Celibacy of the Clergy

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in theWestern Church. Speaking, for the moment, only ofWestern Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by thebishop at the beginning of theceremony regarding the gravity of theobligation which they are incurring. He tells them:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of thesubdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service ofGod, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.

By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of theordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by avow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of thisvow is not only a grievoussin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.

Before turning to the history of this observance it will be convenient to deal in the first place with certain general principles involved. Thelaw of celibacy has repeatedly been made the object of attack, especially of recent years, and it is important at the outset to correct certain prejudices thus created. Although we do not find in theNew Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom theyordained, we have ample warrant in the language ofOur Saviour, and ofSt. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. InMatthew 19:12, Christ clearly commends those who, "for the sake of the kingdom of God", have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: "he who can accept it, let him accept it".St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift fromGod .... But I say to the unmarried and to thewidows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may pleaseGod. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarriedwoman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and32-35)

Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies theChurch's action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period theChurch was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body ofChrist, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virginpriesthood. AmongJews andpagans thepriesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in theChurch ofChrist, as an antithesis to this, thepriestly character was imparted by theHoly Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of theChristianpriesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a highersanctity and clearer spiritualintuitions, seems to be aninstinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where thepriest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoined that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. Nodoubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of theFathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed tosubdeacons of theMiddle Ages at the time of theirordination. "With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe thelaw of continence, as it is written 'be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord?' "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).

On the other hand, such motives as are dwelt upon in the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians are of a kind which must appeal to the intelligence of all. The more holy and exalted we represent the state of marriage to be, the more we justify the marriedpriest in giving the first place in his thoughts to his wife andfamily and only the second to his work. It would be hard to find more unexceptionable testimony to this point of view than that ofDr. Döllinger. No scholar of this generation was more intimately acquainted with the by-ways ofmedieval history. No one could have supplied so much material for achronique scandaleuse like that which Dr. Lea has compiled in his history of celibacy. Moreover, whenDr. Döllinger severed his connection with theChurch after theVatican Council, he had absolutely no motive to influence his judgment in favour of Rome's traditional discipline, if it were not that he believed that the lesson both of the past and the present was clear. Nevertheless, when theOld Catholics abolished compulsory celibacy for thepriesthood,Dr. Döllinger, as we are told by the intimate friend of his, anAnglican, was "sorely grieved" by the step, and this seems to have been one of the principal things which kept him from any formal participation in theOld Catholic communion. In reference to this matter he wrote to the sameAnglican friend:

You inEngland cannot understand how completely engrained it is into our people that apriest is a man whosacrifices himself for the sake of his parishioners. He has no children of his own, in order that all the children in theparish may be his children. His peopleknow that his small wants are supplied, and that he can devote all his time and thought to them. Theyknow that it is quite otherwise with the marriedpastors of theProtestants. Thepastor's income may be enough for himself, but it is not enough for his wife and children also. In order to maintain them he must take other work, literary or scholastic, only a portion of his time can be given to his people; and theyknow that when the interests of hisfamily and those of his flock collide, hisfamily must come first and his flock second. In short, he has a profession or trade, aGewerbe, rather than a vocation; he has to earn a livelihood. In almost allCatholic congregations, apriest who married would be ruined; all his influence would be gone. The people are not at all ready for so fundamental a change, and the circumstances of theclergy do not admit of it. It is a fatal resolution. (A. Plummer in "The Expositor", December, 1890, p. 470.)

A testimony given under such circumstances carries more weight than long explanations would do. Neither was it the only occasion on which the historian so expressed himself. "When a priest",Döllinger wrote in a letter to one of his OldCatholic friends in 1876, "can no longer point to personal sacrifice which he makes for the good of his people, then it is all over with him and the cause which he represents. He sinks to the level of men who make a trade of their work [Er rangiert dann mit den Gewerbetreibenden]." (See Michael, Ignaz von Döllinger, ed. 1894, p. 249.)

Supposing always that thevow of celibacy is faithfully kept, the power which this practical lesson in disinterestedness must lend to thepriest's exhortations when addressing his people is too obvious to need insisting upon. Numberless observers,Protestant andAgnostic as well asCatholic, have borne the obstacles to really confidential relations and more especially to confession in the case of the marriedclergy — even if this difficulty is often quite unfairly exaggerated in the many current stories ofAnglicanclergymen sharing the secrets of the confessional with their wives — are certainly real enough. When the once famous Père Hyacinth (M. Loyson) left theChurch and married, this was the first point which once struck afree-thinker like George Sand. "Will Père Hyacinthe still hearconfessions?" she wrote. "That is the question. Is the secrecy of the confessional compatible with the mutual confidences of conjugallove? If I were aCatholic, I would say to my children: 'Have no secrets which cost too much in the telling and then you will no cause to fear the gossip of the vicar's wife'."

Again, with regard to missionary work in barbarous countries, the advantages which lies with a celibateclergy can hardly need insisting upon and are freely admitted both by indifferent observers and by the non-Catholic missionaries themselves. The testimonies which have been gathered in such a work as Marshall's "Children Missions" are calculated perhaps, from their juxtaposition, to give an exaggerated impression, while the editor's bantering tone will sometimes wound and repel: but the indictment is substantially accurate, and the materials for a continuation of this standard work, which have been collected from recent sources by the Rev. B. Solferstan, S.J., in every respect bear out Marshall's main contention. Over and over again the admission is made by well-qualified observers, who are themselves either indifferent or opposed to theCatholicFaith, that whatever genuine work of conversion is done, is effected by theCatholic missionaries whose celibate condition permits them to live among the natives as one of themselves. See, for example, to speak only ofChina,Stoddard, "Life of Isabella Bird", (1906), pp. 319-320; Arnot Reid, "Peking to Petersburgh" (1897), p. 73; Professor E.H. Parker, "China Past and Present" (1903), pp. 95-96.

