Holy Orders: Minister, Recipient, and Clerical Celibacy

Chapter III: The Minister

Chapter IV: The Recipient

§2: Clerical Celibacy

CHAPTER II THE MINISTER The bishop is the ordinary minister of all, especially the three sacramental orders, but the subdiaconate and the four minor orders can, with papal permission, be administered by an ordinary priest. We shall demonstrate this in the form of two theses. Thesis I: The bishop is the ordinary minister of all, especially of the holy or greater, orders. This thesis embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Decretum pro Armenis (1439) says : “The ordinary minister of this Sacrament is the bishop.” 1 The Council of Trent defines : “Bishops … ordain the ministers of the Church, and they can perform very many other functions over which those of an inferior order have no power.” 2 a) As the New Testament speaks neither of the subdiaconate nor of minor orders, we must 1 ” Ordinarius minister huius so- atqua alia pleraque per ag ere posse, cramenti est episcopus.’ (Denzinger- quorum functionum potestatem reliBannwart, n. 701). qui inferior is ordinis nullom ha 2Sess. XXIII, cap. 4: ” Episco~ bent.” (Cfr. can. 7). pos … ministros Ecclesioe or dinars . Il6 THE MINISTER H7 limit the Scriptural argument for our thesis to the three sacramental orders — the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate. The Bible, wherever it records an ordination to the priesthood, names either an Apostle 8 or one of the disciples as minister.4 These, in administering the Sacrament, were guided by well-defined rules and regulations.5 The fact that the power of ordaining is attributed exclusively to bishops shows that it belongs to them by divine institution. Cfr. Tit. I, 5: For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou … shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee. 6 But what does the Apostle mean when he says that Timothy was ordained cum impositione manuum presby* terii (fura imOtaetos rwv xccfwv rov irpttrpvrtpiov) ? That St. Paul himself was the consecrator appears from 2 Tim. I, 6. What are we to understand by the u presbyteriutn ”? The term may mean either the abstract dignity of a presbyter, i. e. bishop, which Tittiotby received by his consecration, or the consecrating bishops.7 In either case we have a renewed confirmation that the conferring of Holy Orders is an episcopal prerogative. b) An argument from Tradition may be construed from the data given supra, Ch. II, Sect. 1, Thesis II.8 s Acts VI, 6; XIII, 13; 2 Tim. I, 6. 4 1 Tim. V, 22\ Tit I, 5. 5 Cfr. 1 Tim. Ill, 1 sqq.; Tit. I, 5 ■qq. 6 Tit I, 5: Huius rei gratia teliqui te Cretae, ut … consiituas per civiiates presbyttros, sicut et ego disposui tibi. t The last-mentioned opinion was held by St. Chrysostom. 8 Supra, pp. 84 sqq. n8 HOLY ORDERS A careful distinction must be drawn between the election (electio) and the ordination (ordinatio) of higher clerics. The former may by custom or ecclesiastical sufferance be exercised by priests, nay even laymen. According to St. Jerome,9 the presbyters of Alexandria, from St. Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas (+ about 246) and Dionysius (+ 256), enjoyed the privilege of choosing one from their midst for the episcopal see. Another example in point is that of St. Ambrose, who was proclaimed bishop of Milan by clergy and people. In Switzerland even to-day congregations choose their own pastors, who subsequently receive the missio canonica from the bishop. Ordination to the priesthood, on the other hand, belongs exclusively to the bishops, and they are not bound, in exercising it, to act with the consent of the people or the secular power. ” If anyone saith,” declares the Council of Trent, “that … orders conferred by them [the bishops], without the consent or vocation of the people or of secular power, are invalid, … let him be anathema.”10 c) In order to be licit, ordination must be conferred by the recipient’s own bishop. The rite of episcopal consecration requires the assistance of two other bishops besides the consecrator. a) The Tridentine Council merely confirmed an ancient rule 11 when it prescribed, under penalty, that ” Every one should be ordained by his own bishop.” 12 Under this rule » Ep. ad Evangel., 146. 10 Sess. XXIII, can. 7; “Si quis dixerit, … or dines ab ipsis [episcopis] collates sine populi sive po> testatis saecularis consensu out vo* catione irritos esse, … anathema sit.” 11 Cir. c. 16 of the First Nicene Council. 