From the Letter of Leo, to Rusticus, Bishop of Narbonne, A.D. 458 or 459

Decree III. The law of continence is the same for ministers of the altar as for bishops and presbyters. When they were laymen or readers, they could lawfully both marry wives and procreate children. But when they arrived at the said grades, what was lawful began not to be lawful for them. Hence, that from a carnal marriage there may become a spiritual marriage, it is necessary that they neither dismiss their wives, and have them as though they did not have them, so that both the charity of marriages may be safe and the works of nuptials may cease.

According to this it is lawful to explain Canon VI of the Apostles, to which some appeal in order to teach that among the Greeks the obligation of celibacy did not exist in antiquity. But if this were proved, it would also be proved that that obligation did not formerly exist for the Latins; for that Apostolic canon does not look more to the Greek Church than to the Latin, although it was written in Greek. Canon VI in Dionysius has it thus: "Let a bishop or presbyter by no means cast away his own wife under the pretext of religion; but if he has rejected her, let him be excommunicated; and if he has persevered, let him be deposed." When you hear that a Bishop also is named, you understand that the speech is about that casting away of a wife which was illicit also for Bishops. Or were Bishops prohibited from denying the debt to a wife asking it, or was the use of marriage ever permitted to them even in the Greek Church? "Certainly you confess that he cannot be a Bishop who begets children in the Episcopate," says Jerome, against Jovinian, book I, n. 34. Therefore the casting away which the Apostolic canon prohibits is that of which Leo speaks, who certainly knew both the old discipline and apostolic traditions. Cf. the cited work of Fr. Ant. Zaccaria, On Ecclesiastical Celibacy.

Decree IV. Not every woman joined to a man is the wife of the man, because neither is every son heir of the father. Now the covenants of nuptials are legitimate among freeborn women and among equals, the Lord Himself establishing this very thing much earlier than the beginning of Roman right existed. Therefore a wife is one thing, a concubine another, just as a maidservant is one thing, a free woman another. For this reason also the Apostle, for manifesting the distinction of these persons, places testimony from Genesis, where it is said to Abraham: "Cast out the maidservant," etc. Hence, since the society of nuptials was so constituted from the beginning that, besides the conjunction of the sexes, it had in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church, there is no doubt that that woman does not pertain to marriage in whom it is taught that there was no nuptial mystery. Therefore if a cleric of any place has given his daughter in marriage to one having a concubine, it is not to be received as if he had given her to a married man, unless perhaps that woman is seen both to have been made freeborn, and legitimately endowed, and honored with public nuptials.

The opinion of Leo in this place, which can seem difficult, depends wholly on the principle to which he himself appeals, namely, that the society of nuptials was so instituted from the beginning by God that it had in itself the sacrament of Christ and the Church. But the society of a man with a concubine does not have this sacrament, that is, it does not represent the union of Christ with the Church. For the union of Christ with the Church is a perpetual union, elevating the Church to participation in the dignity and goods of Christ; on the contrary, the union of a man with a concubine is a dissoluble union, because the man uses the woman for pleasure alone, having her as a maidservant and generally choosing her from his maidservants left in their own condition of servitude. Such a society surely is not marriage. But historically the union of a man with a maidservant, who had not been made freeborn and legitimately endowed and honored with public nuptials, returned to this, or seemed to Leo to return to this: namely, pure concubinage was presumed. The same was the opinion of Ambrose on Luke VIII, 8, saying, "Where there is an unequal union, there the law of God (enacted, that is, in the institution of marriage, Gen. II, 24, of which he made mention in the preceding number) is not." Cf. Hincmar of Rheims, Letter XXII. Now since the doctrine handed down above was sufficient for Leo for dispatching the singular question proposed to him, he did not wish to turn aside elsewhere and linger in solving questions which could arise, for example, whether the union of a free man with a female slave can ever be a legitimate marriage and sacrament; for the question proposed to him had been about a concubine, not about the marriage of a free man with a female slave or maidservant. Cf. Thesis XV, IX.

Decree V. Women joined to men by paternal judgment are without fault, if the women who were held by the men were not in marriage (if, namely, the men to whom daughters are joined by paternal judgment had indeed had another woman, but not associated by the covenant of marriage), because a married woman is one thing, a concubine another.

Cf. the preceding Decree.

Decree VI. To cast a maidservant from the bed and to receive a wife of certain freeborn status is not a duplication of marriage, but a progress of honorableness.

Cf. the preceding Decree IV.

Decree XIII. One constituted in adolescence, if, urged either by fear of death or danger of captivity, he has done public penance and afterwards, fearing the fall of youthful incontinence, has received the copula of a wife lest he incur the crime of fornication, seems to have done a venial thing, if besides the spouse he has known no other at all. In this, however, we do not constitute a rule, but we judge what is more tolerable. For according to true knowledge, nothing more befits him who has done penance than persevering chastity of both mind and body.

From this someone may not undeservedly gather that at that age those who did public penance in adolescence were not very frequent, a thing which Ambrose also advises should not happen in On Penance, book II, nn. 104 and 107, and afterwards the Council of Agde also counseled in A.D. 506, Canon XV.

You see that public penance was an impedient impediment to marriage. It was prefixed by ecclesiastical sanctions, says the Council of Pavia in A.D. 850, see below, that no one publicly penitent may contract up to the time of completed penance. Indeed at an earlier age it was advised that, even when penance had been completed, continence be preserved, as Leo here suggests. Indeed Siricius simply supposes in his letter to Himerius, chapter 6, cited above, that it was prescribed, which precept Leo mercifully softened for adolescents; Nicholas I also followed his example with respect to others; see below.

Decree XIV. The purpose of a monk, undertaken by his own judgment or will, cannot be deserted without sin. For what someone has vowed to God, he ought to render to Him. Hence he who, having left the profession of singularity, has slipped down to military service or nuptials, is to be purged by the satisfaction of public penance, because although (this can deservedly be received: the thing considered in itself, which could be objected to Leo) military service is innocent and marriage can be honorable, nevertheless to have deserted the better choice is transgression.

Decree XV. Girls who, not compelled by the command of parents but by spontaneous judgment, have taken up the purpose and habit of virginity, if afterwards they choose nuptials, prevaricate, even if consecration has not been added, of whose gift they surely would not be deprived if they remained in their purpose. But it cannot be doubted that a great crime is admitted where both the purpose is deserted and consecration is violated. For if human covenants cannot be trampled with impunity, what will await those who have corrupted the covenants of the divine sacrament (namely, of consecration; for at the end he treats of those who are also consecrated. But sacrament is taken in a broader sense)?

From these two responses it is not sufficiently clear whether Leo judged such nuptials void; but neither did it pertain here to Leo to teach this, since he was treating of imposing penance. Cf. the decree of Innocent concerning this matter.