Loqos 14 ,1991\

Recent views on the origins ofclerical celibacy: A review of

the literature from 1980 -1991.

J. Kevin Coyle

IIiAcyt"tox

y 1980 poqi Oeruriltcr,rnil Aouiniraueur Poxe lpicon HarIIIcaB rleperJltAlireparypn uonepeguroi AeKaAI{ upo icropiro qed6ary n Puuo-Karoluulx'ifiIlepnrl Crarrs nouilrcsa HIIXqe n. s. <Jlireparypa 11po [oqaTKII cBtuIeHLIqoIo

u"niO-yt reperrflA cmrreit r ponin tgSO-qtu, ue npogonNeuur crygii f-picoua.Anrop,-par'ro-KaToJprrlbKufi upodlecop 6orocnoaii n Yui-nepcrreri cn. Ilan.na a

Orrarii Kenin Ko[n, 3ocepeA)Ky€ yBary tra qaox anropin: d;pauqysrnoro,eryiiraKpicrirena Kocir( Ta yxpaiincr,rcoro KaroJIlIIIbKoro cBtIrPHIrKa, o. Pouatla lolir,Kbqird, y cnoilt gorropconiil npaui, uacroloBaB, Iqo upuuycontrfi rleliOarferuocelignbo 11oxoAlil-b 3 arlocroJlbcr,rttx 'Iacb. loniil, y cooill 4onropcgifiupaqi, rydtuxB apryMenTn Ko'dli no roi ui1lu, uto BBaxaB IrIo pIIMo-KaroJIIlqt Ka

npaKTI{Ka, tKa MoBJIIB o6ocnoaana Ha arlocroJlbclxill upamrqi, Aorasye uoulncyruicrr )KoHaToro KJIIIpy n Cxinnix Uepxsax, qe suirra a[ocToJlbcbKoroncpeaaHlrt.-

Ilic.nr pera.moi asa"nisn upepistrux A)Kepen, ra rnopin 6ararrox inurrx,rge6hrunpmo-KaToJII{IFKID( arropin, ryo$. Koitl AoKi13ye, ulo € HqM9)KJIIIB1M

TDepAIITE rrfo npuvycoaurz ueli6ar uoxoAltrb 3 alocroJlbcbr[x caciB'

++++++++

' The author wishes to thank Richard Thompson, who urrdertook much of the

research lorthis article. Because ofthe constant relerertce to [iterature, this article departs lrorn

l,ogos'usual reference style. Authors' rrarnes given in parentheses reler to works listed in the

bibliography at the end ofthe article.

Krvln Coylr: Rrcrrr llrrnrrune or crlibacy 4Bl

The requirement that clergy of the Roman Catholic Church observe

perpetual celibacy (a requirement also imposed in certain Eastern Catholicjurisdictions) continues to elicit discussion by historians, theologians, Vaticanauthorities, and the media. The interest is currently fuelled by concerns over

a shortage of priests of the Latin Catholic rite,r as well as by shifts in views on

ecclesiolory, ministry, and sexuality. Nor ought one to overlook the many

depressing reports of sexual scandals involving Catholic clerry in NorthAmeric4z or, for that matter, sociological studies of clcrical and religious life-styles,3 while theologians continue to publish research on the Catholic clergyin general and celibacy in particular.a

The present article does not presume to discuss the merits of clerical

celibacy iself, but to review recent discussion by scholars of the origins of the

current discipline for clerry in Roman Catholicism. It will pay special attentionto the hvo works primarily responsible for keeping the issue alive at this level

during the 1980's and into the 1990's. In 1980 Roger Gryson examined works

of the preceding decade on the same issue,s as a follow-up to his famous book

I See R. HoE, "Soll jeder Priester Monch sein? Zur ostkirchlichen Tradition des

verheierate te n Priesters und des Zbhbats" , Diakonra l6 ( 1985), 404- I I . Even some bishopshave proposed that rnarried viri probati be considered for presbyeral ordination, arguing thatthe right ofGod's people to regular eucharistic celebrations outweighs the need for a celibateclergy. See the pastoral letter, "Facing the Future With Hope," of Rembert Weakland,Archbishop of Milwaukee, of November l, l99l (draft version in Origirrs (Catholic NewsService), vol. 20. no. 33 [January 24,19911,535-40), par. 8-10. Also episcopal interventionsat the intenrational synod held in Rorne in October 1990 (e .g. Origirts, vol. 20, no. 2l [Nov.I, 19901, 338-39), and later on: see lle 7o6le/ Q.trov. I 6, I 99 I ), 1420-21 . The revised CodeofCanon Law of 1983 (canons 1031, art. 2,and 1042, art. l) already pernrits the ordinationof rnanied "proven men" to the diaconate. See R. Puza, "Viri uxorati-viri probati.Kanonistisch-historische Uberlegungen" in Theologische Quartalschrift 172 (1992), 16-23.