12 Sess. XXIII, cap. 8, De ReTHE MINISTER 119 no bishop may ordain the subject of another, except on the strength of a dimissorial letter. This does not, however, apply to the Pope, who, having primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, can ordain whomever he pleases and give power to ordain to any bishop regardless of the claims of others. The juridical relation of a secular ordinand to his bishop is based upon a fourfold title, — origo, domiciiium, beneficium, and fatniliaritas. Regulars are subject to the bishop in whose diocese their convent is located. But these details belong to Canon Law rather than to Dogmatic Theology. p) Three bishops are required for an episcopal consecration. This is an ancient custom,18 but being of purely ecclesiastical institution, does not affect the validity, but merely the licitness of the rite.14 In case of urgent necessity, the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions ordain that “a bishop may be ordained by one [other bishop].” u Church history affords many examples of papal dispensation from this rule. Thus Pope Gregory the Great permitted St. Augustine of Canterbury to consecrate bishops without assistance because he was the only bishop in England.1* It follows from this and similar cases that an episcopal consecration performed with papal dispensation by one bishop alone is undoubtedly valid. But what if the papal dispensation be lacking? Vasquez17 holds form. : ” Unusquisque a proprio episcopo ordinetur.” is Cfr. Cone. Nicaenum I, c. 4: ” Episcopus convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus, qui sunt in provimcia, episcopis ordinari. Si autem difficile fuerit, … tribus tamen omni* modis in idipsum convenientibus, … celebratio ordinetur.” 14 Morinus, Gonet, and Toumely hold that it affects both validity and licitness. li Const. Apost., VIII, 27: ” Cogente necessitate episcopus ab uno ordinari potest.” iEp., IX, 64: ” Et quidem in Anglorum ecclesia, in qua adhuc solus tu episcopus inveniris, ordinare episcopum non aliter nisi sine episcopis potes.” (Migne, P. L„ LXX, 1 191). Other examples are cited by Billuart, De Sacram. Ord., diss. 4, art. 3. 17 Comment, in S. TheoL, III, disp. 243 c. 5, n. 63. that such a consecration would be invalid, just as Confirmation would be invalid if administered by an ordinary priest without special permission from the Pope. Benedict XIV 19 takes the contrary view, which is shared by many theologians and appears to be the only tenable one. According to the rite of consecration only one of the three bishops present actually consecrates, the other two merely assist. It follows that the consecrating bishop alone administers the Sacrament, especially since he alone pronounces the prayer “Propitiate, Dotnine,” etc. Moreover, though Pope Gregory the Great, in his above-quoted letter to St. Augustine, expressly states that the presence of some other pastors is useful, he does not even intimate that it is essential to the validity of the Sacrament. Finally, we know of several cases where the Church, in condemning an episcopal consecration performed by one bishop as illicit, expressly admitted its validity.19 Thesis II: An ordinary priest can, with papal dispensation, confer the subdiaconate and the four minor orders, but not the three major or sacramental orders. This thesis comprises two distinct propositions, each of which may be qualified as “communis” Proof. The expression “minister ordinarius huius sacramenti” employed by Pope Eugene IV in his Decretum pro Armenis, implies the possibility of a minister extraordinarius. As in Confirmation, this extraordinary minister is the priest, not the deacon. l* De Synodo Dioeces., XIII, 13, Bp. 67 ad Theophil.), Evagrius (cfr. 4- Theodoret, Hist. Eccles., V, 23), and l» Examples in point are the con- Armentarius (cfr. Billuart, De Sosccration of Syderius (see Synesius, cram. Ord.. diss. 4, art. 3). THE MINISTER 121 The Tridentine Council contents itself with the general statement that the episcopal power of confirming and ordaining is not shared by priests. It does not define which orders may be conferred by a priest when authorized to act as extraordinary minister.20 Hence the question is open to dispute. As the prerogative of conferring the subdiaconate and minor orders is an altogether extraordinary one for a priest, its valid exercise depends on the permission of his superiors. It is contended that in former times bishops possessed the privilege of empowering ordinary priests to confer certain orders.11 While this may be true, there