The law of celibacy

THE celibacy of the clergy rests on a positive enactment of ecclesiastical law which, nevertheless, supposes the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles about the excellence of virginity and its superiority to marriage. From the first ages of the Church it was felt that there was an incongruity between the Christian priesthood, with its duties of offering up the eucharistic sacrifice, and of whole-hearted devotion to the service of God, and the use of marriage. The example of our Lord and the counsels of St Paul told powerfully in the same direction. Already in the fourth century the law of celibacy existed which was formulated by Leo the Great in his letter to Anastasius written about the middle of the fourth century: “ Although,” he says, “ those who are not clerics may freely give themselves to marriage and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of perfect chastity marriage is not allowed even to subdeacons, so that those who have wives should be as those who have them not, and those who have them not should remain single.” All the more stringently, he goes on to say, does the same law bind the higher clergy, deacons, priests, and bishops. This law was frequently inculcated by subsequent Popes, re-enacted in many ecclesiastical synods, and at latest in the Second Council of the Lateran (1139) marriage of the higher clergy was prohibited under pain of nullity. By ecclesiastical law, then, clerics in sacred orders are bound to observe perfect chastity, and marriage attempted by them is null and void. This law is known to all who aspire to sacred orders, and so those who choose the clerical state voluntarily embrace the law of continence. Indeed, a vow of perfect chastity is by ecclesiastical usage annexed to the reception of sacred orders, so that all who are ordained subdeacons, by the very fact of receiving ordination, take a solemn vow of chastity. The discipline of the Eastern Church is somewhat milder. Clerics belonging thereto may marry before the reception of sacred orders, and if they have already done this (Can. 132, 1072) they may keep their wives, except bishops. Even in the East clerics in sacred orders cannot contract a valid marriage.

I. Notion. Celibacy is understood as the state of major clerics, insofar as they are bound to abstain from entering marriage, or, if perhaps before the reception of the subdiaconate they entered it, from the use of it. Sometimes celibacy is taken for the state of perfect chastity, to which major clerics are bound.

The Precept of Clerical Celibacy.—(a) Origin.—This law is not divine but ecclesiastical, since it arose, not from any command of Christ, but from a custom of the Church that goes back to the first centuries. Nevertheless, celibacy of the clergy is an imitation of Christ and the Apostles, a following of the counsel given by the Lord, an honor to the sacrifice of the altar, and an example that single chastity is possible. Moreover, by means of it the priest is freed from domestic relations and better enabled to minister as the father, pastor, confessor and counsellor of his people. The celibate is unencumbered by family responsibilities and expenses, and is therefore better able to respond to difficult and dangerous tasks, such as mission work in pagan lands and ministrations to the dying in fire, wreck, or plague, The Church does not denounce or condemn the married clergy of non-Catholic bodies; on the contrary, she permits to some extent a married clergy among the Oriental Catholics, who for many centuries have been accustomed to a married priesthood. But the law of celibacy for the Catholic clergy has not only proved itself more suitable for their work, but it has also justified itself by the general fidelity with which it has been observed and the attachment to it of clergy and laity alike.

(b) Obligation.—The law commands chastity as a grave duty of religion (Canon 132); it forbids the contract or use of marriage (Canon 1072). It forbids, where there is danger to chastity or scandal, cohabitation and companionship with women (Canon 133). Cohabitation refers to dwelling in the same house, even though it be only during the day, and the woman be a servant; companionship refers to visits, conversations, signs of friendship, and the like. The danger to good name or virtue depends on circumstances, such as age, beauty, levity, and privacy of association; and the law presumes that a relationship is suspicious unless a woman is a near relative by blood or by marriage (i.e., in the first or second degree), or is mature in age (about forty years old) and proved in virtue and of good repute.

“Bishops are not to presume to make anyone a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely, because no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar unless his chastity has been proved before the reception of the ministry.” Canon 1, distinction 28.

“If anyone says that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract marriage and that the contract is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or the vow, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 24, canon 9.

Pius IX condemned two errors: that the celibacy of clerics ought to be abolished, and that the state of marriage ought to be preferred to the state of virginity. The former is refuted in the encyclical letter Qui pluribus, 9 November 1849; the latter, in the Apostolic Letter Multiplices inter, 10 June 1851.