The comparatively slight cost of theCatholic missions with their unmarriedclergy need not be dwelt upon. To take a single example, the lateAnglican Bishop Bickersteth, the much-respectedBishop of South Tokio,Japan, describes in one of his published letters how he had "a good deal of talk" with aCatholicvicar Apostolic, who was on his way toChina. Whereupon Bickersteth remarks that "Roman Catholics certainly can teach us much by their readiness to bear hardships. This man and hispriests are at times subject to the most serious privations I should fear. InJapan a Romanpriest gets one-seventh of what theChurch Missionary Society and the Society of the Gospel allow to an unmarrieddeacon. Of course they can only live on the food of the country." (See "The Life and Letters of Edward Bickersteth", 2nd ed., London, 1905), p. 214) With regard again to the effect upon apriest's work the following candid testimony from a distinguished marriedclergyman and professor of Trinity College,Dublin, is very striking. "But from the point of view of preaching", writes Professor Mahaffy, "there can be littledoubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human misfortunes increase necessarily in proportion to the number of the household; and as theclergy in all countries are likely to have largefamilies the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses isstolen from them by otherduties and other cares. TheCatholicpriest when his daily round of outdoorduties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is nothing to disturb his thoughts. Thefamily man is met at the door by troops of children welcoming his return and claiming his interest in all their little affairs. Or else the disagreements of the household demand him as an umpire and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation of the faults and follies ofmankind but by their actual invasion of his home." (Mahaffy,The Decay of Modern Preaching, London, 1882, p. 42.)

To these general considerations various replies are urged. In the first place, it is asserted that celibacy is a mere specious device invented to ensure the subjection of theclergy to the central authority of theRoman See. Such writers as Heigl (Das Cölibat, Berlin, 1902) contend that the deprivation of home andfamily ties tends to rob thepriest of all national feeling and of standing in the country, and consequently to render him a willing tool in the hands of the spiritual autocracy of thepopes. The historical summary which follows will help to dojustice to this objection. But for the moment, we may note thatSt. Dunstan, who more than any other character in early English history is identified with the cause of a celibateclergy, wasArchbishop ofCanterbury from 960 to 988, a period during which thepapacy was subjected to oppression and disorder of the worst kind. In fact the practice of celibacy was almost universally enjoined long before the resolute energy ofGregory VII (Hildebrand) built up what it has of late years been the fashion to call thepapal monarchy. Again, the consistently nationalist tone of such a chronicler asMatthew Paris, not to speak of countless others, lets us see how mistaken it would be to suppose that celibates are devoid of patriotism or inclined to lay aside their racial sympathies in deference to the commands of thepope. And a similar lesson might be drawn from the Gallicanism of the Frenchclergy in the seventeenth century, which seemingly was not inconsistent with at least ordinary fidelity to theirvows of continence.

Another objection which has been urged againstsacerdotal celibacy is that the reproduction of the species is a primary function and law of man's nature, and therefore constitutes an inalienable right of which no man can deprive himself by anyvow. In view of the fact that social conditions of every sort, as well as the moral law, necessitate celibacy on the part of millions of the race, no one takes this objection seriously. So far as any justification of this position has been attempted, it has been found in the analogy of the animal or vegetable kingdom, in which the reproduction of its own kind has been represented as the main object of created existence. But such a comparison applied to anintellectual being like man is hardly more than puerile, and if the argument is pressed we might answer that, as horticulturists are well aware, some of the most beautiful and highly-developed of the natural products of our flower-gardens are only to be obtained at the sacrifice of their fertility. The argument if anything tells the other way. The one serious objection against thelaw ofclerical celibacy is the difficulty which its observance presents for all but men of exceptionally strong character and high principle.