' See, for instan cn,The Report of tlrc Archdiocesan Conunission of Enquiry inlo lheSexual Abuse of Children by Members of the Clergt,3 vols., St. John's (l.lewfoundland),Canada: 1990.

3For example, A.W.R. Sipe.l Secret l{orld: Sexuality snd the Search for Celibacy,

New York: 1990.a Besides HoLz (abovc, n. l), see S.H. Pt'tirtner, "Der Z<ilibat-*cin Instrument

'heiliger Henschaft'?", Diakonia 20 (1989), 89*100. Also the series of articles in The Tabletlor August 12, 19 and 26, 1989 by (respectively) A. Tilby, R. Foxcroft, and A. Greeley.

t R. Gryson, "Dix ans de recherches sur les origines du celibat eccl6siastique.Rdflexion sur les publications des anndes 19'70-79," Rewe thtologique de Louvain I I ( 1980),I 57-85.

I

l&

482 Loqos: A Jounral ol Easrrnn Cknlsrim Srudirs

of 1970,6 wherein he had argued that there is no historical evidence earlier thanthe late fourth cenhry to support the present-day Roman Catholic requirementof perpetual clerical celibacy. Much of the literature Gryson reviewed at the

time had, of course, appeared in response to himself. Since then, discussionhas orbi ed around the l98l work of Christian Cochini (translated in l99l intoEnglish), and the subsequent publications of Roman Cholij.?

This article, then, will focus primarily on these two authors, in an effortto exlend Gryson's overview of 1980 to literature that has appeared since onthe same subject.s lt will do this, in the first two sections, through a discussionof the thesis of Cochini and Cholij by other commentators (listed at the end ofthis article) as well as by the writer of this overview, paying close attention tothe main sources in Christian antiquity invoked by Cochini and Cholij. A thirdsection will look briefly at other authors who have to some extent entered thedebate. The various points of view are referenced in the text of the followingpages, or in the notes. Where there is no attribution, the views expressed are

my own.Tlroughout, a distinction (made by both Cochini: 7l and Cholij PP 1989:

301-303) will be maintained between "celibacy," in the sense of beingunmarried as a sine qua non for receiving major orders (diaconate,

presbyerate or episcopateFthe current discipline in Roman Catholicism (and

some Eastern Catholic eparchies)-, and the terms "chastitS/" and

"continence." Chastity means the virtue which regulates the sexual appetite,regardless of one's state of life; in Western canonical terms, however, it has

come to mean the practice of continence within a consecrated (religious) state.

Continence, which means the voluntary abstention from sexual activity within

u Idem, Les origines du cilibal eccldsiastique du prenrier au septilme siicle(Recherches et Synthdses, Section d'histoire,2), Gembloux: 1970.

t See e.g., A. Nichols, lloly Order: Apostolic Priesthoodfron Irc New Testamenl

to the Second Vatican Council (Oscoft Series, 5), Dublin: 1990, 155-65.6 For this reason, since each is a reprint ofa work that first appeared in the l9?0s, I

exclude H. Crouzel's Mariage et divorce, cdlibal et coractire sacerdotaux dans I'Egliseoncienne. Etudes drverses @tudes d'histoire du culte et des institutions chrdtiennes, 2), Turin:1982, and Charles A. Frazee, "The Origins of Clerical Celibacy in the Westem Church" inChurch History 57, Supplement (1988), 108-16. Two unpublished liccntiate theses in canonlaw det'ended at the Catholic University of America (Washington) ofler only a summarytreatment of the historical data: L.T. Persico, The Law of Celibacyfor the Ulcrainian andRuthenian Churches in the.United States. A Historical Developrnen! (1982),2-8; and P.Weinhoff, The Celibacy of Deacons (1983),3-25.

