Simple vows as impediments

498. Irregularities differ from simple impediments in this, that irregularities are perpetual impediments, but simple impediments are temporary. Seven are established by the new Code.¹ Simply impeded are:

1. Children of acatholics, as long as the parents remain in their error.

a. They are equally impeded whether born from an acatholic father or from an acatholic mother.

The Commission for interpretation of the Code declared on October 16, 1919, that one whose father or mother only is acatholic, even in that case in which matrimony had been contracted mixed with ecclesiastical dispensation, is to be counted among the impeded.

b. By acatholics are understood not only heretics but also schismatics, indeed even the non-baptized, such as infidels, Jews, Muslims.

c. It does not matter whether the parents persist in error in good or bad faith.

d. The impediment ceases if both parents recede from error through conversion. After the death of parents who died in error, the impediment still seems to remain.

e. The illegitimate son of an acatholic father is impeded. But if the father is unknown, or if it is doubtful whether he was acatholic, the son needs dispensation because of defect of birth; but from a doubtful impediment the ordinary can dispense.

2. Men having a wife. Therefore a husband can be ordained if the marriage has been dissolved either by the death of the wife, or by solemn profession, or by marriage of the wife in the case of the Pauline privilege, or by dispensation of the Roman pontiff. Otherwise he always needs apostolic dispensation in order to be ordained, even if, as it seems, perpetual separation from the wife has intervened; for he is always one having a wife.

3. Those who exercise an office or administration which clerics are forbidden to exercise, until, after the office and administration have been laid down and accounts have been rendered, they have become free.

Those bound to render accounts or reckoning are said to be those who from their office are bound to render account of money administered for another, whether public or private, such as magistrates, administrators, curators, tutors.

Those, however, who manage offices and administrations which are not forbidden to clerics can be ordained, even if they do not yet resign the office, provided they do not render account; thus they licitly manage the administration of money of their blood-relatives, of miserable persons, and of pious causes.

4. Servants in servitude properly so called before accepted liberty.

Servants properly so called, or slaves, subject contrary to nature to another's dominion, are impeded by defect of liberty.

5. Those who are bound by civil law to ordinary military service before they have completed it.

The canon regards those republics which by a law made compel all young men, even clerics, to military service, even in time of peace.

6. Neophytes, until in the judgment of the ordinary they have been sufficiently proved.

Neophytes are understood as those who from pagans, Jews, or other sects are converted to the faith in adult age and recently baptized,² until there is certainty concerning their firm faith from the declaration of the bishop.

7. Those who labor under infamy of fact, while by the judgment of the ordinary it endures. Infamy of fact arises not only from delicts determined in law, but from any enormous delict, such as homicide, perjury in court, adultery, sodomy, simony, public exercise of usury, etc. Good reputation can be restored by serious amendment of life or by divulgation of innocence, and it can cease by stay in a place to which the bad reputation has not come. Judgment concerning cessation of bad reputation is committed to the ordinary.

But if a cleric is condemned by a civil judge because of a crime of this kind, this condemnatory sentence itself is not yet of itself infamy, but the ordinary, after the cause has been examined in the ecclesiastical forum, ought either to absolve the cleric or to condemn him. By the fact that he condemns him, the cleric becomes infamous. Nevertheless, even by the sentence of a civil judge, at least because of actual divulgation of the crime, he is already held infamous.

Article Five.. Concerning Dispensation from Impediments of Ordination.

1. Impediments of ordination can cease in several ways: a. by removal of the cause, a temporal irregularity ceases; thus an irregularity from defect of liberty or reputation ceases when liberty or reputation has been recovered; b. by religious profession, irregularity from defect of birth ceases.

2. Nevertheless, irregularity properly so called is removed only through dispensation; for irregularity is established by law, and a law in force can be removed only by relaxation of the law or dispensation.

Not only religious profession but also dispensation removes irregularity by itself only for receiving orders, but not also for obtaining dignities and prelacies.

¹ Cn. 987.

² Cf. instruction of S. C. Ep. et Reg., January 11, 1908.

499. Who Can Dispense. 1. The supreme pontiff can dispense in every irregularity; for since every irregularity arises from the law of the supreme pontiff, it can also be removed by him. Yet there are irregularities in which the supreme pontiff is accustomed to dispense very rarely, such as: a. irregularity from true bigamy; b. irregularity from voluntary homicide, unless it is so hidden that it cannot be proved in court; c. irregularity from defect of body which is very deformed.