can be no doubt that to-day this privilege is reserved to the Pope.22 a) All theologians agree that the Supreme Pontiff can authorize any priest to confer the subdiaconate and the four minor orders. Whatever doubts may have formerly existed among theologians with regard to the subdiaconate,28 have been dispelled by the conviction that this particular order is not a sacrament, but merely a sacramental.24 The Church herself has constantly acted on this conviction. The Second Nicene Council (787) acknowledged the right of abbots to confer the lectorate upon their subjects, and long before that time Pope Gelasius (+496) warned priests not to confer the subdeaconship or the order of acolyte without papal permission,25 thereby clearly indicating that they could validly perform these acts with pontifical au20 Sees. XXIII, cap. 4; can. 7. 21 Cfr. Hallier, De Sacr. Elect, ei Ordinal, P. II, sect 5, c. 1, art. 2. 22 Cfr. Decret. Gregor., 1. m, tit. 40, c. 9. 28 Cfr. Tanner, Thiol Sckolast., ditn. 7, qn. 3, dub. a. 24 V. supra, Ch. II, Sect. 4. 25 Ep. 9 ad Episc. Luc an., c. 6: * Nec sibi meminerii ulla ratione concedi sine summo pont&ce subdiaconum out acolythum ius habere faciendl* (Thiel. I, 365). 122 HOLY ORDERS thorization. Before the Tridentine Council certain Cistercian and Benedictine abbots are said to have exercised the privilege of conferring subdeaconship upon their subjects.26 To-day the subdiaconate ranks among the major orders 27 and its administration is reserved exclusively to bishops. According to the Tridentine law, therefore, abbots may give only the tonsure and minor orders to their subjects.28 b) The question whether ordinary priests can, with proper authorization, confer major orders, has been answered differently by theologians at various periods in the Church’s history. That a priest can under no circumstances validly ordain a bishop is conceded by all. But can he be empowered to confer the priesthood ? Aureolus,29 Morinus,80 and others answered this question in the affirmative. They based their opinion on a passage in St. Leo’s letter to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne,81 in which the major orders conferred by certain * pseudo bishops 99 are declared under certain conditions to be valid 82 The passage in question is rather obscure. The * pseudo bishops 99 to whom the Pope refers were probably priests or deacons who had received episcopal consecration uncanonically,88 though validly. Morinus attaches great importance to the fact that the priesthood was often conferred by so-called chorepiscopi, who, it is claimed, were not true bishops, but mere * coun28 Cfr. Navarrus, Consil.. I. V, de Privil. Consil., 14. 27 V, supra, p. 109. 28 Sess. XXIII. c. xo, De Reform.: * Abbatibus … non lie eat in posterutn … cuiquam, qui reguloris subditus sibi non sit, tonsuram vel minores or dines conferrg.” 29 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 25, art 1. 80 De Sacr. Ordin., P. Ill, exerc. 4, c. 3 W. iEp., 167, 1. 82 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, p. 692. 88 Cfr. the above-quoted letter of try bishops 99 after the manner of rural deans or archpriests. But we know from the proceedings of a council held at Antioch, in 341, that at least some of these dignitaries were real bishops, resembling in rank and functions our auxiliary bishops.84 Can a priest with papal dispensation validly confer the diaconate? This question is more difficult to answer. The fact that the diaconate is a true Sacrament does not prove that it cannot be administered by a priest. Confirmation is a Sacrament, and yet a priest can administer it with proper authorization from the Supreme Pontiff. With this analogy in mind Huguccio (+ 1210) argued that a priest can confer the priesthood, a deacon the diaconate and minor orders, a subdeacon the subdiaconate, etc.8 The sententia communis since St. Thomas and Duns Scotus is that a priest cannot validly ordain a deacon. “Though some abbots were occasionally permitted to confer minor, not holy orders/’ says the Roman Catechism, ” no one doubts that this is the proper office of the bishop, for whom, and for whom alone, it is lawful to initiate [candidates] into the other orders called greater and holy.” 86 The most ancient documents agree in limiting the power of conferring the diaconate to bishops, and no distinction is made between the ordinary and the extraordinary minister. From this fact it seems to folLeo the Great, Ep. 167, 1: “Nulla ratio sinit. ut inter episcopos hobeantur, qui nee a elericis sunt elect nec a plebtbus expetiti nec a provincialibus episcopis cunt metropolitan* Micio consecrati.