B. Scotus’ own Opinion

19. I say, therefore, that neither is it because of a vow properly speaking of continence annexed to Holy Orders, nor is it because of a vow annexed by precept of the Church commanding such a one not to contract, that this person cannot contract, but it is from the fact that the Church makes such person simply illegitimate.

20. And this indeed was established reasonably, whether it was had from Christ or not, because such person is deputed to a sacred ministry that requires purity of mind and perspicuity of intellect and fervor of affection and bodily purity, to all which things continence disposes, and to the opposites of which frequency of the carnal act disposes.

21. Nor ought anyone to say that in this the Church is prejudicing him in his right, because the Church does not commonly compel any to reception of Holy Orders, and has made it sufficiently public that, after such Orders have been received, the receiver is unsuited for contracting;     therefore if he comes voluntarily, he voluntarily incurs this unsuitability.

22. Hence from the fact that the Church prescribes continence to him when the bishop asks in the conferring of Orders “if chaste and pure etc     .” [from the ordination rite in the old Pontifical Books] and gives him Orders in public, if he do not complain, he is from then on a person illegitimate for contracting matrimony, and nothing happens if he does contract. Statement of this illegitimacy is contained in Gratian, Decretum, p.1 d.27 ch.8 “For priests,” and Gregory IX, Decretals III tit.34 ch.10, ‘About vow etc.’ But if there could be found another reason on the part of the contract why he who is at the top as regard Holy Orders cannot contract, it would please me, but it would be difficult to find it.