Are clerics bound to preserving celibacy? - In the Latin Church all clerics, from the episcopate to the subdiaconate inclusive, are held under a most grave precept to preserve perpetual chastity, so that they neither can licitly use a marriage contracted before sacred ordination, nor licitly nor validly afterward contract it. This is established from several chapters of Canon Law, especially C. 1, Dist. 28; C. unic. de Voto in 6; Trent s. 24, c. 9.

In the Latin Church. For some exception is given by tolerance of the Church among the Orientals. In the Oriental Church priests can never enter marriage after priestly ordination, nor deacons after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be promoted to further orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, all of whom must constantly preserve perfect chastity. Hence among the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among sacred orders; and upon unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate the precept of chastity is imposed. In some provinces, in which the ancient discipline of the Western Church has been restored, the same obligation is imposed in the ordination of the subdiaconate. Cf. 1015. L. l. 6, n. 806; S. Th. Suppl. q. 53, a. 3; C. Ut Clericorum 13 de Vit. et honest. cler., C. A crapula 14 e. t.; C. 1, 2 Qui cler. vel vov.; C. 1, 4 de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. for the Italo-Greeks Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 7, n.

26; Instruction for the Copts Eo quamvis tempore, May 4, 1745, § 30 ff.; E. M.

Ruthenian clerics in the Canadian region cannot be admitted into the Seminary unless they have promised before the Bishop that they will preserve celibacy perpetually; and only celibates will be able to be promoted to sacred orders in the Canadian region. For exercising the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian rite, none can be admitted except celibate priests, or at least widowers and without children. S. C. de P. F., August 8, 1913, art. 10, 11; A. A. S. v. 5, p. 395. Celibacy is prescribed in the very same way for the Ruthenian clergy in the United States of North America by Pius X, C. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, c. 2, art. 10, 12; Supplem. 369.

During the first five centuries in the Western Church the obligation of preserving continence attached to the order of subdiaconate is not found. The first to command subdeacons to preserve it was St. Leo the Great, around the year 440, as is clear from his Epistle 84 to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. But since St. Leo's precept was no longer being sufficiently observed, D. Gregory the Great renewed it, around the year 581, further declaring that the subdiaconate is a sacred order and aggregated to the major orders. And then it is expressly and determinately established in the Decretals of Innocent III, C. Miramur 7 de Serv. non ordinandis. De Iustis de Dispens. Matrim. l. 3, c. 15, Appendix n. 11.

Is the obligation of celibacy of divine law? - Reply: Negatively; for if this law were of divine law, it would not vary concerning it between the Latin and Greek Church, since divine law does not vary according to diversity of places. It is therefore from the ordinance of the Church. Therefore the Church can dispense from that obligation.

Whether that obligation is immediately from a precept of the Church, or immediately from a vow to be emitted by precept of the Church? Trent s. 24, c. 9 refers to both, but does not define. There are those who teach that those ordained in sacred orders are held to chastity not from a vow, but from the sole ordinance of the Church, both because no mention of a vow is made, and because a precept of the Church is sufficient for this. But others commonly, with S. Th. 2. 2. q. 88, a. 11, derive this obligation immediately from a vow of chastity, which is emitted in the very fact of ordination according to the mind of the Church, and this is expressly had in the Law. C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug.; Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, December 3, 1749, § 41. And Boniface VIII declared this vow to be solemn. C. un. de vot. et vot. redempt. in 6. Wherefore a cleric initiated into sacred orders, sinning against chastity, sins also against religion by acts both external and internal. Therefore the obligation of celibacy extends to preserving all chastity. Cf. L. l. 6, n. 807, 808; Albit. de Inconst. in Fide c. 36, n. 132 ff.

2. Arcontius, a priest, suffering grave temptations against chastity, of which he previously was altogether free, fell into many sins against the same virtue; nevertheless he does not think that he commits sacrilege, first because, he says, ecclesiastical celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but from mere ecclesiastical law; but positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. Secondly, because, although there is a vow, its obligation nevertheless ceases on account of changed circumstances of things, and on account of a supervening grave inconvenience which, if it had been foreseen, the vow would not have been emitted.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Arcontius is egregiously deceived in all things. He errs first when saying that ecclesiastical celibacy does not oblige except from mere ecclesiastical law, namely with no vow intervening. This is openly opposed to C. Quod votum un., de Voto et Voti Redempt., and Benedict XIV, C. Inter praeteritos, par. 1, 3 Dec. 1749.