To obtain this dispensation, recourse must be had to the Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments if the irregularity is public and the dispensation is sought for the external forum; but to the Penitentiary if the irregularity is hidden and the dispensation is sought for the internal forum only.

2. The ordinary can dispense: a. his own subjects from all irregularities coming from hidden delict, except those which are contracted from homicide, procurement of abortion and cooperation in these delicts, or other delicts brought to the judicial forum;

b. both for receiving and for exercising orders;

c. either by himself or through another;¹

d. for the internal forum, whether sacramental or non-sacramental;

e. in all doubtful irregularities when there is doubt of fact.

3. The confessor can dispense: a. his penitents, e.g., priests or clerics indiscriminately, whether seculars or regulars of any diocese;

b. in hidden and urgent cases in which the ordinary cannot be approached and danger of grave harm or infamy is imminent;

c. only in irregularities from delict, except that which comes from voluntary homicide, from procurement of abortion and cooperation in these delicts, or others brought to the judicial forum;

d. but only to this extent, that the penitent can exercise orders already received;²

e. both within and outside confession.

A determined form by which the dispensation is granted is not prescribed. This or a similar one can be used: I dispense thee in the irregularity which thou hast incurred from this cause, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

¹ Cn. 990, 1.

² Cn. 990, 2.

500. Supplicatory Petitions for obtaining dispensation from irregularities or impediments are drawn up for the external forum under the true names of the petitioner.

a. All irregularities and impediments are to be indicated, and if there is question of irregularity from voluntary homicide, also the number of delicts must be expressed under penalty of nullity of the dispensation to be granted;

b. The causes of dispensation are to be reviewed;

c. The commendatory letters of the ordinary are to be added;

d. If irregularities or impediments are concealed in bad faith, the dispensation, even a general one, is not valid for those concealed, though whether it is valid for those not concealed is not clear from the text. But if they are concealed in good faith, a general dispensation, from all irregularities and impediments, is valid also for those concealed.

e. But if, although in good faith, an irregularity coming from voluntary homicide, procurement of abortion or cooperation in these delicts is concealed, or if the number of delicts is not indicated, or another delict brought to the judicial forum is concealed, the dispensation, even a general one, is not valid.

f. A general dispensation for receiving orders is valid also for major orders;

g. Dispensation granted in the internal non-sacramental forum must be consigned in writing, and there must be record of it in a secret book of the episcopal curia.¹

¹ Cn. 991.

561. Declaration. 1. Vow is understood as one which is immediately or mediately opposed to matrimony, because it induces an obligation which cannot be composed with the matrimonial state. Five vows of this kind are impedient of matrimony: a. the vow of not marrying, or of celibacy; b. the vow of virginity; c. the simple vow of perfect chastity; d. the vow of entering religion; e. the vow of receiving sacred orders. These vows do not dirimently impede matrimony, as is clear from law;¹ nevertheless they impede matrimony because the matrimonial state cannot be composed with their obligation.

The last two vows are mediately opposed to matrimony; immediately they oblige to taking up a state which then induces the obligation of perfect and perpetual chastity. The first three are immediately opposed to matrimony, but in a diverse way. For one vowing celibacy formally promises not to contract matrimony; one vowing chastity promises to abstain from every venereal delectation, whether illicit or licit in matrimony. There are those who distinguish the vow of virginity from the vow of celibacy, and if we regard the force of the terms, they rightly and deservedly do so; for one vowing virginity properly and strictly promises to abstain from the first act by which virginity is lost. But in practice this distinction is of scarcely any moment; for those who desire to remain virgins by vow vow either celibacy or chastity.

In practice it can sometimes be difficult to discern whether someone emitted a vow of not marrying, or of celibacy or virginity, or rather a vow of chastity. To discern the matter, the one vowing must be asked what he or she promised to God and with what intention the vow was emitted; for if that person emitted the vow with this intention, that, free from the burdens of matrimony, he or she could serve God more easily and perfectly, celibacy is judged to have been vowed; but if the vow was emitted from love of purity, chastity is rather judged to have been vowed.

