had contracted nuptials.²

² This is certain especially from the things which Paphnutius declared in the Council of Nicaea (325), where there was question of enacting a law of celibacy; cf. Socrates, H. eccles., I, 11; Sozom., H. eccles., I, 23; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Paris, 1869, t. I, p. 422-426.

(B) But the first provincial Council which prescribed celibacy to sacred ministers was that of Elvira (an. 305), which established (can. 33): "It has pleased us to prohibit in all that bishops, priests, and deacons, or all clerics placed in the ministry, abstain from their wives and do not generate children: but whoever shall have done this, let him be expelled from the honor of clerical state."³ - The Council of Arles (an. 314) established almost the same thing. In the Eastern Church, the Council of Neo-Caesarea (an. 314) brought the penalty of deposition against priests taking a wife:⁴ "If a priest has taken a wife, he ought to be deposed from his order." But deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had said that they wished to marry, could afterward take wives.⁵ - But thus far there was no universal law. In the Council of Nicaea certain Fathers proposed to extend the Elviran statute to the universal Church; yet Paphnutius, a bishop in Egypt, resisted them, who, although he himself had always cultivated perfect continence, vigorously declared that celibacy was not to be imposed upon all sacred ministers, because, he said, not all can perpetually contain themselves.¹ Wherefore the Council abstained from enacting a universal law concerning this matter; but at the same time it interdicted bishops, priests, deacons, and other clerics from having with them introduced women, unless perhaps a mother, sister, aunt, or another person beyond all suspicion.²

³ In Hefele, t. I, p. 147. - The word prohibere here is improper, but the sense accepted by all is the same as if praecipere were said.

⁴ In Hefele, I, p. 217; Roskovany, I, p. 18. - Some doubted the truth of this fact, but without grave reason, as Hefele shows, l. c.

⁵ Thus the Council of Ancyra (an. 314), can. 10 (in Hefele, I, p. 204; Roskov., I, 17): "Whatever deacons, when they are ordained, if in the ordination itself they protested, saying that they wished to have wives and could not contain themselves: these, if afterward they have come to nuptials, remain in the ministry, because the bishop gave them license for these things. But whoever indeed kept silence, and received the imposition of hands, having professed continence, if afterward they have come to nuptials, they ought to cease from the ministry or clergy, receiving only lay communion."

¹ In Hefele, I, p. 422-426.

² Hefele, I, 370; Roskov., I, p. 19-20. - Introduced women were not wives, but women who were held as sisters.

1053. (C) But various canons in each Church, Eastern and Western, prohibited bishops, priests, and deacons, who had received sacred orders unmarried, from afterward taking wives. Yet in the Eastern Church, deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had declared that they wished to marry, could use this benefit, as we noted above.

But as to married men who received sacred orders, the practice of the Latin Church differed wholly from the practice of the Eastern Church: for in the former, sacred ministers had to abstain from the use of matrimony;³ while in the Eastern Church they were prohibited from leaving their wives, and could live maritally with them, except, however, on the days on which they wished to celebrate the sacred rite; it should also be noted that gradually by custom it was prohibited that non-celibates be chosen as bishops.

³ St. Jerome testifies to this, ep. 48, n. 21: "Bishops, priests, deacons are chosen either virgins, or widowers, or certainly after priesthood forever chaste"; Roskov., I, p. 35-42, relates other texts of the same author.

1054. (D) As to subdeacons, certain particular Councils had indeed enjoined celibacy upon them, but before the sixth century a law of this sort was not universal, even in the West, because the subdiaconate was still numbered among the minor orders. St. Leo (an. 444) had indeed prescribed continence to subdeacons;⁴ but this was not immediately brought into practice through the whole Church. Afterward St. Gregory established the same thing especially for Sicily, where the contrary practice flourished: "Wherefore it seems to me that from the present day it should be said to all Bishops that they should presume to make no one a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely."¹ But that statute was not observed by all, and certain variations and exceptions remained up to the twelfth century.

⁴ St. Leo, Ep. ad Anastasium, cap. 4, in Roskovany, t. I, p. 98.

¹ St. Gregory M., lib. I, Ep. 44, to Peter the subdeacon, of Sicily, in Roskov., I, 143-144.

1055. 3. Decrees of the Trullan Council (an. 692) and the practice of the Greek Church. The distinction which flourished between each Church as to the extension of celibacy was confirmed by the decrees of the Council which is called Quinisext, because it had to complete the fifth and sixth Council, or Trullan, from the trullus or hall where it was held. These things it established concerning clerical continence:² -

² In Roskovany, t. I, p. 167-171; Hefele, t. IV, p. 208-212.

(a) It confirms the past canons concerning the avoidance of the cohabitation of women who are not immune from all suspicion; moreover clerics are prohibited from ever contracting second nuptials.

(b) Sacred ministers are also forbidden to marry after their ordination: "That henceforth it be lawful for no subdeacon at all, or deacon, or priest, after ordination to contract marriage. But if he shall have dared to do this, let him be deposed." (Can. 6.)

(c) But if someone, before he is ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or priest, wishes to marry, let him do this; nor at the time of ordination should it be asked of him that he profess that he will abstain from his legitimate wife;³ nevertheless if he is promoted to the episcopate, he ought to cultivate continence: "The wife of him who is promoted to episcopal dignity, having first been separated by common consent of herself and her husband, after he has been ordained and consecrated as bishop, should enter a monastery built far from the dwelling of the bishop, and enjoy the bishop's provision." (Can. 48.) Likewise, "those who assist at the divine altar ought, at the time of handling sacred things, to be altogether continent, so that they may be able to obtain that which they ask simply from God." (Can. 13.)

³ The Fathers of this Council acknowledge that the contrary law flourishes in the Roman Church: "Since we know that it has been handed down as a canon of the Roman Church that those to be promoted to the diaconate or presbyterate profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives." (Can. 13.)

This discipline indeed flourishes even now in the Greek Church; but subdeacons are not regarded as sacred ministers, and therefore they can marry; but, if before the diaconate they have not taken a wife, they can no longer marry afterward.

1056. 4. History of celibacy in the Latin Church from the Trullan Council up to Trent. (A) While the Eastern clergy thus mitigated ecclesiastical discipline concerning celibacy, the Roman Pontiffs unconquerably defended and protected clerical continence against its attackers and violators. Yet they could not provide this without the greatest efforts and struggles. For in the ninth to twelfth centuries, great corruption of morals flourished among princes, peoples, and the clerics themselves, nor was the Chair of Peter altogether immune from that corruption; but, on the one hand, provincial Councils, such as Worms (Worms, an. 868), Soissons (Soissons, an. 889), Erfurt (Erfurt, an. 932), Anse (Anse, near Lyons, an. 994), Bourges (Bourges, an. 1031), etc.; and on the other hand, the Supreme Pontiffs, such as Leo VII (an. 938), Leo IX (an. 1051), Stephen X (an. 1057), and especially Gregory VII (an. 1074-1078), etc., not only recalled the law of celibacy to memory, but also did not hesitate to strike with severe penalties those violating the same.¹

¹ Their decrees and many others can be read in Roskovany, t. I, p. 191 sq.; cf. Vacandard, La loi du celibat ecclesiastique in Revue du clerge francais, Jan. 1, 1905.

1057. (B) Especially celebrated is can. 7 of Lateran II (an. 1139), by which the marriages of major clerics, hitherto illicit, are declared wholly invalid:² "But that the law of continence and cleanness pleasing to God may be spread in ecclesiastical persons and sacred orders, we establish: that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons... who, transgressing their holy purpose, have presumed to couple wives to themselves, be separated. For we judge that a coupling of this sort, which is certain to have been contracted against ecclesiastical rule, is not matrimony." By this decree the law of celibacy was greatly strengthened, so that nothing more remained except to bring it into practice.

² Roskovany, t. I, p. 335; Hefele, t. VII, q. 237. - Lateran I, an. 1123, indeed reproved these marriages and ordered those contracted to be dissolved, but did not declare the same to be void.

1058. (C) In the time of the pseudo-reformation, Protestants, haters of ecclesiastical institutions, attacked ecclesiastical celibacy with all their strength, and very many priests and monks who adhered to this heresy soon flew together to the desired nuptials, adhering to the footsteps of Luther rather than of Christ and the Apostles. But, notwithstanding the petitions of certain princes, even Catholic ones, Trent confirmed the ancient canons, declared the marriages of major clerics void, and renewed the penalties brought against concubinarians, granting to Ordinaries the power of proceeding against delinquents without the noise and form of judgment, every appeal or exemption having been removed, so that the plague of incontinence might more easily and efficaciously be eradicated.³ These decrees indeed almost all particular councils or synods, which have been held up to the present day, made their own and promulgated.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reformat.

II. Motives On Which The Law Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy Rests.

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.

1060. 1. If the priest is considered in his relations to God, he ought to offer prayers and sacrifices, not only in his own name, but also in the name of the whole Christian people: "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things that are to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."¹ Now virginity is desired for fulfilling each office perfectly.

¹ Hebr., V, 1.

(A) And first indeed for prayer. For although married persons can pour forth prayers, nevertheless the Apostle exhorts them that they contain themselves for a time, so that they may devote themselves more easily and fervently to prayer:² "Do not defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer." In reality those who have married, and have children to be educated, are greatly entangled in secular cares, and are delayed by domestic solicitude from the office of prayer; while, on the contrary, the clean of heart ascend to God and converse with him more easily. But priests ought several times in the day to pray for themselves and for the whole Christian people, and indeed long and perseveringly, and therefore to be immune from secular cares; otherwise, from things commonly occurring, they will pray neither at length nor fervently; but, distracted in mind, they will scarcely recite a few prayers.

² I Cor., VII, 6.

