Clerical Celibacy

THERE exists a myth that clerical celibacy in the Western Church was first made obligatory in the middle ages, legislated at the First Lateran Council in 1123. In fact, the requirement for clerics to remain celibate after ordination is attested by Hippolytus around the year 200; and legislation mandating celibacy for the clergy (i.e abstention from marriage, or continence for those married before ordination) is repeatedly attested from the fourth century onwards. [see Cholij: “Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and in The History of The Church” (Vat.Website: Cong.Clergy) excerpted from: Clerical Celibacy in East and West, (Gracewing, 1988)].

The (anti-Roman) Council of Trullo (892) attests to an increasing tendency in the Christian East to mitigate this rule by allowing clerics, with the exception of bishops, to marry before ordination; but - while assisting at the altar (τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσεδρεύοντας) - to maintain “absolute (if temporary) continence (ἐγκρατεῖς [...] ἐν πᾶσιν) at the time of handling holy things (ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς τῶν ἁγίων μεταχειρήσεως)”(Trullo, can.13).

In the West the older requirement of celibacy for all clerics in major orders has been maintained down to the present time. By forbidding illicit clerical marriage and concubinage (Nicolaitianism) the First Lateran Council simply restated the traditional requirement that had been in effect in the West throughout the more than eight hundred years prior to 1123. Medieval authors who attempted to justify clerical marriage did so on the basis of “local custom”, fully aware that such illicit “custom” violated official papal and conciliar legislation.

IN the Eastern Orthodox churches married clergy are required to abstain from sexual intercourse before celebrating the Eucharist. usually for at least one day. Over the centuries this period of abstinence has varied from one to three days before and from one to three days after the celebration, depending on the discipline of the local church. Complete abstinence was (and in some churches still is) required during Lent, Advent, and generally on all fast days and before major feasts. This discipline appears to be a requirement that applied to married lay couples from ancient times in both East and West, and that was consequently applied to married clergy in the East. (Detailed discussion in Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West, ch 12, “The Discipline of Temporary Continence”, pp. 143-178)

IN the West one example exists of a convert American Episcopalian cleric in the nineteenth century who was required to be celibate after ordination as a Catholic priest, Pierce Connelly: his wife Cornelia became - at first reluctantly - a nun, and subsequently founded the Society of the Holy Child Jesus [biography: http://www.shcj.org/our-story/cornelia-connelly/].

In the twentieth century Pius XII permitted the priestly ordination of married Lutheran and Episcopalian ministers, but no restrictions were imposed or suggested concerning intercourse with their wives. The creation of the order of permanent deacons following the Second Vatican Council raised the question whether married deacons would be required to accept celibacy: the answer was: married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts. Similarly, no such restrictions or even suggestions of periods of temporary celibacy were enacted with regard to the Pastoral Provision and Anglican Ordinariate under Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

Accompanying the development of the theology of priestly celibacy during the twentieth century was a significant change in the ecclesiastical praxis of celibacy. Starting in 1951 Pius XII granted dispensations to Lutheran and Anglican convert ministers, allowing them to be ordained as Catholic priests without having to separate from their wives. A case in point was Rudolf Goethe, a married Lutheran pastor before his conversion, whom Bishop Albert Stohr of Mainz ordained to the Catholic priesthood in 1951 with the pope‘s permission. The following year two other Lutheran ministers, Eugen Scheytt and Otto Melchers, were ordained as Catholic priests, followed by Martin Giegner in 1953.³⁶

³⁶ Cf. Joseph Fichter, Wives of Convert Priests (Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward, 1992), 97, and Rudolf Goethe, ― “Die Offene Tür” in Bekenntnis zur Katholischen Kirche, (Wurzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1955), 117-65. [Engl.transl. by N.C. Reeves: “The Open Door” in Now We Are Catholics, a translation of Bekenntnis zur Katholischen Kirche]

This pastoral decision of Pius XII was all the more remarkable in that the practice of the Latin Church until that time required the separation of spouses if the husband was to be ordained. In the nineteenth century, for example, Pierce and Cornelia Connelly of Philadelphia separated prior to his priestly ordination in the Roman Catholic Church:

They could no longer live together. The Church, [which] only in very rare cases gives the permission Pierce sought, admitted two alternatives: that the parties should separate, one becoming a priest and the other a nun, or that the man should become a priest and the wife should make a public vow of chastity, continuing, for the sake of their children, to live under the same roof or separately, but not in a convent. The alternatives exist in their own and similar cases in theory only. The practical solution, if propriety is to be observed and scandal avoided, is that both parties should take religious vows.³⁷

³⁷ Juliana Wadham, The Case of Cornelia Connelly (New York: Pantheon, 1957), 39-40.

Sadly, Pierce Connelly, who had been an Episcopalian minister prior to his conversion to Catholicism and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1845, left the active ministry a few years later. A public scandal was subsequently created when he filed a civil case in London to reclaim his conjugal rights with Cornelia, who had since founded a religious community in England. Pierce eventually lost the case and later returned to pastoral ministry in the Episcopal Church.³⁸

	CAP. VII.---[1138A] 8. Clericorum incontinentia.
Let us talk now about the very holy clerical Orders. As your Charity advises us, we see that in your provinces they are trampled underfoot and confused, with great prejudice to the honor due to religion. It has come to the point where we must say with Jeremiah: “Who will turn my head into a fountain, and my eyes into a spring for tears, so that I may weep all day, all night for all the dead out of the daughter of my people?” (Jer 8:23). If the blessed prophet declares that tears are not enough to lament the sins of the people, how much more can we be grief stricken when we have to bemoan the crimes of those in our own body? We especially, because as Blessed Paul put it, we must constantly be preoccupied daily, anxious for all the Churches. “When any man has had scruples. I have had scruples with him; when any man is made to fall, I am tortured” (2 Cor 11:29). We have indeed discovered that many priests and deacons of Christ brought children into the world, either through union with their wives or through shameful intercourse. And they used as an excuse the feet that in the Old Testaments we can read—priests and ministers were permitted to beget children.	Veniamus nunc ad sacratissimos ordines clericorum, quos in venerandae religionis injuriam ita per vestras provincias calcatos atque confusos, charitate tua insinuante, reperimus, ut Jeremiae nobis voce dicendum sit: Quis dabit capiti meo aquam, aut oculis meis fontem lacrymarum? et flebo populum hunc die ac nocte (Jerem. IX, 1). Si ergo beatus Propheta ad lugenda populi peccata non sibi ait lacrymas posse sufficere; quanto nos possumus dolore percelli, cum eorum, qui in nostro sunt corpore, compellimur facinora deplorare! praecipue quibus secundum beatum Paulum, instantia quotidiana et sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum indesinenter incumbit. Quis enim infirmatur, et non infirmor? Quis scandalizatur, et [1138B] *ego non uror* (II Cor. XI, 29)? Plurimos enim (Dist. 82, c. 3; Ivo p. 6, c. 50) sacerdotes Christi atque levitas, post longa consecrationis suae tempora, tam de conjugibus propriis, quam etiam de turpi coitu sobolem didicimus procreasse, et crimen suum hac praescriptione defendere, quia in veteri Testamento sacerdotibus ac ministris generandi facultas legitur attributa.
	9. Veteris Testamenti auctoritas frustra praetenditur.
Whatever the case may be, if one of these disciples of the passions and tutors of vices thinks that the Lord—in the law of Moses—gives an indistinct license to those in sacred Orders so that they may satisfy their passions, let him tell me now: why does [the Lord] warn those who had the custody of the most holy things in the following way: “You must make yourselves holy, for I am Yahweh your God” (Lev 20:7). Likewise, why were the priests ordered, during the year of their tour of duty, to live in the temple. away from their homes? Quite obviously so that they would not be able to have carnal knowledge of any woman, even their wives, and, thus, having a conscience radiating integrity, they could offer to God offerings worthy of his acceptance. Those men, once they had fulfilled their time of service, were permitted to have marital intercourse for the sole purpose of ensuring their descent, because no one except (the members] of the tribe of Levi could be admitted to the divine ministry.	Dicat mihi nunc, quisquis ille est sectator libidinum, praeceptorque vitiorum: Si aestimat, quia in lege Moysi passim sacris ordinibus a Domino laxata sunt frena luxuriae, cur eos, quibus committebantur sancta sanctorum praemonet dicens: Sancti estote, quia et ego sanctus sum Dominus Deus vester [1138C] (Levit. XX, 7)? cur etiam procul a suis domibus, anno vicis suae, in templo habitare jussi sunt sacerdotes? hac videlicet ratione, ne vel cum uxoribus possent carnale exercere commercium, ut conscientiae integritate fulgentes, acceptabile Deo munus offerrent. Quibus expleto deservitionis suae tempore, uxorius usus solius successionis causa fuerat relaxatus; quia non ex alia, nisi ex tribu Levi, quisquam ad Dei ministerium fuerat praeceptus admitti.
	10. Sacerdotes et diaconi insolubili continentiae lege [1139A] *constringuntur*
This is why, after having enlightened us by his coming, the Lord Jesus formally stipulated in the Gospel that he had not come to abolish the law, but to bring it to perfection; this is also why he wanted the beauty of the Church whose Bridegroom he is to shine with the splendor of chastity, so that when he returns, on the Day of Judgment, he will find her without stain or wrinkle, as his Apostle taught. It is through the indissoluble law of these decisions that all of us, priests and deacons, arc bound together from the day of our ordination, and (held to] put our hearts and our bodies to the service of sobriety and purity; may we be pleasing to our God in all things, in the sacrifices we offer daily. “People who are interested only in unspiritual things can never be pleasing to God”, says the Chosen Vessel. “Your interests, however, are not in the unspiritual, but in the spiritual, since the Spirit of God has made his home in you” (Rom 8:8-9).	. Unde et Dominus Jesus cum nos suo illustrasset adventu, in Evangelio protestatur, quia Legem venerit implere, non solvere. Et ideo Ecclesiae, cujus sponsus est, formam castitatis voluit splendore radiare (Matth. V, 27), ut in die judicii, cum rursus advenerit, sine macula et ruga eam possit, sicut per Apostolum suum instituit, reperire (Ephes. V, 27). Quarum sanctionum omnes sacerdotes atque levitae insolubili lege constringimur, ut a die ordinationis nostrae, sobrietati ac pudicitiae et corda nostra mancipemus et corpora, dummodo per omnia Deo nostro in his, quae quotidie offerimus, sacrificiis placeamus. Qui autem in carne sunt, dicente electionis vase, Deo placere non possunt. Vos autem jam non estis in carne, sed in spiritu, si tamen [1139B]*spiritus Dei habitat in vobis* (Rom. VIII, 8, 9). Et ubi poterit, nisi in corporibus, sicut legimus, sanctis, Dei spiritus habitare?