Such writers as Dr. H.C. Lea and M. Chavard have set themselves to gather up all thescandalous excesses which have been charged against a celibatepriesthood since the beginning of theMiddle Ages. It has been their aim to show that the observance of continence in a much-exposed life is beyond the strength of the average man, and that consequently to bind the rank and file of theclergy by such a law is only to open the door to irregularities and abuses far more derogatory to thepriestly character than the toleration of honourable marriage could possible be. They urge that, in point of fact, thelaw during long periods of time has become a dead letter throughout the greater part ofChristendom, and that its only result has been to force thepriest into courses of licence andhypocrisy which have robbed him of all power to influence men for good. As to the historical evidence upon which such charges are based, there will probably always be much difference of opinion. The anti-clerical animus which prompts a certain type of mind to rake thesescandals together, and to revel in and exaggerate their prurient details, is at least as marked as the tendency on the part of theChurch's apologists to ignore these uncomfortable pages of history altogether. In any case, it may be said in reply, that the observance of continence with substantial fidelity by a numerousclergy, even for centuries together, is assuredly not beyond the strength ofhumannature when elevated byprayer and strengthened byDivine grace. Not to speak of such countries asIreland andGermany, where, it might be contended, the admixture with other creeds tends to put theCatholicclergy unduly upon their mettle, we might turn to the example ofFrance orBelgium during the last century. No candid student of history who reviews this period will hesitate to admit that the immense majority of many thousands ofsecular priests in these two countries have led lives which are clean and upright, in accordance with their professions. We prove it not only by the good report which they have enjoyed with all moderate men, by the tone of respectable novelists who have portrayed them in fiction, by the testimony of foreign residents, and by the comparatively rare occurrence ofscandals, but, what is most striking of all, we argue from the tributes paid to their integrity by former associates who have themselves severed their connection with theCatholicChurch, men, for example, like M. Loyson (Père Hyacinthe) or M. Ernest Renan. Speaking of the wholesale charges of incontinence often levelled against a celibatepriesthood, M. Renan remarks: "The fact is that what is commonly said about the morality of theclergy is, so far as my experience goes, absolutely devoid of foundation. I spent thirteen years of my life under the charge ofpriests, and I never saw the shadow of ascandal [je n'ai pas vu l'ombre d'un scandale]; I have known nopriests but goodpriests. The confessional may possibly be productive ofevil in some countries, but I saw no trace of it in my life as an ecclesiastic" (Renan, Souvenirs 'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 139).

Similarly M. Loyson, when seeking to justify his own marriage, does not attempt to suggest that theobligation of celibacy was beyond the strength of the average man, or that theCatholicclergy lived otherwise than chastely. On the contrary, he writes: "I am well aware of thetrue state of ourclergy. Iknow of the self-sacrifice and virtues within its ranks." His line of argument is that thepriest needs to be reconciled with the interests, the affections, and theduties ofhumannature; which seems to mean that he ought to be made less spiritual and more earthly. "It is only", he says, "by tearing himself away from the traditions of a blind asceticism, and of a theocracy still more political than religious, that thepriest will become once more a man and a citizen. He will find himself at the same time more truly apriest." We are not contending that the high moral standard conspicuous in theclergy ofFrance andBelgium is to be found in an equally-marked degree all over the world. Our argument is that the observance of celibacy is not only possible for the few called to bemonks and enjoying the safeguards of the monastic life, but that it is not beyond the strength of a great body of men numbered by tens of thousands, and recruited, as the French andBelgianclergy mostly are, from the ranks of the industrious peasantry. We have no wish to deny or to palliate the very low level of morality to which at different periods of the world's history, and in different periods of the world's history, and in different countries calling themselvesChristian, butCatholicpriesthood has occasionally sunk, but suchscandals are no more the effect of compulsory celibacy than the prostitution, which is everywhere rampant in our great cities, is the effect of our marriagelaws. We do not abolishChristian marriage because so large a proportion ofmankind are not faithful to the restraints which it imposes on humanconcupiscence. No one in his heart believes that civilized nations would be cleaner or purer ifpolygamy were substituted for monogamy. Neither is there any reason to suppose thatscandals would be fewer and theclergy more respected ifCatholicpriests were permitted to marry.

History of clerical celibacy

First period

Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin withSt. Paul's direction (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, andTitus 1:6) that abishop or adeacon should be "the husband of one wife". These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was madeobligatory upon theclergy from the beginning, but on the other hand, the Apostle's desire that other men might be as himself (1 Corinthians 7:7-8), already quoted) precludes the inference that he wished allministers of the Gospel to be married. The words beyonddoubt mean that the fitting candidate was a man, who, amongst other qualities whichSt. Paul enunciates as likely to make his authority respected, possessed also such stability ofdivorce, by remaining faithful to one wife. The direction is therefore restrictive, no injunctive; it excludes men who have married more than once, but it does not impose marriage as anecessary condition. This freedom of choice seems to have lasted during the whole of what we may call, with Vacandard, the first period of theChurch's legislation, i.e. down to about the time of Constantine and theCouncil of Nicaea.

A strenuous attempt has indeed been made by some writers, of whom the lateProfessor Bickell was the most distinguished, to prove that even at this earlydate theChurch exacted celibacy of all herministers of the higher grades. But the contrary view, represented by such scholars as Funk and Kraus, seems much better founded and has won general acceptance of recent years. It is not, of course, disputed that all times virginity was held inhonour, and that in particular large numbers of theclergy practised it or separated from their wives if they were already married.Tertullian comments with admiration upon the number of those insacred orders who have embraced continence (De exhortatione castitatis, cap. xiii), whileOrigen seems to contrast the spiritual offspring of thepriests of the New Law with the natural offspring begotten in wedlock by thepriests of the Old (In Levit. Hom. vi, no. 6). Clearly, however, there is nothing in this or similar language which could be considered decisive, andBickell, in support of his thesis, found it needful to appeal mainly to the testimony of writers of the fourth and fifth century. ThusEusebius declares that it is befitting thatpriests and those occupied in the ministry should observe continence (Demonst. Evangel., I, C. ix), andSt. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who servesGod properly holds himself aloof fromwomen (Cat. xii, 25).St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares thatclerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands".