Recerr lirenarunr oN cElibAcy 481

marriage, can be temporary or perpetual; when it is the latter, it means celibary

in the wide sense, or lex continentiae.e

I. Christian Cochini

A. The thesis

Cochini's volume, originally a doctoral dissertation defended in 1969 at

the Institut Catholique (Paris) in 1969, and translated two years ago into

English, drew attention by re-orienting the whole debate, through an elaborate

defense of what he views as an undeviating senszs Ecclesiae of the Catholic

tradition of the first centuries [Cochini: 469], even as seen in the light of ahistory broadly defined as "the memory of humanity" [Cochini: 391.'o

Cochini's findamental thesis is therefore a simple one: as Gryson had shown,

from the 4th century on we have clear legislation prohibiting major clerics,

married or not, from sexual relations once they received orders fCochini:70-71].rr However, Cochini parts ways with Gryson over what the lack'ofpre-fourth century ecclesiastical legislation on this issue signifies. Where

Gryson concluded that there had simply never been any, Cochini infers that

such legislation existed from apostolic times, regarding not celibacy of the

tlpe known in Roman Catholicism today, but continence. This would have

constituted an unwritten law of the whole Church until the 4th century, when

the need and the possibility of written legislation, in the light of Christianity'snew-found freedom, had emerged. "Concluons que I'obligation faite aux

diacres, aux pr0tres et aux 6v€ques marids de garder la continenca parfaite

avec leur dpouse n'est pas dans l'Eglise le fruit d'une elaboration tardive, mais

est au contraire, dans toute l'acception du terme, vne tradition non4crited'origine apostolique qui, d notre cormaissance, trouva sa premibre

expression canonique au 4" sible" (Cochini: 475, his emphasis; see also 277).

o On this expression see L. Hodl,'Die 'lex continentiae': Eine problemgeschichtlicheStudie uber den Ztilibat" in Zeischrift jilr katholische Theologie 83 (1961), 325-44. Hddl'however, takes an uncritical approach to early Christian sources: see 332-35.

r0 Cochini was reacting to two works in particular, both published in Paris in 1967:J.-P. Audet,Mariage et cdlibat dans le service de l'Eglise: Histoire et orientation: andE.Schillebeeck,l ulour du cdlibal du prLtre: Etude crilique, a translation of Het ambtscelibaalin de branding @ilthoven: 1966), in English Celibacy (I'Iew York: 1968).

rr This is not new in itself, having been frequently uttered since at least the latter part

ofthelastcentury[Cochini: 54-56and72;CholijAHC 1987: 139;CCEWl989: 70-711.

484 Loqos: A lounral o[ Easmnn Cfrnisrian Srudies Krvln Coyle: Rrcrr,lr lirrnnrune on crlibacy

Cochini infers the corollary of a consistent idea running through theparallel traditions of the early Christian churches, namely, that continence is

required of ministers employed in the "seryice of the altar," because theyexercise a unique intercessory and mediating function between God andhumanity [Cochini: 26-27 and278-281]. The object of this rule, he says, was

!o forbid sexual relations between spouses, without casting aspersions on theirmarriage or suggesting that marriage is incompatible with ordination [Cochini:2751. Thus the focus of the study has virtually nothing to do with thetransformation of this rule into the law of celibacy. known today. Rather, itlooks backward, in order to vindicate the claim that a law of continence

enacted at the regional Council of Carthage in 390 was in keeping with a

practice derived from the origins of Christianity, from the teachings of the

apostles, and from ancient custom.Cochini considers the lack of clear textual evidence prior to the "violent

crisis" reflected in fourth century legislation to be supportive of his claim thata practice of clerical continence eisted and had gone without serious challengeup to that time. In his view, the severity of Roman legislative measures and thevigour of Christian apologetics reflect opposition to what was perceived as a

challenge to a traditional discipline and to the principles whereon it rested

[Cochini: 278]. But elsewhere Cochini defends the same lack of positiveevidence for his theory with the claim that documents which would sustain the

theory must have been lost during the persecutions of the first three centuries

[86-87]!

l. Critiquea) The thesis in general

Tempting though it is, a fi.rll examination of the premise of earlier missingdocumentation is out of the question here---except for two observations. First,the premise evades an equally plausible conjecture: such materials (if they everexisted) might have represented a single side of a polemic raging in those same

centuries over an issue far from decided. Secondly, one could also, and withno less plausibility, envisage the willful destruction of opposingdocumentation, with the objective of creating the illusion of a single, unbrokentradition regarding the continence discipline.