Moreover, as it is worthy, chaste, and honest to do so, this is what we advise: let the priests and Levites have no intercourse with their wives, inasmuch as they are absorbed in the daily duties of their ministries.	3. Praeterea quod dignum et pudicum et honestum est suademus , ut sacerdotes et levitae cum uxoribus suis non coeant (Aeneas Paris. lib. cont. Graec. c. 102); quia in ministerio, ministerii quotidianis necessitatibus, occupantur.
Paul, when writing to the Corinthians, told them: “Leave yourself free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5).	Ad Corinthios namque sic Paulus scribit, dicens: Abstinetevos, ut vacetis orationi (I Cor. VII, 5).
If lay people are asked to be continent so that their prayers are granted, all the more so a priest who should be ready at any moment, thanks to an immaculate purity, and not fearing the obligation of offering the sacrifice or baptizing. Were he soiled by carnal concupiscence, what could he do? Would he excuse himself?	Si ergo laicis abstinentia imperatur, ut possint deprecantes audiri: quanto magis sacerdos utique omni momento paratus esse debet, munditiae puritate securus, ne aut sacrificium offerat, aut baptizare cogatur? Qui si contaminatus fuerit ^[1161A] carnali concupiscentia, quid faciat? Excusabit?
With what shame, in what state of mind would he carry out his functions? What testimony of conscience, what merit would give him the trust to have his prayers granted, when it is said: “To all who are pure themselves, everything is pure; but to those who have been corrupted and lack faith, nothing can be pure” (Titus 1:15).	Quo pudore, qua mente usurpabit? Qua conscientia, quo merito hic exaudiri se credit, cum dictum sit: Omnia munda mundis, coinquinatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum (Tit. I, 15)?
Which is why I am exhorting, warning, supplicating: let us do away with this opprobrium that even the pagans can rightly hold against us. Perhaps does one believe that this [is permitted] because it is written: “He must not have been married more than once” (ι Tim 3:2). But [Paul] was not talking about [a man] persisting in his desire to beget: he spoke about the continence that one should observe [propter continentiam futuram]. He did not accept those who were not beyond reproach [in this matter], and he said: “I should like everyone to be like me” (1 Cor 7:7). And he stated even more clearly: “People who are interested only in unspiritual things can never be pleasing to God. Your interests, however, are not in the unspiritual, but in the spiritual” (Rom 8:8-9).	Qua de re hortor, moneo, rogo, tollatur hoc opprobrium, quod potest jure etiam gentilitas accusare. Forte hoc creditur; quia scriptum est, Unius uxoris virum (I Tim. III, 2). Non permanentem in concupiscentia generandi dixit, sed propter continentiam futuram. Neque enim integros non admisit, qui ait: Vellem autem omnes homines sic esse, sicuti et ego (I Cor. VII, 7). Et apertius declarat dicens: Qui autem in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt. Vos autem jam non estis in carne, sed in spiritu (Rom. VIII, 8).
	CAP. II.---5. Episcopos, presbyteros ac diaconos continentiae lege obstringi.
Indeed, we have already frequently touched upon these matters—and our word has been spread in many churches—especially when it comes to priests whose dignity demands that they be the very rule of their good works for the people [...]	Et jam quidem frequenter de talibus sermo noster per plures manavit ecclesias, maxime de sacerdotibus, quorum meritum exigit, ut bonorum operum suorum sint plebibus forma [...]
[Indeed,] when one does not observe what has been the object of useful warnings, the apostolic commandments are held in contempt and ignored as it were; [but] judgment with respect to those who have committed [these violations] cannot be changed. Here is what has been decided, first of all, with regard to bishops, priests, and deacons: those who have the responsibility of the divine sacrifice, and whose hands give the grace of baptism and consecrate the Body of Christ, are ordered by divine Scripture, and not only ourselves, to be very chaste; the Fathers themselves had ordered them to observe bodily continence. Let us not omit this point but explain the reason for it: how would a bishop or a priest dare preach continence and integrity to a widow or a virgin, or yet [how would he dare) exhort [spouses] to the chastity of the conjugal bed, if he himself is more concerned about begetting children for the world than begetting them for God?	