But the passage most confidently appealed to is one ofSt. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the acceptedecclesiastical rule of thepriesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by theApostles (Haer., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. "HolyChurch", he says, "respects the dignity of thepriesthood to such a point that she does not admit to thediaconate, thepriesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to thesubdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where theecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to" (Haer., lix, 4). Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in whichpriests anddeacons continue to have children, but he argues against the practice as most unbecoming and urges that theChurch under the guidance of theHoly Ghost has always in the past shown her disapproval of such procedure. But we need hardly insist that all this is very inadequate evidence (even when supplemented by some few citations fromSt. Ephraem and other Orientals) to support the contention that a general rule of celibacy existed from Apostolic times. Writers in the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (e.g. theLenten fast of forty days) as of Apostolic institution which certainly had no claim to be so regarded. On the other hand, there are facts which tell the other way. The statement ofClement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts ofSt. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: "All the same, theChurch fully receives the husband of one wife whether he bepriest ordeacon orlayman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children" (Stromateiae, III, xiii).

Not less explicit is the testimony given by the church historian,Socrates. He declares that in theEastern Churches neitherpriests nor evenbishops were bound to separate from their wives, though he recognized that a different custom obtained in Thessaly and in Greece (H.E., Bk. I, cap. xi)Socrates tells the story of Paphnutius rising in the assembly and objecting to an enactment which he considered too rigorous in behalf of celibacy. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling shouldabjure matrimony according to the ancient tradition of theChurch, but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united. And these sentiments he expressed although himself without experience of marriage. Some attempt has been made to discredit this story, but nearly all modern scholars (notably Bishop von Hefele, with his most recent editor, Dom H. Leclercq) accept it without reserve. The fact that the attitude of Bishop Paphnutius differs but little from the existing practice of theEastern Churches is alone a strong point in its favour. These testimonies, it will be observed, are from Eastern sources and indicate, no doubt, the prevailing Oriental discipline. Wernz expressed the opinion that from the earliest days of theChurch the custom, if not thelaw, was forbishops,priests, and all in major orders, to observe celibacy.

Second period

In the history ofclerical celibacyconciliar legislation marks the second period during which thelaw took definite shape both in the East and in the West. The earliest enactment on the subject is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the three higher orders of theclergy,bishops,priests, anddeacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after theirordination they are to be deposed. This would seem to have been the beginning of the divergence in this matter between East and West. If we may trust the account ofSocrates, just quoted, an attempt was made at theCouncil of Nicaea, (perhaps by Bishop Osius who had also sat at Elvira) to impose a law similar to that passed in the Spanish council. But Paphnutius, as we have seen, argued against it, and the Fathers of Nicaea were content with the prohibition expressed in the third canon which forbademulieres subintroductas. Nobishop,priest, ordeacon was to have anywoman living in the house with him, unless it were his mother, sister, or aunt, or at any ratepersons against whom no suspicion could lodge. But the account ofSocrates at the same time shows that marriage on the part of those who were alreadybishops orpriests was not contemplated; in fact, that it was assumed to be contrary to the tradition of theChurch. This is again what we learn from the Council ofAncyra in Galatia, in 314 (canon x), and of Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia, in 315 (canon i). The latter canon absolutely forbids apriest to contract a new marriage under the pain of deposition; the former forbids even adeacon to contract marriage, if at the moment of hisordination he made no reservation as to celibacy. Supposing, however, that he protested at the time that a celibate life was above his strength, the decrees ofAncyra allow him to marry subsequently, as having tacitly received the permission of the ordainingbishop. There is nothing here which of itself forbids even abishop to retain his wife, if he were married beforeordination. In this respect thelaw, as observed in theEastern Churches, was drawn gradually tighter. Justinian's Code of Civil Law would not allow anyone who had children or even nephews to beconsecratedbishop, for fear that natural affection should warp his judgment. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400), which formed the principal factor of the church law of the East, are not particularly rigid on the point of celibacy, but whether through imperial influence or not the Council of Trullo, in 692, finally adopted a somewhat stricter view. Celibacy in abishop became a matter of precept. If he were previously married, he had at once to separate from his wife upon hisconsecration. On the other hand, this council, while forbiddingpriests,deacons, andsubdeacons to take a wifeafterordination, asserts in emphatic terms theirright andduty to continue in conjugal relations with the wife to whom they had been wedded previously. This canon (xiii of Trullo) still makes thelaw for the great majority of the Churches of the East, though some of the EasternCatholic communions have adopted the Western discipline.

