Distinction XXXI

GRATIAN. Part I. As to the time: because it had not yet been instituted that priests should observe continence. Hence Gregory writes to Peter, subdeacon of Sicily [Book I, epistle 42]:

Three years ago the subdeacons of all the churches of Sicily had been prohibited from mingling in any way with their wives, according to the custom of the Roman Church. This appears harsh and unsuitable to me: that one who has not experienced the practice of continence and did not promise chastity should be compelled to separate from his wife and through this—which God forbid—fall into something worse. Hence it seems to me that from the present day all bishops should be told to presume to make no one a deacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely, so that past evils that were not sought by the resolve of the mind are not violently exacted, and future ones are cautiously guarded against. §1. But those who, after that prohibition made three years ago, have lived continently with their spouses are to be praised and rewarded, and exhorted to remain in their good practice. §2. Those, however, who after the prohibition was made were unwilling to abstain from their wives, we do not wish to be promoted to sacred order, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been approved before he receives the ministry. Part II. GRATIAN. The cause of this institution, however, was priestly purity, so that they could freely devote themselves to prayer on all days. For if, as the Apostle says, one must abstain from wives so that we may devote ourselves more readily to prayer, ministers of the altar, upon whom the daily necessity of prayer is incumbent, are consequently never permitted to devote themselves to the conjugal duty. Hence Bede says upon Luke [at c. 1]:

Priests are commanded always to abstain from their wives and always to observe chastity, so that they may always be able to assist at the altar.

Likewise in the Second Council of Carthage [c. 2]. It befits bishops, priests, and deacons, as it pleased the council, and it befits sacrosanct prelates or priests or Levites, or those who serve the divine sacraments, to be continent in all things.

Likewise Innocent I to Victricius, bishop of Rouen [epistle II, c. 9]. The Church ought to maintain in every way that priests and Levites do not mingle with their wives, because they are occupied by the necessities of daily ministry. For it is written: “Be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy.” For in ancient times they did not depart from the temple in the year of their turn—as we read concerning Zechariah—and did not touch their home at all. The use of marriage had indeed been relaxed for them because of the succession of offspring, because no one from another tribe or from a stock other than that of Aaron was commanded to approach the priesthood. How much more ought these priests and Levites to observe modesty from the day of their ordination, for whom the priesthood or ministry exists without succession, and no day passes on which they are free either from divine sacrifices or the office of baptism?

[PALEA.

For as Paul writes to the Corinthians, saying, “Abstain for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” and he assuredly commanded this to laymen, much more will priests, for whom the sacrifice of prayer and sacrificing is continual, always have to abstain from intercourse of this kind.]

The same to Exsuperius, bishop of Toledo [epistle III, c. 1]. It is lawful for those to be admitted to the sacrifices who do not exercise the carnal duty even with a wife.

Likewise Jerome, Against Jovinian [Book I]. If a layman and every faithful person cannot pray unless he abstains from the conjugal duty, a priest, who must always offer sacrifices, must always pray; if he must always pray, he must therefore always abstain from marriage. GRATIAN. That the passage above concerning the marriage of priests was spoken because of the Manichaeans is apparent from the Council of Gangra, in which [c. 1] it is read that it was established thus:

If anyone disparages marriage and detests or considers blameworthy a faithful and religious woman sleeping with her husband, as though she could not enter the kingdom of God, let him be anathema.

Likewise from the same [c. 9]. Whoever, preserving virginity or devoting himself to continence, assumes the name of virginity as though shuddering at marriage, and not because it is good and holy, let him be anathema. Part III. GRATIAN. That which is read in the Canon of the Apostles can also be understood in another way, so that this is the meaning of the chapter: “If anyone teaches a priest to despise his wife,” not a wife whom he received while in the priesthood, but one whom, while he was still a layman or established in the lesser orders, he joined to himself and with whom he professed continence when he ascended to sacred orders. No one ought to despise her, that is, cast her out of his mind and care, so that he does not provide her necessities. This interpretation is proved by the authority of Pope Leo, who, writing to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne [epistle XC, c. 3], says:

The law of continence is the same for ministers of the altar as for bishops or priests, who, while they were laymen or readers, were lawfully able both to take wives and to beget children; but when they reached the aforesaid grades, what had been lawful began to be unlawful for them. Hence, so that a spiritual marriage may be made from a carnal one, it is fitting that they should not dismiss their wives, but that those who have wives should appear to possess them as though they did not, so that both the charity of the marriages may be preserved and the works of marriage cease.