There is no need to linger on the conjectural aspect ofprecisely why pre-fourth cenhry legislative documentation is not to be found. More to the point,while no one seriously disputes that (at least in the West) continence after

48'

ordination eventually became a standard requirement for all men (married ornot) admitted to the diaconate, presbyterate or episcopate [Barstow: 2l and

28f ,t2 the facr of the absence of such documentation prior to the late fourthcentury constitutes the first major difficulty with Cochini's premise. Thisabsence does not perturb him, for he bases his methodological strategy on

what he terms "explaining the obscure by the clear" documentation he

purports to find beginnning in the 380s; for, he affirms, an apostolic practice

and ordinance could have travelled through time as an oral tradition beforebecoming embodied in legislation. A doctrine or discipline effectivelyobserved "by the whole Church" and always observed by the Church allowsus to think that the doctrine or discipline in question has its beginnings in the

time of the apostles [Cochini: 78]. This is what Cochini means by his"principle of spatio-temporal turiversality" [Cochini: 85], to which we willreturn.

A second serious objection to Cochini's position is that legislationregarding the clerg,t exists well before the late 4th century, as in the

Apostolic Tradition (ca. 217) and the Didascalia) (ca. 250), but withoutreference to the marital status of clerics, let alone their conjugal activities.Indeo4 the great majority of the 210 cases Cochini has inventoried of maniedclerics do not mention their ceasing conjugal relations, which opens thepossibility that such instances of cessation are mentioned because of the

exceptional nature of the event.r3

12 Barstow's focus is on the medieval canonical prohibition of marriage for clerics,rather than on the concsrn of earlier centuries with clerical continence. This leads her to somemisleading statements, like the tbllowing (20): 'Not until after 250 did numbers of clergy beginto live out the ideals of singleness and virginity." Prior to this the minister "was not consecratedto office but merely ordained." Barstow sees [22 and 301 the fourth century legislation as amanifestation of the influence of asceticisrn, as well as of another influence, namely, "a needfor the lihrrgy to provide the basis for great imperial celebrations. The priesthood pre siding overthese mysteries gradually became a spiritual elite whose role was defined in strongly sacralterms" (30-3I).

'3 It is worth mentioning in this respect that celibacy was subject to financial andsocial penalties until Constantine's repeal of the Augustan marriage laws in 320. See Max

EinSndimbuch,Munich: 1959),34344.Evenifitisassumedforthesake ofargumentthatclerical continenc€ was an important issue to Christians of the first three centuries, the discretionenjoined by these laws on the subject seriously complicates Cochini's scenario and should giveeven more pause than usual in the deploynrentofan argumenlum e silenlio.

I

486 Loqos: A iounnal of fnsrenn Chnisrian Srudies Krvin Coytr: Rrcrnr lirrnnrunt oru celibacy

As to late fourth-cenhry bishops and presbyters known to have renouncedconjugal intercourse after ordination, or never to have married at all, it isimportant to remember that communities chose their own ministers, and that(at least by this time) they had begun to seek candidates whose life-stylediffered from that of the average community member. These candidates, oncechoseq often staunchly defended virginity and/or continence;ra but that is notto say that the individuals in question would have sought to impose such anobligation on all the ordained. In any event, individual pronouncements wouldprove neither a rule nor an apostolic tradition.

Cochini goes to some length to advance the view that the apostlesthemselves observed continence from the day Jesus called them. To do this herelies (as for most other points) upon the "consensus" he perceives in earlypafistic writings [89-108]. In direct contradiction of the claims of Gryson andothers, he asserts that it was not the later influence of Hellenistic philosophiesand the mystery religions, but rather the Jewish Christian community whichpromoted a recapitulation within Ctristianity of the language and to someextent the self+rnderstanding of Old Testament priesthood [467-68]. If thepractice ofcontinence appears to be unlegislated before the 4th century, thiscan only be, he says, becatse the practice was generally accepted, as illustratedby the same fourth century legislation-the sort found in the canons ofCarthage of 390 and decretals ascribed to Siricius, bishop of Rome.

b) Cochini's deployment of textsTo enumerate and examine every text that Cochini cites in defense of his

thesis would be tedious and counter-productive for both author and reader. Alengthy study could be made of the way Cochini reworks standard translationsofpahistic passages or presupposes particular contextual hypotheses in orderto read ambiguous texts in the most favorable light possible. Such a study isin the event unneccessary, since Cochini is consistent throughout in the wayhe approaches his texts. Suffice it to focus on his treatment of some keypassages, as t'?ical of the way he deploys texts in general.