InLatin Christendom, however, everything was ripe for a stricter law. We have already spoken of the Council of Elvira, and this does not seem to have been an isolated expression of opinion. "As a rule", remarks Bishop Wordsworth from his anti-celibate standpoint, "the great writers of the fourth and fifth century pressed celibacy as the more excellent way with an unfair and misleading emphasis which led to the gravest and moral mischief and loss of power in theChurch." (The Ministry of Grace, 1902, p. 223). This, one would think, must be held to relieve thepapacy of some of the onus which modern critics would thrust upon it in this matter. Such writers asSt. Augustine,St. Ambrose,St. Jerome, St. Hilary, etc., could hardly be described as acting in collusion with the supposed ambitious projects of theHoly See to enslave and denationalize the localclergy. Although it istrue that at the close of the fourth century, as we may learn from St. Ambrose (De Officiis, I, l), some marriedclergy were still to be found, especially in the outlying country districts, manylaws then enacted were strong in favour of celibacy. At a Roman council held byPope Siricius in 386 an edict was passed forbiddingpriests anddeacons to have conjugal intercourse with their wives (Jaffe-Löwenfeld, Regesta, I, 41), and thepope took steps to have thedecree enforced inSpain and in other parts ofChristendom (Migne, P.L., LVI, 558 and 728). Africa and Gaul, as we learn from the canons of varioussynods, seem to have been earnest in the same movement, and though we hear of some mitigation of the severity of the ordinance of Elvira, was enforced against transgressors than that if they took back their wives they were declared incapable of promotion to any higher grade, it may fairly be said that by the time ofSt. Leo the Great thelaw of celibacy was generally recognized in the West. With regard tosubdeacons, indeed, the case was not clear.Pope Ciricius (385-398) seems to rank them withacolytes and not to require separation from their wives until after the age of thirty when they might beordaineddeacons if they had previously, during some short period of trial, givenproof of their ability to lead a life of stricter continence. Writers like and Wernz regard them as bound to celibacy in the time ofPope Leo the Great (446). TheCouncil of Agde inGaul, in 506, forbadesubdeacons tomarry, and suchsynods as those ofOrléans in 538 and Tours in 567 prohibited even those already married from continuing to live with their wives. As other councils took an opposite line, the uncertainty continued until King Pepin, in 747, addressed a question upon the subject toPope Zachary. Even then thepope left each locality in some measure to its own traditions, but he decided clearly that once a man had received thesubdiaconate he was no longer free to contract a new marriage. Thedoubtful point was the lawfulness of his continuing to live with his wife as her husband. During this Merovingian period the actual separation of theclergy from the wives which they had previously married was not insisted on. A law of theEmperor Honorius, in 420, forbids that these wives should be left unprovided for, and it even lays stress upon the fact that by their upright behaviour they had helped their husbands to earn that good repute which had made them worthy ofordination. However, this living together in the relation of brother and sister cannot haveproved entirely satisfactory, even though it had in its favour such illustrious examples as those ofSt. Paulinus of Nola, and of Salvinianus of Marseilles.

At any rate thesynods of the sixth and seventh centuries, while fully recognizing the position of these former wives and according them even the formal designation of bishopess, priestess,deaconess, and subdeaconess (episcopissa, presbytera, diaconissa, subdiaconissa), laid down some very strict rules to guide their relations with their former husbands. The bishopess, as a rule, did not live in the same house with thebishop (see the Council ofTours in 567, can. xiv). For the lower grades actual separation does not seem to have been required, although the Council ofOrléans in 541, can. xvii,ordained: "ut sacerdotes sive diacom cum conjugibus suis non habeant commune lectum et cellulam"; while curious regulations were enforced requiring the presence of subordinateclergy in the sleeping apartment of thebishop,archpriest, etc., to prevent all suspicion ofscandal (see, e.g., the Council ofTours, in 567), canons xiii and xx). A good deal seems to have been done at the beginning of the Carolingian epoch to set things upon a more satisfactory footing. To thisSt. Chrodegang (formerly the chancellor ofCharles Martel, and after 742Bishop ofMetz), contributed greatly by his institution of canons. Those wereclergy leading a life in common (vita canonica), according to the rule composed for them bySt. Chrodegang himself, but at the same time not precluded by their hours of study andprayer from giving themselves like ordinarysecular priests to the pastoralduties of the ministry. This institution developed rapidly and met with much encouragement. In a slightly modified form the Rule ofSt. Chrodegang was approved by the Council ofAachen, in 816, and it formed the basis of thecathedral chapters in most of thediocese throughout the dominions ofCharlemagne.

The influence both of these canons who devoted themselves principally to the public recitation of the Office, as also of those who lived with thebishop in theepiscopium and were busied withparochial work, seems to have had an excellent effect upon the general standard ofclericalduty. Unfortunately, "the Iron Age", that terrible period ofwar, barbarism, and corruption in high places which marked the break-up of the Carolingian Empire, followed almost immediately upon this revival. "Impurity, adultery, sacrilege and murder have overwhelmed the world", cried the Council of Trosly in 909. Theepiscopal sees, as we learn from such an authority as BishopEgbert of Trier, were given as fiefs to rude soldiers, and were treated asproperty which descended by hereditary right from father to son. A terrible picture of the decay both ofclerical morality and of all sense of anything like vocation is drawn in the writings ofSt. Peter Damian, particularly in his "Liber Gomorrhianus". The style, no doubt, is rhetorical and exaggerated, and his authority as an eyewitness does not extend beyond that district of NorthernItaly, in which he lived, but we have evidence from other sources that the corruption was widespread and that few parts of the world failed to feel the effect of the licence and venality of the times. How could it be otherwise when there were intruded intobishoprics on every side men of brutal nature and unbridled passions, who gave the very worst example to theclergy over whom they ruled? Undoubtedly during this period the traditions ofsacerdotal celibacy inWestern Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of theclergy, not onlypriests butbishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted theirbenefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of theChurch.