* 84 Cfr. Labbe, Condi., Vol. II, p. S7785 * Nam ofdinem, quern non habet, nullus potest conferre, sed quern hobtt, potest/’— On this false principle see the Mayence Katholik, 1909, I. 3i9. 86 Cat. Rom., P. II, cap. 7, qu. 29 : ” Quamvis nonnuilis abbatibus per. missum sit, ut minor es et non sacros or dines interdum administrent, tomen hoc proprium episcopi munus esse nemo dubitat, cui uni ex omnibus, praeterea nemini, licet reliquis ordinibus, qui maiores et sacri di> cuntur, intiiari,” 124 HOLY ORDERS low that the existing practice is of divine right, in which case even the Pope cannot dispense from it. Yet the matter is not entirely clear. Eugene IV seems to admit that there is a minister extraordinarius huius sacramenti, and Innocent VIII in his Bull ” Exposcit”7 is said to have conferred the privilege of ordaining deacons upon all abbots of the Cistercian order, who made use of it in good faith as late as 1663.88 But the authenticity of this Bull is doubtful. Its earliest witness is Caramuel (1640), and the text is contained in none of the official collections. Panholzel’s defense of the Bull 89 is unconvincing. Cardinal Gasparri found a copy in the Vatican archives, but it contained no mention of the privilege of conferring the diaconate.40 But even if Innocent VIII had actually conferred such an extraordinary privilege on the Cistercian abbots, this fact would not settle the dogmatic problem with which we are concerned, for, as Father Pesch justly observes, “one pontifical act does not make a law or dogma.” 41 Pius V, Clement VIII, and several other popes confirmed the privilege of the Cistercian abbots to confer the subdiaconate, but make no mention of the diaconate. Hence Atzberger concludes, ” It may safely be assumed that the practice of the Cistercian abbots was based upon an error.” 48 87 A. D. 1489. 88 See Vasquez, Comment, in 5. Theol., Ill, disp. 243, c. 4, n. 39; Bertf, De Theol. Discipl., 1. 36, c. 13, § 489 In Studien und Mitteilnngen ans dem Benediktiner- und Cistercienserorden, 1884, Vol. I, pp. 441 ■qq. 40Cfr. Gasparri, De Sacr. Ord., II, n. 798, Paris 1893. 41 ” Unum factum pontificinm non facit legem neque dogma.’ (Prac hct, Dogma*., Vol. I, p. 996). 42 Scheeben- Atzberger, Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, p. 767, Freiburg 1903.— On the power of ordination the student may consult Billuart, De Sacr. Ord., diss. 3, art. 1; Souben, Nouvelle Thtologie DogmaHque, Vol. VIII, pp. 72 sqq., Paris 1905. — On two recently discovered Bulls of Boniface IX to the Abbot of St. Osyth, see the English Hist, Review, Vol. XXVI, pp. 125-127; the Catholic Fortnightly Review (St. Louis), Vol XXIV, No. 4 »»* 7* CHAPTER III THE RECIPIENT As regards the conditions required for the valid reception of Holy Orders, Dogmatic Theology is concerned solely with the fitness of the candidate; the question of his worthiness belongs to a different theological discipline. SECTION i • CONDITIONS OF VALID RECEPTION To receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders validly, a person must be ( i ) of the male sex and (2) baptized. 1. The Recipient Must Be of the Male Sex. — Like the Jewish Synagogue, the Catholic Church has always maintained that men alone are qualified for the service of the altar. Our Lord called men to be His Apostles and these, in turn, selected men to succeed them. St. Paul expressly excludes the female sex from participation in liturgical and ecclesiastical functions.1 “Let women keep silence in the churches… . 1 1 Cor. XIV, 34 •w-; » Tim. II, si tq. MS 126 HOLY ORDERS For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” 2 To this principle the Church has faithfully adhered. If there ever was a woman who deserved the honors of the priesthood, it most assuredly was the Blessed Virgin Mary. But our Divine Lord Himself debarred her from the service of the altar.8 The female priests of the Montanists and Collyridians were an abomination in the eyes of the Church. Our modem female evangelists excite derision rather than anger. The Apostolic institution of deaconesses proves nothing against our thesis.4 ” We cannot be sure/’ says Father Herbert Thurston, SJ.,5 “that any formal recognition of deaconesses as an institution of consecrated women aiding the clergy is to be found in the New Testament.” Their duty was to guard the doors and maintain order among those of their own sex in church, to instruct them privately in the faith, to discharge those charitable offices which were performed for men by the deacons, to accompany women when visiting a bishop or deacon, and to attend female converts during the administration of Baptism, which in the early days took place by immersion. The pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, after enumerating these functions, distinctly say: ” The deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfils no function of priest or deacon …” 6 That the deaconesses were blessed according 2 i Cor. XIV, 34 sqqi: * Mnlieres in ecclesiis taceant; … turpe est #91 tiff mulierl loqui in ecclesia.