1061. (B) Among prayers, those certainly are principal which are offered to God during the sacred rite; for the sacrifice of the Mass is the most excellent work of religion. But for the fervent oblation of the sacrifice is not perfect chastity to be desired? For if, under the Old Law, priests had to contain themselves from wives at the time when they were about to offer sacrifice, is it not altogether fitting that the priests of the New Law, who daily offer the immaculate host, be perpetually continent? Innocent III already urged this argument: "How much more ought those priests and levites to observe modesty from the day of ordination, for whom either the priesthood or the ministry is without succession, nor does a day pass on which they are free either from divine sacrifices or from the office of baptism."¹ The same is splendidly explained in book IV of The Imitation of Christ, c. II, n. 6: "O how clean ought those hands to be, how pure the mouth, how holy the body, how immaculate the heart of the priest, to whom the author of purity so often enters!" For since in this sacrifice all things breathe perfect purity and self-denial, namely the principal offerer, Christ, the victim, the rites, and the prayers, is it not altogether fitting that the secondary offerer, namely the priest, imitate Christ's virginity and perfect denial? And indeed the Orientals rightly understood that; for even married priests ought to contain themselves at least on those days on which they wish to offer the sacrifice. Hence also Protestants commonly decreed that celibacy and the sacrifice of the Mass be abolished together. From these facts it is licit to infer that between the offering of sacrifice and celibacy, according to common estimation, there is a certain moral connection, which the Church deservedly confirmed by her laws.

¹ Innocent III, Ep. ad Vitric., ep. Rotom.

1062. 2. In his relations with the people committed to him, the priest is much helped by the practice of continence. (A) For since he is chosen by God and the Church so that, having renounced temporal cares, he may devote himself wholly to the salvation of souls, he ought to spend and be spent for the flock entrusted to him. But a married priest cannot fulfill that office so promptly, or easily, or generously; he is held to devote a notable part of his solicitudes, labors, and resources to his wife and children, and thus can spend only lesser cares upon the salvation of souls: "But he who is with a wife is solicitous for the things which are of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided."² Hence, if there is question of instructing little ones, or of visiting the sick, or helping the poor, a priest who is entangled in domestic cares will devote himself to these works neither so assiduously nor so willingly or devotedly: for he ought to be more solicitous for his own children than for those of others. - And indeed this appears still more when the priest, in order to administer the sacraments, incurs danger of death; for although married persons are not lacking who expose their life for helping others, nevertheless they do not provide this so promptly and easily, precisely because they deservedly think about their own offspring. Wherefore, from things commonly occurring, a married priest will sometimes hesitate, and indeed deservedly, when there is question of administering the sacraments with risk to his own life: namely he will recall his wife and sweet children, and sometimes will be delayed by this thought from fulfilling his office.

² I Cor., VII, 33.

(B) Unmarried priests are accustomed to be fathers of the poor; for since they do not have the necessity of laying up treasure for children, they willingly bestow their superfluous goods upon the poor; otherwise the richer often choose a priest as distributor of their alms, because he does not have children whom he might more joyfully assist than the miserable. But if a priest has a numerous offspring to be educated, he will scarcely be able to give anything to widows, orphans, and other pitiable persons: for the office is primarily incumbent upon him of sustaining and educating his wife and children. Hence the rich will not be so solicitous in distributing alms through his ministry: for it is to be feared that a notable part of these would be assigned to his family.

1063. 3. On the part of society itself it is very fitting that priests remain celibate. (A) Namely from a certain divine instinct, peoples commonly show greater reverence and confidence to the truly continent. It is known, for example, with what great honors the Romans heaped unmarried vestals, and also with what reverence and admiration modern pagans receive celibate missionaries. Led by this reason, some Anglicans instituted a seminary of missionaries who bind themselves to celibacy, so that they may more easily convert foreign nations to Christ. Those who likewise have lived for a long time among Protestants know very well that heretics themselves generally show greater reverence and confidence to Catholic priests than to Protestant ministers; but the principal reason is that they see unmarried priests, separated from secular businesses, devoting themselves wholly to the salvation of souls, while married ministers, entangled in domestic cares, do not differ much in their manner of acting from the common herd of men.

(B) Otherwise it is of the greatest interest that in society there be men who, by their example, draw others to the practice of virtues, even arduous ones, especially of chastity, which, on the one hand, is preserved with difficulty more than the others, and on the other, contributes very greatly to the good of the whole community. Now nothing else is more efficacious for conquering lust than the example of those who, on account of God and souls, bid farewell perpetually to the pleasures of the flesh; when, namely, adolescent men and unmarried girls or widows say that continence is too arduous, or when spouses can scarcely guard marital chastity, is it not licit to appeal to those celibate priests who, despising earthly pleasures, perpetually cultivate virginity? Moreover, drawn by their example, young persons of each sex embrace religious life and remain celibate, so that they may spend all their strength and resources for the utility of others; and this indeed contributes not a little to the common good: for they exercise various works of charity more easily, namely care of orphans, the sick, and the poor, or the education of little ones whom they follow with paternal or maternal affection.

1064. Difficulties are solved. (A) Not a few physicians and physiologists have not hesitated to assert that perpetual celibacy is contrary to nature and the health of the body, and also drags after itself innumerable diseases, among which hysteria and insanity. - But very skilled physicians, relying on many facts, deny this. For from public statistics it is certain that generally Catholic priests are longer-lived than married men, and that many more and more bitter diseases arise from incontinence than from virginity faithfully observed. In reality life is made shorter by indulging the passions, and especially lust; therefore those who tame their passions and lead a sober and chaste life, other things being equal, retain their strength longer.¹ - Hysteria, of which adversaries speak, arises from disturbance of the nerves, and is found much more frequently among dissolute women than among virgins;¹ insanity likewise can by no means be attributed to celibacy, but arises from many and diverse causes, and is found more often among married persons than among celibates.² Wherefore the proposed difficulty is by no means proved by facts, but rather is opposed to them.

¹ This is proved, among others, by Dufieux, Nature et virginite; Surbled, op. cit., t. I, Celibat et Mariage, p. 42-66, where he writes these things, pp. 50, 56: "The evils of incontinence are, alas, very well known, uncontested; those which continence would provoke are supposed, imaginary. What proves this is that numerous learned and voluminous works have been devoted to exposing the former, and that the others still await their historian... It has long been known, and it will be seen in the course of this work, that, of all professions, the ecclesiastical state is the one most distinguished by its longevity."

¹ "As to hysteria, the physician meets it in all social conditions, among the chastest women as among the most dissolute. This strange and unhappy neurosis is often transmitted by parents; it is never due to the practice of continence. We have observed it, but very rarely, among religious women; we establish it every day, in ordinary practice, among married women, among young girls, and above all among women of light morals." (Surbled, l. c., p. 54.)

² "Foreign to hysteria, continence is also foreign to madness. This formidable affection, when it is not hereditary, is born from the disorder of the passions; and one understands that it is exceptional among all those who live, outside the agitations of the world, under the rule of religious law." (Surbled, l. c.)

1065. (B) They insist, namely not a few Protestants, Rationalists, and other non-Catholics, saying that continence is morally impossible, and therefore that very many of those who vow virginity soon fall into the snare of the devil and secretly indulge lust. - We do not indeed deny that perpetual virginity is an arduous virtue, indeed morally impossible to those who reject the means proposed by Christ, but not to those who flee dangerous occasions, give work to mortification of the flesh, study, or labor, and at the same time devote themselves assiduously to prayer and frequently receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist; for by these means concupiscence is efficaciously restrained. The Protestant Leibnitz candidly acknowledged this:³ "Let clerics and religious firmly have it persuaded that, for observing continence, scarcely anything else is needed than to avoid idleness and dangerous occasions, and to have a firm will, the grace of which God does not deny to one asking it with fervent zeal." In reality among Protestants themselves are there not widowers and widows and unmarried virgins, upon whom the obligation of observing continence for a long time is incumbent? Is it permissible to presume that all these are given to vice? If it is not permissible, why are Catholic priests or others who vow virginity on account of God accused as guilty of incontinence? - As to the fact, there are certain priests who, neglecting the aforesaid means, break the vow of virginity either secretly or publicly; but that these are few is certain from this, that the most hostile haters of priests, who willingly and carefully collected all scandals of this sort, could recount only very few. Now the inconveniences arisen from these facts are less than the evils which would follow from the marriage of priests, as can be gathered from those things which non-Catholic authors narrate concerning the morals of ministers among the Greeks or Protestants. - Therefore the Church wisely prescribed celibacy to sacred ministers.

³ Systema theolog., n. 66. - St. Gregory Naz., Orat. 31; SS. Chrysostom and Jerome, on Matt. XIX; St. Augustine, l. VI Confess., cap. XI, had already observed this; cf. M. Rosset, op. cit., t. I, n. 398 sq.

III. Means By Which The Law Of Celibacy Ought To Be Observed.

1066. The Church also wisely determined certain means by which continence may more easily be guarded by sacred ministers. The Roman Pontifical, On the ordination of a subdeacon, briefly contracts these things: "If up to now you have been slow to the church, from now on you ought to be assiduous. If up to now sleepy, from now on watchful. If up to now drunken, from now on sober. If up to now unchaste, from now on chaste."

1. First indeed sacred ministers ought to be assiduous in church, that is, to flee the world and its vanities and pleasures, and to frequent the sacred tabernacles, in which the very author of purity lives by day and night. For only those easily preserve virginity who love with the whole heart Christ hidden in the Eucharist. For the heart of man, born for love, cannot remain long without love; unless therefore it loves Christ with an affection at once tender and devoted, it will soon adhere to creatures, not without great risk to chastity; but if it frequently visits Christ hidden under the sacred species, there it will find a faithful friend, there strength and solace for overcoming all the enticements of creatures.

1067. 2. They ought also to watch and pray lest they enter into temptation. (a) Watchfulness consists in this, that dangerous occasions of sinning which are not necessary be carefully removed, and, in necessary occasions, all precautions be employed by which they can be morally removed. Therefore the priest will flee readings, spectacles, and amusements which can excite to lust, as was said above, n. 1049. He will so rule the internal and external senses, especially the eyes and imagination, that he deliberately repels not only what is impure, but also what has the appearance of evil. Nor will he ever forget that sensual pleasure is akin to lust, and gradually and imperceptibly draws many to it; wherefore he will make his own the words of the Apostle: "They who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences"; for experience testifying, those who mortify themselves in licit things abstain from illicit things much more easily. - Nor will he carefully avoid drunkenness only, but also every excess in food or drink, which from its nature tends to excite lust.