Likewise Leo IX, against the epistle of Abbot Nicetas. We confess altogether that a bishop, priest, or deacon is not permitted, for the sake of religion, to cast his own wife out of his care, but that he is to furnish her food and clothing, though not to lie with her carnally according to custom. Thus too we read that the holy Apostles acted, blessed Paul the Apostle saying: “Do we not have the power to lead about a woman who is a sister, as do the brother of the Lord and Cephas?” See, foolish man, that he did not say, “Do we not have the power to embrace a woman who is a sister?” but “to lead her about,” namely so that by them she might be supported from the reward of preaching, yet thereafter no further carnal union would exist between them. GRATIAN. Hence also that passage of Gregory in the Dialogues: “A certain priest”—look for it below. §1. Therefore, as appears from these authorities, priests can supply necessities to the wives whom, while in lay habit or established in the lesser orders, they lawfully joined to themselves, but cannot render the marital debt. Part IV. §2. But that passage of the Tripartite History is objected [Book II, c. 14]:

The Nicene Synod, wishing to correct the life of men dwelling in the churches, set down laws that we call canons. In their discussion it seemed to certain persons that a law should be introduced so that bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons should not sleep with the spouses whom they had taken before consecration. But Paphnutius the confessor, rising, contradicted them; confessing marriage honorable and saying that intercourse with one’s own spouse was chastity, he persuaded the council not to set down such a law, asserting that the matter was grave and would furnish an occasion of fornication either to them or to their wives. Paphnutius indeed explained this although he was inexperienced in marriage, and the synod praised his judgment and sanctioned nothing on this part, but permitted this to the will, not the necessity, of each person.

Likewise the Sixth Synod [c. 13]. Since we have learned that it is handed down in the order of the Roman canon that those who have been ordained deacons or priests profess that they are no longer to be joined to their wives, we, following the ancient canon of apostolic diligence and constitution, wish the lawful marriages of sacred men to remain valid henceforth, in no way dissolving their marriages with their wives or depriving them of familiarity with one another at an opportune time. Therefore, whoever is found worthy of ordination as subdeacon, deacon, or priest is in no way to be prohibited from ascending to such a grade because of cohabitation with his wife; nor are they to be compelled at the time of their ordination to profess that they ought to abstain from familiarity with a lawful wife. Likewise: §1. Those who minister at the altar ought to be continent in all things at the time of the oblation of the sacred things, so that they may be able to obtain from God the things they simply ask. §2. Therefore, if anyone has presumed, contrary to the apostolic canons, to deprive any priest or deacon of contact and communion with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. §3. Likewise, let a priest or deacon who casts out his wife for the sake of religion be excommunicated; but if he persists in this, let him be deposed. GRATIAN. This, however, is to be understood according to place. For the eastern Church, for which the Sixth Synod prescribed the rule of living, did not receive a vow of chastity among ministers of the altar. Hence Pope Stephen says [in the first action of the synod gathered by him in the Lateran Basilica]:

Part V. The tradition of the eastern churches is one thing, and that of this holy Roman Church another. For their priests, deacons, and subdeacons are joined in marriage; but in this Church, or among the western churches, no priest from subdeacon up to bishop has license to obtain marriage. Part VI. GRATIAN. Likewise, the chapter of Nicholas is considered according to place, because the nation of the Bulgarians, newly converted to the faith, had not yet learned to assume in its entirety the resolve of sacred religion. §1. As for the fact that in c. 6 of the synod a priest held in unlawful marriage is punished, second marriages are to be understood as unlawful, from which every priest ought by canonical authority to be immune. That passage of the Council of Gangra, however—“If anyone makes a distinction against a married priest,” etc.—is similarly to be understood either as handed down locally or as calling him married by the woman whom he had taken before the time of his ordination. §2. That passage of Pope Martin too—“If a subdeacon takes a second wife”—is to be understood no differently. For he is permitted to have a first wife before the subdiaconate, and after she has died or professed chastity, he is promoted to the subdiaconate. But after being promoted, if he desires a second marriage, he will be subject to the sentence of Pope Martin.