Quando enim non servatur quod admonetur utiliter, apostolica mandata quasi ignota contemnuntur: judicium tamen de his quae commiserunt non potest immutari. Id de sacerdotibus. Primo in loco statutum est de episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconibus, quos sacrificiis divinis necesse est interesse, per quorum manus et gratia baptismatis traditur, et corpus Christi conficitur; quos non solum nos, sed et Scriptura divina compellit esse castissimos, et patres quoque jusserunt continentiam corporalem servare debere; qua de re non praetereamus, sed dicamus et causam. Quo enim pudore viduae aut virgini ausus est episcopus vel presbyter integritatem vel continentiam [1185A] praedicare, vel suadere castum cubile servare, si ipse saeculo magis institit filios generare, quam Deo?
	[1185B] 6. Idolorum cultores daemoniis litaturi, continentiam sibi imperabant.
This is why we read in Scripture regarding these three ranks that the ministers of God are under the obligation to observe purity; it is obvious that this is always a necessity for them; they must either give baptism or offer the sacrifice. Would an impure man dare soil what is holy when holy things are for holy people? It was thus that (the priests of the Old Testament) who offered sacrifices in the temple rightly stayed there without going out during the entire year they were on duty and had nothing more to do with their homes. As to the idolaters, when they dedicate themselves to their impieties and immolate [sacrifices] to the demons, they impose on themselves continence with regard to women and also endeavor to keep themselves pure from [certain] foods; and you would ask me if the priest of the living God, who must offer spiritual sacrifices, must be constantly purified, if he must, in his whole flesh, be concerned about flesh? if commixture is defiling, it is obvious that the priest must be ready to carry out his celestial functions—he who has to supplicate on behalf of the sins of the others—so that he himself not be found impure. If the lay people are told: “Leave yourselves free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5), these men who put themselves first at the service of human procreation might have the title of priests, but they cannot have that dignity[...]’	De his itaque tribus gradibus, quos legimus in Scripturis, a ministris Dei munditia praecepta est observari, quibus necessitas semper in promptu est. Aut enim baptisma tradendum est, aut offerenda sunt sacrificia (Vide Siric. epist. 1, c. 7, et Innoc. ep. 6, n. 2). Numquid immundus ausus erit contaminare quod sanctum est, quando quae sancta sunt, sanctis sancta sunt? Denique illi, qui in templo sacrificia offerebant, ut mundi essent, toto anno in templo, solo observationis merito, permanebant, domus suas penitus nescientes. Certe idololatrae, ut impietates exerceant, et daemonibus immolent, imperant sibi continentiam muliebrem, et [1186A] ab escis quoque se purgari volunt: et me interrogas, si sacerdos Dei veri, spiritalia oblaturus sacrificia, purgatus perpetuo debeat esse, an totus in carne carnis curam debeat facere? Si commixtio pollutio est, utique sacerdos stare debet ad officium coeleste praeparatus, qui pro alienis peccatis est postulaturus; ne ipse inveniatur indignus. Nam si ad laicos dicitur: Abstinete vos ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi (I Cor. VII, 5), et illi creaturae utique generatione deserviunt; sacerdotes tale possunt habere nomen, meritum habere non possunt.
Adam, who did not follow the precept was cast out of paradise, losing the kingdom (Gen 3,23). And do you think that transgressors will be able to attain the Kingdom of Heaven?	Adam, qui praeceptum non servavit, ejectus foras paradisum, caruit regno (Gen. III, 23); et praevaricatorem putas posse ad regna coelestia pervenire?
This is why Paul said, “you are no longer of the flesh, but of the Spirit” (Rom. 8,9); And again, “Let those who have wives be as if they do not have them” (1 Cor. 7,29)	Ob quam rem Paulus dicit: Vos jam non estis in carne, sed in spiritu (Rom. VIII, 9); et item: Et qui habent uxores, ita sint quasi non habeant (I Cor. VII, 29)?