(b) But since no one can cultivate virginity for a long time without divine help, by frequent and fervent prayer he will implore for himself the necessary grace. He will remember that the recitation of the divine office was enjoined upon him as a most efficacious means of guarding chastity; and therefore he will recite it worthily, attentively, and devoutly. So that he may pray more fervently, he will devote himself to morning meditation, so that, walking before God from the first hours of the day, he may be perfect; and he will often turn his eyes and heart to God, so that he may be more easily united to God when the time of prayer arrives. - He will unceasingly foster a most tender devotion toward the Blessed Virgin, whose very name breathes chastity, and by whose powerful aid modesty can more easily be guarded. (Code, c. 125-126.)

1068. 3. But the principal means, enjoined by the Church, is to avoid cohabitation with women. For already the Council of Nicaea, can. 3, had established these things: "The great Synod has interdicted in all ways that it be licit for no bishop, no priest, no deacon, nor anyone at all who is in the clergy, to have an introduced woman, unless perhaps a mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who escape suspicion." This law indeed was never abrogated, but was confirmed and more determined by the following Councils.

(A) Today, by common law, it is regularly licit for a cleric to live with women related to him by blood in the first or first-second degree, such as mother, grandmother, daughter, paternal aunt, maternal aunt, daughter of a brother or sister; indeed by extension, confirmed by custom, with relatives by marriage of the first degree, or those relatives by marriage of the second-first degree to whom a cleric, according to the canons, ought to show reverence, such as stepmother, daughter-in-law, wife of a deceased brother, wife of a deceased paternal or maternal uncle, - but not the wife of the son of a brother or sister. - The reason is that regularly the natural bond which exists between the cleric and the aforesaid persons seems to take away all suspicion. (Cf. Code, can. 133.)

1069. (B) A cleric, to whom it is permitted to live with these persons, can also live with their female servants or attendants, and also with the wife of a male servant; for then, because of special circumstances, suspicion is removed.¹

¹ Reiffenst., in tit. de cohabitatione, n. 3; Schmalzgr., ibid., n. 1; Benedict XIV, Instit. 83, n. 10; D'Annibale, t. III, n. 361, note 47.

(C) He can also cohabit with strange women under the title of service, provided they are of advanced age (that is, at least forty years, according to the common interpretation), and of good reputation.

But, in the aforesaid cases, the case of prudent suspicion or scandal is always excluded, so that it is unlawful for a cleric to live even with women most nearly related, if they are suspect: this is clear from the very end of the law.

(D) But by particular law, the Bishop indeed cannot interdict clerics from living with any woman at all (which would be against common law), but can prescribe that they remain with no woman, even a mother, without the license of the episcopal curia; for it belongs to him to judge whether persons of this sort are suspect.² - He can also define those things which the common law left indeterminate, for example, the age of maids and other things of this sort.

² Thus the Code, can. 133, § 3.

1070. Concerning penalties against violators of this law. Against clerics retaining a suspect woman, Ordinaries, according to the Code (c. 2176-81), ought to proceed thus: - "The Ordinary should warn a cleric who, against the prescription of can. 133, has a suspect woman with him or in any way frequents her, that he dismiss her or abstain from frequenting the same, with the penalties established in can. 2359 against clerics who are concubinaries being threatened. - If the cleric neither obeys the precept nor responds, the Ordinary, after it has been established for him that the cleric was able to provide this: 1. should suspend him from divine things; 2. moreover should immediately deprive a parish priest of the parish; 3. but a cleric who has another benefice without care of souls, if, after the space of two months from suspension, he has not amended himself, should deprive him of half the fruits of the benefice; after another three months, of all the fruits of the benefice; after another three months, of the benefice itself. - If the cleric does not obey, but adduces causes of excuse, the Ordinary ought to hear two examiners about the same. - If, the examiners having been heard, the Ordinary shall think that the causes brought forward are not legitimate, let him signify this to the cleric as soon as possible and give him a formal precept that within a brief time to be defined by him he obey. - The Ordinary can immediately coerce an obedient removable parish priest according to the norm of can. 2177; but if there is question of a cleric who, obtaining an irremovable benefice, does not obey, but alleges new deductions, let the Ordinary recall these to examination according to the norm of can. 2178. - If not even these are judged legitimate, let the Ordinary again command the Cleric to obey the mandate within a suitable time; when this time has passed uselessly, let him proceed according to the norm of can. 2177." - Moreover, from can. 2359, "clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who are concubinaries, after warning has been uselessly sent ahead, are to be compelled to withdraw from the illicit cohabitation and to repair scandal by suspension from divine things, privation of the fruits of office, benefice, dignity..."

Two things must be recalled: perfect chastity and the divine office (cc. 132 and 135).

— As pertaining to the sanctity with which the Church wishes ministers of divine things to shine, she imposes on clerics of major orders the observance of perfect chastity, so that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege (c. 132, §1). Consequently she keeps the same from marriage, ibid., or from its use, if, being married, they have received major orders with apostolic dispensation. Cf. c. 132, §3.

The Church wishes, besides, that this chastity be confirmed by a true vow. Cf. Wernz, Ius Decretalium, II, 196.

Whether the immediate title of the obligation is the vow or ecclesiastical law: this controversy is not solved by the Code. But the vow cannot be denied, as Ballerini lucidly shows (Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 235-240). And these things are morally certain:

a) by positive law of the Church, a vow is imposed in the Latin Church on those about to receive the subdiaconate. For this vow is supposed in c. Cum olim, 6, De Clericis coniugatis (l. 3, t. 3), by the words: "We, attending to the fact that the Eastern Church has not admitted the vow of chastity"; it is supposed in c. un. Quod votum, De voto, in VI (l. 3, t. 15), by which the vow is said to be solemnized by the reception of sacred order; and it is formally taught in the Constitution Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, §41, of Benedict XIV. Besides, without a vow it cannot be explained how a cleric in sacred orders becomes guilty of sacrilege by merely internal lust: which nevertheless is commonly handed down;

b) those also who have been unwilling to vow chastity must observe chastity by force of ecclesiastical law, from religion, so that contrary sins are sacrileges. Yet because then they are bound by the title of ecclesiastical law alone, they would be immune from the guilt of sacrilege in an internal fault. But these clerics are held by a grave and perpetual obligation of changing this will and of emitting the vow;

c) the nullity of marriage attempted by a cleric in sacred orders proceeds immediately from ecclesiastical law, which wished that sacred order be a diriment impediment and therefore solemnized the annexed vow.

N.B. - In order that a cleric be bound by the vow itself, it suffices that he willed to receive sacred order with the burdens which are annexed by the Church to ordination, although perhaps he was ignorant of the necessity of the vow. Therefore it is in no way essential to the vow that, after hearing the invitation of the ordaining bishop, the one to be ordained physically approached with the customary step.

3. "A married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those orders." Therefore for a married man who desires to receive sacred order there is need of a dispensation of the Holy See.

— Upon a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, has received sacred order, the Church does not impose the obligation of chastity or of reciting the divine office. Wherefore c. 214 orders that this cleric be reduced to the lay state by the judge, without any obligation either of chastity or of the divine office.

Except if, the fear having been removed, he has ratified his ordination. Ratification can be express or tacit, by the exercise of the order done in these circumstances, so that it seems reasonably to contain a will of subjecting himself to clerical obligations. Wherefore to one acting before a judge both these things will have to be proved: coercion and defect of ratification (c. 214).

But one whose ordination is to be attributed to some exterior force, if grave reasons accede, is not necessarily destitute of all hope of obtaining a dispensation from the obligations, even if the proof of grave fear or of defect of ratification is only incomplete.

— With the obligation of preserving chastity there is connected the grave question concerning the sanctity required so that someone can with a safe conscience be admitted to sacred orders or ascend to them.

In order we shall speak of the office of the Prelate of the external forum, who admits the candidate; of the obligation of the candidate who petitions sacred ordination; finally of the office and prudent manner of acting of the confessor who sacramentally hears a candidate as penitent.

I. On the Office of the Prelate. The Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 5, 22, already commended this: "Impose hands quickly on no one, nor communicate in others' sins." C. Nullus, 2, D. 24; Trent, sess. XXIII, Ref. c. 5 ff., order bishops diligently to investigate and prove the morals of clerics. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 36, art. 4, ad 3, demands in the one ordaining certainty concerning the quality of those to be promoted; the same, 2, 2, q. 189, art. 1, ad 3, writes these things: "Sacred orders pre-require sanctity... whence the weight of orders must be imposed on walls already dried by sanctity from the moisture of vices." Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Obi primum, December 3, 1740, hands down similar things, and also inculcates these words of Lateran IV (1215), c. 27: "It is holier in ordination, especially of priests, to have few good ministers than many bad ones." The words are cited in c. Cum sit, 14, De aetate et qualitate praeficiendorum (I, 14).

Wherefore they not only can repel candidates whom they know secretly to be unworthy, but must be strong in taking away clerical dress from those whom it is established will not be sufficiently useful to the diocese, and in deferring orders for those who have not yet sufficiently amended even an occult vice, unless, with attention to the quantity and quality of the delict and the hope of amendment, the necessity or utility of their Church, for which they themselves must provide, should demand greater indulgence. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 67 and 803.

II. On Candidates. The candidate himself who is not conscious that he can, without excessive difficulty, avoid every scandal and, to say the least, habitually observe perfect chastity, sins gravely if, before he has been made stronger, he has petitioned sacred ordination.

The reason is that interior and exterior sanctity must be said to pertain, partly of itself, partly from the positive will of the Church, to the obligation of the state of those who are in sacred orders. Now the perpetual natural law forbids that you undertake a state unless you know yourself morally fit for fulfilling its obligations. But these things hold the more strongly because there is question of a more sublime state, and because the perfect probity of the ministers of the Church is of such great importance for faith and morals either to be preserved, restored, or spread.

That sanctity or outstanding probity is to be placed among the obligations of the state is brought about by not a few texts. Already the Apostle himself, 1 Tim. 3, wishes deacons to be "modest (semnous), not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not pursuing base gain, having the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved, and so let them minister, having no crime." C. A multis, 9, De aetate et qualitate ordinandorum (I, 11): "Let the impious blush and understand by the judgment of the Holy Spirit that those who have been placed in sacred orders, presbyterate, diaconate, subdiaconate, if they have not lived chastely, are to be excluded from all dignity of the same grades." Decree of Urban II: "Let no one be permitted to approach sacred order unless he be either a virgin or of proved chastity." Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, c. 13, Ref.: "Let subdeacons and deacons be ordained, having good testimony and proved in minor orders... who hope, with God as author, that they can contain themselves." Perfect conversion from morals is inculcated by the very exhortation of the Roman Pontifical to subdeacons: "If until now you have been drunk, from now on be sober; if until now unchaste, from now on chaste."

