Clerical Celibacy

Clerical Celibacy

THE voice of lamentation which was called forth by the irregularities of the clergy in the preceding centuries was heard all through the sixteenth century. The presence of a rival power had not yet wrought an effectual shame in the mass of offenders, nor led the officials of the Church to a politic concealment,--the exercise of that worldly discretion which is more concerned to suppress scandal than to eradicate sin. Hence we find repeated and most outspoken complaints against clerical license. In interpreting these complaints we may make some allowance for the tone of the censor, which is apt to be quite as emphatic as the facts may warrant. But even then the testimonies will be found sufficiently weighty. A few of them will be tribute enough to an unpleasant subject.

The custom of making revenue out of the frailty of ecclesiastics was not obsolete. In not a few districts they paid a tax for the privilege of keeping concubines. This is indicated by a statement in the Concordat with Francis I., presented at the Lateran Council in 1516.

1 "Quia vero, in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli jurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes, pecuniarios quaestus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patientas eos in tali foeditate sordescere; sub poena maledictionis aeternae praecipimus, ne deinceps sub pacto, compositione, aut spe alterius quaestus talia quovis modo tolerent, aut dissimulent." (Raynaldus, Anno 1516, n. 19.)

The Diet of Nürnberg, in 1522, declared that in most of the dioceses a concubinary tax was annually levied on all the clergy, who were thus in a manner invited to an unchaste life, since abstinence did not excuse them from paying the fee.

1 "Item in locis plerisque episcopi, et eorum officiales, non solùm sacerdotum tolerant concubinatum, dummodo certa persolvatur pecunia: sed et sacerdotes continentes, et qui absque concubinis degunt, concubinatus censum persolvere cogunt; asserentes episcopum pecuniae indigum esse, qua saluta, licere sacerdotibus ut vel coelibes permaneant, vel concubinas alant." (Goldast, Collectio Constitutionum Imperialium, i. 477, Gravam., cap. lxx.) Another chapter in the same list of complaints presents an almost incredible picture of audacious vileness in priests: "Pudicitiam matronarum, virginum, laicorum scilicet uxorum, filiarum, sororumque attentant, ac noctu interdiuque sollicitant. Efficiunt quoque per assiduum ac indefessum laborem, partim muneribus, donis ac blanditiis, ut complures honestae alioqui virgines at matronae, partim etiam in secretis, quas vocant, confessionibus (id quod eventu ipso compertum est) diuturna opera labefactentur, ad peccata, offendiculaque commoveantur. Nec rarò etiam evenit, ut ii uxores ac filias maritis patribusque detineant, et remorentur; minantes interim gladio, aqua, ignive, ulturos repetitas uxores." (Cap. xxi, p. 464.)

In many instances the abandoned morals of the clergy were denounced as being among the chief instigations to religious revolt. At the Council of Cologne, in 1527, it was represented that the priesthood was both leading the people into sin, and inviting their contempt by its licentious excesses. 2 H. C. Lea, History of Sacerdotal Celibacy, 2d edit., p. 514. The orator of the Council of Augsburg, in 1548, admitted that the charge of criminal laxity against the clergy, which heretics were continually repeating, was far from being groundless. 3 "Negare certe non possumus, quin maximam ad nos accusandos occasionem saepe dederimus." (Lea, p.515.) Faber, the associate of Loyola in founding the Order of the Jesuits, wrote from Germany, at the close of the year 1540, that it was not so much the sermons of the Lutherans as the scandalous lives of the clergy which were constraining people to turn their backs upon the Church. In a second letter, written in January of the following year, he used this language: "Would to God that in this city of Worms there were as many as two or three ecclesiastics who were not living with concubines, or were not soiled with other notorious crimes, and who had a little zeal for the salvation of souls! For then they might do anything they pleased with this simple and well-disposed people. I speak of the towns where they have not abolished all the laws and practices, or thrown off entirely the yoke, of the Roman religion; but the part of the flock which is in duty bound to lead the unbelieving into the fold is precisely that which, by its dissolute manners, invites and forces Catholics to become Lutherans." 1 Quoted by Crétineau-Joly, Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus, i. 166.