'nAmbrose, for instance, in De o/ficiisl,50 (PL t 6, cols. 97-98). Decretals ascribedto Siricius, bishop of Rome.

487

(l) Council of Carthage (390), canon 2

We begin with the fnst major piece of ecclesiastical legislation on the

subject of clerical continence, as highlighted by Cochini, and whereon he sets

great store. The following translation of the second canon of a council held in

Roman Afiica on June 6, 390, is based on Cochini's French rendition, it being

Cochini's line of argument which is under scrutiny here. The frst part of the

canon reads, according to him [25]: "Bishop Epigonius of Bulla Regius said:

In a previous council the rule of continence and chastity was discussed. The

three ranks which by virtue of their consecration are bound by the same

obligation to chastity, should [now] be instructed more forcefully: I mean the

bishop, the priest and the deacon. And they should be taught to preserve

purity."ttAs Cochini interprets this, Epigonius is asserting that a previous (but

unidentified) council discussed the rule of continence and chastity [Cochini:251. But Epigonius is not referring to any rule: he only says that the question

has been broached or dealt with (tractaretur) [Gryson 1983: 90]. Nor does he

necessarily mean by tractatu pleniori that the same assertion (as a previous

council) should now be taught "avec plus de force" [Cochini: 25]. WhatEpigonius rather seems to have meant is "in a more complete fashion", by

setting out exactly what is expected of major clerics with regard to chastity,

which seems to have been a hitherto rather vague requirement: constrictionequadam castitatis-aphrase which does not lend itself to Cochini's rendition,

"par la nr&ne obligation de chastetd" [Gryson 1983: 9l]. Nor does the Latintext support the claim that the obligation to chastity had been talien on because

the members of all three ranks were by their consecration "introduits dans un

ordre de rdalitds diffdrent de celui ori se ddroulaitjusqu'alors leur existence"

[Cochini: 26]. Neither Epigonius nor the joint statement at the canon's

conclusion draws a connection between a constrictio castitatis and those qulaltario inseruiunt [Gryson 1983: 9l].

The text ofthe second episcopal intervention in Carthage's second canon

states, in Cochini's reading 125-26]: "Bishop Geneclius said: As was said

previowly, it is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God, as well as the

't Conc. Carthaginense, can. 2 (CCL 149, p. 13.26-30): "Epigonius episcopusBullensium regionum dixit Cum praeterito concilio de continentia et castitate tractaretur, gradus

isti tres qui constrictione quadam castitatis per consecrationem adnexi sunt, episcopus inquam,presbyter et diaconus, tractatu pleniori, ut pudicitiam custodiant, doceantur."

.l

1

t

h,

4BB loqos: A Jounnral of Ensrrnn Chnisrian Srudies

levites, meaning those who are in the service of the divine mysteries, observeperfect continence, so as to be able to obtain in all simplicity what they ask ofthe L,ord; what the apostles taught and antiquity itself has observed, let us alsodo our part in keeping."r6

Cochini is fond of repeating the assertion of Geneclius, presider of thecouncil, that the rule of perpetual continence for major clerics is "that whichthe apostles taught and antiquity itself has observed." He sees in this rule noinnovation, but a custom faithfully adhered o since Christianity's earliest days

[28]. But he takes liberties with the impact of Geneclius' intervention, whichhe himself fanslales as an advisory (decet: "il convient"). He does the samewith the final, collective statement of the canon, which he renders as [26]:"Unanimously, the bishops declared: We all agree that the bishop, priest anddeacorl [as] guardians ofpurity, ought to abstain [from conjugal intercourse]with their spouse, so that those in the service of the altar may keep perfectchastily."rT

