From the Council of Elvira, in the Province of Baetica, A.D. 305

Note that the canons of this Council are properly penitential or penal.

Canon VIII. Women who, with no preceding cause, have left their husbands and have coupled themselves with others, are not to receive communion even at the end.

We have spoken about the sense of this penal law in the Treatise on Penance, Thesis IX. Women who have left their husbands without any cause and have married others are not merely disapproved, as if that were lawful with a cause; but they are struck with a special penalty because the fault is more grave. Cf. the following canon.

Canon IX. A believing woman who has left a believing adulterous husband and marries another is to be prohibited from marrying. If she marries, she is not to receive communion before the one whom she left has first departed from this world, unless perhaps the necessity of illness compels it to be given.

Behold the doctrine concerning the indissolubility of the bond clearly proposed even in the cause of adultery. Directly, indeed, the matter concerns a wife dismissing an adulterous husband; but since it is established that husband and wife are equal in this matter by Christian right (cf. Thesis XIII, I), what the Fathers of Elvira affirm concerning the wife is to be received equally concerning the husband.

Canon X. If she whom a catechumen left has married a husband, she can be admitted to the font of washing. This also is to be observed concerning catechumen women. But if she who is married by him who left an innocent wife is a believer, and she has known that he has a wife whom he left without cause, it pleased the council that communion is not to be given to her even at the end.

Cf. Thesis XVIII, II, c), at the end.

Canon XIII. Virgins who have dedicated themselves to God, if they have betrayed the covenant of virginity and have served the same lust, not understanding what they have lost (another reading: what they have committed), it pleased the council that communion is not to be given to them even at the end. But if, once persuaded, or corrupted by a fall of a weak body (Ferd. Mendosa: But if they have persuaded themselves that they have fallen by weakness of body), women of this sort have done penance for the whole time of their life, so that they abstain from coition, because they seem rather to have fallen, it pleased the council that they ought to receive communion at the end.

We have already warned in its place (Thesis XXIV, VI and VII) that in the first centuries the law establishing that profession of chastity is a diriment impediment of marriage did not at once prevail among all Churches. From this we were gathering that the obliging force of this law is from ecclesiastical right. Wherefore the reader will not marvel if he does not find the canons of the earlier centuries concordant in this matter; for the same thing is to be seen in very many disciplinary laws. Yet the Fathers of Elvira already seem to have admitted that impediment from the beginning of the fourth century. For the condition required, that the fallen virgins who had dedicated themselves to God abstain from coition for the whole time of life, persuades one that no power of uniting themselves to men was recognized in these virgins. Unless perhaps you say that the Fathers speak only of fornicatory intercourse; yet you would not sufficiently establish this from the fact that they are said to serve lust, for this likewise holds also in those who would attempt forbidden nuptials. Since, therefore, on the contrary the Fathers use no distinction between fornication and nuptials, they seem rather to have judged that any intercourse whatever of these virgins with men was an act of reprehensible lust, destitute of all value.

Canon XIV. Virgins (secular, not yet having experienced copula) who have not kept their virginity, if they have received the same men who violated them and have found them as husbands, because they violated nuptials alone, ought to be reconciled after a year, without penance (Ferd. Mend.: after the penance of one year). Or if they have known other men, because they have committed adultery, it pleased the council that they be admitted to communion after legitimate penance has been performed through the space of five years.

Virgins of this sort are said to have violated nuptials because they came to them not intact but corrupted; and to have violated nuptials alone because they had not vowed virginity.

Canon XV. Because of the abundance of girls, Christian virgins are by no means to be given in marriage to Gentiles, lest an age swelling in its flower be dissolved in adultery of the soul.

The Fathers of Arles, deciding the same thing a little afterward below in Canon XI, held this as an impediment only impeding, not diriment. Nor does this canon of Elvira demand another interpretation.

Canon XVI. Heretics, if they are unwilling to transfer themselves to the Catholic Church, are not to be given Catholic girls. But it also pleased the council not to give them either to Jews or to pagans (Ferd. Mend.: schismatics; another reading: heretics, a useless repetition), because there can be no fellowship of the faithful with the unfaithful. If parents act contrary to the interdict, it pleases the council that they abstain for five years.

Theodosius the Great forbade a Jew to marry a Christian woman, with the penalty of adultery proposed. Cod. Theod., book III, title 7, law 2.

Canon XVII. If any perhaps have joined their daughters to priests of idols, it pleased the council that communion is not to be given to them even at the end.

From these three canons you understand how greatly, already from the first centuries, the Church shrank from nuptials with unbelievers or heretics. Yet no separation is prescribed, but only a certain penance is imposed for the crime.