III. On Confessors. 1. By way of corollary, this rule can be proposed, not as universal but as general: that before sacred ordination sufficient proof of virtue be required, and therefore that purposes of virtue be confirmed by an acquired habit of chastity.

For since from the beginning one must live chastely in sacred order, and the common sense of men generally finds no other demonstration of capacity than experience, he who lacks an acquired habit of chastity could only rashly profess perfect chastity, which is wrong. Cf. the Dissertation of St. Alphonsus, Whether absolution is to be denied to a cleric habituated in occult sins of lust, who wishes to ascend to sacred orders, without a preceding experiment of continence. "That changes of this sort from a bad habit into the contrary good ordinarily happen not immediately, but gradually, after many struggles, unless an extraordinary change of heart by a peculiar grace of God should happen, experience itself, as we have already admonished, sufficiently shows; and he who knows the proneness of the human heart to evil does not doubt about this matter. For although man is free, nevertheless this is his ordinary way of acting, that he freely chooses what pleases him more; and although the least grace of itself is able to resist any temptation, the habituated man is not accustomed always and thoroughly to follow attracting grace; nor is God accustomed to amend men of this sort immediately, but gradually by degrees." Thus to the matter Ballerini-Palmieri, t. 2, tr. 9, n. 231; whom nevertheless we approve less when, with St. Alphonsus and not a few others, they allege the dangers of many sins which would be graver, and exclusion from marriage or from the state which brings the remedy of concupiscence. For those dangers and sins are compensated by not a few spiritual advantages of the better state. Cf. Lugo, Resp. mor., l. 1, dub. 18. Nor are all helped by marriage. But the requisites of the state must be invoked directly.

Nor, as is clear, do we appeal to some special law by which the Church would require previous probation. For such a law does not exist. The cited words themselves of the Pontifical suppose that it can happen that someone ascend immediately from a sinful life to sacred orders. But we rely on the natural obligation which follows the requisites for the clerical state.

2. The greater the danger of relapse and scandal is; the less the remaining aptitude and quality of the candidate is; the more easily he can withdraw from embracing the priestly state, the more firmly the preceding rule must be held.

Now a propensity to sodomy creates a graver danger of relapse and scandal than a propensity to fornication; and this is more dangerous than solitary lapse; but he can withdraw more easily who has not yet put on clerical dress, who possesses other means of support, than he who studies theology, who is close to sacred ordination, or has already received sacred order, or is poor: since all these outside the clerical state are almost destitute of counsel.

On the contrary, extraordinary signs of penitence and conversion, especially when secular life is first put aside, can give sufficient security even without previous experience. Cf. St. Alphonsus, cited dissertation.

3. When, on account of a native or acquired propensity, future lapses are foreseen from fragility, although outside a properly so-called habit, clerical life is regularly to be dissuaded. For that maimed and interrupted chastity in no way agrees with the desires of the Church; in him who has made a vow and embraced a more noble state it is accustomed to depress the soul: whence the man is rendered less strong for action; for a priest it easily prepares occasions of fatal sacrileges or of Masses celebrated without sacramental reconciliation with God: which diminishes reverence and esteem for the Most Holy Eucharist. Is it not better to be a fervent layman than a languid priest?

4. From these principles prudently weighed, the Confessor will adapt his manner of acting to individual cases. But already Benedict XIV, De Synodo, l. XI, c. 2, n. 18, taught that "no general rule is available which can be used by him, the Director, in cases of this kind. Wherefore we judge that no other counsel can be given to him than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of person, things, and cases; that he also remember that the parts not only of judge but also of physician have been imposed on him."

The confessor will forbid ascent to sacred orders, even with absolution denied, to him who joins a lukewarm life with a true habit of sin, or who is probably foreseen as about to sin scandalously. If accidental non-scandalous faults are foreseen, he generally will not advise ascent, although then he cannot strictly prohibit it. Indeed, unless the faults seem likely to be altogether rare and to be redeemed by the gifts of the priest, he will rather turn the penitent away from ascent. Nor should he trust too much even an experience of several months, if after entrance into the seminary the habit was not broken. For it happens that from the desire of proximate ordination the soul makes extraordinary efforts which after ordination it will not long bear, so that the bad habit afterward revives.

In his counsels let the confessor recall these things: a) that he easily becomes cruel toward the Church who in this matter shows himself too benign toward a private man; b) that the fruit of greater experience leads most to incline more toward severity.

But a practical near-perplexity is accustomed to beget itself: a) the often temporally wretched and spiritually dangerous lot to which the youth is exposed outside the seminary; b) the imminent reception of sacred order, especially priesthood, so that the candidate who then changes his plan can scarcely escape some mark.

Yet to him who desires more definite indications, these seem able to be handed down concerning the way in which the Confessor in a Seminary can fulfill his office. But, as Lehmkuhl, II, 760, rightly observes, "of most grave moment in the seminary is the office both of director and of confessor, that they direct the pupils in due time, form their souls, and disclose defect of aptitude."

Therefore: a) with a lay youth let him see what the purpose of priestly life effects. If little, let him turn the habituated one away from entrance into the seminary. He can more easily favor entrance into religion, if the vocation otherwise appears serious and the libidinous propensity is not rooted in the very temperament of the body. For there are those who are moved to embrace religious life by the very plan of breaking off sins. A good hope of amendment is founded upon such a thought; b) let the habitual confessor of a seminarian first propose remedies, admonish concerning consequences, threaten; in the second or at most third year, unless the habit is shown to have been conquered, let him require departure; c) to a religious, after medicine has been tried in vain, already before theology, let the confessor clearly manifest the difficulty which will stand in the way of receiving sacred orders, so that he himself, with prudent men, such as the moderator of spirit or religious Superior, may maturely deliberate what is better to be established concerning his lot: whether faith and morals seem sufficiently safe in secular life that this is honestly to be desired, or whether to remain in religion without sacred orders is more expedient for him. With a religious in theology one must act as with a seminarian.

Let an extraordinary confessor urge departure of a penitent on the threshold of diaconate or priesthood: let him not require it, unless the propensity was toward sins more than weekly, or toward scandalous sins.

N.B. - The habit of solitary vice among some suddenly and fully ceases on some occasion; among others it is, as it were, gradually killed. Therefore it can sometimes be the fruit of patience that it lead by degrees to moral health.

Corollary. The prudent selection of seminarians is seen to be of the greatest moment. The seminary ought to be open to no one whose entrance has not been fully free, truly supported by supernatural motives; whose temperament seems too prone to venereal things.

Therefore these things must be diligently examined in candidates. Supernatural motives will be known from questioning. That the election of state is entirely free will be seen partly from questioning, partly from the circumstances. Two things can obstruct this liberty: if parents of slight condition have greatly desired that the son embrace the ecclesiastical state, especially if they have lived laboriously and sparingly so that they might make a supply of humanities studies for the son; if the son has been educated by another's money or in an ecclesiastical college, an apostolic school, a small novitiate, gratuitously. Wherefore, although certain ones can abuse this facility, with all things weighed, I would consider it opportune that the directors of a college of this kind help those who are seen to be little fervent to procure for themselves an honest secular state. Surely religion will receive less detriment from the fiction and fraud of some than from the morally coerced entrance of those who enter the seminary or novitiate because they know every other way is cut off from them. Finally, a libidinous propensity can be diagnosed by expert physicians. For which reason, if from the physical appearance of the candidate or from his origin some such thing is feared, a medical examination should be requested. And what prevents the adolescent from being asked, indeed ordered, to disclose secretly to some most approved priest if he experiences any difficulties in preserving chastity? The utility is common to the candidate and the diocese; there is no danger of infamy. And he who is unwilling to disclose the matter has the option of not petitioning entrance.

— Appendix I belongs to this section. I. Preliminary Notions. The divine office is called the complex of chants, prayers, and readings by which public or liturgical worship is daily rendered to God in the Church. Cf. what has been said elsewhere concerning the nature and modes of liturgical worship. Cursus was also the name both of the whole office and of the individual hours.

2. Choral celebration is distinguished, whether solemn or not solemn, and private celebration by one or by several. The matter and order of each celebration are the same; but the rubrics of the office are rightly understood only from choral celebration. If Terce is excepted, when it is connected with a pontifical Mass, the lesser hours and Compline are never solemnly celebrated.

II. Historical Evolution of the Office. Cf. Appendix I.

— III. The Obligation of the Office. 1. In c. 135 we have the first written law which formally imposes the daily recitation of the canonical hours upon clerics of major orders.

The progress of this obligation can be described approximately in this way. The obligation of the office was first, in some measure, that of all the faithful. The necessity, for clerics, of ministering at the hours at which the faithful assisted created for them a proper title of obligation, arising from custom and sanctioned by various decrees of councils or synods. Therefore the obligation was first restricted to daily Vespers and Lauds, and affected clerics both of major and minor orders whose ministry was necessary. After the faithful deserted the daily offices, the obligation nevertheless remained for clerics and was extended also to the other offices, so that a cleric impeded from choir was obliged by private recitation. Finally the principle of the obligation, which previously was the office of ministering, became sacred order itself.

Monks at the beginning seem to have been bound by no special obligation. But since they professed the most perfect observance of the Christian life, they were assiduous in common prayer; afterward, however, when, with the cenobitic life, a proper institute of prayer arose among monks and was confirmed by their own rules, they were admitted by the Church into a part of the public ministry of prayer, especially in its very head, or in the city of Rome.

2. The obligation of beneficiaries is recalled and sanctioned in c. 1475.

3. The choral obligation of a chapter is promulgated in cc. 413 and 414.

4. The obligation either of choir or of the divine office is no longer recalled among the common obligations of religious. But what religions in which there is an obligation of choir must perform is explained in c. 610.

Lest we have to go over the argument again, we shall set forth together the obligations of clerics who are in sacred orders, of canons, and of many religious. First we shall treat of the private and solitary recitation of the hours, then of recitation with a companion and of the obligation of choir.

