Holy Orders — Clerical Celibacy

Section 2: Clerical Celibacy

1. Obligation. The obligation of celibacy in the Latin Church binds bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons. Holy Orders is a diriment impediment to marriage.¹ The Tridentine Council defines: “If anyone saith that clerics constituted in sacred orders … are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted, it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, … let him be anathema.”²

a) The law making sacred orders a diriment impediment to marriage, is not as old as the obligation of celibacy. It can, however, be traced to the Second Council of the Lateran (1139). The heroic battle waged by Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) for the independence and purity of the priesthood stands out prominently from the pages of history. But the celibacy of the clergy was a binding ecclesiastical precept long before Gregory’s time. The Council of Elvira (about 300) imposed celibacy upon the three higher orders — bishops, priests, and deacons — commanding those who were married to abstain from intercourse with their wives under pain of deposition.³ Pope Siricius, in 385, extended this law to the whole Latin Church.⁴ As regards subdeacons, the practice varied in different countries and at different periods. In Rome the subdeacons were bound by the law of celibacy under Leo the Great (d. 461). Pelagius II (d. 590) applied this rule to Sicily, but his successor, Gregory the Great (d. 604), permitted the deacons of that country to continue their relations with their wives, though under penalty of being excluded from higher orders.⁵ Subsequent popes, especially Urban II (1089), enforced stricter measures, until finally, with the adoption of the subdiaconate into the category of major orders, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the obligation of celibacy for this order became universal.

b) In the Greek Church celibacy was generally observed by the clergy but not enforced as a canonical precept.

Justinian I (527–565) imposed celibacy upon bishops. Under his Code of Civil Law no one who had a living wife or children could be raised to the episcopate. The present discipline of the Greek Church is not based on Justinian’s legislation, but follows the Council of Trullo (692), which, while requiring bishops and monks to lead a celibate life, permitted presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons to continue to cohabit with their wives. But they are not allowed to remarry after ordination. Benedict XIV, in his Constitution “Etsi pastoralis,” of May 26, 1742, declared that the Roman Church does not forbid this practice among the Uniate Greeks.⁶

2. Origin. That the celibacy of the clergy is not a divine law but merely an ecclesiastical precept, is the unanimous teaching of theologians. But there is a difference of opinion regarding the origin of the practice. Gregory of Valentia, Vasquez, Bellarmine, Zaccaria, Phillips, Bickell, and others hold that clerical celibacy is an Apostolic institution, whereas Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Tournely, Hefele, Probst, and Funk maintain that it originated later. The problem is purely historical, and the evidence seems to show that celibacy, as a precept, is of post-Apostolic origin.

We say, as a precept, not as a voluntary practice. Bickell’s argument for the Apostolic origin of celibacy does not take due account of this distinction.⁷

An important incident in the history of clerical celibacy is the stand taken by St. Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, at the First Nicene Council. Socrates⁸ and Sozomen⁹ relate the incident substantially as follows: When in the course of the conciliary proceedings, it was moved that bishops, priests, and deacons should in future abstain from carnal intercourse with their wives, Paphnutius, an aged and venerable bishop, protested against the heavy burden to be thus imposed upon the clergy, quoting St. Paul’s well-known declaration (Heb. XIII, 4) respecting the purity of the marriage bed. He said it would be sufficient if bishops, priests, and deacons, in accordance with tradition, were forbidden to marry after ordination. The Council adopted his suggestion and the project was abandoned.

St. Paphnutius was justified in appealing to tradition, for before 325, clerics in major orders were frequently permitted to marry. The Apostolic Constitutions¹⁰ commanded bishops, priests, and deacons to be satisfied with one wife and forbade them to marry after ordination. The decree of the Council of Ancyra (314) allowing deacons to marry after ordination, is exceptional. Under the existing discipline a deacon was merely permitted to retain his wife in case he had been married before ordination. Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), after expressing veneration for a celibate life, says: “All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife, whether he be a priest, deacon, or layman — provided only he uses his marriage blamelessly; and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children.”¹¹ On the other hand there is Patristic testimony to prove that celibacy was voluntarily practised by the higher clergy long before it was enjoined by law. Thus St. Epiphanius (d. 406) says: “The priesthood is recruited mainly from the ranks of celibates, or otherwise of the monks; but if suitable persons for the administration of that office cannot be found among the monks, the priests are usually chosen from among those who abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives or are widowed after one marriage.”¹² In another treatise St. Epiphanius complains that “in some places” priests, deacons, and subdeacons “continue to have children,” and he argues against the practice as “opposed to the very notion of the priesthood.”¹³