WithPope St. Leo IX,St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand), and their successors, a determined and successful stand was made against the further spread of corruption. For a while in certain districts where effective interference appeared hopeless, it would seem that various synodal enactments allowed the ruralclergy to retain the wives to whom they had previously been married. See, for example, the Councils of Lisieux of 1064, Rouen in 1063 and 1072, and Winchester, this last presided over byLanfranc, in 1076. In all these we may possibly trace the personal influence of William the Conqueror. But despite these concessions, the attitude ofGregory VII remained firm, and the reform which he consolidated has never subsequently been set aside. His determined attitude brought forth a whole literature of protests, amongst others the letter "De Continentiâ" which is widely attributed to St. Ulric ofAugsburg, though every modern scholar admits it to be aforgery, fabricated more than one hundred years afterSt. Ulric's death. The point is of importance because the evidence seems to show that in this long struggle the whole of the more high-principled and more learned section of theclergy was enlisted in the cause of celibacy. The incidents of the long final campaign, which began indeed even before the time ofPope St. Leo IX and lasted down to the First Council of Lateran in 1123, are too complicated to be detailed here. We may note, however that the attack was conducted along two distinct lines of action. In the first place, disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children ofecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition, debarred fromsacred orders, and, in particular, incapable of succeeding to their fathers'benefices. The earliestdecree in which the children were declared to be slaves, theproperty of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018. Similar penalties werepromulgated later on against the wives andconcubines (see the Synod of Melfi, 1189, can. xii), who by the very fact of their unlawful connection with asubdeacon or clerk of higher rank became liable to be seized as slaves by the over-lord. Hefele (Concilienge-schichte, V, 195) sees in this first trace of the principle that the marriages of theclerics areipso facto invalid.

As regards to the offenders themselves, the strongest step seems to have been that taken byNicholas II in 1059, and more vigorously byGregory VII in 1075, whointerdicted suchpriests from sayingMass and from allecclesiastical functions, while the people were forbidden to hear the Mass which they celebrated or to admit their ministrations so long as they remain contumacious. In the controversies of this time the Masses said by these incontinentpriests were sometimes described as "idolatrous"; but this word must not be pressed, as if it meant to insinuate that suchpriests were incapable of consecrating validly. The term was only loosely used, just as if it was also sometimes applied at the same period to any sort of homage rendered to anantipope. Moreover the wording of a letter ofUrban II (Ep. cclxxiii) enforcing thedecree takes an exception for cases of urgent necessity, as, for example, when Communion has to be given to the dying. Clearly, therefore, the validity of thesacraments whenconsecrated or administered by a marriedpriest was not in question. Finally, in 1123, at theFirst Lateran Council, an enactment was passed (confirmed more explicitly in theSecond Lateran Council, can. vii) which, while not in itself very plainly worded, was held to pronounce the marriages contracted bysubdeacons orecclesiastics of any of the higher orders to be invalid (contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi ... judicamus — can. xxi). This may be said to mark the victory of the cause of celibacy. Henceforth all conjugal relations on the part of theclergy insacred orders were reduced in the eyes of canon law to mereconcubinage. Neither can it be pretended that thislegislation, backed, as it were, by the firm and clear pronouncements of the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215, and later by those of theCouncil of Trent, remained any longer a dead letter. Laxity among theclergy at certain periods and in certain localities must undoubtedly be admitted, but the principles of the canon law remained unshaken, and despite all assertions to the contrary made by unscrupulous assailants of the Roman system the call to a life of self-denying continence has, as a rule, been respected by theclergy ofWestern Christendom.

In England

A few words may here be added in particular about the history ofclerical celibacy upon English soil. Very extreme views have been put forward by variousAnglican writers. Passing over Dr. Lea as quite untrustworthy, the following statement of a more sober writer, theBishop ofSalisbury (John Wordsworth) may be taken as a specimen. After declaring that during the Anglo-Saxon period the Englishclergy were undisguisedly married, he adds: "It would be easy to multiply evidence for the continuance of a practically marriedclergy in this country up to the time of theReformation. Sometimes I believe that they were privately but still legally married so that their wives and children might have the benefit of theirproperty after their death. For all marriages properly performed inEngland were valid according to thecivil law, unless they were voided by action in the Bishop's Court, down to the passing of Lord Lynhurst's Act in 1835, however much they might be contrary to law" (Ministry of Grace, p. 236). It can only be said that this is a quite gratuitous assertion, unsupported by any evidence yet produced, and founded in the main upon that strange misconception, so well exposed in Professor Maitland's "Roman Canon Law in the Church of England", that ecclesiastical law inEngland differed from, and was independent of, thejus commune (i.e. the canon law) of theCatholicChurch. Objectors may safely be challenged to produce a single case during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in which a clerk insacred orders went through the marriageceremony with anywoman, or in which is wife or the children born after hisordination claimed to inherit hisproperty upon his death. On the other hand, the denunciations of all such unions as mereconcubinage are innumerable, and the evidence for any great prevalence of these irregular connections, despite the rhetorical exaggerations of such writers asGower or Langland, is relatively slight. Unfortunately, nearly all the best-known popular histories (Trevelyan's "Age of Wicliffe" might be cited as a specimen) are written with a strong anti-Roman or anti-sacerdotal bias, particularly disastrous in matters in which there can be no question of comparative statistics, but only of general impressions.