— The persons obliged are:

1. All clerics constituted in major orders, unless they have been legitimately reduced to the lay state. The immediate title of the obligation is sacred order; wherefore the beginning of the obligation is from the moment of received subdiaconate, so that the cleric must recite the hours corresponding to that moment, but not those which are prior in time. Now Prime corresponds to the sixth hour of the morning; Terce to the ninth hour; Sext to midday.

Can the one to be ordained satisfy the law by reciting, before ordination, the part which, after sacred order has been received, he will have to recite? This seems to be answered affirmatively, because, although he does not yet recite the office in the name of the Church, which the patrons of the stricter, probable opinion object, the one to be ordained offers an anticipated payment which the Church is judged to accept, especially since ordination is often so prolonged that the delayed hour cannot be recited in its own time.

Today, where the private recitation of the office is much more separated from the choral, the opinion of La Croix, Theol. mor., l. 4, n. 1187, no longer seems probable, which obliged one ordained subdeacon to recite the hour which then had to be said in choir. Wherefore, if one was ordained at the eleventh hour, he himself obliged him only to Vespers, since at the eleventh hour all the little hours usually had already been paid in choir. Already St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 140, called the opinion which we have set forth above the truer one;

2. All beneficiaries, not legitimately impeded. These are bound from the day of accepted possession of the benefice, if they perceive or will perceive the fruits. Wherefore they must recite the entire office of the day.

He who has not satisfied that obligation does not make the fruits his own in proportion to the omission, "and let him hand them over to the fabric of the church or to the diocesan seminary, or distribute them among the poor" (c. 1475, §2).

Therefore the Church obliges from justice⁽¹⁾ the beneficiary who with grave fault has omitted the canonical hours to restore the fruits in proportion. A threefold mode of restitution is permitted to him. By the Constitution Ex proximo, September 22, 1571, St. Pius V so declared that "in proportion to the omission," that one who on one day has omitted the entire office must restore all the fruits corresponding to that day, that is, the 365th part of the annual revenue; but one who has omitted only Matins with Lauds, half the fruits of one day; one who has omitted the remaining hours, also half; and one who has omitted one of those, the twelfth part of the same sum. Cf. Epitome I. C., II, 800.

From the very words of the Constitution Supernae dispositionis of Leo X, in the Lateran Council, §38, and from the received interpretation, the fruits perceived in the first semester are condoned. And although he has sinned gravely, a beneficiary who on the next day supplies the omitted office is probably excused from restitution (the Salmanticenses and others).

Moreover, according to the common opinion, he who perceives the fruits of a benefice also on account of other burdens does not owe all the fruits. Wherefore, on account of the whole office omitted, bishops and pastors are not judged to have to restore beyond the third or fourth, indeed probably the fifth, part of the fruits; canons, not beyond half, indeed the fourth part; chaplains, not beyond half or the third part. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 673; l. 4, n. 415; Epitome I. C., II, 800.

Finally, since today even benefices with care of souls are accustomed to be so slight that they scarcely suffice for the support of the beneficiary, and since the negligent beneficiary is not prohibited from keeping as a poor man what as blameworthy he has lost, almost never today will there be place for this penalty. Cf. Palmieri, Op. th., t. 4, tr. 9, n. 342.

⁽¹⁾ D'Annibale, however, III, 65, thinks that this restitution is owed by way of a conventional penalty rather than from justice.

3. Those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir (c. 610).

By these clear words: 1. on account of the many more recent institutes which have been approved without choir, there is no longer any common obligation of the divine office for religious; 2. those solemnly professed in religions in which there is an obligation of choir are held to private recitation of the office if, being destined for choir, they have been absent from choir. Therefore a question can no longer be raised today about their grave obligation. On the controversy before the Code, cf. Palmieri, Op. theolog., t. 2, tr. 9, nn. 333-334; 3. those simply professed, or nuns who now do not have solemn vows, are not held, unless perhaps from their own Constitutions, although they belong to institutes with solemn vows. Cf. response of the Sacred Penitentiary, November 24, 1852.

And even where they have solemn vows, nuns of the Visitation, and any others who must recite only the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, are judged to be held by only a light obligation.

The professed are held from the moment of profession, just as the ordained are held from ordination.

— By one recitation of the breviary he satisfies this obligation, both he who has several benefices and he who is held by several titles, for example as subdeacon and professed. And the omission of that office is judged to be one single sin against religion. Yet the beneficiary who is unwilling to restore the fruits, when he owes them, must also accuse a sin against justice. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 355.

— The substance of the obligation is this: that the canonical hours be recited entire daily "according to the proper and approved liturgical books" (c. 135).

Approved liturgical books are the Roman Breviary, reformed by St. Pius V, with the new order of the psalter introduced by Pius X and prescribed for validity, Constitution Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911 (A. A. S., 3, 633; Per., t. 6, p. 125).

Yet churches or religions which in 1568 were using another breviary approved by custom of at least two hundred years were able to preserve that one. Yet if they use the faculty of taking the Roman breviary, they are then prohibited from returning to their former one.

The obligation of reciting the breviary includes the obligation of having it such as it has been imposed, and therefore of acquiring for oneself new approved offices. Yet the mind of the Holy See is not to oblige clerics who recite the breviary according to an already existing edition to assume new or reformed lessons of the office (S. R. C., December 14, 1883).

The proper liturgical books must be used. Wherefore he will not have satisfied who, alone or with a companion, has recited the office of another breviary too different from his own. Cf. S. R. C., January 27, 1899; Decr. auth., n. 4011. Yet others think otherwise (St. Alphonsus, n. 161; Ferreres, II, n. 85).

— Besides the customary office, the litanies of All Saints must be recited, even privately, on the very feast of St. Mark and on the three Rogation days. Those litanies cannot be anticipated on the previous day. Today this obligation of private recitation is certain; but the gravity of that obligation is less certain, on account of the less severe words of the rubric: "Let them say those litanies privately." Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 382.

Before the reform of Pius X, the Office of the Dead, which now is the proper office of that day, had to be added on the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed to the office of the octave of All Saints.

— The Mode of Recitation. There is prescribed:

1. Vocal recitation. It pertains to the substance that words be formed, which supposes at least some breath, however slight: voice of itself is audible. But he who is conscious to himself that through the proper organs, the tongue and lips, he forms syllables, and does not merely produce some motion in the throat or deliberately suppress the breath, effects vocal recitation. Wherefore the question whether or not it is required that someone be able of himself to hear himself can be omitted, and is better omitted, as being scrupulous. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 394-396.

2. Entire recitation, "without syncopation and abbreviation of words and syllables," and without precipitation.

A defect in this matter, since it is accustomed to affect the final syllables of words, will generally be venial; for this does not take away every signification. Someone can be excused by stammering, and even by a custom which, reprehensible in the beginning, has actually become invincible, provided efforts are applied to laying it aside. And because anxiety itself can impede correct pronunciation, it is sometimes better to obtain a dispensation until healing has been obtained with peace;

3. Devout recitation. Therefore an intention of worshiping God by the recitation is required. For an act of religion is prescribed, to which such an intention is essential. But that intention demands the use of no formula; and it is present in reality as soon as you take up the breviary to pay the accustomed task.

All also require attention which they call external, and which looks to this: that exterior actions be excluded which cannot be composed with interior attention. This is required by c. Dolentes, 9, De celebratione missarum (III, 41).

Sufficient diligence also is of itself required so that an accurate recitation be made.

Attention which they call internal they distinguish into superficial, or to correct pronunciation; literal, or to the signification of the words; spiritual, or to God or divine things. And although this notion, which belongs to acts of the will, is little suited to acts of the intellect, nevertheless they distinguish further formal attention, which is truly present, and virtual attention, which in moral estimation is judged to be present because the will of attending has not been retracted.

There have been not a few controversies concerning the necessity of so-called interior attention.

But if the matter is considered more closely, just as external attention is defined by the exclusion of exterior actions which would occupy the mind, so internal attention is defined by the exclusion of wandering of the mind morally diverting it elsewhere.

Now, when we intend to pray expressly, the reverence due to God demands that morally we place ourselves wholly present to God. Wherefore voluntary distraction of mind is at least lightly sinful. Yet that irreverence does not take away the essence of prayer: for this it is enough that, from the intention of worshiping God, you use words containing His praise or beseeching Him. Cf. Lugo, Euch., d. 22, n. 15 ff. But no argument proves that more is prescribed by the Church. Indeed now, since c. 135, adding nothing, prescribes merely the entire recitation of the canonical hours, the very probability now seems to us to be absent from the stricter opinion.

Nor is the substance of the obligation necessarily lacking in him who recites the hours in the state of mortal sin; indeed, even with actual complacency in sin or with the will of sinning. For the will of praying and praising God can stand together with a present affection toward a sin of another kind. Cf. Palmieri, l. c., n. 429. Yet venial irreverence is committed in the latter case;

4. Continued recitation, at least so that the individual hours be recited in one morally continuous course, unless a just cause prevents it. Yet a culpable interruption does not exceed venial fault, and what has been said does not have to be repeated; for the individual verses of the psalms have a complete signification and through the intention of completing the hour are sufficiently joined together among themselves. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

Matins, however, can be separated from Lauds; nor does he seem to sin who interposes three hours between the individual nocturns, since several say, although undeservedly, that this was the ancient custom.

Just causes for interrupting an hour or psalm are furnished by every utility, one's own or another's, which would be inconveniently delayed: civility, devotion, obedience to be furnished, etc. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 168.

A pious priest, as is clear, will strive to avoid the very occasions of interruptions;

5. Ordered recitation, so that you recite in their order: a. the individual offices; b. the individual hours; c. the individual parts of the hours. Nevertheless:

As to a. The substitution of another office from the Roman Breviary is of itself venial; and for a reasonable cause, for example to recite with a companion of the same rite, or on account of making a journey, the change will be lawful.

Yet it would be grave to choose an office which would at the same time be notably shorter and of a plainly different rite, as if on Palm Sunday you recited the office of Easter. Cf. proposition 34 among those reproved at least as scandalous by Alexander VII, Denzinger, n. 1134. Likewise the deformity, and therefore the fault, would be grave if for the whole year you recited the same office at will.

He who through error has recited one office for another satisfies the obligation. But if it was notably shorter, an equitable compensation from the psalms of the omitted office is to be advised; yet it cannot be imposed strictly, since in that addition the form of the breviary is not preserved. Cf. Palmieri, Op. theol., t. 4, tr. 9, nn. 283-290.

