The impediment of orders or vows, and dispensation from it

580. Nature of the Impediment. The impediment of order consists in this, that one who has received sacred order (subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood) cannot enter valid matrimony.¹

a. Sacred order does not dirimently impede matrimony contracted beforehand, but only impedes its use.

b. The question hitherto disputed, whether a cleric receiving major order must emit a vow of chastity at least implicitly, the new Code does not solve. Therefore it is not certain whether the force invalidating matrimony arises from ecclesiastical law alone, or from the law of the Church by means of a vow, or from law and vow together.

1. A threefold condition is required for inducing this impediment:

a. That the ordination be valid.

b. That it be freely received. The Code establishes concerning this matter: one who, compelled by grave fear, received sacred order and, when the fear had been removed, did not ratify the ordination, is to be declared immune from clerical obligations.² Once this has been done, he can validly and licitly enter matrimony.

c. That it be received with knowledge of the obligation: for the Church does not wish to impose this burden on a cleric unless he himself freely wills it.

a. If someone compelled by grave and unjust fear receives sacred ordination, the ordination is indeed valid; nevertheless the ordained man is neither held to continence nor rendered incapable of contracting matrimony, unless afterward expressly or tacitly (by the exercise of sacred order) he consents to the obligation of celibacy annexed by the statute of the Church to the order.

b. There are those who say that a solemn vow emitted in a religious order and in receiving sacred order is one impediment;³ nevertheless some authors hold that they are different impediments, because the reason and effect of each impediment are different.⁴

2. This impediment is of ecclesiastical law: for it must be derived neither from the nature of sacred order nor from the internal force of a solemn vow of chastity, but from ecclesiastical law alone.⁵ For a vow dirimently impedes matrimony not by its nature, but from the disposition of the Church. Moreover, that sacred order can be joined with matrimony is gathered from the practice of the Eastern Church.

A dispensation is never granted to a priest; so much so that from the acts it is not established that this dispensation for contracting matrimony has ever been granted (but only for convalidating matrimony). There is less difficulty of dispensation with deacons and subdeacons.

3. The penalties in force today are: a. excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See, which both the cleric attempting matrimony and the person with whom he attempts it incur;⁶ b. loss of all offices by the fact itself, if he has contracted matrimony even only civilly;⁷ c. degradation, if, after having been warned by the ordinary, he does not repent within the predetermined time;⁸ d. irregularity from delict.⁹

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, De sacr. matrim. Cn. 1072: Clerics constituted in sacred orders invalidly attempt matrimony.

² Cn. 214, 1.

³ Lehmkuhl, Th. mor. II, n. 749 (n. 981).

⁴ Cf. Matharan, n. 251.

⁵ Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 12, c. 4, n. 2. Wernz IV, n. 298.

⁶ Cn. 2388, 1.

⁷ Cn. 188, 5.

⁸ Cn. 2388, 1.

⁹ Cn. 985, 3.

581. Nature of the Impediment. The impediment of vow consists in this, that those cannot enter valid matrimony who have spontaneously emitted a solemn vow of perfect chastity in a religious order, or even only a simple vow to which, nevertheless, by special privilege, there is attached the force of dirimently impeding matrimony.¹

a. A solemn vow: for a simple vow of perfect chastity emitted in religion impedes matrimony, but does not dirimently impede it. b. In a religious order: for a simple vow of perfect and perpetual chastity emitted in some congregation likewise does not dirimently impede matrimony. c. Of perfect chastity: for a solemn vow not of perfect chastity but only of conjugal chastity, which is emitted in some equestrian orders, does not constitute an impediment. d. Spontaneously: for, in order that a solemn vow dirimently impede matrimony, religious profession must be valid; but it is not valid if it is not entirely free, but was extorted by fraud or grave and unjust fear.

Therefore a solemn vow of chastity emitted in religion has a twofold effect with regard to matrimony: of dissolving matrimony already contracted, if it has not yet been consummated, and of dirimently impeding future matrimony.