2. He who, bound by any of these vows, contracts matrimony sins gravely; for the Church forbids contracting matrimony with any of them, because the one having the vow either renders the fulfillment of it impossible for himself, or at least exposes himself to the danger of violating the vow, or deceives the other party and therefore inflicts injury on that party. Therefore, in order that he can enter matrimony licitly, he must first seek dispensation from the vow.

a. The contracting party sins gravely: one having the vow of not marrying sins gravely by contracting matrimony, because by contracting he acts directly against the vow. One having the vow of virginity sins directly against the vow in the first conjugal act by which virginity is lost; but by contracting he sins both because he has the will of consummating matrimony, and because he renders the observance of the vow impossible for himself, because he hands over to the other party the right of demanding the debt. One having the vow of chastity does not act directly against the vow by contracting; nevertheless he sins gravely, because he has the will of consummating the matrimony and because he renders fulfillment of the vow impossible for himself, because he hands over the right of demanding the debt. One having the vow of entering an order sins by contracting, both because he has the will of consummating matrimony, which is indirectly and secondarily repugnant to the vow, and because he exposes himself to the danger of injuring the vow or deceiving the other party. One having the vow of receiving sacred orders sins gravely by contracting, because he renders fulfillment of the vow impossible for himself.

b. There are two cases, but very rare ones, in which one contracting while bound by any of these vows does not sin. One having the vow of virginity, chastity, or entering an order does not sin if he or she has the firm purpose, before consummation of the matrimony, of entering a religious order after dispensation has been accepted, Cn. 542, 1; but unless that person warns the other party concerning this matter, he or she sins gravely by deceiving the party. One having the vow of virginity or chastity does not sin if each party consents to preserving virginity and chastity in marriage; this, however, is rarely permitted because of great dangers of sinning.

To what is one held who, bound by one of these vows, has contracted matrimony? In general it must be said that he or she is released from the vow to that extent to which observance has been made impossible, but is held to the observance of the vow insofar as it can still be observed without prejudice to the other party, unless dispensation has been obtained. And ordinarily it must indeed be counseled that the obligation of the vow be entirely removed through dispensation, because of great dangers of sinning.

¹ Cn. 1058, 1.

There are several simple vows which are so many prohibitory impediments of marriage.(Can. 1058).

A vow of chastity hinders marriage, for he who has taken such a vow exposes himself to the danger of violating it if he marries, or of depriving the other party of his marital rights. Even after marriage has been contracted the obligation of the vow remains, unless a dispensation is obtained or the obligation of the vow is indirectly annulled by the other party.

By a vow of virginity he who takes the vow promises God that he will not commit a consummated sin against chastity. He will sin, therefore, by marrying, because he exposes himself to the danger of breaking his vow or of defrauding the other party of his rights. If by a consummated sin against chastity his virginity has been destroyed, the vow can no longer be observed, and ceases.

The same rules hold with regard to a vow of celibacy which is violated by marriage, but after marriage has been contracted no further obligation remains.

Chastity, virginity, and celibacy are loosely used one for the other, and if a case arose in the confessional the intention of the penitent would have to be inquired into in order to discover what obligation he wished to take upon himself by his vow.

One who has vowed to receive sacred orders would commit sin by marrying, for by marriage the other party obtains rights which are incompatible with the observance of the vow. Canon 987 lays down that marriage is an impediment to the reception of orders, and so the obligation of the vow will ordinarily cease as being impossible of fulfilment, though per se it is only suspended, and revives on the death of the other party.

Similarly, one who has taken a vow to enter religion commits sin by marrying, as he makes the observance of his vow difficult or impossible. Before consummating marriage he is still bound by his vow if it bound him to enter a religious order in the strict sense. After marriage has been consummated he may use his marital rights, and the vow usually ceases on account of impossibility of observance.

The power of dispensing from the impediments of an absolute and perpetual vow of perfect chastity taken after completing the eighteenth year of age, the vow of entering religion with solemn vows, and the proof of Liber status when it is not altogether certain, are reserved to the Holy See.

Bishops can dispense in banns and in yows that hinder marriage and are not reserved to the Pope. Regular and secular confessors have specially delegated faculties for dispensing in vows that are not reserved,

A simple vow of virginity, of perfect chastity, of not marrying, of receiving sacred Orders, and of embracing the religious state impedes marriage. No simple vow invalidates marriage, unless invalidation has been established for some persons by a special prescription of the Apostolic See (canon 1058); as Gregory XIII¹ established, as regards contracting marriage, for simple vows emitted in the Society of Jesus. Therefore:

I. Five vows impede marriage, that is, render it gravely illicit, namely:

1. A vow of virginity strictly taken. One bound by a vow of this kind cannot enter marriage, because he exposes himself to the proximate danger of injuring the vow, indeed he renders its fulfillment practically impossible to himself.