You also understand the custom of Christians approved by the Church, that daughters entered into nuptials under the care and moderation of parents.

Canon XXXIII. It pleased the council that there be a complete prohibition for bishops, presbyters, and deacons, or all clerics placed in the ministry (that is, a command, but by a prohibiting precept that something not be done, that is, that they abstain, as follows): that they abstain from their wives and not generate children. But whoever shall have done this, let them be expelled from the honor of the clericate.

This is the first canon in which the prescription of ecclesiastical celibacy appears; this indeed is not the same thing as saying that then for the first time a law about this matter was enacted. For the rest, what we noted at Canon XIII has some place here also. For it is clear that the celibacy of ecclesiastics, which in the first centuries both the Latin and the Greek Church accepted, was not proposed with the same force in all Churches at that age; but from time to time persuasions and exhortations were employed, and from time to time the law was also tempered by a certain exception in the Greek Church, even when ecclesiastical celibacy generally flourished no otherwise than in the Latin Church. This will be evident from the following canons. Cf. concerning this matter the excellent work of F. A. Zaccaria, On Ecclesiastical Celibacy.

Consider in this canon of Elvira the words: "by all clerics placed in the ministry," and you will understand that the reason of the universal law afterwards enacted concerning the celibacy of subdeacons had already been formed in antiquity, namely because they serve the altar; this will also appear in the following canons.

Canon LIV. If any parents have broken the faith of espousals, let them abstain from communion for the space of three years. Yet if the same bridegroom or bride have been detected in that grave crime (that is, if they alone, without the parents' consenting), the parents will be excused. But if they have been in the same vice (the parents) and have polluted themselves by consenting (to the children), let the preceding sentence be observed.

Cf. Alex. Syrus. Mazocchi's Diatribe on this canon. There exists, published by the same man, the posthumous work of J. M. Muscettula, On the Espousals and Marriages of Sons under Paternal Power, etc.

Canon LXI. If anyone, after the death of his wife, has married her sister and she herself is a believer, it pleased the council that he abstain from communion for five years, unless perhaps the necessity of illness has compelled peace to be given more quickly.

Behold the prohibition of a union of this sort first appearing. What the Spanish Fathers here prohibit, the Fathers of Neocaesarea declared null; see below.

Now Roman laws had already forbidden certain marriages because of affinity, but not for this cause. In the year 295 Diocletian and Maximian had enacted a law (Cod. Iust., book V, title 4, law 18): Let no one be permitted to contract marriage with a daughter, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter; likewise with a mother, grandmother, or great-grandmother; and, from the side, with a paternal aunt and maternal aunt, sister, a sister's daughter and granddaughter from her; moreover with a brother's daughter and granddaughter from her; and likewise from among affines, with a stepdaughter, stepmother, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, and the rest who are prohibited by ancient right, from whom we will that all abstain (cf. Institutes, book I, title 10).

Canon LXV. If the wife of any cleric has committed adultery, and her husband knows that she commits adultery and has not immediately cast her out, let him not receive communion even at the end.

Cf. Canon VIII of Neocaesarea below. The wife of a cleric who perseveres in the crime of adultery is to be cast out; for it is especially unbecoming for a cleric to live in the same house with an adulterous woman. The last words, "let him not receive communion even at the end," if regard is had to the grammatical construction, seem to refer to the cleric.

Canon LXVI. If anyone has married his stepdaughter as wife, because it is incest, it pleased the council that communion is not to be given to him even at the end.

If it is called incest, the marriage is declared null from this affinity. That is, the Fathers approve the Roman law cited above and propose it to the faithful by their own authority.

Canon LXVII. It is to be prohibited that any believing woman or catechumen woman have either actors (another reading: long-haired men) or men of the stage (another reading: cinerarii). Whoever has done this is to be kept from communion.

Dr. Hefele, in his History of Councils at this canon, prefers the reading comatos and cinerarios.

Canon LXX. If with the consent of the husband the wife has committed adultery, it pleased the council that communion is not to be given even at the end (F. 31: to them). But if he has left her (F. 31 adds: and they have been separated and have done penance worthily), let him receive communion after ten years (F. 31: let them receive).

The consent of the husband does not prevent the approach of a spouse to another from being adultery. An adulterous wife was to be dismissed, as Hermas had already warned, book II, commandment 4. Cf. the preceding Canon LXV.

Canon LXXXI. Let not women, rather in their own names than in the names of their husbands, dare to write to laymen who are faithful (F. 31: who), or receive letters of peace from anyone written to their own name.