1. The impediment of vow is of ecclesiastical law only: for if the vow itself by its nature produced this effect, a simple vow also, since in its internal nature it does not differ from a solemn vow, would dirimently impede matrimony. Therefore it dirimently impedes insofar as it is solemn; but a vow has solemnity from the Church; therefore it also has from the Church the force of dirimently impeding matrimony.

a. Hence it follows that the supreme pontiff can dispense one who has emitted solemn profession for entering matrimony. This dispensation, although granted rarely and with difficulty, has nevertheless sometimes been granted by supreme pontiffs both formerly and again recently by Leo XIII.²

b. One dispensing in a solemn vow for entering matrimony properly exercises a twofold and diverse power: one by which he removes the solemnity of the vow, or the incapacity for contracting annexed to the vow; another by which he relaxes the vow itself. The solemnity of the vow is of ecclesiastical law and renders matrimony invalid; the obligation of the vow is of divine law and renders matrimony only illicit.

2. From the special privilege of the supreme pontiff, the simple vows of scholastics and coadjutors of the Society of Jesus dirimently impede future matrimony, unless the general has dispensed, or so long as they have remained in the Society.³

From the old law, the spouse remaining in the world, whose other party with that spouse's consent had entered religion or received sacred orders, had to emit a simple vow of chastity. This vow made matrimony entered after the death of the spouse, according to some, illicit, according to others, invalid.⁴ Today this question is obsolete, since a spouse cannot validly be admitted to the novitiate while the matrimony endures.⁵

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9, De sacr. matrim. Cn. 1073: Religious who have professed solemn vows invalidly attempt matrimony, or simple vows to which, by special prescription of the Apostolic See, the force of invalidating nuptials has been added.

² S. Office, February 20, 1888.

³ Constitution Ascendente Domino of Gregory XIII, May 25, 1584; constitution Dolentes of Leo XIII, July 13, 1886.

⁴ Cf. Wernz IV, n. 320, 395. Benedict XIV, De synodo, l. 13, c. 12, n. 1.

⁵ Cn. 542, 1.

A solemn vow of chastity, taken in a religious order, strictly so called, or taken implicitly when sacred Orders are received in the Latin Church, is a diriment impediment of marriage by ecclesiastical law. This has long been the practice of the Western Church, and it was solemnly enunciated by the Council of ‘Trent: “ If anyone saith that clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or vow; and that the contrary is nothing else than to condemn marriage; and that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does he suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.”¹

In the Eastern Church marriage may be contracted before receiving sacred Orders, and those who have married may use their marital rights after receiving sacred Orders, but sacred Orders are a bar to contracting a new marriage. This shows that sacred Orders, apart from the vow, which in the Latin Church is taken when they are received, are a diriment impediment of marriage. By a special privilege, the simple vow of chastity taken by members of the Society of Jesus at their first profession is also a diriment impediment of marriage.

¹ Sess. xxiv, C. 9; can. 1072, 1073.

As this impediment owes its origin to ecclesiastical law, the Church can dispense in it, but she seldom does so except for grave reasons which concern the public weal. Leo XIII granted bishops the faculty of dispensing, by themselves or through some trusty ecclesiastic, the sick who are in great danger of death so that there is not time to have recourse to the Holy See, from all, even public, impediments which annul marriage by ecclesiastical law, except the priesthood and affinity in the direct line arising out of the lawful use of marriage.¹ This was confirmed and extended by Canons 1043, 1044.

¹ S.0., February 20, 1888.

797. • I. A vow diriment of matrimony is only a solemn vow of chastity ¹, emitted through profession in an approved Religion. For a simple vow of chastity, even perfect and perpetual, does not invalidate matrimony ², but only impedes it, according to what was said above, no. 779.