He errs secondly, when he thinks that he does not commit sacrilege because celibacy is to be observed not from a vow, but only by force of ecclesiastical law itself. For 1.º since that law rests upon a motive of religion, its transgression is sacrilege, at least broadly such. 2.º Since, according to the opinion of all, that law solemnly consecrates the person himself to God by the public authority of the Church, its transgression is also sacrilege strictly and properly such.

He errs thirdly, when he thinks that on account of the grave temptations which he experiences he is not held by that law, since positive human laws do not oblige with grave inconvenience. This is not true, when there is question of a law depending upon the proper and free consent of the will, as this law is. Thus enclosure is prescribed to nuns, which certainly is a most grave thing; but it is free to nuns to enter religion, just as it is free to clerics to be initiated in sacred orders.

He errs fourthly, thinking that the vow of chastity ceases on account of changed difficulties of things. For generally the difficulty of observing chastity is intrinsic to chastity itself; it is for all. And only some special difficulty can be had for someone, but for him who is unwilling to use the necessary means, as especially prayer and flight from occasions. Since therefore that special difficulty is voluntary, namely depending upon the will, the matter is evident that on account of it the vow cannot cease; for otherwise the vow would cease on account of its voluntary violation, which cannot be. Hence it does not avail to say that such a difficulty was not foreseen; for although this difficulty was not foreseen, since it is from the will, it can always cease by the will, if one seriously wishes to apply the due remedies. Likewise a special difficulty can be had independently of one’s own negligence, on account of merely subjective circumstances of temperament. But neither does this special difficulty exempt from the vow of chastity. For first, if there is question of a vow of chastity generally, even of a simple vow of chastity outside Religion, this always remains firm, even if one is agitated by unusual and unforeseen impulses of the flesh; for speaking of itself, this difficulty is foreseen at least confusedly, since in fact it is neither extrinsic to this matter nor altogether rare, insofar as those who vow chastity, even the more holy and pure, ordinarily speaking, at least at some time in life experience this difficulty. Besides, there is added the grace of God, which is not denied to him who does what is in him; and if anyone freely cooperates with it, certainly there will be no danger of incontinence, and that special difficulty of resisting temptations is diminished. Wherefore the Council of Trent, sess. 24, c. 9, condemns those who assert that “all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even if they have vowed it, can contract marriage; since God does not deny this to those rightly asking, nor permit us to be tempted above that which we can bear.” But here it must be noted that, if notable difficulty and change did not proceed directly and from within the vow of chastity itself, but only indirectly and from without, for example, if a woman who had emitted a vow of chastity had been oppressed by force by another, and therefore unless she married would be in a most miserable condition, there are some who hold that the vow of chastity then is extinguished. For this circumstance is not included in any way in that matter, nor could it in any way have been foreseen. If it had been foreseen, certainly the vow would not have been emitted. But vows, special conditions being excluded, of themselves do not oblige beyond that which here and now was promised by the one vowing. But what has been said concerning the firmness of a simple vow of chastity, notwithstanding grave temptations afterwards arising, much more holds of solemn vows, validly emitted in religious profession or in the reception of orders, which are always valid, whatever notable circumstance supervenes. For the religious and ecclesiastic in this case is not considered as a private person for whom it would then be better not to be bound by vow, but as a part of the community of the Church, for whom it is fitting to postpone private good; otherwise, as is clear, how many inconveniences, how many scandals and disturbances! The same must be said by the same reason of the common good concerning simple vows which are emitted by men or women in some Congregations, especially if an oath of perseverance is added; for then an explicit onerous contract intervenes. Wherefore, just as the Congregation cannot dismiss a student on account of supervening circumstances, except circumstances of crimes, so neither can the student on account of those same circumstances desert the Congregation. — Scavini, l. 2, n. 64, ed. Milan, 1874; Gury, v. 1, n. 311; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 481; I. M. v. 1, n. 575.

42. • QUESTION 3º. Is the obligation of celibacy universal in the Church?

Resp. Some exception is given from the tolerance of the Church among Easterners. For in the Eastern Church priests indeed can never enter matrimony after sacerdotal ordination, or even after the diaconate; but those married before the diaconate can be advanced to further Orders, and nevertheless live with their wives. Bishops are excepted, who all must constantly keep perfect chastity. But apud the Greeks the subdiaconate is not numbered among Sacred Orders. Hence the precept of chastity is imposed on unmarried clerics in the ordination of the diaconate.

QUESTION 4º. Would one be bound to chastity who expressly did not wish to vow chastity?