With regard to the Saxon and Angevin period again, careful study of the evidence has convinced the present writer that a very exaggerated estimate has been formed of the prevalence of marriage orconcubinage among thesecular clergy. Two points deserve especially to be remembered. First, that the Anglo-Saxon wordpreost does not necessarily mean apriest but simply acleric. The ordinary word forpriest in the sense ofsacerdos, wasmaesse-preost. This is continually ignored, but the evidence for it is quite unmistakable and is fully admitted in Bosworth-Toller's "Dictionary" and in the important monograph, "The Influence of Christianity upon the Vocabulary of Old English" (1902) by the American scholar Dr. H. MacGillivray. To take one illustration,Abbot Ælfric writes: "Gemaenes hades preostum is alyfed ... thaet hi syferlice sincipes brucon" — i.e. "Toclerics [preostum] of the common order [i.e. to clerks inminor orders] it is permitted that they enjoy marriage soberly"; and then he continues: "but in sooth to the others that minister atGod's altar, that is to saymass-priests anddeacons (maessepreostum anddiaconum), all conjugal relations are forbidden" (Ælfric, Homilies). Similarly, whereBede speaks ofSt. Wilfrid receiving thetonsure, the Anglo-Saxon translation, as in many similar cases, renders it, "he waes to preost gesceoren", i.e. he was shorn into acleric (preost). Wilfrid'sordination aspriest did not take place until several years later. Now the importance of this will be appreciated when we find a well-known historian writing thus: "Celibacy was avowedly not practised by the northernclergy [in Anglo-SaxonEngland]. Thelaw of the Northumbrian Priests declares 'if apriest forsake awoman and take another let him beexcommunicate'. Apriest might therefore take a wife and cleave to her without rebuke". (Hunt, The English Church to the Norman Conquest, 1899, p 383). Now this piece of evidence is quite inconclusive; the wordpreost which is here used, may or may not assume that it refers to any other class ofpreost, i.e. cleric, than those inminor orders who were always entirely free to marry. The second point which it is equally important to remember is thatclerics inminor orders were a very numerous class in Saxon, Norman and Angevin times. With us there are, practically preparing forordination to thepriesthood, while such candidates now from their earliest years lead a life apart from the world in the seclusion of colleges andseminaries. In themedieval Church things were very different. Almost all young men with any littleeducation preferred to enroll themselves in the ranks of theclergy to receiving thetonsure, hoping that some chance of employment or of abenefice might come their way. They were still free to marry and sometimes they married openly. But often, it seems, they entangled themselves in rather ambiguous relations which in the then state of marriage law might easily be legitimized afterwards, but which also might be repudiated and broken off if they desired to receiveordination.

All this, which up to a certain point was not inconsistent withgood faith, unfortunately prepared the way for easy relapses into incontinence, and generated a public opinion in which it was not accounted a reproach to be known as the son of apriest. Undoubtedly the sons ofpriests formed a large class. There was a natural tendency to bring them up also asclerics, and there was no doubt an immense amount of scheming, not unfrequently successful, to secure their promotion to thebenefices held by their fathers. But it would be a great mistake to regard these sons ofpriests as all necessarily born in flagrant violation of the canons. The situation was a very complicated one, and it is impossible to pronounce any sober opinion upon its moral aspects without a careful study, on the other hand, of the conditions of social, and particularly of student, life, which an appreciation of the ambiguities of the marriage law, as regards which the difficulties raised by thesponsalia de praesenti have long been the despair of canonists. One of the Constitutions of the Legate Otho, issued in 1237, is particularly instructive in this connection. He has learnt, he declares, on good authority that "manyclerics [not yetpriests, be it noted] forgetful of thesalvation of theirsouls, after contracting aclandestine marriage, do not fear to retain the churches (to which they may previously have been appointed) without putting away their wives, and to acquire freshecclesiastical benefices and to be promoted tosacred orders contrary to the provisions of the sacred canons, and finally in due course oftime after children have been reared from this union, to prove at the proper moment, by means of witnesses and documents, whether they themselves be still living or have passed away, that a marriage had really be contracted between the parties". (Wilkins, I, 653.) To meet this, Otho decrees that any married clerk in possession of abenefice, loses all title to itipso jure, and secondly, that allproperty in possession of such clerks orpriests who have beenclandestinely married before their promotion toHoly orders, is to go to theChurch and none of it to their children. But the whole legal aspect of the celibacy question inEngland can best be studied in the pages ofLyndewode's "Provinciale". (See particularly pp. 16 sqq. and 126-130, of the standard edition of 1679. The only thing whichLyndewode makes clear, quoted above, is that the English Church in the fifteenth century refused to recognize the existence of any such entity as thepriest's "wife". Itknew of nothing butconcubinae and denied to these any legal right whatever or any claim upon theproperty of the partner of their guilt.

Present position

With regard to thelaw of celibacy and its canonical effects in theWestern Church at the present day, only one or two points can be briefly touched upon. For the details the reader must be referred to such a work as that of Wernz "Jus Decretalium", II, 295-321. Clerk inminor orders, as already stated, as free tomarry, and by such marriages they forfeit theprivilegia canonis and theprivilegia fori only in part, provided they observe the required conditions (cf. Decreta Conc. Trid., Sess XIII, cap. vi); though in our day such observance is practically impossible; but they are incapable of being promoted tosacred orders unless they separate from their wives, and make avow of perpetual continence. Further, if as clerks they held anybenefice or ecclesiastical pension, these are at once forfeited by marriage, and then become incapable of acquiring any newbenefice. Historically there has been some little variation of practice with regard to married clerks, and the severe measures enacted in their regard byPope Alexander III were subsequently mitigated byBoniface VIII and theCouncil of Trent. As regardsecclesiastics insacred orders (i.e. thesubdiaconate and those that follow), the teaching of boththeologians and canonists alike, for many centuries past, has been unanimous as regards the facts, though some little divergence has existed regarding the manner of explaining them. All are agreed that thesubdeacon in presenting himself of his ownfree will forordination binds himself by a tacitvow of chastity (Wernz, IV, n. 393), and that this even constitutes a diriment impediment in view of any subsequent marriage. Theidea of this votum annexum seems to be traceable in one form or another as far back as the time ofGregory the Great. Although the opposition to thelaw of celibacy frequently took the form of open agitation, both in the earlierMiddle Ages and again at theReformation period, only one such movement calls for notice in modern times. This was an association formed principally inWürtemberg and Baden in the early part of the nineteenth century to advocate the mitigation or repeal of thelaw of celibacy. The agitation was condemned by anEncyclical ofPope Gregory XVI, on 15 August, 1832, and no more permanent harm seems to have resulted than the publication of a certain amount of disaffected literature, such as the pretentious but extremely biased and inaccurate work on compulsory celibacy by the brothersTheiner, a book which at once prohibited by authority and repudiated by Aug.Theiner before he was reconciled to theChurch.