One supposes, of course, that texts from episcopal gatherings such as thiswere preserved for a particular reason, with even individual interventions seento express what the gathering (or at least the compiler) wanted said. But whatentitles Cochini to give the pronouncements of two individual bishops thesame weight as a declaration of the whole s1mod, and to draw from this proofof an apostolic tradition practised always and everywhere [Gryson 1983: 9l]?The synodal statement per se comprises only the final lines of the canon, andits tone is much more circumspect than those of the preceding individualinterventions:members of the ranlis in question are "guardians of modesty"

Qtudicitiae custodes), and are "advised" to abstain from conjugal relations

Qtlacet ut... se abstineant), without any precision as to the occasion or theduration of abstention, or as to apostolic origins. The latter notion is, "aucontraire, une opinion purement privee d'un evOque [Geneclius], que les Pdres

16 Can. 2 (CCL 149, p. 13.3 l-36): "Geneclius episcopus dixit: Vt superius dictumest, decet sacros antistites ac dei sacerdotes necnon et leuitas uel qui sacrarnentis diuinisinseruiunt, continentes esse in omnibus, quo possint sirnpliciter quod a domino postulantirnpetrare, ut quod apostoli docuerunt et ipsa seruauit antiquitas nos quoque custodiirnus."

tI Can.2 (CCL 149, p. 13. 37-40): "Ab uniuersis episcopis dictum est: Ornnibusplacet ut epicopus, presbyer et diaconus, pudicitiae custodes, etiarn ab uxoribus se abstineantut in ornnibus et ab omnibus pudicitia custodiatur qui allario inseruiunt."

Rrcnr lirrnarune oN cFlibAcy 489

de Carthage, qui n'dtaient pas totalement ddpourvus de sens historique, evitent

soigneusement de reprendre d leur compte" [Gryson 1983: 9l].t8Cochini makes much of the fact that Carthage's canon 2 reappears in the

Codex canonum ecclesi ae Africanae of 4 I 9 [Cochini: 24]. But there the jointdeclaration "ab uniuersis episcopis" is limited to Carthage's closing words:

"Placet ut in omnibus et ab omnibus pudicitia custodiatur qui altariis (altario)

inseruiunt."re Yet, even were we to accept the entire wording of Carthage's

canon 2 in its strictest possible sense, and to ignore any distinction betweenjoint declarations and individual observations, we would still be left with no

more than proof of a perception among a rather small gathering at the end ofthe 4th century in Proconsular Africa that continence and chastity have

apostolic origins. We do not yet have proof that such origins are really the

case.

(2) "Siricius"Cochini's manipulation of history has not been taken seriously by most of

his critics, and will not delay us longer here. Far more interesting in terms ofthe continuing debate is his posture in regard to tradition; indeed, his workreveals more about this postwe than it does about the objects he treats. This

is demonstrable in the way he uses biblical texts and in his presentation of the

decretals ascribed to Siricius, bishop of Rome from 384 to 399.

(2a) Epistula I ad Himerium (= Directa)Of the three early Roman decretals invoked by Cochini, the earliest?o dates

from February 10, 385. Directa purports to be the response of a synod ofbishops convened at Rome by Siricius to answer queries sent by Himerius,

bishop of Tarragona, to Siricius' predecessor Damasus (tDec. ll, 384).

Directa deals with various matters, all of them disciplinary: admission ofArians and apostates to the Catholic communion (chaps. I and 3),

administration of marriage, baptism, and penance (chaps. 2, 4, and 5), and

tt In his commentary Cochini [27] interjects an expression, qui sacramentacontrectant, one indeed more precise than the others, but which does not appear in all

manuscriptversionsofthe synodafdeclaration [Gryson 1983: 911 and has not been included inthe critical texl as established by the "Corpus Christianorurn" edition, the edition Cochinihimself uses [Cochini: 25 n.9].

'o ccl. 149, pp. 102.30-31 and I18.34-35.to According to Gryson, Les origines..., 13642.

i

&

49{J- : A Jornnal of Fasrenn Cknisrlan

questions of monastic and clerical discipline (chaps. 6-15). The decretal is

among the earliest surviving testimonies to the idea of apostolic origins of the

continence nrle for major clerics. Cochini (if it needs repeating) deduces fromit a proof of those origins.zr

He focuses on the decretal's scventh chapter, which opens a section on

clerical matters [Cochini: 28-30]. The pertinent passage reads:22

Why then were the priests [of the Old Testament] commanded todwell in the Temple, away from their homes, during their year-longtour of duty? Obviously so as not to have camal intercourse with theirwives, in order that, resplendent with an unsullied conscience, theymight ofler a gift acceptable to God (see I Pet. 2:5). Once the periodof their service had been completed, they could make use of conjugalrelations, but only to assure the succession, for no one could be

admitted to the ministry of God except from the tribe of Levi (see

Lev. l5:16-17' I Sam. 215-7).

That is rvhy the Lord Jesus, after enlightening us by his coming,affrms in the gospel that he has come, not to abolish the Law but tofulfill it (see Matt. 5:17); and why he wished the beauty of the

Church, wliose bridegroom he is, to shine with chastity's splendour,so that, when he comes again on the Day of Judgement, he might findher without stain or wrinlile, as was taught through his apostle (see

Eph. 5:27). All of us, priests and levites, are bound by the

unbreakable law of these ordinances, that from the day of ourordination we may deliver our hearts and bodies over to sobriety and

chastity, so as to be pleasing in all things to our God in those

sacrifices we offer day after day.23

2'Cochini: 31: "La ddcrdtale Directa ne fait pas explicitement rdf6rence d unetradition apostolique, mais c'est n€anrnoins avec les origines de l'Eglise qu'elle fait coinciderles origincs de la loi de continence exigde des prOtres de Jesus-Christ."

22 For this and the rernaining patristic citations I follow my own translation. Note that

a critical edition olthese early decretals has yet to be made.tt Epist. I ad Hirneriurn 7:9-10 @L 13, cols. ll38-39): "Curetiam procul a suis

dorlibus, anno uicis suae, in ternplo habitare iussi sunt sacerdotes? Hac uidelicet ratione, ne uelcum uxoribus possent carnale exercere commercium, ut conscientiae integritate fulgentes,acceptabile deo murrus offerent (cf. I Pet. 2:5). Quibus expleto deseruitionis suae tempore,uxorius usus solius successionis causa fuerat relaxatus, quia non ex alia, nisi ex tribu Leui,

Srudirs Krvlnr Coyte: Rrcerrr lirrnnrunr oN cflibAcy 491

This first decretal, which also appears to be the least synodal in tone-thatis, it contains more of an individual author and less of a joint statement than

the others-, is also the most stringent ("insolubili lege constringimur"), and

the most insistent on the model of the Old Testament priesthood as ajustification for Christian clerical practices. There is, then, no doubt where the

author personally stands on the issue, and in that sense Cochini understands

him correctly.But the writer of the decretal lacks inner logic [Callam: 28], in that the

second cited paragraph does not follow from the first. Moreover, he fails todescribe the precise linli between the Old and New Testament views ofpriesthood. He does not for example, choose the obvious path of extending hisconclusions to say that "priests" of the New Testament would be free toobserve absolute continence since Christian priesthood is no longer "restricted

to a tribe or family. Nor does he seem aware of the possibility that the OTcould have prescribed that Levites have families before being allowed toofficiate at the Temple worship, just as minor clerics could before the

reception of major orders" lCallam I980: 28].2a The focus on the leviticalexample is primarily due, it seems, to the necessity of countering the argumentthat clerics could enter into and use marriage because of Old Testamentpriestly practices.2s

Furthermore, the closing reference to "daily" sacrifice is obscure, since a

daily celebration of Eucharist at Rome in this period is far from certain

[Callam 1980: 3l-32]. It is therefore questionable whether the phrase in his,

quisquam ad dei ministeriurn tuerat praeceplus adrnitti (cf'. Lev. l5:16-17; I Sam. 2l:5-7).Vnde et dominus Iesus cum nos suo inlustrasset aduentu, in euangelio prot€statur, quia legemuenerit implere, non soluere (cf'. Matt. 5:17). Et ideo ecclesiae, cuius sponsus est, formamcastitatis uoluit splendore radiare, ut in die iudicii, cum rursus aduenerit, sine macula et ruga eampossit, sicut per apostolum suum instituit, reperire (ct Eph. 5:27). Quarum sanctionum omnessacerdotes atque leuitae insolubili lege constringirnur, ut a die ordinationis nostrae, sobrietati acpudicitiae et corda nostra mancipernus et corpora, dummodo per omnia deo nostro in his, quaequotidie offerimus, sacrificiis placeamus."

ra See Epist. / 9:13 (PL 13, col. I 142).