So hopeless seemed the task of enforcing clerical celibacy, or making out of the requirement anything else than a fruitful occasion of hypocrisy and libertinism, that some Roman Catholic rulers began to advocate in earnest the privilege of marriage for the clergy. This was the case with the Duke of Bavaria and the Emperor Ferdinand I., both of whom urged their conclusions upon the Council of Trent. In support of their position, some very pungent facts were presented. Thus Augustus Baumgartner, the representative of the Bavarian Duke at the Council, declared that out of a hundred clergy scarcely three or four could be found who were not living secretly or openly in concubinage.

2 "Aggiunse, che il clero era infame per la libidine, che il magistrato politico non comporta alcun cittadino concubinario, e pur nel clero il concubinato è così frequente, che di cento non si sono trovati tre o quattro che non siano concubinarii o maritari secretemente, o palesemente; che in Germania anco i Cattolici prepongono un casto matrimonio ad un celibato contaminato." (Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, lib. vi.)

The proposal of the secular rulers received no serious consideration in the Council. It was the opinion of the doctors that family ties on the part of the clergy would antagonize the bonds of the hierarchy and weaken allegiance to central authority. So far were they from making any concession, that they passed canons which not merely ordain the practice of sacerdotal celibacy, but exclude all question respecting its legitimacy. It is, therefore, with considerable show of reason, that it has been contended that the celibacy of the priesthood in the Romish Church is not merely a prescription of discipline, but a matter of dogma. The canons in question read as follows: "If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is nothing else than to condemn marriage; and that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage: let him be anathema; seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does he suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able. If any saith that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema."

Session xxiv. canons ix. and x. In the light of these canons, it is obvious that the superiority of virginity to marriage is a dogma in the Romish Church. It is also a matter of faith, that one who has taken the vow of celibacy is bound thereby, and has no just plea for release, since he can have the gift of chastity. The law of priestly celibacy is thus placed beyond challenge so long as it stands; and the obvious inference is that it should stand forever. For why should priests be allowed to forsake a state which is both practicable and superior? If anything therefore is wanting here to make sacerdotal celibacy undeniably a matter of dogma, it is simply a formal statement that the law imposing the vow of chastity ought to remain permanently in force.

Such canons may have checked the free discussion of theories, but the usual strain about the practice of the clergy was still heard with painful frequency. Pius V, found occasion to complain, in a brief to the Archbishop of Salzburg, that the Catholic religion was exposed to great harm and danger through the bold profligacy of ecclesiastics.

1 "Plerosque, abjecto Dei timore et sine ulla hominum verecundia, concubinas palam habere, easque perinde, ac si legitimae eorum uxores essent, in ecclesiis et aliis locis publicis conspici, vulgo iisdem, quibus illi vocantur, officiorum et dignitatum nominibus appellatas; eoque haereses tantopere crevisse, ac multiplicatas fuisse; quod ecclesiastici tam turpiter et nequiter vivendo, omnem plane existimationem amiserint, et in summam non apud haereticos modo, sed etiam Catholicos contemptionem venerint. . . . Nisi enim tam nefandum concubinatus vitium extirpetur, nullam spem reliquam esse videmus reprimi posse haereses." (Quoted by Lea, p. 548.)

In subsequent years synods repeatedly issued measures for the correction of the scandalous irregularity. But, in spite of the increased earnestness which was developed in connection with the Romish reaction, the inveterate plague was healed but slightingly, if we may judge from the bitter comments which still found expression. The darkest phase of the subject was the abuse of the confessional for purposes of seduction. That this diabolical and infinite wickedness was of frequent occurrence, in the sense that the sacramental occasion itself was used to debauch the mind of the penitent, we are very reluctant to believe. It is scarcely surprising, however, that some ugly facts are on record. In a moral atmosphere not specially bracing, it is necessarily a perilous combination which takes place when the ears of a celibate priest of the coarser fibre are made receptacles for all the whisperings of impurity.

Discipline: Confession of Sins

III. - DISCIPLINE.

In accordance with the increase of polemic zeal and the decrease of moral earnestness, the tendency of the age was to sharpen the penalties against heresy, and to lessen those against immorality. In some cases the rigor of earlier canons was formally modified. Thus the council of Nicæa set forth the principle that every penitent, whatever his crime, might be admitted to communion in the dying hour, provided he had given previously a suitable exhibition of contrition. [Canon 13.] There was a general endeavor to proportion the period of penance to the guilt of the penitent. According to the scheme of Basil, based on the preceding legislation of the Church, the period of penance for apostates was to be life-long; for murder, twenty years; for adultery or violation of the vow of virginity, fifteen years; for perjury or robbing of graves, ten years; for communicating with diviners, six years; for theft, when not confessed two years, when confessed one year. [Epist., ccxvii.] In practice, the differing tempers of church officials had much to do with the degree of severity employed. Not a few were inclined to laxity, especially in dealing with culprits of rank. This unworthy concession was strongly denounced by Chrysostom, as appears from his exhortation to those administering the communion. "Though a captain," says he, "or a governor, nay, even one adorned with the imperial crown, approach unworthily, prevent him: you have greater authority than he. Fear God, not man. If you fear man, he will treat you with scorn; if you fear God, you will appear venerable even to men." [Hom. in Matt., lxxxii.]