¹ It is called a vow of chastity, not a religious vow, because religious profession invalidates matrimony precisely and only insofar as it includes a solemn vow of chastity. Therefore the vows, even solemn ones, of certain Equestrian Orders which profess only conjugal chastity do not invalidate matrimony. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 6, no. 45.

² The simple vows which, by a special privilege of Gregory XIII, are emitted in the Society of Jesus after two years of novitiate must be excepted, as we said elsewhere in the note to no. 759 above.

II. The Order diriment of matrimony, however, is sacred Order, namely, the Presbyterate, Diaconate, and Subdiaconate.

The First and Second Lateran Councils speak concerning each of these impediments, and the Council of Trent, session 24, canon 9, says: If anyone shall say that Clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or Regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the matrimony contracted is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or the vow, let him be anathema ³.

³ ** In the sole Clementine Constitution On Consanguinity and Affinity, a latae sententiae excommunication is imposed both against those who knowingly do not fear to contract matrimony with a nun and against nuns, Religious, and Clerics constituted in sacred Orders who contract matrimony. Moreover, this excommunication was not absolutely reserved, although the guilty could not be absolved before separation; but after separation they could be absolved by any confessor, unless perhaps the excommunicated persons had been denounced, for then the Bishop alone could absolve them. But under the new law this excommunication is altogether reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries. For in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis issued by Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX in the year 1869, among the latae sententiae excommunications reserved to Bishops or Ordinaries, this is read in the first place: Against Clerics constituted in sacred Orders, or Regulars and nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, presuming to contract matrimony, and also all those presuming to contract matrimony with any of the aforesaid persons.

798. Questions. - QUESTION 1. By what law do the aforesaid impediments invalidate matrimony?

Reply 1. According to the common opinion, the impediment of Order invalidates only by ecclesiastical law ⁴. The reason is that, on the one hand, Order of itself is not repugnant to the conjugal state; nor, on the other hand, is there any divine prohibition found in Scripture or tradition. - St. Ligorius, no. 1059.

⁴ See the note above to no. 41.

Reply 2. Since the solemnity of a vow belongs to ecclesiastical law, by that very fact the Pope can dispense, provided that a sufficient cause is present, that is, one proportioned to the gravity of the matter ⁵.

⁵ That the Pontiff can dispense from this impediment is the most received opinion of Theologians and Canonists, a long series of whom Sanchez cites (On Matrimony, book 8, disputation 8, no. 7); and indeed examples of this dispensation having been granted are everywhere available, as can be seen in Schmalzgrueber, book 3, title 35, no. 48.

QUESTION 2. What conditions are required for a solemn vow and Order to invalidate matrimony?

Reply 1. As regards a vow, it must have been emitted: first, voluntarily and deliberately; second, with the true intention of binding oneself; otherwise the vow would not be valid.

Reply 2. As regards Order, it is required: first, that it was received validly; second, that it was received voluntarily. - Thus all.

124. • I. Notion of the impediment.

"Clerics constituted in sacred orders invalidly attempt matrimony." (Can. 1072.)

125. • II. Whom this impediment holds.

a) Every cleric of the Latin Church who has received at least the order of subdiaconate can neither validly contract matrimony nor use matrimony contracted before the order was received.

b) There is excepted: 1. he whose ordination is invalid.

2. He who, compelled by force or grave fear, received sacred order, unless afterward, fear having been removed, he ratified the ordination expressly or tacitly.

3. He who received order before puberty, unless after the years of puberty he freely ratified the ordination.

4. He who was not sufficiently instructed concerning the obligation of observing chastity.

126. • III. Quality of this impediment.

Without any doubt it is of merely ecclesiastical law.

127. • IV. What is the obligation of observing chastity for clerics in major orders.

Although several think otherwise, nevertheless that obligation seems to arise not from ecclesiastical law alone, but from a vow annexed to the subdiaconate by the will of the Church. And therefore a cleric in major orders, sinning internally against chastity, commits true sacrilege. But in the opposite opinion it is not explained how an internal violation of chastity is sacrilegious.

