• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Celibacy of the Clergy

The celibacy of the clergy has, for a long series of time, been established in the Romish communion. The bishop, the priest, and the deacon are forbid to marry. This connexion indeed is allowed to the laity. The institution, in the system of catholicism, is accounted a sacrament, and therefore the sign and means of grace and holiness. The council of Trent, in its twenty-fourth session, declares this ceremony one of the sacraments, by which, according to its seventh session, 'all real righteousness is begun and augmented.' The same is taught in the Trent Catechism, published by the command of Pope Pius. But, wonderful to tell, the council as well as the Catechism prescribes, in sheer inconsistency, a renunciation of an institution which conveys true sanctity, as a necessary qualification for the priesthood.

The advocates of Romanism, however, vary on the decision of the question, whether this celibacy be divine, or human, or even useful. One party account the interdiction a divine appointment. These make the prohibition a matter of faith and moral obligation, which, unlike a question of mere discipline, neither the pope nor the universal church can change or modify. Commanded by God, and sanctioned by his Almighty fiat, no earthly power can repeal the enactment, which, according to this system, must remain for ever without alteration. This opinion was patronized by Jerome, Epiphanius, Major, Clichtovius, Gabutius, Siricius, and Innocent. This party, however, was never considerable either in number or influence.

A second party reckons the celibacy of the clergy a human constitution. These, in general, esteem the prohibition a question not of faith but of discipline, prescribed not by God but by man, and capable of being altered or even repealed by human authority. These are numerous, and at one time included the majority of the Roman communion: and the opinion has been patronized by many theologians of influence and learning, such as Aquinas, Cajetan, Soto, Bellarmine, Valentia, Bossuet, Du Pin, Gother, Challenor, and Milner.

The partizans of this opinion, however, are subdivided into two factions, distinguished by a slight shade of difference. One of these factions accounts the matrimonial interdiction, apostolical, established by the inspired heralds of the gospel; and continued in uninterrupted succession till the present day. This forms a close approximation to the former system ; and seems to have been advocated, with some variation and inconsistency, by Jerome, Chrysostom, Siricius, Innocent, Gregory, Bellarmine, Godeau, and Thomassin. The other faction reckons the regulation merely ecclesiastical or human, and a matter of meer expediency, and capable of dispensation or recission according to utility. This system has been countenanced by Aquinas, Cajetan, Antoninus, and Gratian. The marriage of the clergy, says Gratian, is forbidden neither by evangelical or apostolical authority. Similar statements have been made by Aquinas and Cajetan.

A third party account sacerdotal celibacy not only ecclesiastical or human, but also useless or hurtful. The opposition to the prohibition, even in the bosom of the Roman communion, has in every age, been persevering and powerful. The privation has been discountenanced by many of the ablest patrons of Romanism, such as Panormitan, Erasmus, Durand, Polydorus, Alvarus, and Pius. The celibacy of the clergy, says Pius the Second, is supported by strong reasons, but opposed by stronger. The edicts of Siricius and Innocent, by which the privation was first enforced, were rejected by many of the clergy. Gregory's tyranny on this topic met with decided hostility. His attempt was, by many, accounted an innovation and produced a schism. Many chose to renounce the priesthood rather than submit to pont1fical despotism, violate their conjugal engagements, or relinquish the objects of their affections.

The German emperor and clergy supplicated Pope Pius the Fourth, for a repeal of the enactments against sacerdotal matrimony, and supported their petition with the most irrefragable arguments, such as the novelty of privation, and its dreadful consequences on morality. Augustine, the Bavarian ambassador at Trent, petitioned against clerical celibacy, which, he declared, "was not of divine right or commanded by God." His speech, on the occasion, met, even in the council of Trent, with attention and even applause. The French King and clergy at Poissy issued a similar petition to the pope in 1561, enforced by similar reasons. The rankest and most disgusting debauchery, originating in the unnatural interdiction, has disgraced sacerdotal dignity, and stained the annals of civil and ecclesiastical history.

The celibacy of the clergy, in all its forms, is a variation from the Jewish theocracy delivered in the Old Testament. The Jews countenanced neither celibacy nor maidenhood, and the Jewish nation contained neither umnatrimonial priests nor cloistered nuns. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were married, and had a numerous offspring. Prior to Moses, the first-born of the Hebrews possessed both civil and ecclesiastical authority, and was prince and priest; but was not debarred connubial enjoyments. Moses, the celebrated legislator of Israel, was married and had a family. The holy prophets of Palestine, such as Noah, Joseph, Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, formed this connexion, and became the parents of sons and daughters. The levitical priesthood were allowed the same liberty. Matrimony indeed, among the Israelitish clergy, could hardly be called a bare permission ; but amounted in one sense to a command. The priesthood, among the descendents of Abraham, was hereditary. The sons of the Aaronical priests succeeded, in consequence of their birth-right, to the administration of the sacerdotal functions. An injunction therefore seems, in this manner, to have been laid on the minister of the Jewish establishment in favor of that institution, by which, according to the Divine appointment, the priestly office was transmitted to their posterity and successors, who presided in the worship of Jehovah and the religion of Canaan.