If while praying you notice the error, you have the option either of continuing, in order to preserve unity, or of changing, so that you may accord more with the precept of the Church. This reason seems the stronger, so that it is better to use the principle: "An error is corrected where it is discovered."

Likewise, if you have recited concerning a Saint before the day, it will be better, when the day arrives, to recite again concerning the same Saint than to restore the omitted office.

These conclusions bring this corollary with themselves: that for him to whom the proper office of some saint is lacking, the common office of saints of the same class is to be recited; and if this is lacking, another office must be taken which you have from your own breviary, not from the breviary of another rite.

As to b. A change of order among the hours is venial; and it is excused by a lighter cause than a change of office.

But he who has recited the same hour twice is excused from reciting no other hour, because, by acting otherwise, he would corrupt the prescribed form.

Right order also demands that, unless a just cause excuses, you complete the office of the day before you begin the office of the following day. Wherefore the most recent formulae of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide grant anticipation in this way: "That, when the divine office of the day has been completed, with a legitimate cause concurring, Matins with Lauds of the following day may be recited privately immediately after noon."

Yet he who, after anticipated recitation of Matins, from devotion, so that the recitation may agree more with the nature of that hour, defers Compline of the day to the evening time, seems in no way to be reprehended. In this opinion we have been confirmed by the opinion of officials of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

As to c. Nor is it judged grave of itself that in the same hour you invert the order of the parts; as, for example, if delay would be inconvenient, you recite all the psalms of the morning hour, and then the lessons which were not at hand. Yet here one must beware lest he change the form too much. Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 170, and Palmieri, l. c., n. 404.

6. Timely recitation. Here it is useful to distinguish the primary, secondary, and privileged determination of time. The primary is to be observed under grave obligation, and it holds even if the secondary cannot be observed, almost as the obligation of annual Communion remains for him who is impeded from communicating in Paschal time. By that primary determination, the office of one day is to be recited within the twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight, or it is the burden of the day. The secondary determination induces a light obligation which ceases on account of a reasonable cause. By this determination, Matins with Lauds and the first two little hours are to be recited before noon; Sext and None can be paid before or after noon; the afternoon time is assigned to Vespers and Compline. Yet within Lent, that is, from the Saturday before the first Sunday, with Sunday excepted, Vespers, from a rubric which does not oblige under sin, are recited before the meal, from about the eleventh hour. Therefore he who has foreseen that he will be impeded after the meal can and must recite Vespers and Compline in the morning and as in their own time. Cf. Arendt: "Whether the opinion is probable which frees a cleric in sacred orders from the obligation of anticipating in the morning the evening canonical hours when he foresees that he will be absolutely impeded from reciting them in the afternoon" (Monitore, 1916, fasc. VI-VII). Yet the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion, which then excuses from the obligation of anticipating, is not to be denied. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 370; Lehmkuhl, II, 795 f.

Finally, by the determination of time which is called privileged, Matins, Lauds included, can be anticipated on the preceding day.

This, contrary to what Palmieri thought, Op. theol., t. IV, tr. 9, in the note added under number 415, is in no way to be attributed to the regular recitation of the two parts of Matins in the first watches of the night. For all Matins, even when it comprised eighteen psalms, had regularly to be recited after midnight, so that Lauds, which properly were called the morning hour, would be completed at sunrise. The very Invitatory of Lent testifies this to us: "Let it not be vain for you to rise before light." The matter seems to us to be explained in this other way.

In the ancient age, since they opposed day rather to night, they were not accustomed to derive the beginning of the day from midnight. Wherefore night could be ascribed rather indifferently to either of the days between which it was placed. The Jews, however, reckoned the Sabbath to have begun from the evening of Friday. Therefore, since Matins had to be recited in the night time, rather than rise before light, it seemed more convenient, and therefore was sufficiently natural, to satisfy the obligation of chanting Matins in the same night time but before lying down. Moreover, on feasts of a double office, one was paid in the evening, the other before light. Add that, on account of preachings, all the hours, except Compline, were anticipated. Thus the custom of anticipating Matins gained strength, and it persevered even after midnight was judged to be the beginning of the day of twenty-four hours. Lauds, moreover, were anticipated with Matins, which they had been accustomed immediately to follow.

By successive enlargements it came to this, that, the long controversy having been removed by the response of May 12, 1905, in the Placentina,⁽¹⁾ it was simply lawful for all to begin Matins from the second hour. Thereafter the Sacred Congregation of Rites quite easily grants the faculty of beginning from the first hour; indeed, anticipation from the first hour is permitted after the manner of a privilege to priests of various associations; from the twelfth hour it can be granted by Legates of the Roman Pontiff to individual clerics and religious; the same is contained in the faculties of Propaganda Fide.

But the foresight of an impediment compels no one to use the faculty of anticipating Matins on the preceding day. At least the most approved usage has interpreted the faculty thus. For, after the whole Sabbath was separated from Sunday, anticipation made on the preceding day could now be nothing but a privilege which each one could use, but no one had to use.

As has already been said elsewhere (Theol. fund., n. 371), from the express concession of c. 33, in the private recitation of the hours the option is given of local time, true or mean, and of legal time, whether regional or extraordinary.

Matins with Lauds, by the rubric, must be recited before the sacred rite. The night of the Nativity of the Lord is excepted, in which Lauds after the first Mass are recited even in choir. Although some urge this rubric under grave sin and others under light sin, the obligation under sin is not established. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 405-406. And since today the private office is joined with Mass by a lesser connection, for so often a priest must read a Mass differing from the office, that obligation seems to be denied by a stronger argument.

⁽¹⁾ In the year 1905, to doubt 1, "Whether in private recitation Matins for the following day can begin at the second afternoon hour, or whether the table of the diocesan directory must be followed at all times?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites had responded: "Let approved authors be consulted." Cf. Per., 3, 107. But in the authentic edition, n. 4158, the response was rendered in these other words: affirmative to the first part, negative to the second. Cf. Per., 7, 80. On the controversy concerning the second hour, see Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., nn. 407-416.

— Gravity of the Obligation. The obligation of reciting the canonical hours, by the consent of all, is grave.

The opinion, not indeed of all,⁽¹⁾ but very common and confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus, judges grave the omission of any hour, even a little hour, and, in a longer hour, of a quantity somewhat greater. And even after the reform of the Psalter carried out by Pius X, by which most of the little hours were abbreviated, we know that this strict opinion alone is approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

That gravity is gathered especially from the common estimation of experts and the usage of the timorous: these are among the signs by which a grave obligation is discerned.⁽²⁾ "For an intrinsic argument, I think, is difficult to find." Thus Palmieri, Opus Theol., t. IV, tr. 9, n. 357. Yet he himself adds this: by the omission even of one little hour, the intention of the Church is gravely injured, namely that all the hours of day and night, and thus all time, be dedicated to God through the service of certain prayers. But a grave injury to that intention effects a grave deformity.

Since lessons are not properly prayers, they say that the quantity required for grave sin must be increased. Wherefore the omission of three lessons with responsories is judged light.

And what is admitted concerning petty thefts holds here also. If you take away something from the individual hours, the grave quantity must be increased. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, l. c., n. 358.

The office of one day falls under one precept. Wherefore, unless the acts of will are multiplied from elsewhere, by cessation or interruption, he who has omitted the office of one day commits one sin.

But he who by one act of will removes from himself the availability of the breviary is more truly, according to the principles concerning the numerical distinction of sins, guilty of one sin. Cf. I, n. 437.

On the contrary, if he has determined that he will omit the breviary for several days, but has preserved the availability of reciting it, they wish there to be as many sins as there are days on which the breviary is omitted. We have tried to give the difficult reason for this opinion in Theol. fund., l. c.

⁽¹⁾ Cf. Dominic Soto, De Iust., l. 10, q. 5, art. c., conclusion 4, e.

⁽²⁾ Theol. mor., I, 233, p. 214.

— Causes Excusing from the Recitation of the Breviary are:

1. Impotence from lack of the breviary, blindness, etc. Yet except notable parts which, morally as a whole and according to the obligatory form, you already hold from memory. There is no obligation of learning the Hours by memory. A notable part would be some hour, even a little hour, of which you are ignorant only of the prayer, chapter, or hymn; an entire nocturn of Matins. Indeed more probably, though the probability of the contrary opinion is not denied, if you are ignorant only of the lessons, but can recite several psalms in the order of the Breviary, you are held to these.

But he who, being obliged to the Roman Breviary, has available only the Benedictine or Ambrosian is not held to recite this. For the obligation is of reciting from one's own liturgical book;

2. Grave inconvenience, which, for example, dim eyes, great scruples, grave illness, or even light illness joined with notable heaviness of the head, weariness of strength, or probable danger or fear of great inconvenience of this kind, produce.

In doubt concerning sufficient infirmity, one can stand by the judgment of a physician or prudent man, especially of a Superior, who then, by dispensing, can remove every scruple. If the doubt perseveres after inquiry, there is no obligation of reciting. And lest he be disturbed by troublesome anxieties, an infirm person who is certain that he cannot recite the whole office, and doubts about a part, is probably held to nothing. Convalescents also, for some days, are excused by the judgment of prudent persons, even if meanwhile they celebrate Mass or have conversations. Nor if someone, for the sake of recreation, can read for several hours, must he now certainly recite the office. For, according to the disposition of the convalescent, the one perhaps first refreshes, while the other can be troublesome and very laborious.

Grave inconvenience can also arise from external danger, for example during a raging persecution, or from dishonor of the ecclesiastical order, as if, in prison for an infamous cause, a cleric in sacred orders would betray himself.

He who can easily have a companion and recite with him must use such a means, which is very consonant with the primitive institution. But a companion is not to be sought with difficulty; nor is he to be hired for a price: the use of a companion would then be an extraordinary means;

3. A graver occupation, especially a sudden one, such as of preparing a lesson or sermon; works of charity to be furnished, which you cannot combine with reciting the breviary, as if you are morally occupied the whole day with confessions, are called toward night to one dying, etc. Sudden, I say, and accidental occupation; for the recitation of the Breviary must be combined with ordinary duties, unless you prefer to dismiss certain labors or petition a dispensation;

4. Dispensation, which only the Supreme Pontiff validly concedes without cause. The Ordinary of the place cannot dispense from common law, but universal custom, by which one can stand, permits that for a brief time, for a just cause, he dispense, unless he has obtained a greater faculty. D'Annibale, III, 153. He can provide for an urgent case from the Code itself. A Legate of the Roman Pontiff can commute the obligation.