Resp. This one nevertheless would be bound to chastity, if not from a vow, since no one can be bound unwillingly by a vow, then certainly from a precept of the Church, which from the motive of Religion would bind him to chastity when the vow was lacking ³. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, Bk. 6, n. 809. Others hold that he is bound to emit a vow of chastity; and no one will deny that the Church can oblige him to this.

³ “What certain ones have said, that if such a one sinned against chastity he would not commit sacrilege, this does not seem sufficiently probable, and is against the common opinion, because chastity would be commanded from the motive of the virtue of religion.” - St. Alphonsus, Bk. 6, n. 809, q. 2.

44. • QUESTION 6º. Can a wife who vowed chastity outside Religion after the ordination of her husband, when he has died, validly contract matrimony?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

The 1st OPINION denies, and rests on Canon Law, ch. Quia sunt, 10, dist. 28, where it is said of such a matrimony: “Let those who are badly joined be separated.” But the reason of this decision is that the Church, because of reverence for the Order assumed by the first husband, renders the wife incapable of a subsequent marriage. St. Ligorius, n. 812, calls this opinion the more common and very probable. The 2nd OPINION affirms. The reason is that it is not established that such a matrimony is invalid. For 1º it is not invalid by reason of the simple vow of chastity emitted by such a wife; 2º nor is it invalid from a special law of the Church; for from the fact that the spouses are ordered to be separated, it does not follow that their matrimony is invalid; for separation can be ordered as a penalty of a second matrimony contracted against the vow and prohibition. The same St. Ligorius, ibid., says this is sufficiently probable ⁷.

⁷ For this opinion St. Alphonsus had no one whom he could allege except Soto and Pontius. The former of these (On Justice and Law, bk. 7, q. 5, art. 3) writes scarcely a few words about this matter in passing, where he also supposes that a priest, unlike a religious, is not simply incapable of matrimony; but the latter (On Matrimony, bk. 7, ch. 25, n. 10) rests on this argument, that the Canons sometimes order spouses to be separated, although the matrimony is valid; but the Toledan canon grants the sacrament at the end of life to one sinning. But it would further have to be proved that separation of this sort and the interdict of the sacrament until the end of life were then imposed by the canons on delinquents only when the matrimony had existed validly, but by no means when, although invalidly, it had nevertheless been attempted. Since this cannot be proved, the argument of Pontius falls back into a mere sophism. Otherwise, St. Alphonsus does not deny that the former opinion is received by the common support of theologians and canonists, so much so that he scarcely, or not even scarcely, makes mention of the contrary opinion. See Schmalzgrueber, bk. 4, tit. 6, nn. 40-42.

1050. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, as today it flourishes in the Latin Church, consists in this, that major clerics, namely subdeacons, deacons, presbyters, and bishops, can contract matrimony neither licitly nor validly, but ought to cultivate perpetual continence, and, from a peculiar obligation of religion, are held to abstain from every act, whether internal or external, against chastity. Trent thus declares this:³ "If anyone shall say that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that one contracted is valid notwithstanding ecclesiastical law or vow... let him be anathema." By the Code, c. 132, the law was confirmed: "Clerics constituted in major orders are barred from nuptials and are so held by the obligation of observing chastity that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege." - Sacred ministers who attempt to contract matrimony incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See, and, if they do not repent, degradation. (Code, c. 2388.) - Wherefore here we shall explain only three things: 1. the origin and history of this law; 2. the motives on which it rests; 3. the means, especially canonical, by which celibacy may be observed.

² Among the almost countless works on ecclesiastical celibacy these can be consulted: A. de Roskovany, Coelibatus et Breviarium, Pest and Nitra, 1861-1888, where you will find the whole literature on celibacy recounted up to the year 1886, t. IV and VII; and the Supplements, t. III; A. Pavy, Du Celibat ecclesiastique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1852; Dufieux, Nature et virginite, considerations physiologiques sur le celibat religieux, Paris, 1854; Phillips, Colibat (i.e., on Celibacy), Freiburg, 1884.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; cf. sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reform.

I. Historical Survey Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy.

The law which prescribes celibacy to clerics is not divine, but ecclesiastical; nevertheless it has foundations in Scripture, and was gradually introduced into the Latin Church by custom, particular statutes, and finally by a universal decree; but in the Eastern Church, continence is imposed not upon all but only upon certain sacred ministers, as will be clear from what is to be said.

