Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/542

 CELIBACY

CELIBACY

tis, cap. xiii), while Origen seems to contrast the spiritual offspring of the priests of the New Law with the natural offspring begotten in wedlock by the priests of the Old (In Levit. Horn, vi, § 6). Clearly, however, there is nothing in this or similar language which could be considered decisive, and Bickell, in support of his thesis, found it needful to appeal mainly to the testimony of writers of the fourth and fifth century. Thus Eusebius declares that it is be- fitting that priests and those occupied in the ministry should observe continence (Demonst. Evangel., I, c. ix), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly holds himself aloof from women (Cat. xii, 25). St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, " even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands".

But the passage most confidently appealed to is one of St. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (k6.vovo. rjjs Uooairris) as something es- tablished by the Apostles (Ha?r., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. "Holy Church", he says, "respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the sub- diaconate, anyone still living in marriage and beget- ting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to" (Haer., lix. A). Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in which priests and deacons continue to have chil- dren, but he argues against the practice as most un- becoming and urges that the Church under the guid- ance of the Holy 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 from St. Ephraem and other Orientals) to support the con- tention that a general rule of celibacy existed from Apostolic times. Writers in the fourth century were prone to describe many pract ices (e . g. the Lenten 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 of Clement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: "All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children" (Stro- mateis, III, xiii).

Not less explicit is the testimony given by the church historian, Socrates. He declares that in the Eastern Churches neither priests nor even bishops were bound to separate from their wives, though he recognized that a different custom obtained in Thes- saly and in Greece (H. E., Bk. V, cap. xxii). Further, in his account of the Council of Nicaea (Bk. I, cap. xi) Socrates tells the story of Paphnutius rising in the assembly and objecting to an enactment which he con- sidered too rigorous in behalf of celibacy. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously- entered on their sacred calling should abjure matri- mony according to the ancient tradition of the Church, 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 ex- perience 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. Pom II. Leelercq) accept it without reserve. The (act that the attitude of Bishop Paphnutius dif-

fers but little from the existing practice of the East- ern Churches is alone a strong point in its favour. These testimonies, it will be observed, are from East- ern sources and indicate, no doubt, the prevailing Oriental discipline. Wernz expresses the opinion that from the earliest days of the Church the custom, if not the law, was for bishops, priests, and all in major orders, to observe celibacy.

Second Period. — In the history of clerical celibacy conciliar legislation marks the second period during which the law took definite shape both in the East and in the West. The earliest enactment on the sub- ject is that of the Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295and302) in canon xxxiii. It imposes celibacy upon the three higher orders of the clergy, bishops, priests, and deacons. If they continue to live with their wives and beget children after their ordination 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 of Socrates, just quoted, an attempt was made at the Council 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 forbade mulieres subintro- ductas. No bishop, priest, or deacon was to have any woman living in the house with him, unless it were hit mother, sister, or aunt, or at any rate persons agains' whom no suspicion could lodge. But the account of Socrates at the same time shows that marriage on the part of those who were already bishops or priests was not contemplated; in fact, that it was assumed to be contrary to the tradition of the Church. This is again what we learn from the Council of Ancyra in Galatia, in 314 (canon x), and of Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia, in 315 (canon i). The latter canon absolutely forbids a priest to contract a new marriage under the pain of deposition : the former forbids even a deacon to contract marriage, if at the moment of his ordination 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 of Ancyra allow him to marry subsequently, as having tacitly received the permission of the ordaining bishop. There is nothing here which of itself forbids even a bishop to retain his wife, if he were married before ordination. In this respect the law, as ob- served in the Eastern Churches, was drawn gradually tighter. Justinian's Code of Civil Law would not allow anyone who had children or even nephews to be consecrated bishop, for fear that natural affection should warp his judgment. The Apostolic Con- stitutions (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 W2, finally adopted a somewhat stricter view. Celibacy in a bishop became a matter of precept. If he were previously married, he had at once to separate from his wife upon his consecration. On the other hand, this council, while forbidding priests, deacons, and sub- deacons to take a wife after ordination, asserts in emphatic terms their right and duty to continue in conjugal relations with the wife to whom they had

1 n wedded previously. This canon (xiii of Trullo)

still makes the law for the great majority of_ the Churches of the Fast, though some of the I'niat communions have adopted the Western discipline.

In Latin Christendom, however, everything was ripe for a stricter law. We have already Bpoken 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