* 8 Cfr. St. Epiphaniiw, Hoar., 79, *. *Cfr. Rom. XVI, 1; 1 Tim. V, 9 5 In tht Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV. p. 651. • Const. AposL, VIII, 28: u Dinconissa non benedicit neque facit altquid eorum, quae presbyteri out dtoconi faciunt, nisi quad ianuas eu+ THE RECIPIENT to a prescribed rite does not prove that they received an order. St. Epiphanius expressly says that their functions are in no wise sacerdotal.7 The age limit prescribed by St. Paul 8 (sixty years) was reduced to forty by the Council of Chalcedon (451). The institute of deaconesses became extinct in the eighth century. History shows that * the Church as a whole repudiated the idea that women could in any proper sense be recipients of the Sacrament of Order.*9 What we have said about deaconesses applies also to abbesses. The benediction of an abbess does not make her a member of the clergy, nor does it give her ecclesiastical jurisdiction over her subjects. Such titles as episcopa, fresbyterissa, irpccr/fcris, which occur in ancient documents, apply either to deaconesses 10 or to the living wives of married men ordained to the episcopate or the priesthood.11 2. The Recipient of Holy Orders Must Be Baptized. — Baptism is an indispensable condition for the valid reception of all the Sacraments.12 An unbaptized man cannot be ordained to the priesthood, and if the rite were performed over stodit et presbyteris minis trot, quum mulieres baptisantnr, idque propter decor em et honest atem.” 7 Haer., 79, 3: ” Quamquam diaconissorum in ecctesia ordo est, non tamen ad sacerdotii functionem cut ullam kuiusmodi administrationem institutes est, sed ut muliebris sexus honestati consulatur.” 8 1 Tim. V, 9. 9 Thurston in the Cash. Encyclopedia, IV, 652. — On the institute of deaconesses see Pinius, De Beclesiae Diaconissis, in the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists, Sept., Vol. I. 1$. loCfr. Epiphanius, Haer,t 79, 4; Deer. Grot., d. 32, c. 19. 11 Cf r. Du Canffe, s. v. ” Presbytera;” K. H. Schafer, Kanonissen und Diakomssen, die kanonische Abtissin, Freiburg 1910. — On the fable of the female Pope see Ddllinger, Papstfabeln des Mittetalters, Munich 1863; Thurston, Pope Joan, London 191 5. 12 V. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I. him before he received Baptism, he would have to be unconditionally reordained. Reordination was expressly prescribed for the followers of Paul of Samosata by the First Nicene Council (325)-18 Can baptized infants be validly ordained? Durandus and Tournely answered this question in the negative, but the common opinion is that Holy Orders, in this respect, is on a line with Baptism and Confirmation, and can be validly administered to infants. The Supplementutn to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, which, though not written by the Angelic Doctor, undoubtedly expresses his views, says that ” children and others who lack the use of reason can receive any Sacrament that does not require as a necessary requisite an act on the part of the recipient, but by divine institution confers some spiritual power.” 14 Needless to say, the ordination of infants, as practiced in ancient times, and to some extent in the Middle Ages, was an abuse, which the Church combatted and finally succeeded in abolishing. The validity of such ordinations