And regulars have their own privileges.

— What Office Is To Be Recited? Each one, in reciting the office, must follow his own calendar.

A bishop, even a regular, must recite the office of the Church over which he is placed. If he governs two dioceses, he recites the office of the diocese in which he habitually resides, or even in which he is actually staying. S. R. C., June 11, 1605; January 17, 1880; May 28, 1898, Decrees nn. 181, 3508, 3993 ad 1.

Priests recite the office of the church to which they are attached, even as vicars. S. R. C., February 4, 1898, Decree n. 3979 ad 7.

Outside their proper domicile, bishops and beneficiaries must always recite the office of their proper church.

Concerning an absent bishop who governs two dioceses, nothing has been defined. Let him recite his habitual office; or, if it varies according to the diocese in which he actually resides, he seems to have the option of either office. Simple priests can conform themselves to the office of the place where they are staying.

In transit through various places, it is more advisable that they use the calendar of their proper diocese. S. R. C., November 12, 1781, Decree n. 2680. But if, for example as seminarians, they have acquired quasi-domicile in some place, they more probably must recite the office of that place rather than the office of their domicile.

Regulars who are obliged to choir, in another house, must follow the calendar of that house, at least in choir. Otherwise, those who are staying for a brief time, as below a month, in another house should keep the order of their own house. S. R. C., September 25, 1852; June 27, 1896 ad XIII, Decrees nn. 3001 and 3919. In a longer stay they can follow the calendar of the house in which they are staying. On a journey let them keep the calendar of their own house. But if they live for a longer time outside monasteries, for example Lenten preachers, let them follow the common calendar of the Province, without attending to the proper offices of houses. S. C. R., August 31, 1839, Decree n. 1801.

In foreign missions, sometimes there is no calendar except that of the religious who labor there. If a twofold calendar is had, the bishop recites the office of the diocese; regular pastors, which we think holds concerning religious, keep the proper calendar of their religion, with the exception of the offices of the Titulars of the Churches over which they preside. S. C. R., May 13, 1892, Decree n. 3772 ad 1 and 2.

— What in Doubt Concerning the Recited Office or a Part of It? In negative doubt, the office must be paid. But in positive or probable doubt, the Church, in accordance with her humanity, is not judged to oblige one perhaps to recite twice.⁽¹⁾ Various presumptions can confer this probability: as if you remember that you began, and, without voluntary interruption, find yourself at the end of a psalm, lesson, or hour. And in these matters it is often expedient not to repeat, in order to avoid habitual anxieties and scruples by which the task of the Divine Office gradually becomes an unbearable burden, rather than spiritually feeding and refreshing the soul.

The scrupulous, however, must be prohibited from repeating anything, in doubt whether they have recited or satisfied. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 175, 1.

⁽¹⁾ There are those who wish to appeal here to the principle of probabilism. But they sin by confusion of doubt of law and doubt of fact. Cf. Theol. mor., I, 365 and 369.

— N.B. The rite by which the breviary must be recited is defined for all by the Sacred Congregation of Rites; but the very force of the precept is declared and urged by the Sacred Congregation of the Council for secular clergy and by the Sacred Congregation of Religious for religious. Dispensations also are conceded by each of the latter Congregations according to the secular or religious quality of the person.

— Counsels. Although the breviary is recited validly in a place where noise is made by others, a pious priest nevertheless will try to recite the canonical hours in that place where the recitation can be devout and edifies those standing by. Therefore public ways seem to be excluded, at least in inhabited places, and, if another option is had, public carriages which, on account of noise or conversations, are inconvenient, while the most fitting place is a church or chapel where the Most Holy is reserved. Let a fitting time also be chosen, anticipating rather than delaying: he gives twice who gives quickly, and he also gives more willingly who gives early. But so that the breviary may be recited more sweetly, let all scrupulosity be avoided, and let a sincere will of praying as the Church prescribes be fostered, so that the task may be offered to God as if spontaneously.

— Object of the Choral Obligation. 1. From c. 413, §2, the Divine Office to which the chapter of a cathedral or collegiate church is bound "comprehends the psalmody of the canonical hours and the celebration with chant of the conventual Mass, besides other Masses to be celebrated either according to the rubrics of the Missal or from pious foundations." And from c. 414, "All and each who obtain a choral benefice are bound to pay the divine offices in the choir itself on individual days, unless service by turn has been granted by the Apostolic See or by the laws of the foundation."

These things are from common law. But in mission places and also elsewhere, from various indults, that obligation is sufficiently moderated.

2. From c. 610, in religions which have choir, "where there are at least four obliged to choir," therefore not novices or lay brothers, "and actually not legitimately impeded," by infirmity or occupations, "and even fewer if the constitutions so bear, the divine office must be paid in common daily according to the norm of the constitutions. A Mass also corresponding to the office of the day must be celebrated daily according to the rubrics in religions of men and also, insofar as can be done, in religions of women."

That obligation is grave in religious Orders. In other religions the constitutions must be considered.

Yet the omission of one little hour in choir is not judged grave by many. Palmieri, Op. theol., l. c., n. 335.

A notable inversion of order is held by some as lethal; but the matter is not demonstrated.

But the time must be reckoned according to the common usage of the place (c. 33, §1).

The grave obligation of taking care that choir be had rightly presses Superiors, that is, bishops with respect to canons and domestic Superiors with respect to religious. In religions the obligation of choir can also be satisfied through novices.

— Mode of Recitation. One reciting with a companion or in choir:

1. Must himself, if he is the one held, recite his proper part suitably. Moreover, even if they are more than two, they must arrange themselves for the psalms in only two choirs, equal or unequal in number, so that all recite alternate verses. This is established from the usage of the Church. A greater option is permitted for lessons, responsories, chapters, antiphons, and prayers, which can either be distributed among all so that each has his own part to be recited, or all be said by one, so that the rest merely hear. Indeed, from St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 162, he probably satisfies who alone recites the psalms and hears the lessons from another; but he would not satisfy who merely recited the lessons;

2. Must try so that he himself attends to those things which are recited by the companion or in choir, and this so that in the part which he does not recite he may formally communicate. Yet the precept is human. Wherefore only he is judged not to have satisfied who has had a reflexively voluntary distraction for a notable time; that is, who not only has been voluntarily distracted but has also noticed that he is being wholly carried away in mind and yet has not collected himself. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 806.

Similarly, one who does not perceive distinctly, but only confusedly, whether because he is somewhat deaf, or on account of noise, or on account of a defect of choir or of a companion who nevertheless recites substantially well, is judged to have satisfied, especially if with his eyes he reviews what he does not recite. St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 163.

There is greater doubt concerning a deaf man who chants his parts in choir. More probably he indeed gains distributions (Suarez, l. c., l. 4, c. 28, nn. 17-18), but he does not fulfill the task of the office unless he recites in a low voice those things which he does not chant. Yet some respond more benignly. Thus d'Annibale, II, 51 (38).

On the contrary, he who in choir recites his own part in a low voice and hears the other probably satisfies the obligation of the office, because through the others with whom he is joined he sufficiently communicates with the other part; yet a canon does not gain distributions unless he sings, or chants like the others.

— I. On the Part of the Companion:

1. No quality of person, or obligation to the office, or attention is required.

2. It suffices that the companion substantially pronounce his own part, by taking up the other. For the things which he inserts into the recitation of the other are virtually reputed omitted, so that if they were many, they must be repeated by the other.

II. You do not have to repeat what in choir you neither recited nor heard while you were occupied in incensing at the Magnificat or Benedictus, or in carrying around necessary books, or in foreseeing the lesson soon to be sung, or in performing other things necessary in choir, because the whole choir supplies these things and recites or sings these not only in its own name but also in the name of the ministers. Cf. Laymann, 4.1, 5, 7.

But that he who for the whole time merely plays the organ can satisfy, not a few have affirmed; St. Alphonsus, l. 4, n. 143, denies it. And unless custom interprets the matter thus, we judge that the response must be made with St. Alphonsus. Palmieri, however, l. c., n. 335, inclines to the more benign side.

1083. • All Clerics receiving Sacred Orders contract ipso facto the obligation of celibacy. This is clear from various Decrees of Canon Law; but especially from c. 1. D. 28, where St. Gregory thus prescribed: "Let Bishops presume to make no one subdeacon, unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the Altar unless his chastity has been proved before the ministry has been received." - Likewise from the Council of Trent,³ where it has thus been defined: "If anyone has said that clerics constituted in Sacred Orders, or Regulars solemnly professed to chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema."

1084. Questions. - Query 1° Whether the obligation of celibacy is of divine law?

Resp. Negatively with the common opinion against some; but it is from mere ecclesiastical institution: namely from the force of the precept of the Church, or also from the vow annexed to Sacred Orders. The reason is that celibacy was introduced only from the precept of the Church or of the Apostles. Moreover this is clear from the Council of Trent related above, where it is said: "Notwithstanding ecclesiastical law." Therefore, etc. - Thus commonly Theologians.¹ Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation. But she never dispenses with those constituted in Sacred Orders, so that they can be bound by the bond of matrimony, except by that law, that they be altogether kept from clerical offices. Thus Pius VII convalidated the sacrilegious marriages of some priests who during the time of the "Gallican" disturbance entered nuptials.

1085. • Query 2° Whether the obligation of celibacy proceeds immediately from a precept of the Church, or mediately, namely from the vow which is emitted in the ordination itself?

Resp. Each opinion according to St. Alphonsus is probable; but the more common and more probable is that which says that this obligation arises from a vow. It is proved, 1° from c. 6. Tit. III. L. III. Decr., where it is said: "Therefore we attending to the fact that the Oriental Church has not admitted the vow of continence," etc. Therefore in the Western Church it is admitted. Moreover this is clear from c. unico. T. XV. L. III in 6°, and from C. Inter praeteritos, § 41, Benedict XIV, Dec. 3, 1749, where this is expressly said. 2° from the fact that if the obligation were from the law of the Church alone, the Pope could absolve all clerics from it: which would be against the common opinion.²

1086. • Query 3° Whether the obligation of celibacy is universal in the Church?