2. A simple vow² of perfect chastity, whether emitted privately or in a Congregation or Order. This vow effects that every act, external as well as internal, contrary to chastity is opposed to religion. One who has emitted such a vow cannot contract nuptials, because equally with one bound by a vow of virginity he exposes himself to the proximate danger of violating the vow, indeed renders its execution impossible.

3. A vow of not marrying or of celibacy, as is clear.

4. A vow of receiving sacred Orders; because marriage renders the execution of such a vow impossible, for married persons are kept from sacred Orders (canon 987, 2°).

5. A vow of embracing the religious state, whether in an Order or in a Congregation; for nuptials render the execution of the vow impossible, because married persons are invalidly admitted to the novitiate (canon 542, 1°).

Note. Vows of not marrying, of virginity, and of chastity are often confused by those vowing; so much so that those who have emitted one of these vows have for the most part understood a vow of chastity. In doubt, the one vowing should be asked what he intended. If the doubt persists, inquiry into the motive which moved him to vow can shed light. One who was impelled by the will to decline the burdens of marriage is presumed to have vowed celibacy; one by the desire of obtaining the aureole of virgins, virginity; one by love of purity, chastity.

II. If someone has contracted marriage without dispensation from an impedient vow:

1. Practically, it is preferable to obtain dispensation as soon as possible.

2. Theoretically, these things hold:

a) One who has vowed virginity cannot ask for the debt as long as virginity has been preserved; nevertheless he is bound at once to render it to the other party legitimately asking. Once the debt has been rendered, he can also ask; similarly, after the marriage has been dissolved after virginity has been lost, he can contract new nuptials. For in each case virginity is lost and the vow collapses.

b) One who has vowed perfect chastity cannot ask for the debt unless the other party is in danger of incontinence. He is bound to render the debt as long as the other party retains an unimpeded right over the spouse and licitly asks; he cannot render it if the other party has lost the unimpeded right over the spouse, whether by voluntary cessation or by adultery. If the other party asks illicitly, because that party itself is bound by a vow of chastity, he can, but is not bound to, render the debt (St. Alphonsus VI, 944). After the marriage is dissolved, he cannot enter new nuptials if the vow was perpetual and has not been totally taken away by dispensation.

c) One who has emitted a vow of not marrying can ask and render the debt, because fulfillment of the vow has become impossible. After the marriage is dissolved, the vow seems to revive.

d) One who has vowed reception of sacred Orders or entrance into the religious state is bound to execute the vow if the other party consents, or has been deprived in perpetuity of the right of asking, and execution of the vow is morally possible. Otherwise he can ask and render the debt.

¹ Constitution Ascendente Domino, May 25, 1584.

² A solemn vow of chastity - likewise a simple vow of chastity emitted in the Society of Jesus - constitutes a diriment impediment of marriage.

780. I. A Vow of Chastity. - 1. One who has emitted such a vow sins gravely by entering matrimony with the intention of consummating it, because he breaks the vow.

2. Even apart from this intention, he sins gravely because he exposes himself to the danger of violating either the vow or the right of the other spouse.

3. Once matrimony has been contracted, during the first two months he can neither seek nor render the debt, because by a divine privilege the spouses are exempt during this time from the obligation of the conjugal debt, according to what was said above, no. 759. But after this time has elapsed, he can indeed render the debt and satisfy the right of the other, but he cannot seek it without a dispensation from the vow, or without a suspension or indirect invalidation of the vow effected by the other spouse.

4. He must altogether abstain if the other consents or has lost the right of seeking, for example, because of adultery or incest. But if he can abstain only with difficulty, he must seek a dispensation as soon as possible or seek the aforesaid invalidation from the other spouse.

5. If the other spouse dies, he cannot pass to new nuptials unless he has obtained a dispensation from his vow also for this effect. - Lacroix, book 3, no. 564.

3. A simple vow of virginity, of perfect chastity, of not marrying, of receiving sacred orders, or of embracing the religious state, also hinders marriage (can. 1058, § 1), and a man (or woman) who would marry while bound by such a vow would commit a mortal sin, unless he had the firm will to keep his vow in the married state, —which would, however, be deceiving the other party, or unless both parties consent to respect the vow during the marriage, —which can hardly be allowed to them on account of human frailty.