1051. 1. Continence is commended in Sacred Scripture. (A) Christ himself by his example commended perfect virginity: indeed, conceived from eternity by virginal generation in the bosom of the Father, in time he willed to have no mother except a virgin; he cultivated virginity throughout his whole life; dying on the cross, he committed his virgin mother to a virgin disciple. - Likewise by teaching purity of heart,¹ perfect self-denial,² the counsel of leaving all things, even parents, children, and wife,³ he laid the foundations of continence. This he intimated more explicitly when he said to the disciples:⁴ "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves (i.e., through continence) for the kingdom of heaven."

¹ Matt., V, 8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God."

² Matt., XVI, 24.

³ Matt., XIX, 29.

⁴ Matt., XIX, 12.

(B) Paul, adhering to the footsteps of Christ, cultivated continence himself, and gave his disciples the counsel of not marrying, so that they might serve God more fervently:⁵ "For I wish all of you to be as myself: but each one has his own gift from God... But concerning virgins I do not have a precept of the Lord; but I give counsel as one having obtained mercy from the Lord, that I may be faithful... He who is without a wife is solicitous for the things which are the Lord's, how he may please God. But he who is with a wife is solicitous for the things which are of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided." Now one who wishes to expend himself wholly for the glory of God and the salvation of souls will try to bring a counsel of this sort into practice.

⁵ I Cor., VII, 1-38.

(C) Nevertheless neither Christ nor the Apostles commanded continence to clerics; indeed it cannot be proved that the use of marriage was forbidden to married men who received the priesthood; only bigamists, that is, those who had successively had two wives, were barred from sacred orders: "Therefore a bishop ought to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife... Let deacons be husbands of one wife."¹

¹ I Tim., III, 2, 12.

1052. 2. History of clerical continence up to the Council in Trullo (691). (A) Through the first three centuries virginity is indeed much extolled by the Fathers, and there are already found Christians of each sex who remain celibate, especially among clerics; for many of them, wishing to imitate the examples of Christ and the Apostles and to be immune from the solicitudes of the world, remained continent after receiving sacred orders, even when before ordination they had contracted nuptials.²

² This is certain especially from the things which Paphnutius declared in the Council of Nicaea (325), where there was question of enacting a law of celibacy; cf. Socrates, H. eccles., I, 11; Sozom., H. eccles., I, 23; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Paris, 1869, t. I, p. 422-426.

(B) But the first provincial Council which prescribed celibacy to sacred ministers was that of Elvira (an. 305), which established (can. 33): "It has pleased us to prohibit in all that bishops, priests, and deacons, or all clerics placed in the ministry, abstain from their wives and do not generate children: but whoever shall have done this, let him be expelled from the honor of clerical state."³ - The Council of Arles (an. 314) established almost the same thing. In the Eastern Church, the Council of Neo-Caesarea (an. 314) brought the penalty of deposition against priests taking a wife:⁴ "If a priest has taken a wife, he ought to be deposed from his order." But deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had said that they wished to marry, could afterward take wives.⁵ - But thus far there was no universal law. In the Council of Nicaea certain Fathers proposed to extend the Elviran statute to the universal Church; yet Paphnutius, a bishop in Egypt, resisted them, who, although he himself had always cultivated perfect continence, vigorously declared that celibacy was not to be imposed upon all sacred ministers, because, he said, not all can perpetually contain themselves.¹ Wherefore the Council abstained from enacting a universal law concerning this matter; but at the same time it interdicted bishops, priests, deacons, and other clerics from having with them introduced women, unless perhaps a mother, sister, aunt, or another person beyond all suspicion.²

³ In Hefele, t. I, p. 147. - The word prohibere here is improper, but the sense accepted by all is the same as if praecipere were said.

⁴ In Hefele, I, p. 217; Roskovany, I, p. 18. - Some doubted the truth of this fact, but without grave reason, as Hefele shows, l. c.

⁵ Thus the Council of Ancyra (an. 314), can. 10 (in Hefele, I, p. 204; Roskov., I, 17): "Whatever deacons, when they are ordained, if in the ordination itself they protested, saying that they wished to have wives and could not contain themselves: these, if afterward they have come to nuptials, remain in the ministry, because the bishop gave them license for these things. But whoever indeed kept silence, and received the imposition of hands, having professed continence, if afterward they have come to nuptials, they ought to cease from the ministry or clergy, receiving only lay communion."

¹ In Hefele, I, p. 422-426.