Sacerdotal celibacy is a variation from the Christian dispensation revealed in the New Testament. The Christian Revelation affords express precept and example for the marriage of the clergy. Paul, addressing Timothy and Titus, represents the bishop as 'the husband of one wife.' The same is said of the deacon. Matrimony, therefore, according to the book of God, does not disqualify for the episcopacy or the deaconship. The inspired penman also characterizes 'forbidding to marry' as 'a doctrine of devils.' The interdiction of the conjugal union, according to apostolical authority, emanated not from God but from Satan. The prohibition and its practical consequences among the Romish clergy are worthy of their author. 'Take away honourable wedlock,' says Bernard, 'and you will fill the church with fornication, incest, sodomy and all pollution.' Erasmus, who was well acquainted with its effects, compared it to a pestilence. These authors have drawn the evil with the pencil of truth, and emblazoned the canvass with a picture taken from life.

The apostles have left examples as well as precepts in favour of matrimony. All the apostles, says Ambrosius, except John and Paul, were married. Simon, whose pretended successors have become the vicegerents of heaven, was a married man, and the sacred historians mention his mother-in-law. Peter and Philip, say Clemens and Eusebius, had children. Paul was married according to Clemens, Ignatius, and Eusebius ; though the contrary was alleged by Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrosius, and Augustine.

The celibacy of the clergy, varying in this manner from the Christian dispensation, is also a variation from ancient tradition. The interdiction of sacerdotal matrimony is unknown to the oldest monuments of the church, the mouldering fragments of Christian antiquity, and the primeval records of ecclesiastical history. No vestige of the prohibition is to be found in the long lapse of three hundred years after the era of redemption. Its warmest patrons can produce no testimony of its existence for three ages after the epoch of the incarnation; nor any indeed possessing the least authority till the days of Jerome and Epiphanius in the end of the fourth century. The monk of Palestine and the bishop of Salamis are the first witnesses which could be produced by all the learning and research of Bellarmine, or Thomassin; and even their attestation is contradictory and inconsistent with cotemporary history.

This lengthened period was enlightened and adorned by a succession of Apostolical and Christian authors; and all are silent on this theme, or bear testimony to the unconfined freedom of matrimony. The inspired writers were followed by the apostolical men, Hermas, Clemens, Barnabas, Polycarp, and Ignatius. These again were succeded by a long train of ecclesiastical authors, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, Minucius, Athenagoras, and Cyprian. But none of these mention, in express or implied phraseology^ any connubial restriction on the clergy: and the omission is not supplied by a single pontifical edict or synodal canon prior to the fourth century.

Many documents of antiquity, on the contrary, remain, which testify their unrestrained liberty to form and enjoy the nuptial connexion, and which are conclusive and above all suspicion. A few of these may be subjoined, taken from Dionysius, Clemens, Origen, and the Apostolic canons.

Dionysius, about the year one hundred and seventy, affords one decisive testimony to the marriage of the priesthood in his day. The interesting relation is preserved by Eusebius. Dionysius, according to the father of ecclesiastical history, was bishop of Corinth. He was esteemed for his wisdom and piety ; and did not confine his valuable labours to his own diocese, but extended them to other parts of Christendom. He wrote to the Lacedemonians, Athenians, Nicomedians, Gortinians, Amastrians, and Gnossians, for the purpose of enforcing truth and peace. His letter to the Gnossians was on the subject of sacerdotal celibacy. Pinytus, a Cretan bishop, actuated by ignorance or presumption, urged the necessity of abstinence in all its rigour on the clergy of his diocese. Dionysius, having heard of the unconstitutional attempt, wrote to the Gnossians and admonished Pinytus to regard the weakness of man. and to lay no such heavy burden on the clergy. Pinytus, convinced of his error, bowed to the wise and well-timed counsel, and replied to his Corinthian monitor in strains of eulogy and admiration. The relation is conclusive against sacerdotal celibacy in the days of the Cretian and Corinthian bishops. Dionysius, famed for superior information on ecclesiastical laws, condemned the injurious and unwarranted innovation.

Clemens, who nourished about the year 200, testifies to the same effect. ' God,' says the catechist of Alexandria, ' allows every man, whether priest, deacon, or layman, to be the husband of one wife, and to use matrimony without reprehension. What can the enemy of matrimony say against procreation, when it is permitted to a bishop, that ruleth well his own house, and who governs the church.'2 This is clear and satisfactory.