780. The vows which constitute an impedient impediment of matrimony are not solemn vows (which indeed not only prohibit but also dirime matrimony), but are simple vows which introduce obligations incompatible with the matrimonial state.

There are five vows of this kind,¹² namely: 1. the vow not to marry, or of celibacy; 2. the vow of virginity; 3. the vow of perfect chastity; 4. the vow of embracing the religious state; 5. the vow of receiving sacred orders. The first three vows principally regard chastity, but the latter two rather regard the virtue of religion. Although theoretically the vow not to marry differs from the vow of virginity, because virginity is lost not only by the use of matrimony but also by other acts of consummated lust, nevertheless in practice the vow of virginity and the vow not to marry are wont to coincide. Sometimes the confessor can also discern with difficulty whether the penitent emitted a vow of virginity or a vow of perfect chastity. Then the penitent must be asked what he principally intended by vowing: whether, free from the burdens of matrimony, he might more easily serve God, or whether through love of purity and the most strict observance of chastity he wished to please God. In the first case the vow of virginity seems to be present, but in the other the vow of perfect chastity.

¹² Code of Canon Law, can. 1058, § 1.

781. Gravity of the obligation. One who is bound by any of these five vows (even secret and merely internal vows) has an impedient impediment, and if he nevertheless contracts matrimony, he indeed acts validly; but as regards sin, the following things are to be distinguished:

a) One who, bound by a vow not to marry or even by a vow of virginity, enters matrimony sins gravely, because he directly violates a great vow in grave matter. But once matrimony has been entered, he can seek and render the debt without a new sin, because the vow is impossible. When the matrimony has been dissolved by the death of the other party, the vow revives if it was made absolutely. But some authors probably deny this revival.¹³ One who, bound by a vow not to marry, fornicates or commits other sins against chastity does not violate the vow, since it has as its object only the renunciation of matrimony. - The bishop, a regular confessor, and other confessors having special faculties can dispense from the vow not to marry.

b) One who, bound by a simple vow of chastity, contracts matrimony sins gravely, except in the exceedingly rare case in which someone is morally certain (either through a trustworthy promise or through the vow of the other party) that he will never do anything against chastity. Thus several theologians teach that the Blessed Virgin, after emitting a vow of chastity, contracted matrimony with St. Joseph.¹⁴ - One who is bound by this vow can never seek the conjugal debt, but can render it whenever the other party exacts it by justice. But when the other party does not have a strict right to the debt, for example, after adultery has been committed, the one bound by the vow cannot render the debt, because the vow always subsists and the right of the other is not then injured through the observance of the vow. When the other party dies, the vow revives if it was perpetual. - The simple vow of chastity of which there is question here is a vow emitted either privately in the world or publicly in religious institutes. Nevertheless, simple vows emitted in the Society of Jesus constitute a diriment, and not merely a prohibitive, impediment of future matrimony. Thus from the Constitution Ascendente Domino of Gregory XIII, May 22, 1589. On November 29, 1842, the Sacred Penitentiary responded that even a vow of chastity which perhaps some Protestant had emitted with the true intention of binding himself is a simple vow of chastity, binds in conscience, and therefore constitutes an impedient impediment of matrimony.

Dispensation. Who can dispense from this vow was said above, II, n. 423 ff.

Note. Formerly, when a dispensation from a vow of perfect chastity was conceded, it was wont to be limited to a determinate matrimony, so that when this matrimony had been dissolved by the death of the other party, the vow would revive. Moreover, there was added in the rescript of dispensation that the one dispensed, "if he ever sins outside the licit use of matrimony or contracts matrimony without a new dispensation, should know that he acts against the vow of chastity and cannot exact the conjugal debt." Moreover, the confessor or superior dispensing was bound to impose some penance which had to be performed daily, so that the one who was dispensed, in fulfilling it, could always remember the obligation by which he was bound by a vow of this kind. But according to the present discipline of the Roman Curia, all these clauses are now customarily omitted and therefore do not bind.

¹³ Cf. Marc, Inst. mor., n. 1998; Raus, 18.

¹⁴ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 28, a. 4, and q. 29, a. 2.