² Hefele, I, 370; Roskov., I, p. 19-20. - Introduced women were not wives, but women who were held as sisters.

1053. (C) But various canons in each Church, Eastern and Western, prohibited bishops, priests, and deacons, who had received sacred orders unmarried, from afterward taking wives. Yet in the Eastern Church, deacons who, at the time of their ordination, had declared that they wished to marry, could use this benefit, as we noted above.

But as to married men who received sacred orders, the practice of the Latin Church differed wholly from the practice of the Eastern Church: for in the former, sacred ministers had to abstain from the use of matrimony;³ while in the Eastern Church they were prohibited from leaving their wives, and could live maritally with them, except, however, on the days on which they wished to celebrate the sacred rite; it should also be noted that gradually by custom it was prohibited that non-celibates be chosen as bishops.

³ St. Jerome testifies to this, ep. 48, n. 21: "Bishops, priests, deacons are chosen either virgins, or widowers, or certainly after priesthood forever chaste"; Roskov., I, p. 35-42, relates other texts of the same author.

1054. (D) As to subdeacons, certain particular Councils had indeed enjoined celibacy upon them, but before the sixth century a law of this sort was not universal, even in the West, because the subdiaconate was still numbered among the minor orders. St. Leo (an. 444) had indeed prescribed continence to subdeacons;⁴ but this was not immediately brought into practice through the whole Church. Afterward St. Gregory established the same thing especially for Sicily, where the contrary practice flourished: "Wherefore it seems to me that from the present day it should be said to all Bishops that they should presume to make no one a subdeacon unless he has promised that he will live chastely."¹ But that statute was not observed by all, and certain variations and exceptions remained up to the twelfth century.

⁴ St. Leo, Ep. ad Anastasium, cap. 4, in Roskovany, t. I, p. 98.

¹ St. Gregory M., lib. I, Ep. 44, to Peter the subdeacon, of Sicily, in Roskov., I, 143-144.

1055. 3. Decrees of the Trullan Council (an. 692) and the practice of the Greek Church. The distinction which flourished between each Church as to the extension of celibacy was confirmed by the decrees of the Council which is called Quinisext, because it had to complete the fifth and sixth Council, or Trullan, from the trullus or hall where it was held. These things it established concerning clerical continence:² -

² In Roskovany, t. I, p. 167-171; Hefele, t. IV, p. 208-212.

(a) It confirms the past canons concerning the avoidance of the cohabitation of women who are not immune from all suspicion; moreover clerics are prohibited from ever contracting second nuptials.

(b) Sacred ministers are also forbidden to marry after their ordination: "That henceforth it be lawful for no subdeacon at all, or deacon, or priest, after ordination to contract marriage. But if he shall have dared to do this, let him be deposed." (Can. 6.)

(c) But if someone, before he is ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or priest, wishes to marry, let him do this; nor at the time of ordination should it be asked of him that he profess that he will abstain from his legitimate wife;³ nevertheless if he is promoted to the episcopate, he ought to cultivate continence: "The wife of him who is promoted to episcopal dignity, having first been separated by common consent of herself and her husband, after he has been ordained and consecrated as bishop, should enter a monastery built far from the dwelling of the bishop, and enjoy the bishop's provision." (Can. 48.) Likewise, "those who assist at the divine altar ought, at the time of handling sacred things, to be altogether continent, so that they may be able to obtain that which they ask simply from God." (Can. 13.)

³ The Fathers of this Council acknowledge that the contrary law flourishes in the Roman Church: "Since we know that it has been handed down as a canon of the Roman Church that those to be promoted to the diaconate or presbyterate profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives." (Can. 13.)

This discipline indeed flourishes even now in the Greek Church; but subdeacons are not regarded as sacred ministers, and therefore they can marry; but, if before the diaconate they have not taken a wife, they can no longer marry afterward.