128. • V. Dispensation.

The Holy See, by its undoubted power of dispensing from this impediment, never uses it with Bishops, very rarely with presbyters, more rarely with deacons, and rarely with a subdeacon, although for these two last orders modern praxis is easier.

129. • VI. Penalties against transgressors.

a) Excommunication latae sententiae and simply reserved to the Apostolic See, both for the cleric himself and for the person with whom he attempts to contract matrimony, even civilly only. (Can. 2388, § 1.)

b) If, after being warned, within a time determined beforehand by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, they have not come to their senses, let them be degraded (ibid.).

c) Loss by the fact itself and without any declaration of all ecclesiastical offices. (Can. 188, 5°.)

d) Irregularity from delict. (Can. 985, 3°.)

130. • VII. Discipline of the Eastern Church.

a) One constituted in major orders cannot contract matrimony. Among certain Churches, however, the custom is to permit matrimony to subdeacons.

b) A married man can receive the subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate, and use matrimony as before the order was received.

c) A married man cannot be assumed into the episcopate except by dispensation, and with the obligation of observing perfect chastity.

d) Whether matrimony attempted by a cleric in major orders of the Eastern Church is not only illicit, but also invalid as in the Latin Church, up to this time has not been defined by the Apostolic See by a decree binding all the Oriental Churches.

It is invalid: 1) for Italo-Greeks and Romanians as to the subdeacon.

2. for Maronites as to the deacon.

3. for Ruthenians as to the presbyter.

For the other Orientals, authors commonly and more probably hold, even for schismatics, with few exceptions, that matrimony is invalid.

e) Not from a vow, but from ecclesiastical law alone, sacred order impedes one from contracting matrimony.¹

¹ Cf. Capello, op. cit., n. 436.

131. • I. Notion of that impediment.

"Religious who have professed solemn vows, or simple vows to which by special prescription of the Apostolic See the force of invalidating nuptials has been added, invalidly attempt matrimony." (Can. 1073.)

Already the Council of Trent had defined the existence of this impediment:¹ "If anyone shall have said... that regulars solemnly professed in chastity can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid notwithstanding... the vow; and that the opposite is nothing other than to condemn matrimony, and that all can contract matrimony who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it: let him be anathema."

¹ Sess. XXIV, De sac. Matr., can. 9. Denz-Bannwart, n. 979.

132. • II. Extension of the impediment.

To this impediment are subject:

a) those who have validly professed solemn vows. Solemn vows are only those which are recognized by the Church as such. Otherwise they are simple. Vows of this kind do not exist except in Orders strictly so called.

b) Scholastics of the Society of Jesus who have emitted simple vows after the two-year novitiate. Thus by special statute of the Holy See.

133. • III. Nature of the impediment.

a) For the simple vows of the Society of Jesus, the impediment most certainly has force from ecclesiastical law alone.

b) For solemn vows, formerly it was sharply disputed among theologians and canonists whether they dirimently impede matrimony by divine or ecclesiastical law. But today most think that the diriment impediment of solemn vow is of merely ecclesiastical law, although the matter still remains doubtful, with theologians of the best note opining otherwise.

134. • IV. Dispensation.

S. Th., Suppl., q. 53, a. 2-4.

889. Notions. - This double impediment has a certain likeness, because each is connected with the obligation of chastity: it is an incapacity for contracting matrimony arising from the reception of sacred order or from the emission of a solemn vow in religious profession.

1° From sacred order (ordre sacre; heilige wijding). From the beginnings of the Church, both in the East and in the West, after sacred order had been received, it was forbidden to enter matrimony, conformably to the saying of the Apostle, I Tim. III, 2; which impediment, at least impeding from the beginning, gradually became diriment. In the Latin Church it was always observed, although not always by all, that those who, joined in matrimony, received sacred orders should thereafter be separated from their wives; and from ancient times (from the sixth century) the obligation of celibacy was attached to the subdiaconate, to which afterward there was added the impediment diriment of matrimony to be contracted, at least from the twelfth century. But among the Orientals the obligation of celibacy was not generally imposed, nor is the subdiaconate a sacred order; they preserved the custom that, bishops excepted, presbyters and deacons should retain wives taken before ordination; nevertheless, when the wife has died, they cannot enter a new matrimony. This they sanctioned in the year 692 in the Trullan Council.

2° From solemn vow (voeu solennel; plechtige gelofte). The vow of perfect and perpetual chastity, which is emitted in solemn religious profession, such as occurs only in religious Orders, is not only, like a simple vow, an impeding impediment of matrimony, but also diriment, which renders matrimony invalid, as was authentically declared at least from the twelfth century.

890. Principle I. Clerics constituted in sacred orders invalidly attempt matrimony. - Thus can. 1072, conformably to the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9.

Three conditions are required in order that the impediment be incurred:

1° That the ordination be valid;

2° That it be received freely, without coercion or grave fear;

3° That it be received with at least confused knowledge of the obligation connected with the order: for the Church does not will to impose this obligation on the cleric unless he himself wills it.

Hence: a) "A cleric who, compelled by grave fear, received sacred order and afterward, the fear having been removed, did not ratify the same ordination at least tacitly by the exercise of the order, yet willing through such an act to subject himself to clerical obligations, is to be reduced to the lay state, the coercion and the defect of ratihabition having been legitimately proved, by sentence of the judge, without any obligations of celibacy and of canonical hours," can. 214, § 2.

b) Similarly in a case of ignorance of the obligation, although this ignorance can scarcely be present except in infants who would be ordained, or in the prepubescent.

c) In each case, proof must be instituted for the sentence of the judge according to the norm of can. 1993-1998.

The impediment, insofar as it is diriment of matrimony to be contracted, is of ecclesiastical law; nevertheless, for the order of the episcopate, dispensation has never been given from it, so that one could suspect that there is present there a disposition of divine law. But insofar as order is a prohibitive impediment of matrimony to be contracted, it seems to rest upon fittingnesses of divine law; yet the obligation of celibacy which in the Latin Church is attached to the subdiaconate is most certainly of ecclesiastical law. Moreover, it can be disputed whether the impediment rests immediately upon the vow which is attached to the order of subdiaconate, or rather upon ecclesiastical law, although it matters nothing for practice; now the obligation of continence rests immediately upon the vow, yet in such a way that he who did not wish to elicit the vow would be held by ecclesiastical law, but the incapacity itself for matrimony nevertheless seems to arise immediately from ecclesiastical law.

Hence St. Thomas: "Sacred order of its own nature has, from a certain congruity, that it ought to impede matrimony; because those constituted in sacred orders handle sacred vessels and sacraments, and therefore it is becoming that they preserve bodily cleanness through continence. But that it impedes matrimony it has from the constitution of the Church. Yet otherwise among the Latins than among the Greeks. For among the Greeks it impedes matrimony to be contracted only from the force of the order. But among the Latins it impedes from the force of the order, and further from the vow of continence, which is attached to the orders: which even if someone does not emit it in words, from this very fact that he receives order according to the rite of the Western Church, he is understood to have emitted. And therefore among the Greeks and other Orientals sacred order impedes matrimony to be contracted, but not the use of matrimony previously contracted: for they can use matrimony previously contracted, although they cannot contract anew. But in the Western Church it impedes matrimony and the use of matrimony: unless perhaps, with the wife ignorant or contradicting, the husband received sacred order; because from this no prejudice can be generated to her... For order everywhere impedes matrimony to be contracted, although not everywhere does it have a vow attached" q. 53, a. 3 and ad 2.

891. Observations. - 1. Dispensation from this impediment is never conceded to bishops, very rarely to priests and rather on account of a public cause, less rarely to deacons and subdeacons, even on account of a private cause.

2. Although order irritates matrimony to be contracted, nevertheless matrimony contracted of itself does not impede order. Yet, according to the present-day discipline of the Latin Church, men having a wife are simply impeded from orders (can. 987). Hence a married man who without apostolic dispensation received major orders, although in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those same orders (can. 132, § 3); but if he is legitimately promoted to them, the wife living and consenting, he is held to the same continence as if he had been ordained before matrimony and is bound to abstain from the use of matrimony (can. 132, § 1), so that the offspring would be sacrilegious and illegitimate (can. 1114).

3. One deposed, degraded, or reduced to the lay state is not thereby liberated from the obligation of celibacy (can. 213, § 2), unless at the same time he has obtained dispensation from it.

892. Principle II. Religious who have professed solemn vows invalidly attempt matrimony, or simple vows to which, from a special prescription of the Apostolic See, the force of irritating nuptials has been added. - Thus can. 1073, conformably to the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9.

Three conditions are required for the impediment:

1° That someone be a professed religious, which is to be understood of religious of either sex (can. 490);

2° That he have professed validly, from spontaneous and full liberty and according to the other conditions indicated by can. 572;

3° That he have professed perfect chastity through solemn vows, which are recognized by the Church as such (can. 1308, § 2), and which are made only in religious Orders, although in them simple vows are sometimes emitted.

Sometimes to a simple vow there is added the force of irritating matrimony, as to simple profession emitted in the Society of Jesus; but thus it is done from a special precept of the Supreme Pontiff rather than from a canonical impediment properly so called.

From what law the impediment of solemn vow arises was long disputed. More recent authors generally hold as certain that it arises from ecclesiastical law alone, both because a solemn vow does not differ by its nature from a simple vow, but the whole solemnity is from the will of the Church and from the juridic effects attached by her, and because the Church has sometimes dispensed from this impediment, even on account of a private good. Others, especially in ancient times, posit an essential difference between solemn and simple vow: the latter consists in the simple promise of a thing to be handed over to God, the former besides in the actual handing over, of itself irrevocable, into the dominion of God and in the spiritual consecration of the one vowing, which the Church accepts in the name of God; which, so long as it endures, irritates matrimony, and therefore from natural and divine law. Hence the Church cannot take away the impediment, unless first in the name of God she remits the special obligation of solemn vow.

This seems more conformable to St. Thomas, who writes thus:

"1° He who makes a solemn vow contracts spiritual matrimony with God, which is much worthier than material matrimony. But material matrimony previously contracted diriments matrimony contracted afterward. Therefore a solemn vow does so.

2° All say that, just as solemn vow impedes matrimony to be contracted, so it diriments it already contracted. But certain men... say that this is on account of the statute of the Church. But this does not suffice; because according to this the Church could also establish the contrary. Which does not seem true.

And therefore it must be said, with others, that solemn vow from its own nature has that it diriments contracted matrimony: insofar, namely, as through it a man has lost power over his own body, handing it over to God for perpetual continence. And therefore he cannot hand it over into the power of a wife by contracting matrimony. And because the matrimony which follows such a vow is null, therefore the aforesaid vow is said to diriment contracted matrimony... Therefore solemn vow has an actual exhibition of one's own body, which simple vow does not have" q. 53, a. 2 and ad 3.

893. Penalties against transgressors. - 1. "Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract matrimony, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See," can. 2388, § 1.

2. Clerics besides, if, after being admonished, within a time prefixed by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, they have not come to their senses, are to be degraded (can. 2388, § 1).

3. The same by the fact itself and without any declaration lose all ecclesiastical offices (can. 188, 5°).

4. Clerics in sacred orders and regulars are irregular from delict (can. 985, 3°).

5. Religious incur by the fact itself the penalty of dismissal from religion (can. 646, 3°).

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

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

2. Is the same impediment dispensable?

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

4. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

2. May a dispensation be had from this impediment?

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

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

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

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

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