Vigilantius’ cynical advice that the bishops should ordain none but married men, was met by St. Jerome (d. 420) with the declaration that celibacy was all but universally observed by the clergy.¹⁴ In general we may say¹⁵ that “while celibacy in the first three centuries was not yet a strict obligation imposed upon the clergy, it was quite generally observed.”¹⁶

3. Congruity. Clerical celibacy recommends itself for its many intrinsic and extrinsic advantages.

a) Virginity and marriage are both holy, but virginity is superior to marriage, and hence more befitting those who are set apart for the sacred ministry. The Tridentine Council pronounces anathema against all who say “that the married state is to be placed above the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy than to be united in matrimony.”¹⁷ It is conditions, not persons, that are contrasted here, and hence it would be wrong to say that the preference given to celibacy implies disrespect for the married state. No doubt a good mother who raises her children in the fear of God leads a more meritorious life than an indifferent nun. On the other hand we must remember that our Divine Lord Himself extolled virginity as a precious gift,¹⁸ and St. Paul describes it as the higher call.¹⁹ The Fathers develop this teaching. Thus St. Chrysostom says: “The state of virginity is good, I agree; indeed, it is better than the married state, I confess. And if you ask, By how much better? I answer: By as much as heaven is better than earth, or angels are better than men.”²⁰ St. Augustine calls the virginal life “the portion of the angels.”²¹ Nothing reflects greater honor upon a priest than the virtue of chastity. In temptations he is strengthened by the example of the Divine High Priest Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Prayer and the Holy Sacrifice supply him with inexhaustible graces to preserve the innocence of his exalted state.²² He who has voluntarily devoted himself to the service of God and consecrated his life to the administration of the Sacraments, must serve God with an undivided heart.²³

b) The celibacy of the clergy is, moreover, blessed with great advantages (1) for the Church, (2) for the clergy, and (3) for the faithful.

(1) For the Church. The Catholic Church is the spouse of Christ and must be free from all undue influence on the part of the secular power. This freedom she can enjoy only with a celibate priesthood. Married clergymen would have neither the power nor the will to oppose the civil authorities if they attempted to enslave the Church, nor to combat successfully the allurements of nepotism.

(2) For the clergy. Celibacy permits the members of the clergy to devote themselves to their high calling with energy and concentration and to gain great honor and influence among the people. A priest has troubles enough without being burdened with the cares of a family. Fr. Thurston, in his paper to which we have referred, quotes the testimony of Dr. Mahaffy, a distinguished married clergyman and professor of Trinity College, Dublin: “From the point of view of preaching there can be little doubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human misfortunes increase necessarily in proportion to the number of the household; and as the clergy in all countries are likely to have large families, the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses is stolen from them by other duties and other cares. The Catholic priest, when his daily round of outdoor duties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is nothing to disturb his thoughts. The family man is met at the door by troops of children welcoming his return and claiming his interest in all their little affairs. Or else the disagreements of the household demand him as an umpire, and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation of the faults and follies of mankind, but by their actual invasion of his home.”²⁴ The Catholic priest, on the contrary, can devote his undivided care to his parishioners.

(3) The celibacy of the clergy, thirdly, is fraught with great advantages to the faithful. They are the priest’s children, to whom he should devote all his thought and attention. The chastity of his state of life is apt to inspire them with respect and admiration. It is with confidence that they confess their sins to him.²⁵ It is with ardor and enthusiasm that they learn from him the ideals of the Christian religion.