Resp. Some exception is given from the tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. For in the Oriental Church priests indeed can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, or even after diaconate; but married men before diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless converse with their wives. Bishops are excepted, who all must constantly preserve perfect chastity. But among the Greeks subdiaconate is not numbered among Sacred Orders. Hence for clerics not married, in the ordination of Diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed, and today, in a certain Province of the Greek rite, even in the ordination of Subdiaconate, as is clear from the Instruction of the S. C. de P. F.³

1087. • Query 4° Whether he would be held to chastity who expressly did not wish to vow chastity?

Resp. This one would nevertheless be held to chastity, if not from vow, since no one can be bound by a vow unwillingly, yet certainly from the precept of the Church, which from the motive of Religion would bind him to chastity, the vow failing. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus.¹ Others wish that he is held to emitting a vow of chastity; and no one will deny that the Church can oblige him to this.

Note. By what pact chastity must be observed by a priest, the Plenary Council of Baltimore II teaches, a. 164-168.

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.

2199. • For the holiness of Clerics and Priests, inviolable chastity of the body is required before all things. Hence the following:

Principles. I. The obligation of observing PERPETUAL CELIBACY is contracted, ipso facto, by all who receive SACRED ORDERS. This is established from various decrees of canon law; and notably from can. 1, dist. 28, where St. Gregory prescribed thus: "Let Bishops presume to make no Subdeacon except one who has promised that he will live chastely: because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been approved before the ministry received." Likewise from Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, where this was defined: "If anyone shall say that Clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or Regulars solemnly professing chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow: let him be anathema"¹ (cf. n. 2013).

2200. • II. The obligation of ecclesiastical celibacy is not of divine law; but arises from the LAW OF THE CHURCH prescribing chastity, and the vow of chastity.² The reason of the former is "because, although celibacy had its origin from the Apostles, as the Doctors prove, nevertheless only from a precept of the Church or of the Apostles (as Bellarmine proves) was it introduced and established, as is clear from the very words of Trent."³ - The reason of the latter is taken chiefly from the Law,⁴ where it is said: "We therefore, attending to the fact that the Oriental Church has not admitted the vow of continence."

But among the GREEKS, with the Church tolerating it, even to the present times there is in force canon 13 of the Trullan Council, which indeed against the institutes of the Elders permitted that deacons and presbyters can licitly come together with the wives whom they took BEFORE Ordination; meanwhile, however, those two edicts being preserved in their pristine integrity, by one of which it is prescribed that Bishops live in perpetual celibacy, and by the other that, after sacred Orders have been received, it is no longer licit for clerics to contract nuptials.⁵ - Whence it happens that SACRED ORDER is among the Greeks, as among the Latins, a diriment impediment of contracting marriage; but the use of marriage (if married men have been ordained) is gravely illicit only to Bishops, while among the Latins it is gravely illicit to all clerics constituted in Sacred Orders (recall what was said n. 1939, 2, and 2013).

2201. • Will you ASK whether the obligation of celibacy arises immediately from the precept of the Church, or mediately, namely from the vow which is emitted in Ordination itself? - R. Both opinions, according to St. Alphonsus, are probable; but the second, which says that this obligation arises from a vow, is more common and more probable. For this is expressly said in various chapters of canon law; and moreover, if the obligation were from the law of the Church alone, the Supreme Pontiff could release all priests from it: which is against the common opinion of the Doctors.⁶

From these things you will resolve: 1. The Church can dispense in the vow of continence annexed to sacred Orders, as in all other vows.⁷ Yet it never dispenses with those constituted in Sacred Orders except under this condition, that the dispensed be altogether removed from clerical offices.⁸

2. If someone, in receiving Order, expressly did not wish to vow chastity, he would nevertheless be held to celibacy: not indeed by force of the vow, which he did not emit; but by force of the precept of the Church, which would bind him to chastity from a motive of religion when the vow is lacking.⁹

3. If someone were ordained before the use of reason, certainly he would not be held to celibacy. But whether one Ordained before puberty would be held is disputed probably on both sides.¹⁰

4. If someone is ordained through extrinsic fear unjustly inflicted, and does not have the intention of receiving Order, he is not validly ordained, nor is he held to chastity or to the Breviary. Indeed, even if from fear he consented to Ordination, it is more probable that he is not held to the burdens; because his vow is more probably to be judged invalid. Nevertheless, it is expedient that one so Ordained seek dispensation, if he does not wish to exercise the Order but to enter marriage. But he would be held if the fear had been justly inflicted, or if the Ordained man knowingly ratified his ordination, e.g. by spontaneously exercising the Order.¹¹

2202. • Note. The law of celibacy is most fitting to the clerical state, and morally necessary to the end of the Church. - The reasons are: 1) The holiness and dignity of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and of the other mysteries, which are to be handled by ministers of the altar. - 2) The office of teaching and exhorting: for a married priest cannot with perfect authority and efficacy teach the most holy truths of the Gospel, and especially opportunely exhort virgins and widows to continence. - 3) The administration of the Sacraments; for how could the Christian faithful, unless sacred ministers excelled in the vigor of chastity, be induced to open candidly to them the secrets of their consciences, and how would they show to the Sacraments themselves that highest reverence which they merit? - 4) Care of the sick, and generally ministries of charity; for souls empty of carnal cares and affections, and full of the spirit of Christ, pour themselves out into charity and into most abundant beneficence, as is everywhere established from the works of Catholic charity.¹² - See more among the dogmatic Authors, or Canonists.

I say. All clerics receiving sacred Orders, by that very fact contract the obligation of ecclesiastical celibacy. It is established from canon law: Clerics constituted in major orders are barred from nuptials and are held by the obligation of preserving chastity in such a way that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege, with the prescription of can. 214, §1 (Can. 132, §1) being safe. Indeed a major cleric reduced to the lay state is held by the obligation of celibacy, with the prescription of can. 214 being safe, concerning a cleric who, coerced by grave fear, received sacred order and then was legitimately reduced to the lay state. Cf. Can. 212, §2. Likewise from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, where it is defined thus: "If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema."

Question 1. Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law?

Resp. Negatively, according to the common opinion; but it is from mere ecclesiastical institution, namely from the force of the precept of the Church or also from the vow annexed to sacred Orders. The reason is that the existence of such a divine law is proved by no testimony, whether written or handed down, while on the contrary not a few places of the Sacred Canons prove the existence of ecclesiastical law, and especially that place from the Council of Trent related above, where it is said: "Notwithstanding ecclesiastical law." Therefore . . . § 2. Clerics constituted in minor orders can, indeed, contract marriage, but unless they have been coerced by force or grave fear, by that very right they fall from the clerical state (Can. 132). - Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Sacram. Ordin., n. 807.

Question 2. Does the obligation of celibacy proceed immediately from the precept of the Church or mediately, namely from the vow which really, although tacitly, is emitted in the ordination itself?

Resp. Some probably thought that the obligation of celibacy is from ecclesiastical law alone, and that no vow properly so called is emitted in ordination. This opinion, which also today has patrons, as it seems, arises from the doctrine of certain ancients wrongly understood; but the more common and true opinion holds that this obligation arises from vow, inasmuch as the Church commands clerics both chastity and, at the same time, the mode of professing chastity, namely from vow. - Cf. Baller., note (b), p. 30.

Question 3. Is the obligation of celibacy universal in the Church?

Resp. Some exception is given from the tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. For in the oriental Church, priests indeed can never enter marriage after priestly ordination or even after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless have intercourse with their wives. Bishops, however, are excepted, who all ought constantly to preserve perfect chastity. But among the Greeks subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred Orders. Hence the precept of chastity is imposed on unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate.

Question 4. Is he who expressly does not wish to vow chastity held to chastity?

Resp. Affirmatively; if not from vow, since no one is compelled to be bound by vow unwillingly, certainly from the precept of the Church, which by motive of religion binds him to chastity when the vow is lacking. Others hold that he is bound to emit the vow of chastity; but no one doubts that the Church can oblige him to this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 809.

Question 5. Whether or when can a married man, his wife living, receive sacred Orders?

Resp. Affirmatively, provided the permission of the Apostolic See is added. For such a one is simply impeded; indeed a married man who without Apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of the same orders. Cf. Can. 987, §2; 132, §3.

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.

Titius, an Anglican minister, in order to be certain of the validity of his ordination, had been ordained by a certain schismatic bishop, and afterwards married. After some years, having been converted to the Catholic faith, he now inquires whether and under what conditions he may exercise the sacred ministry, or even make use of marital rights; concerning the validity of the priesthood received, however, there can be no doubt. Hence it is asked:

1. To what are clerics in sacred orders bound by the law of celibacy?

2. May a married man receive sacred orders, and under what conditions?

3. Would impure thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what are clerics in sacred Orders bound by the law of celibacy?

They are bound to observe perfect chastity, in thought and deed, and they are incapable of contracting a valid marriage.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 601.

2. Is a married man allowed to receive sacred Orders and on what conditions?

A man who was married but whose wife is dead or lawfully divorced, when this is possible, may receive sacred

Orders. One whose wife is still living and not lawfully divorced may not be ordained without the free and express consent of his wife, who, if she consents, must herself take a vow of chastity.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 602.

3. Would bad thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

Such a one would not be bound by vow to observe chastity, for a vow can not be taken by one who is ignorant of it. He would, however, be bound to observe chastity by ecclesiastical law. But probably law does not touch merely internal acts, and so although bad thoughts would be sins against the Ninth Commandment, probably they would not have the additional malice of sacrilege, as bad thoughts of priests ordained under normal conditions certainly have.

4. The case. Titius, an Anglican minister, to make sure of his ordination, got ordained by a schismatic bishop and afterwards married. It is supposed in the case that this ordination is certainly valid. As sacred Order is a diriment impediment of marriage, 2 it follows that the minister was not married validly. As he is not married he has no marital rights, and he must separate from his reputed wife. The greatest consideration should be shown to the lady which is possible under the circumstances. Titius was ordained by a schismatic, and he thus incurred irregularity, which prohibits him from exercising his orders. He should submit his case to the bishop, who after inquiring into all the circumstances of the case, and if necessary consulting the Holy See, will settle what is best for all concerned.

*Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vi, n. 1143 nota.