	2. Traditionum mutatione in haeresim incurri. Quaestionibus propositis redduntur traditiones
2. We know, very dear brothers, that in various Churches many bishops [have let themselves be led] by a most human presumption and hastened to alter the tradition of the Fathers with great prejudice to the reputation attached tο their dignity; they thus fell into the darkness of heresy while taking pleasure in the plaudits of men instead of endeavoring to receive their reward from God. And this is how your Holiness condescended to consult with the Apostolic Sec about the science of law and traditions, not in order to find out [our opinion] indiscreetly, but with the benevolent intention of affirming your faith; you want us to explain clearly and freely all the questions you submitted to us. God grant that our words be enriched in the very measure you sincerely desire it and will listen to them with goodwill. Nο matter how mediocre my discourse may be, its meaning is legitimate, and I am going to explain what has to be followed if one wants to remedy the clashing dissidences that were brought about only by the presumption of arrogance, according to what is written in divine Scripture: “In this way you have made God’s word null and void by means of your tradition” (Mt.5:6). If you want to know, with the integrity of faith, what the true observances are, kindly give a welcoming attention to what I am going to say. First of all, what is proposed concerns modesty and chastity. Then there is a complexity of very many questions. This is why we must reply to the questions that were asked in their proper order, by explaining the traditions	Scimus, fratres charissimi, multos episcopos per diversas ecclesias ad famam pessimam nominis sui humana praesumptione patrum traditionem mutare properasse, atque per hanc causam in haeresis tenebras cecidisse, dum gloriam hominum delectantur potius, quam Dei praemia habere, perquirere. Nunc igitur, [Col.1182B] quia non explorandi causa, sed fidei confirmandae gratia, sanctitudo vestra ex sedis apostolicae auctoritate sciscitari dignata est seu legis scientiam seu traditiones, volens a nobis manifestari liberius quaestionum propositarum expositionem, quam sincere quaeritis et desideranter: audite, quantum replebit divina dignatio, licet mediocri sermone, valido tamen sensu eloquar obtinenda, ad emendandas omnes quippe diversitates, quas (f.quibus) *discordare arrogantia sola praesumpsit, Scriptura divina dicente: Rejecistis mandatum Dei, ut traditiones vestras statuatis* (Matth. V, 9)*. Si ergo integra cupitis fide veras observationes agnoscere, dignamini quae dico libenter advertere. Primo in loco pudoris mihi et pudicitiae causa proponitur. Deinde congestae* [Col.1182C] *quam multae quaestiones edentur. Singulis itaque propositionibus suo ordine reddendae sunt traditiones.*
	PL 13 col. 1184a-86a
Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons are constrained by the law of continence,	*CAP. II.---5. Episcopos, presbyteros ac diaconos continentiae lege obstringi.*
2. Indeed, we have already frequently touched upon these matters—and our word has been spread in many churches—especially when it comes to priests whose dignity demands that they be the very rule of their good works for the people[...]	*Et jam quidem frequenter de talibus sermo noster per plures manavit ecclesias, maxime de sacerdotibus, quorum meritum exigit, ut bonorum operum suorum sint plebibus forma*