Against these important advantages the occasional lapses of individual priests, which have furnished such writers as Lea and the Theiners with material for their chronique scandaleuse, weigh but lightly in the balance, especially if we consider that marriage is by no means an infallible safeguard against incontinency. “We do not abolish Christian marriage,” aptly observes Father Thurston, “because so large a proportion of mankind are not faithful to the restraints which it imposes on human concupiscence. No one in his heart believes that civilized nations would be cleaner or purer if polygamy were substituted for monogamy. Neither is there any reason to suppose that scandals would be fewer and the clergy more respected if Catholic priests were permitted to marry.”²⁶

Readings: Besides the general works listed in the first volume of this treatise (The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 3 and 4) the student will do well to consult the Supplementum to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, qu. 34 sqq., and the commentators, especially Billuart, De Sacramento Ordinis (ed. Lequette, Vol. VII, pp. 313 sqq.); Vasquez, Comment. in S. Theol., III, disp. 235 sqq. Likewise, Peter Soto, De Institutione Sacerdotum, Dillingen 1568. — Fr. Hallier, De Sacris Electionibus et Ordinationibus ex Antiquo et Novo Iure (in Migne’s Theol. Curs. Complet., Vol. XXIV). — J. Morinus, Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus, Antwerp 1695. — C. Oberndorfer, De Sacramento Ordinis, 1759. — P. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione, Paris 1893. — Cardinal G.M. van Rossum, C.SS.R., De Essentia Sacramenti Ordinis, Freiburg 1914. — F. Gillmann, Zur Lehre der Scholastik vom Spender der Firmung und des Weihesakraments, Paderborn 1921. — J. Tixeront, L’Ordre et les Ordinations, an admirable and non-controversial statement of the Catholic doctrine concerning orders and jurisdiction, both from the theological and the historical point of view, Paris 1925; Engl. tr. by S.A. Raemers, Holy Orders and Ordination, St. Louis 1928. — Rouzic, Les Saintes Ordres, Paris 1926.

B.J. Otten, S.J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 42, 52, 81, 87, 168, 326, 347, 350, 355, 474; Vol. II (1918), 380 sqq., 476.

On the different orders see E. Furtner, Das Verhältnis der Bischofsweihe zum hl. Sakramente des Ordo, Munich 1861. — A. Kurz, Der Episkopat der höchste vom Presbyterat verschiedene Ordo, Vienna 1877. — Schulte-Plassmann, Der Episkopat ein vom Presbyterat verschiedener, selbständiger und sakramentaler Ordo oder die Bischofsweihe ein Sakrament, Paderborn 1883. — O. Zardetti, Die Bischofsweihe, Einsiedeln 1889. — L. Soblowsky, Episkopat und Presbyterat in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Würzburg 1893. — L. Gobet, L’Origine Divine de l’Episcopat, Fribourg 1898. — St. von Dunin-Borkowski, Die neueren Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episkopates, Freiburg 1900. — A. Michiels, L’Origine de l’Episcopat, Louvain 1900. — G. Péries, Episcopat et Presbyterat, Paris 1908. — Arthur König, Der katholische Priester vor fünfzehnhundert Jahren: Priester und Priestertum nach Hieronymus, Breslau 1890. — J.N. Seidl, Der Diakonat in der katholischen Kirche, dessen hieratische Würde und geschichtliche Entwicklung, Ratisbon 1884. — H. Reuter, Das Subdiakonat, dessen historische Entwicklung und liturgisch-kanonistische Bedeutung, Augsburg 1890. — F. Wieland, Die genetische Entwicklung der sogen. Ordines Minores in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Freiburg 1897. — A. Bruders, S.J., Die Verfassung der Kirche von den ersten Jahrhunderten der apostolischen Wirksamkeit an bis zum Jahre 175 n. Chr., Mayence 1904.

H.C. Lea’s Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy, Philadelphia 1867, is biased and unreliable; cfr. Aug. Vassal, Le Célibat Ecclésiastique au Premier Siècle de l’Eglise, Paris 1896, and in general on Lea’s methods as a historian, P.M. Baumgarten, Die Werke von Henry Charles Lea und verwandte Bücher, Münster 1908 (English tr., Henry Charles Lea’s Historical Writings: A Critical Inquiry into Their Method and Merit, New York 1909).