should be allowed, upon reaching manhood, to decide for himself whether he will lead a celibate life or not. In case he chooses to marry, he must abstain forever from the exercise of the functions attaching to his order.18 16 Cfr. Ballerini-Paimieri, Op. Theol. Mor.t 3rd ed., Vol. V, p. 712, Prati 1900. SECTION i. 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).8 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 1 This topic is treated in Canon thetna sit,” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Law. n. 979). 2 Cone. Trident., Seas. XXIV, 8 Canon 7: ” Statuimus, quotecm. 9: ” Si quis dixerit, clericos nus episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi in sacris ordinibus constitutes qui uxores sibi copulate praeposse matrimonium contrahere con* sumpserint, separentur; huiusmodi tractumque validum esse, non ob- namque copulationem matrimonium stante lege ecclesiastical, … ana- non esse censemus” 130 three higher orders of the clergy, — bishops, priests, and deacons, — commanding thbse who were married to abstain from intercourse with their wives under pain of deposition.4 Pope Siricius, in 385, extended this law to the whole Latin Church.5 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 (+461).* Pelagius II (+59°) applied this rule to Sicily, but his successor, Gregory the Great (+ 604), permitted the deacons of that country to continue their relations with their wives, though under penalty of being excluded from higher orders. 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 4 Canon 33: ” Placuit in totum prohiberi episcopis, presbyteris et diaconis vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio dbstinere se a coniugibus suis et non generate Ulios; quicunque veto fecerit, ab honore clericatus exterminetur” 5 Cfr. his Epistle to Himerius, c. 7: ’ Quilibet episcopus, presbyter atque diaconus … iam nunc sibi omnem per nos indulgentiae oditutn mtelligat obseratum. Quia ferro neeesse est exeidantur vulnera, quae fomentorum non senserint medicinam, 6 Cfr. this Pope’s Ep. ad Anastas. Thessal., 84, c. 4: * Nee subdiaconls quid em connubium carnale conceditur, ut et qui habent uxores, tint tamquam non habent es, et qui non habent, permaneant singular es.” 132 HOLY ORDERS 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 conjugal relations 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.7 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, Hef ele, 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. BickelTs argument for the Apostolic origin of celibacy does not take due account of this distinction.8 An important incident in the history of clerical celiTOn clerical celibacy the student may consult: Laurin, Der Zolibat der Geistlichen nach kononischem Recht, Vienna 1800; L. Gaugusch, Das Ehehindemis der hdheren Weihe, Vienna 1902; N. Milas, Das Kirchenrecht der morgenlandischen Kirche, Zara 1897; A. de Roscovany, Coelibatus et Breviarium, 13 vols., Vienna 1861-1890. sZeitschrift fUr kath. Theologie, Innsbruck, 1879, pp. 26 sqq., 792 sqq. bacy is the stand taken by St. Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, at the First Nicene Council. Socrates 9 and Sozomen 10 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 Constitutions11 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 (+ 217), after expressing veneration for a continent life, says : ” All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife,12 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.” 1B On the other hand there is Patristic testimony to prove that celibacy was voluntarily practised by the higher clergy 9 Hist. EccUs., I, 11. tirbv Tr}s fitas yvvaixbs Mpa. 10 HUt. Eccles., I, 23. 18 ffuBfacrai dk did. rijs rwoyo11 Const. Apost., VI, 17. »faf. (Strom., Ill, 12). 134 HOLY ORDERS long before it was enjoined by law. Thus St. Epiphanius (+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.* 14 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.”15 Vigilantius’ cynical advice that the bishops should ordain none but married men, was met by St. Jerome (4-420) with the declaration that celibacy was all but universally observed by the clergy.16 In general we may say 17 that ” while celibacy in the first three centuries was not yet a strict obligation imposed upon the clergy, it was quite generally observed.” x 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 14 Expos. Fidei Cath., ai. 17 Gihr, Die hi. Sakramente, Vol. is Haer., 59, 4. — On this passage n, 2nd cd., p. 476. see Funk, KirehengeschichtUche Ab- 18 Cfr. F. A. Zaccaria, Storia Pohandlungen und Untersuchungen, lemica del Celibato Sacro, Rome Vol. I, pp. 13a sqq., Paderborn 1774; Jos. Muller, Die Keuschheits1897. idee in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent> 16 Contra Vigilant., c. z: “Quid wick lung und praktischen Bedeufaciunt orientis ecclesiae, quid tung, Mayence 1897; H. Koch, Aegypti et Sedis apostolicae, quae ” Tertullian und der Zolibat” in aut virgines clericos accipiunt out the Theologische Qnartalschrift of continents*, aut si uxores habuerint, Tubingen, 19c*, pp. 406 sqq. tnariti esse desistunt? ” CLERICAL CELIBACY 135 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.” 