782. c) One who, bound by a vow of entering religion, contracts matrimony sins gravely, since he almost always renders fulfillment of the vow impossible for himself. But once the matrimony has been consummated, the one who emitted the vow can licitly both render and seek the conjugal debt, because he did not directly promise chastity but entrance into religion, which has now been made impossible for him. When the matrimony has been dissolved by the death of the other party, or if perpetual divorce is lawful because of adultery or the consent of the other party, the vow revives, unless meanwhile the circumstances of affairs have been so changed that entrance into religion is morally impossible. - From this vow, if there is question of entering religion properly so called (that is, with solemn vows), no one can dispense except the Supreme Pontiff and one specially delegated by him.¹⁵ But if there is question of entering a religious congregation with simple vows alone, bishops and regular confessors can concede a dispensation.

In a rescript of dispensation conceded by the Holy See, this clause was wont to be found: "You shall commute for the one dispensed into sacramental confession each month and into other perpetual works of penance, among which works there shall be some belonging to the religious order which he vowed or would have entered, which he shall be bound to perform daily, so that in fulfilling them he can always remember the obligation by which he was bound by a vow of this kind." Therefore, for example, Communion to be received on feast days principally celebrated in that order, or the visitation of churches of the order, and so forth, is fittingly imposed upon the penitent.

d) One who, bound by a vow of receiving sacred orders, contracts matrimony sins gravely, because he renders the fulfillment of the vow morally impossible for himself. He could indeed, and would be bound to, seek the consent of the other party so that, notwithstanding the matrimony, he might be able to receive sacred orders; but the other party is in no way bound to furnish this consent. If the other party does not give consent, the one bound by the vow can licitly seek and render the conjugal debt, because he did not directly vow chastity and the fulfillment of the vow has been made impossible. But when liberty has been recovered (whether through adultery or through the death of the spouse), the vow revives unless a dispensation has been obtained, which indeed can be given by the bishop or by a regular confessor. - The bishop, a regular confessor, and other confessors having special faculties can dispense from the vow of receiving sacred orders.

¹⁵ Cf. above, II, n. 422.

91. • I. What vows impede matrimony.

"A simple vow of virginity, of perfect chastity, of not marrying, of receiving sacred orders, and of embracing the religious state impedes matrimony." (Can. 1058 § 1.)

92. • II. Whether and how one contracting matrimony, bound by those vows, sins.

a) He who has emitted a vow of not marrying sins gravely by contracting matrimony, because he injures the vow in grave matter. But once matrimony has been contracted, he can conduct himself as other spouses.

b) He who has emitted a vow of virginity sins gravely by contracting matrimony, unless he is certain from the promise or vow of the other party that he can preserve virginity in matrimony. For he gravely exposes himself to the danger of violating the vow. But once virginity has been lost, he is no longer bound to anything.

c) He who has emitted a vow of perfect chastity sins gravely by contracting matrimony, unless, as was said in the preceding case, he has full assurance concerning perfect chastity to be preserved in matrimony. Joined in matrimony, he can and ought to render the debt, but not to ask it, unless he is dispensed for this by the Bishop or by a regular confessor.

d) One bound by a vow of entering religion or receiving sacred orders sins gravely by contracting matrimony, because he makes the fulfillment of the vow impossible for himself. Rigorously speaking, he would be bound to ask from the spouse license to enter religion or to receive sacred orders. But the other party is by no means bound to consent. He can render and ask the debt, because he has not vowed chastity. Once the matrimony has been dissolved, or perpetual divorce has been pronounced, the vow revives.

93. • III. Dispensation from an impediment of this kind.

a) A vow of perfect and perpetual chastity or a vow of entering a regular order strictly so called, i.e., with solemn vows, provided that those vows were emitted absolutely, without an appended condition, and after the completed eighteenth year of age, require dispensation of the Holy See.

b) The same holds concerning a vow emitted in religion, even if it is temporary, unless in another way according to the canons the vow has ceased.

c) For the other vows, dispensation of the Bishop or of a regular confessor, granted from a just cause, suffices.

865. Principle I. A simple vow impedes matrimony, namely a vow of virginity, of perfect chastity, of not marrying, of receiving sacred orders, and of embracing the religious state. - Thus can. 1058, § 1.

A simple vow (voeu simple; gewone gelofte) is every vow which has not been recognized by the Church as solemn (can. 1308, § 2); which in five cases prohibits matrimony: a) a vow of virginity, or of preserving integrity of the flesh and abstaining from the first consummated carnal act; b) a vow of perfect chastity, or of abstaining from every venereal delectation; c) a vow of not marrying, or of not entering matrimony; d) a vow of receiving sacred orders, namely, the subdiaconate or higher orders; e) a vow of embracing the religious state, which is had in every and only society approved by legitimate ecclesiastical authority, in which the members, according to the proper laws of that society itself, pronounce public vows, perpetual or temporary, yet to be renewed when the time has elapsed, and thus tend to evangelical perfection (can. 487-488).

1. Such a vow is an impediment to matrimony not only of ecclesiastical law, but also of natural and divine law, insofar namely as matrimony can stand in the way of the fulfillment of those vows.

2. It is a merely impeding impediment, for, according to can. 1058, § 2, "no simple vow invalidates matrimony, unless invalidation has been established for some by a special prescription of the Apostolic See," as has been done for the simply professed in the Society of Jesus.

3. Hence if someone nevertheless wishes to enter matrimony, he contracts validly, as St. Thomas explains:

"The promise of some thing does not transfer it into the dominion of the one to whom it is promised. And therefore not by this very fact, that someone promises something, does that thing cease to be in his power. Since therefore in a simple vow there is nothing except a simple promise of one's own body made to God for continence to be preserved, after a simple vow a man still remains master of his own body; and therefore he can give it to another, namely, to a wife, in which giving the sacrament of matrimony consists, which is indissoluble. And on account of this a simple vow, although it impedes matrimony to be contracted, because one contracting matrimony after a simple vow of continence sins, nevertheless because there is a true contract, matrimony cannot by this be diriment... Therefore... as to the manner of binding, matrimony is a stronger bond than a simple vow, because through matrimony the man is actually handed over into the power of the wife, but not through a simple vow...; but the condition of the one possessing is always the stronger" (q. 53, a. 1 and ad 1).

4. Regularly, however, it is a sin to enter matrimony with such a vow, because it is to violate it or to expose oneself to its violation:

a) He who has emitted a vow of virginity or of perfect chastity sins gravely by contracting matrimony, unless he is certain, from the promise or vow of the other party, that he can preserve virginity or perfect chastity in matrimony; otherwise he gravely exposes himself to the danger of violating the vow. He who has vowed perfect chastity cannot ask the conjugal debt unless he has obtained dispensation, 1 but of himself he is bound to render it to one asking with the right of demanding; but when the other party has died the vow fully revives; - he who vowed virginity cannot ask the first time, but after copula has been had he is bound to nothing further, because the vow is impossible of fulfillment and does not revive.

b) He who emitted only a vow of not marrying sins gravely by entering matrimony, because he violates a vow in grave matter; but once matrimony has been entered, he can ask and render the debt as other spouses do, because the obligation of the vow ceases when it can no longer be fulfilled.

1. Eminent Cardinal Gasparri judges, o. c. n. 429-431, that this dispensation is conceded by the law itself in the celebration of matrimony, not indeed in order to contracting it, but only in order to the use of matrimony, and he invokes can. 1111: "To each spouse from the very beginning of matrimony there belongs an equal right and office as regards the acts proper to conjugal life." But this canon, as it has commonly been understood, intends only to suppress the two-month period during which there was a license of denying the conjugal debt; nor does the legislator seem to have thought of dispensation from a vow, which, moreover, does not remove right and office, but only regards the use of the right as far as it is on the part of the one vowing. And thus it seemed to all the jurists whom we were able to consult concerning this matter; and it was affirmed to us that this new interpretation is not conformable to the practice of the Roman curia.

c) One bound by a vow of entering religion or of receiving sacred orders sins gravely by contracting matrimony, because he renders the fulfillment of the vow impossible for himself. Strictly speaking, he ought to ask from the other party license to enter religion or to receive sacred orders; but that party is in no way bound to consent to this. He can render and ask the debt, because he has not vowed chastity; but when the matrimony is dissolved or perpetual divorce has been pronounced, the vow revives.

It is not always easy to establish what vow the faithful have emitted. If their intention is doubtful, let the motive of vowing be explored. He who was moved by the will of declining the burdens of matrimony is presumed to have vowed celibacy; he who was moved by the desire of obtaining a special aureole, virginity; he who was moved by love of purity, chastity.

The impediment ceases when the obligation of the vow ceases, whether from within, or by irritation, dispensation, or commutation (II, n. 732 sq.). Excepting the vow of perpetual and perfect chastity, of entering religion strictly so called with solemn vows, or one emitted in religious profession itself, which are reserved, the Ordinary can dispense from a vow, and also regular confessors.

In practice, it is often better to seek dispensation from the vow.