[Indeed,) when one does not observe what has been the object of useful warnings, the apostolic commandments are held in contempt and ignored as it were; [but] judgment with respect to those who have committed [these violations] cannot be changed. Here is what has been decided, first of all, with regard to bishops, priests, and deacons: those who have the responsibility of the divine sacrifice, and whose hands give the grace of baptism and consecrate the Body of Christ, are ordered by divine Scripture, and not only ourselves, to be very chaste; the Fathers themselves had ordered them to observe bodily continence. Let us not omit this point but explain the reason for it: how would a bishop or a priest dare preach continence and integrity to a widow or a virgin, or yet [how would he dare) exhort [spouses] to the chastity of the conjugal bed, if he himself is more concerned about begetting children for the world than begetting them for God?	Quando enim non servatur quod admonetur utiliter, apostolica mandata quasi ignota contemnuntur: judicium tamen de his quae commiserunt non potest immutari. Id de sacerdotibus. Primo in loco statutum est de episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconibus, quos sacrificiis divinis necesse est interesse, per quorum manus et gratia baptismatis traditur, et corpus Christi conficitur; quos non solum nos, sed et Scriptura divina compellit esse castissimos, et patres quoque jusserunt continentiam corporalem servare debere; qua de re non praetereamus, sed dicamus et causam. Quo enim pudore viduae aut virgini ausus est episcopus vel presbyter integritatem vel continentiam [Col.1185A] praedicare, vel suadere castum cubile servare, si ipse saeculo magis institit filios generare, quam Deo?
[Even] those who worship demons with woeful sacrifices insist on continence.	[Col.1185B] 6. Idolorum cultores daemoniis litaturi, continentiam sibi imperabant.
This is why we read in Scripture regarding these three ranks that the ministers of God are under the obligation to observe purity; it is obvious that this is always a necessity for them; they must either give baptism or offer the sacrifice. Would an impure man dare soil what is holy when holy things are for holy people? It was thus that (the priests of the Old Testament) who offered sacrifices in the temple rightly stayed there without going out during the entire year they were on duty and had nothing more to do with their homes. As to the idolaters, when they dedicate themselves to their impieties and immolate [sacrifices] to the demons, they impose on themselves continence with regard to women and also endeavor to keep themselves pure from [certain] foods; and you would ask me if the priest of the living God, who must offer spiritual sacrifices, must be constantly purified, if he must, in his whole flesh, be concerned about flesh? if commixture is defiling, it is obvious that the priest must be ready to carry out his celestial functions—he who has to supplicate on behalf of the sins of the others—so that he himself not be found impure. If the lay people are told: “Leave yourselves free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5), these men who put themselves first at the service of human procreation might have the title of priests, but they cannot have that dignity....`’	De his itaque tribus gradibus, quos legimus in Scripturis, a ministris Dei munditia praecepta est observari, quibus necessitas semper in promptu est. Aut enim baptisma tradendum est, aut offerenda sunt sacrificia (Vide Siric. epist. 1, c. 7, et Innoc. ep. 6, n. 2). Numquid immundus ausus erit contaminare quod sanctum est, quando quae sancta sunt, sanctis sancta sunt? Denique illi, qui in templo sacrificia offerebant, ut mundi essent, toto anno in templo, solo observationis merito, permanebant, domus suas penitus nescientes. Certe idololatrae, ut impietates exerceant, et daemonibus immolent, imperant sibi continentiam muliebrem, et [Col.1186A] ab escis quoque se purgari volunt: et me interrogas, si sacerdos Dei veri, spiritalia oblaturus sacrificia, purgatus perpetuo debeat esse, an totus in carne carnis curam debeat facere? Si commixtio pollutio est, utique sacerdos stare debet ad officium coeleste praeparatus, qui pro alienis peccatis est postulaturus; ne ipse inveniatur indignus. Nam si ad laicos dicitur: Abstinete vos ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi (I Cor. VII, 5), et illi creaturae utique generatione deserviunt; sacerdotes tale possunt habere nomen, meritum habere non possunt.