19 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,30 and St Paul describes it as the higher call.21 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 angds are better than men.” 22 St. Augustine calls the virginal life ” the portion of the angels.” 22 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 holy innocence of his exalted state.24 He who has voluntarily devoted himself to 19 Sess. XXIV, can. zo: ” Si quis dixerit, statum coniugalem anteponendum esse statui virginitaHs vel coelibatus et non esse melius ac beaiius man ere in virginitate aut coelibatu quant iungi matrimonio, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 11. 981). aoCfr. Matth. XIX, iz sq. 21 1 Cor. VII, 38, 40. 22 De Virginitate, c. zo. M0# Virginitate, c ta: ginalis integritas et per piam continentiam ab omni concubitu tmmunitas angelica portio est.* 24 Cfr. St Jerome, Ep. 68 ad Panu mach., c. 20: * Christus virgo, virgo Maria utrique sexui virginitatis dedieavere principia. Apostoli vel virgines, vel’ post nupths conHnentes. Bpiscopi, presbyteri, dia* coni out virgines eliguntur aut vidui out certe post sacerdotium in aeternum pudici.” 136 HOLY ORDERS the service of God and consecrated his life to the administration of the Sacraments, must serve God with an undivided heart.26 b) The celibacy of the clergy is, moreover, blessed with great advantages (i) 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 25 Cfr. 1 Cor. VII, 5. 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.”26 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.27 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.” 28 26 Mahaffy, The Decay of Modern Priesiersblibat und seine BedeuPreaching, London 1882, p. 42; tung fUr Kirche und Gesellschaft, Thurston in the Catholic Ency elope- Einsiedeln 1898; N. Gihr, Die hi. dia, Vol. Ill, p. 482. Sakramente, Vol. II, 2nd cd., S 7*; 27 Thurston, /. c. I. Souben, Nouvelle TMologie Dog28 Idem ibid., p. 483. — On cleri- matique. Vol. VIII, pp. 84 sqq., cal celibacy and its importance for Paris 1905; Jos. Antonelli, Uedicina the Church and the salvation 0! Pott oralis, Vol. I, jrd ed., pp. HUll Mi D. 8. Zimmcrroann, 0*

I3» HOLY ORDERS 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, Be Sacramento Ordinis (ed. Lequette, VoL VII, PP- 313 sqq.) ; Vasquez, Comment, in S. Theol., Ill, disp. 235 sqq. Likewise, Peter Soto, De Instituiione Sacerdotum, Dillingen 1568.— *Fr. Hallier, De Sacris Electionibus et Ordinationibus ex Antiquo et Novo lure (in Migne’s Theol. Curs. Compiet, VoL XXIV). — *J. Morinus, Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesia? Ordinationibus, Antwerp 1695. — C. Oberndorfer, De Sacramento Ordinis, 1759- — *P- Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de Sacra Ordinatione, Paris 1893-— Cardinal G. M. van Rossum, CSS. R, De Essentia Sacramenti Ordinis, Freiburg 1914. On the different orders see K Furtner, Das Verhdltnis der Bischofsweihe sum hi. Sakramente des Or do, Munich 1861. — A. Kurz, Der Episkopat der hochste vom Presbyterat verschiedene Ordo, Vienna 1877. — Schulte-Plassmamij Der Episkopat ein vom Presbyterat verschiedener, selbstandiger und sakramentaler Ordo oder die Bishofsweihe ein Sakrament, Paderbom 1883. — O. Zardetti, Die Bischofsweihe, Einsiedeln 1889.— *L. Soblowsky, Episkopat und Presbyterat in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Wiirzburg 1893.— L. Gobet, L’Origine Divine de fEpiscopat, Fribourg 1898.— *St. von Dunin-Borkowski, Die neueren Forschungen iiber die Anfange des Episkopates, Freiburg 1900.— A. Michiels, L’Origine de VEpiscopat, Louvain 1900. — G. Peries, Episcopat et Presbytirat, Paris 1908.— Arthur Konig, Der katholische Priester vor fiinfsehn hundert Jahren: Priester und Priestertum nach Hieronymus, Breslau 1890 — J. N. Seidl, Der Diakonat in der katholischen Kirche, dessen hieratische Wurde 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 Jahr- • hunderten, Freiburg 1897.— * A. Bruders, S.J., Die Verfassung der Kirche von den ersten Jahrhunderten der apostolischen Wirksamkeit an bis sum 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 CMbat Ecclisiastique au Premier Siecle de f&glise, Paris 1896, and in general on Lea’s methods as a historian, P. M. Baumgarten, Die Werke von Henry Charles Lea und verwandte BUcher, Munster 1908 (English tr., Henry Charles Lea’s Historical Writings; A Critical Inquiry into Their Method and Merit, New York 1909).