As respects confession, two points should be considered; namely, the ground of its importance, as commonly apprehended, and the extent to which it was formally prescribed. As the whole tenor of reference to the subject indicates, the need of confession (to bishop or priest) was an inference from the necessity of penance. According to a notion quite thoroughly developed in the preceding period, sins committed after baptism are not easily forgiven: a special atonement must be made for them; a penance proportionate to the transgression must be fulfilled. As the priests were the proper advisers in respect to penance, there was a standing occasion for those who were conscious of misdeeds to open to them the nature of their offences. This was the motive for the confession of secret sins. The penitent came not to a judge for a sentence of absolution, but to a spiritual director to be see upon the path of a proper atonement. The absolution came at the end of the atonement, or penance, and then was not a judicial sentence, except so far as concerns the penitent's relation to the Church; as respects his relation to God, it was of the nature of a benediction or prayer. Augustine indicates this sense when he says, "The laying on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?" [De Bap. cont. Donat., iii. 16. Compare the following from Leo the Great Epist., clxviii.: "Sufficit illa confessio quæ primum Deo offertur, tum etiam sacerdoti, qui pro delictis pœnitentium precator accedit."]

In considering the extent to which there was a formal requirement of confession, the following specifications are pertinent: (1) There was no rule requiring all Christians to confess at recurring intervals. "In this period," says Neander, "there was no law requiring confession of sins before the priest at a stated time. Either the bishop excluded from the fellowship of the Church those whose sins had become sufficiently known, and allowed their restoration only on condition of submission to the discipline ordained by him and accommodated to the case; or they voluntarily confessed their sins to the bishop, thus giving him a token of their penitence, which worked to the softening of the penance imposed." [Kirchengeschichte, iii. 266.] (2) Very largely, participation in the eucharist was left to the conscience of the individual, and he was not required to confess as a condition of participation. On this subject we have information from Socrates and Sozomen. The former says, "When the Novatians separated themselves from the Church because they would not communicate with those who had lapsed during the persecution under Decius, the bishops added to the ecclesiastical canon a presbyter whose duty it should be to receive the confession of penitents who had sinned after baptism. And this mode of discipline is still maintained, among other heretical institutions, by all the rest of the sects; the Homoousians [Orthodox Trinitarians] only, together with the Novatians who hold the same doctrinal views, having rejected it. The latter, indeed, would never admit its establishment; and the Homoousians, who are now in the possession of the churches, after retaining the function for a considerable period, abrogated it in the time of Nectarius, in consequence of what occurred in the church of Constantinople [namely, a, scandal respecting a woman of noble family]. When, in consequence of this, ecclesiastics were subjected to taunting and reproach, Eudæmon, a presbyter of the church, persuaded Nectarius the bishop to abolish the office of penitentiary presbyter, and to leave every one to his own conscience with regard to the participation of the sacred mysteries." Hist Eccl., v. 19. According to Sozomen, the act of Nectarius, in abrogating the office of peniteritiary presbyter, was followed generally by the bishops of the East; and he adds language which indicates that, for a time at least, there was a general absence of confession in any form. "From that period," he says, "the performance of penance fell into disuse; and it seems to me that extreme laxity of principle was substituted for the severity and rigor of antiquity. Under the ancient system, I think, offences were of rarer occurrence for people were deterred from their commission by the dread of confessing them, and exposing them to the scrutiny of a severe judge." [Hist. Eccl.,vii. 16.] A state of things in which "the scrutiny of a severe judge" was no longer encountered, implies, of course, an extensive remission of confession, whether private or public. But this liberty could not well continue a great length of time. The prevailing notions respecting the necessity of satisfaction for sins committed after baptism, and the growing emphasis upon priestly rank and mediation, could hardly fail to bring in the complete machinery of the confessional as known in later times.