Law of celibacy in Oriental Churches

Upon this head something has already been said above, and the general principle has been stated that in theOriental Churchesdeacons andpriests are free to retain the wives to whom they have been wedded beforeordination, but are not allowed to contract any new marriage when once they areordained. A few details may here be added about the practice of the different Churches, taking first theschismatical communions and then those united to theHoly See.

In the Greek Churches acknowledging thejurisdiction of theschismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.,lectors and cantors, who areclerics inminor orders, are still free tomarry, but if they contract a second marriage they can be promoted to no higher grade, and if they are guilty of continence with any otherperson or marry a third time, they are no longer allowed to exercise their functions. Subdeacons seem to be able to marry a second time without being deposed, but in that case they cannot be promoted to thepriesthood. Again, apriest who before hisordination has contracted an unlawful marriage, even unwittingly, is no longer permitted to exercise hispriestly functions when the fact is discovered. Priests anddeacons are bidden to practise continence during the time of their service of the altar. In 1897 there seem to have been 4025parish churches inGreece, and these were served by 5423 married and 242 unmarriedpriests.

In the Russian Church, though a previous marriage seems to be, practically speaking, aconditio sine quâ non forordination in the case of thesecular clergy, still their canonists deny that this is a strictobligation. The candidate for orders must either be already married or must formally declare his intention of remaining celibate. Any marriage attempted after the reception of thesubdiaconate is invalid and the ecclesiastic so offending renders himself liable to severe penalties. Further, to have been already married, or to have married awidow, or to have contracted any other marriage which offends against the canons — e.g. with a near relative, an unbeliever, orperson ornotoriously loose character, e.g. an actress — constitutes a disqualification forordination. Formerly thepriest who lost his wife was required to retire into amonastery. He is still free to do so and in this way may qualify for higher functions, e.g. for the episcopate, etc., thebishops in the Greek and Russian Church being selected exclusively from the monasticclergy. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, widowerpriests are no longer compelled to retire intomonasteries, but they need the permission of the Synod to continue to discharge theirparochial functions.

In theArmenian Church, again,clerics inminor orders are still free to contract marriage, and such marriage is required as a condition forordination to the simplesecular priesthood. Besidesmonks and the ordinaryclergy, theArmenian Church recognizes a class ofVartapeds, or preachers, who are celibatepriests of highereducation. From their ranks thebishops and higherclergy are as a rule selected. It is only by exception that amonk is chosen to the episcopate.

Amongst theNestorians celibacy is not so muchhonoured as amongst most of theOriental Churches. Priests anddeacons may marry even afterordination, and if their wife should die they marry a second or even a third time. Still,bishops are required to live as celibates, though formerly this does not seem to have been the case.

TheCopts and also theAbyssinianMonophysites resemble theGreek Church in theirlaws regardingclerical marriage. A marriage contracted after the reception ofHoly orders, or any second marriage, involves deposition. All theCopticbishops are chosen from the monasticclergy. Among the SyrianJacobites similar rules prevail. Bishops, as a rule, are chosen from themonks and a second marriage is forbidden to apriest who is left a widower. If, however, he marries, the marriage is regarded as valid although he is deprived of hisclerical functions.

Turning now to theOriental Churches in communion with theHoly See, we may note that as a general principle marriedclerics are not ineligible for thesubdiaconate,diaconate, andpriesthood. As in the Russian Church they must either be married in accordance with the canons (i.e. not to awidow, etc.), or else as a preliminary toordination they are asked whether they will promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of the Orientalclergy to retain their wives will be found in the Constitution ofBenedict XIV, "Etsi pastoralis", 26 May, 1742. There has, however, been a strong movement of recent years among the EasternCatholic Churches favouring conformity withWestern Christendom in this matter of celibacy. For example, theArmenian Church dependent upon thePatriarch of Cilicia even as far back as July, 1869, passed a resolution that celibacy should be required of all the higher orders of theclergy. Again the Synod of Scharfa inSyria, in 1888, decreed that "the celibate life which is already observed by the great majority of the priests of ourChurch should henceforth be common to all", although thedeacons andpriests who were already married were allowed to continue as before, and though a certain power ofdispensation in cases of necessity was left with the patriarch. Similarly in 1898 a synod of theCatholicCopts at Alexandria decreed that henceforth all candidates for any of the higher orders must be celibate "according to the ancient discipline of theChurch of Alexandria and the otherChurches of God".

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT