Dist. 37, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 37
Articulus I. De impedimento ordinis.
Quaestio I. Utrum ordines minores impediant matrimonium.
Quantum ergo ad primum, quod minores ordines non impediant matrimonium, videtur:
1. Per multas auctoritates, quas adducit Magister in littera1, maxime de illa Leonis Papae, quae sumta est de distinctione trigesima secunda.
2. Item, in Extra, de Clericis coniugatis2, dicit Alexander tertius: « Si qui clericorum infra subdiaconatum acceperint uxores, ipsos ad retinendas uxores districtione ecclesiastica compellatis ».
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia ad minores ordines ut plurimum parvuli promoventur; sed tales non sunt cogendi ad continentiam: ergo etc.
4. Item, in ingressu religionis est status, in quo quis probat et probatur, antequam ad votum continentiae obligetur: ergo pari ratione — immo multo fortiori, cum difficilius sit in saeculo continere — status debet determinari, in quo clerici possint probare et probari, utrum velint vivere casti, et in illo non debent ad castitatem obligari; sed iste est ordinum inferiorum: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Distinctione trigesima secunda3: « Lectores, cum ad annos pubertatis venerint, cogantur aut uxorem ducere, aut continentiam profiteri »: ergo si lectores sunt in statu inferiorum ordinum, videtur, quod compellantur ad continentiam: ergo etc.
2. Item, minores clerici statim, ut sunt clerici, in sortem Dei sunt vocati, et ideo dicti sunt clerici, quia in sortem Dei sunt segregati; sed qui habet uxorem est divisus, sicut dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios septimo4: ergo nullus clericus potest nec debet habere uxorem: ergo etc.
3. Item, omnis clericus in minori officio sive ordine constitutus potest habere beneficium ecclesiasticum, maxime si intendat ulterius promoveri, saltem beneficium sine cura; sed nullus coniugatus potest nec debet habere beneficium praebendale, sicut dicitur Extra, de Clericis coniugatis5, Diversis fallaciis etc.: ergo nullus clericus potest esse coniugatus.
4. Item, omnis clericus in minori officio constitutus potest gaudere privilegio clericali; sed nullus uxoratus potest gaudere privilegio clericali: ergo nullus clericus potest esse uxoratus. Maior manifesta est, minor patet per decretalem de Clericis coniugatis6, Ioannes, et infra, ubi dicitur, quod « uxoratus etiam tonsuratus non potest privilegio clericali gaudere ». Si tu dicas, quod istae rationes non valent, quia qui est clericus potest non esse clericus, et ita potest esse uxoratus; contra: ordinis Sacramentum est per impressionem characteris: ergo sicut baptizatus non potest esse non baptizatus, ita videtur, quod clericus non possit fieri non clericus sive non ordinatus.
Conclusio. Ordines minores per se non obstant contractui et usui matrimonii; sed ministerium et beneficium, quae illis non sunt necessario annexa, in Ecclesia occidentali oppositionem habent ad matrimonium quoad usum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in ordinibus minoribus est considerare ordinem et officium sive ministerium et beneficium; secundum haec tria possunt comparari ad matrimonium. Et ordo minor nullam habet oppositionem ad matrimonium ratione sui sive characteris, nec quantum ad contractum matrimonii nec quantum ad usum; sed ministerium et beneficium secundum Ecclesiam occidentalem oppositionem habent ad matrimonium quantum ad usum propter honestatem. Et quoniam clericus in minoribus ordinibus non tenetur nec est alligatus7 ad officium nec ad ministerium8; ideo potest contrahere sine aliquo impedimento. Et ita concedendum est, quod minores ordines matrimonio non praestant impedimentum.
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod lectores debent continentiam promittere; dicendum, quod illud capitulum debet intelligi, quando promoventur ad subdiaconatum, alioquin solum est consilium.
Ad 2. 3. 4. Ad illa vero quae obiiciuntur post, iam patet responsio. Obiicit enim de clerico quantum ad ministerium et quantum ad beneficium et privilegium, quae non sunt necessario annexa minoribus ordinibus; ideo nec matrimonium repugnat, ita quod non possit transferri de uno statu ad alium; impeditur tamen, ut non possit nec debeat simul in utroque statu militare, quia nemo militans Deo debet se saecularibus negotiis implicare1.
I. De impedimento duplici, scilicet ordinis et voti (de ultimo agitur in dist. seq.), Concil. Trident. (Sess. XXIV. can. 9.) sic decrevit: « Si quis dixerit, clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel regulares castitatem solemniter professos posse matrimonium contrahere, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica, vel voto; et oppositum nihil aliud esse quam damnare matrimonium; posseque omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt, se castitatis, etiam si voverint, habere donum, a. s.; cum Deus id recte petentibus non deneget nec patiatur, nos supra id quod possumus, tentari ». — Impedimentum ordinis esse iuris ecclesiastici, communis opinio contra paucos tenet; est tamen constitutum ob graves rationes, ab ipso iure naturali insinuatas et ab auctore nostro q. 3. explicatas. Apud Graecos autem ordo sacer impedit quidem matrimonium contrahendum, non vero matrimonii prius contracti usum. — De 1. quaestione non est controversia; sed circa 2. primo controvertitur, utrum ab ipso exordio Ecclesiae, an tantum post prima saecula impedimentum ita valuerit, ut matrimonia in sacris ordinibus contracta essent non tantum illicita, sed etiam invalida, ut nonnulli putaverunt (cfr. Estius, hic § 1. 2.); secundo vero, utrum haec obligatio ad continentiam imponatur vi solius legis ecclesiasticae, an etiam vi voti annexi. Primam sententiam Scot. (hic n. 2. seqq.) defendit cum non paucis posterioribus; sed secundam esse valde probabilem respectu Latinorum, cum S. Bonav. tenet etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 53. a. 3. 4.), licet Gotti (Theol., de Sacram. ord. q. 1. dub. 3.) eundem fere ad 1. sententiam trahere velit.
De 1. 2. et 3. quaestione praeter locos citt.: B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.
---
Article I. On the impediment of orders.
Question I. Whether minor orders impede marriage.
As to the first point, then — that minor orders do not impede marriage — it seems so:
1. From the many authorities that the Master adduces in the text1, especially from that one of Pope Leo, which is taken from the thirty-second distinction.
2. Likewise, in the Extra [Decretals], On Married Clerics2, Alexander III says: « If any clerics below the subdiaconate should take wives, you are to compel them by ecclesiastical stringency to retain their wives ».
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because for the most part young boys are promoted to minor orders; but such persons are not to be compelled to continence: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, at the entry into religious life there is a state in which one both tests and is tested, before one is bound to the vow of continence: therefore by like reason — indeed by a much stronger one, since it is harder to be continent in the world — a state ought to be determined in which clerics can test and be tested, whether they wish to live chastely, and in that state they ought not to be bound to chastity; but this is [the state] of the lower orders: therefore, etc.
On the contrary:
1. At the thirty-second distinction3: « Let the lectors, when they have reached the years of puberty, be compelled either to take a wife or to profess continence »: therefore, if lectors are in the state of the lower orders, it seems that they are compelled to continence: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, minor clerics, at once, as they are clerics, are called into the lot of God, and are for that reason called clerics, because they are set apart into the lot of God; but he who has a wife is divided, as the Apostle says in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the seventh [chapter]4: therefore no cleric can or ought to have a wife: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, every cleric established in a minor office or order can have an ecclesiastical benefice, especially if he intends to be promoted further, at least a benefice without cure [of souls]; but no married man can or ought to have a prebendal benefice, as is said in the Extra, On Married Clerics5, Diversis fallaciis, etc.: therefore no cleric can be married.
4. Likewise, every cleric established in a minor office can enjoy the clerical privilege; but no married man can enjoy the clerical privilege: therefore no cleric can be married. The major [premise] is manifest, the minor is plain from the decretal On Married Clerics6, Ioannes, and below, where it is said that « a married man, even though tonsured, cannot enjoy the clerical privilege ». If you say that these reasonings are not valid, because he who is a cleric can be a non-cleric, and so can be married; on the contrary: the Sacrament of order is by the impression of a character: therefore, just as one baptized cannot be unbaptized, so it seems that a cleric cannot become a non-cleric or non-ordained.
Conclusion. Minor orders of themselves are no obstacle to the contract and the use of marriage; but the ministry and the benefice, which are not necessarily annexed to them, in the Western Church have an opposition to marriage as regards its use.
I respond: It must be said that in the minor orders there is to be considered the order and the office or ministry and benefice; according to these three they can be compared to marriage. And the minor order has no opposition to marriage by reason of itself or of the character, neither as regards the contract of marriage nor as regards its use; but the ministry and benefice, according to the Western Church, have an opposition to marriage as regards its use, on account of decency. And since a cleric in the minor orders is neither bound nor tied7 to the office nor to the ministry8, therefore he can contract without any impediment. And so it must be granted that minor orders furnish no impediment to marriage.
To 1. To that, then, which is objected — that lectors must promise continence — it must be said that that chapter is to be understood of when they are promoted to the subdiaconate; otherwise it is only counsel.
To 2, 3, 4. To the things objected afterward, the response is now plain. For [the objector] argues about the cleric as regards the ministry and as regards the benefice and privilege, which are not necessarily annexed to minor orders; therefore neither is marriage incompatible [with them], such that one could not be transferred from one state to the other; nevertheless he is impeded, so that he cannot and ought not to serve in both states at once, because no one serving as God's soldier ought to entangle himself in worldly affairs1.
I. On the twofold impediment, namely of order and of vow (the latter is treated in the following distinction), the Council of Trent (Session XXIV, canon 9) decreed thus: « If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage, and that the contract is valid notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law or the vow; and that the opposite is nothing else than to condemn marriage; and that all can contract marriage who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it — let him be anathema; since God does not deny it to those who rightly ask, nor does He suffer us to be tempted beyond what we are able ». — That the impediment of order is of ecclesiastical law is what the common opinion, against a few, holds; yet it was established for grave reasons, intimated by the natural law itself and set out by our author in q. 3. Among the Greeks, however, sacred order does indeed impede marriage to be contracted, but not the use of a marriage previously contracted. — On the 1st question there is no controversy; but concerning the 2nd it is first disputed whether from the very beginning of the Church, or only after the first ages, the impediment had such force that marriages contracted in sacred orders were not only illicit but even invalid, as some have thought (cf. Estius here, §§ 1, 2); and secondly, whether this obligation to continence is imposed by the force of ecclesiastical law alone, or also by the force of an annexed vow. The first opinion Scotus (here n. 2 ff.) defends, with not a few later writers; but that the second is highly probable — as regards the Latins, with St. Bonaventure — St. Thomas also holds (here q. 1, a. 1, 2; Suppl. q. 53, a. 3, 4), although Gotti (Theol., On the Sacrament of order, q. 1, dub. 3) would draw him nearly to the first opinion.
On the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd question, besides the passages cited: Bl. Albert here a. 1–3. — Peter of Tarentaise here q. 1, a. 1–4. — Richard of Middleton here a. 1, q. 1, 2. — Durandus here q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian here q. 1.
---
- 1Hic c. 1.Here, c. 1 [of the Master's text at this distinction].
- 2Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 1.Book III, tit. 3, c. 1 [of the Liber Extra].
- 3Can. 8. Cod. L cum textu originali uxores pro uxorem.Canon 8. Codex L, with the original text, [reads] uxores for uxorem.
- 4Vers. 33. — De maiori cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 1. in fine.Verse 33. — On the major [premise] cf. above in the Master's text, d. XXIV, c. 1, at the end.
- 5Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 5.Book III, tit. 3, c. 5.
- 6Libr. III. tit. 3. c. 7.Book III, tit. 3, c. 7.
- 7Edd. obligatus.The editions [read] obligatus.
- 8Videtur legendum esse beneficium, attenta divisione supra posita.It seems one should read beneficium, given the division set out above.
- 1Epist. II. Tim. 2, 4: Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus.2nd Letter to Timothy 2:4: No one serving as God's soldier entangles himself in worldly affairs. ---