ON TEMPORARY CONTINENCE for MARRIED COUPLES (discipline in East extended to clergy):

Timothy of Alexandria (381-385) expresses clearly in his Canonical Answers what church discipline was in this matter. In his Canon 5 he prohibits a married couple from receiving communion on the morning following the evening in which the marital debt was rendered.* Couples were also required, he states in Canon 13, to abstain from each other on each Saturday and Sunday, since on these days the Spiritual Sacrifice is offered to the Lord.**

193 PG 104.613-614 [Latin and Greek] Timotheis, Canon 5: Prrwl I 631; Jolnnou II 242-243: Interrogatio 5: Si uxor rum [Si uxor cum suo marito noctu cohabitavit, vel marìtus cum uxore, et На: coitio, debentne communicnre, an non? Responslo. Non debet. cum clametApostolus: Ne fraudale vos invicem, m'si ex conscnsu ad lempus, ut vacelis oralioní; et rursus, ad idem convem'alis ne tente! vos Salanas propres' íncontiuentiam vestram "'.

suo marito noctu cohabitavit, vel maritus cum uxore, et fiat coitio, debentne communicare an non?
Responsio: Ion debe4 rum claret Apostolus: lefraudete vos invicem, nisi ex consensus ad temru ut vacetis oration; et ru,sus ad idem conveniatis ne tenet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram.

194 PITRA I 633; JoANNou II 248-249: Intepogatio 13: lis qui matrimonio jungunlur, in quibusnam septimanae diebus proponere oportet, ut a mutuo congressu abstineant, et quibusnam potestatem habeant? Responsio: Quid ante dixi nunc quoque dico. Didt Apostilus: lefraudate vos inuicem, nisi ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacetis oration; et nwsus ad idem conicflaILs ne tenet vos Satanas propter incontinentiam vestram. lecessano auteur sabbato et die

194 PTTRA I 633; JOANNOU II 248-249: Interrogatio 13: Its qui matrimonio junguntur, in quibusnam septimanae diebus proponere oportet, ut a mutuo congressu abstineant, et quibus- nam potestatem habeant? Responsio: Quod ante dud nunc quoque dico. Dicit Apostolus: Ne fraudate vos invicem, nisi ex consensu ad ..