1056. 4. History of celibacy in the Latin Church from the Trullan Council up to Trent. (A) While the Eastern clergy thus mitigated ecclesiastical discipline concerning celibacy, the Roman Pontiffs unconquerably defended and protected clerical continence against its attackers and violators. Yet they could not provide this without the greatest efforts and struggles. For in the ninth to twelfth centuries, great corruption of morals flourished among princes, peoples, and the clerics themselves, nor was the Chair of Peter altogether immune from that corruption; but, on the one hand, provincial Councils, such as Worms (Worms, an. 868), Soissons (Soissons, an. 889), Erfurt (Erfurt, an. 932), Anse (Anse, near Lyons, an. 994), Bourges (Bourges, an. 1031), etc.; and on the other hand, the Supreme Pontiffs, such as Leo VII (an. 938), Leo IX (an. 1051), Stephen X (an. 1057), and especially Gregory VII (an. 1074-1078), etc., not only recalled the law of celibacy to memory, but also did not hesitate to strike with severe penalties those violating the same.¹

¹ Their decrees and many others can be read in Roskovany, t. I, p. 191 sq.; cf. Vacandard, La loi du celibat ecclesiastique in Revue du clerge francais, Jan. 1, 1905.

1057. (B) Especially celebrated is can. 7 of Lateran II (an. 1139), by which the marriages of major clerics, hitherto illicit, are declared wholly invalid:² "But that the law of continence and cleanness pleasing to God may be spread in ecclesiastical persons and sacred orders, we establish: that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons... who, transgressing their holy purpose, have presumed to couple wives to themselves, be separated. For we judge that a coupling of this sort, which is certain to have been contracted against ecclesiastical rule, is not matrimony." By this decree the law of celibacy was greatly strengthened, so that nothing more remained except to bring it into practice.

² Roskovany, t. I, p. 335; Hefele, t. VII, q. 237. - Lateran I, an. 1123, indeed reproved these marriages and ordered those contracted to be dissolved, but did not declare the same to be void.

1058. (C) In the time of the pseudo-reformation, Protestants, haters of ecclesiastical institutions, attacked ecclesiastical celibacy with all their strength, and very many priests and monks who adhered to this heresy soon flew together to the desired nuptials, adhering to the footsteps of Luther rather than of Christ and the Apostles. But, notwithstanding the petitions of certain princes, even Catholic ones, Trent confirmed the ancient canons, declared the marriages of major clerics void, and renewed the penalties brought against concubinarians, granting to Ordinaries the power of proceeding against delinquents without the noise and form of judgment, every appeal or exemption having been removed, so that the plague of incontinence might more easily and efficaciously be eradicated.³ These decrees indeed almost all particular councils or synods, which have been held up to the present day, made their own and promulgated.

³ Trident., sess. XXIV, can. 9; sess. XXV, cap. 14-15 de Reformat.

II. Motives On Which The Law Of Ecclesiastical Celibacy Rests.

Titius, an Anglican minister, in order to be certain of the validity of his ordination, had been ordained by a certain schismatic bishop, and afterwards married. After some years, having been converted to the Catholic faith, he now inquires whether and under what conditions he may exercise the sacred ministry, or even make use of marital rights; concerning the validity of the priesthood received, however, there can be no doubt. Hence it is asked:

1. To what are clerics in sacred orders bound by the law of celibacy?

2. May a married man receive sacred orders, and under what conditions?

3. Would impure thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what are clerics in sacred Orders bound by the law of celibacy?

They are bound to observe perfect chastity, in thought and deed, and they are incapable of contracting a valid marriage.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 601.

2. Is a married man allowed to receive sacred Orders and on what conditions?

A man who was married but whose wife is dead or lawfully divorced, when this is possible, may receive sacred

Orders. One whose wife is still living and not lawfully divorced may not be ordained without the free and express consent of his wife, who, if she consents, must herself take a vow of chastity.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 602.

3. Would bad thoughts be sacrilegious in a priest who had been ordained in ignorance of the law of celibacy?

Such a one would not be bound by vow to observe chastity, for a vow can not be taken by one who is ignorant of it. He would, however, be bound to observe chastity by ecclesiastical law. But probably law does not touch merely internal acts, and so although bad thoughts would be sins against the Ninth Commandment, probably they would not have the additional malice of sacrilege, as bad thoughts of priests ordained under normal conditions certainly have.

4. The case. Titius, an Anglican minister, to make sure of his ordination, got ordained by a schismatic bishop and afterwards married. It is supposed in the case that this ordination is certainly valid. As sacred Order is a diriment impediment of marriage, 2 it follows that the minister was not married validly. As he is not married he has no marital rights, and he must separate from his reputed wife. The greatest consideration should be shown to the lady which is possible under the circumstances. Titius was ordained by a schismatic, and he thus incurred irregularity, which prohibits him from exercising his orders. He should submit his case to the bishop, who after inquiring into all the circumstances of the case, and if necessary consulting the Holy See, will settle what is best for all concerned.

*Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vi, n. 1143 nota.