In the early centuries Christians practised fasting and abstinence (especially from flesh meats) in imitation of Christ himself (Mt 6, 16; Mk 2, 20; 9, 29) and the Apostles (Acts 13, 2; 14, 23). Regular weekly fasts were practised on Wednesday and Friday, although in the Roman Church the Wednesday fast was replaced, by the 5th century, by the Saturday fast.195 The major fast of the year was the Great Lent which had, by the 4th century, taken on a well defined character as being a time of intense preparation and cultivation of the spiritual life in anticipation of Easter.196 Originally, not all of this time was for strict fasting, but liturgical services were celebrated more frequently and communion was more frequently received.197 Two other minor lents were also observed by the 6th century: in preparation for Christmas and in preparation fcr the Ascension and Pentecost. During these periods, too, the married faithful were expected to express their spirit of penance by abstaining from conjugal relations.198 Cf. St. Ambrose, PL 17, 217 & 605; St. Augustine, PL 38, 1052; PL 39, 1976; St. Jerome, PL 25, 968-969.

inclusion of the obligation to live continence during the three lents in preparation for Christmas, Easter and Pentecost had as its end an intense spiritual preparation for these feasts with the reception of communion our the feastdays themselves. The celebration of Matrimony was also prohibited during these times of abstinence, consummation of the marriage evidently being contrary to the penitential spirit 202 In the Penitential of Finnan, as with the other penitentiwls of the following two centuries, the practice of continence was not motivated simply by the anticipation of the reception of the eucharist; it was related but distinct 203 Wednesdays and Fridays were days for continence (being penitential days) but communion was not prescribed 204 In the Bigotian Penitential, widely circulated on the continent during the 8th and 9th centuries, holy communion whenever it was to be received was to be preceded by a three day period of conjugal abstinence.105 This norm, inspired by the episodes in the Old Testament of Moses (Ex 19, 15) and David (I Sam 21, 5), seems to have been widely practised in Europe.206 During Great Lent and the Paschal Season the faithful were exhorted to frequent communion 207 During other times of the year, despite the three day

mentis devotion, cessante omni causaram strepitm cum charitate et dilection benedicere

Deum Foirera et laudare titis medullis cordis unigenitum Dei Filium, qui istam diem per

gloriosam swam sanctificavit resurrectionem, et hymnum dicere sancto Spiritui, qui earn

benedirit per admirabilem swam adventum, quando in igneis unguis super beaters descendit

102 Cf. Bigotian Penitential, 10 (De nubendo in dominici): L BIELER, The Irish Pententials

203 Cf. Penitential of Cummean (7th century), c. 30: BmmLER 116-117; Capitula Herardi

204 Penitential of Cummean, c. 30. Ibid. Old Irish Penitential, c. 36. Ibid. Cf. Theodore,

Archbishop of Canturbury, Poententiale Capitula, 32: PL 99, 946c; Abedoc et Ethel Volfus

abbates Hiberna canines selecti ex antique collection ex Libro 44 XI: PL 96, 1303d.

205 Qj in matrimonio sunt Ires nodes abstinent se a coniunctione antequam communicent.

206 Cf. Halitgarius episcopus cameracensis (d.831), De vitiis et virtutibus et de Ordine

Poenitentium. Libri Quinque, IV, De Poenitentia, c. 24; PL 105, 685c: Qui in matrimonio

runt, tribus noctibus ac diebus abstinent se a conjunction antiquam communicent; Codex

Diplomaticus beati Caroli Magni Imperatoris Capitulare Aquisgranense, an. 801, c. 27: PL

97, 220d-222a. Regino of Prum has this norm in his Libri duo de synodalibus cousis et

disciplins ecclesiasticis: Omnis homo ante sacram communionem a proprio uxore abstinere

207 Theodulf of Orleans (d. 821), Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae, 41: PL 105,

204d: Singulis diebus DominÍcis in Quadragesima, praeter his qui excommunicati sunt,

sacraments corpońs et sanguins Christi sumenda suns, et in Coena Doman et in Ramscene, in