25 See Eplst. / ?:8 and I l:l 5 @L 13, cols. I 138 and I 143-44). In fact, it is moreaccurate to say that the decretal is even more interested in opposing clerical marriage'than it isin defending ritual abstinence. "To Siricius, ordination implies a rnind and body totally and

exclusively subjected to what God wants of his clergy" (Callam 1980: 28-29). The author doesnot bother to enquire why God did not find sornc other way-as in the New Testamentpriesthood-to ensure succession so that celibacy could be practised totally among OldTestarnent priests.

492 Locos: A lounnal ol EasrrRn Chnlsrlnn Srudirs

quae quotidie offerimus deserves the interpretation "devant offrirquotidiennement le sacrifice" [Cochini: 23], even though the necessity ofcontinence for "daily worship" would not necessarily mean that eucharisticliturgy was celebrated literally every day (pace Dassmann: 63-64); "thepollution" caused by sex (referred to in the second decretal) need not be seen

in formally ritual terms, valid for a precise time such as twenty-four hours,

but in more generalized moral terms; and certainly the notion of "being always

prepared" is a factorhere, as the otherdecretals show [Hastings: 173; see

Komonchak: 8-91.On the other hand, if an unintem.rpted tradition of continence were

provable---or at least generally acknowledged-, the author of the firstdecretal would only have had to remind Himerius of it. He does not: whatoccurs instead is that in the other two decretals we will examine ttre ritualpurity argument gains in intensity, indicating that, though rn Directa it is not

crucial to the defense of absolute continence for major clerics, it becomes more

so once it is perceived at Rome that the argument of an urbroken tradition is

not having the desired effect on the clergy, at least within Italy.26

(2b\ Epist. l0 ad Gallos episcopos (= Dominus inter\Though considered by Cochini [3a] to belong to the time of Pope Innocent

I (1417), the decretal Dominus inter is probably earlier than Epist. 5-therefore, from sometime in 385 [Callam 1980: 36]2?-, and is a synodal

response to queries from bishops in Gaul regarding a variety of pastoral

difficulties. The language of this second decretal makes it clear that the

synodal decision is encapsulated in the statement which opens the passage

[Cochini: 35]: "ln the first place it was decided, with regard to bishops,presbyters and deacons: that those involved in the divine sacrifices and

ttnough whose hands the grace ofbaptism is conferred and the body of Christmade present (confcitur),not we alone but the divine scriptures as well oblige

tusee Callam 1980: 47-48, who adds that Siricius' main concem throughout'Vaswith other motives for absolute continence. Nevertheless, his confident use of cultic abstinence,despite many incidental difficulties, implies that it must have been an important part of his

position. But the great difference between occasional continence, even for relatively protractedperiods, and absolutc continence calls into question a ritual basis for this legislation."

27 Komonchak [6] makes this the earliest of the decretals, while Dassmann [63]ascribesittoDamasus,asdoesE.{h.Babut,Laplusanciennedtcritale @aris: 1904),32.The latter also perceives (74) a strong influence ofJerome on the passage.

Krvin Coyk: Rrcerr lirrnarunr oN crlibAcy 491

!o be most chaste; and the fathers too have commanded that bodily continence

be observed."28The justification for this stance then follows [Cochini: 35-36]:

For this reason let us not pass over [this point], but let us pronounce

the reason. For with what effrontery would a bishop or presbyter dare

to preach integrity or continence to a widow or virgin, or to urge the

preservation of a chaste marriage bed, if he himself has been more

occupied with ollspring for the world than with children for God?...

Therefore, with regard to these three ranks, of which we read in the

scriphrres, the precept of purity is to be observed by the ministers ofGo{ and this requirernent is always in force; for baptism will always

need to be conferred or sacrifices to be offered.ze

As it stands, this declaration is vague, for it leaves unclear what being"most chaste" and "observing bodily continence" entail. Though some

concrete consequenc€s of non-+ompliance are spelled out, they are clouded by

the following section's palpable switch from the plural to the singular,suggesting that an individual has interjected a personal commentary,3o whichbegins perhaps with the passage just cited. At any rate, it continues to advance

the example of the Old Testament priesthood with, once more, the deductionthat priests of the New Covenant must therefore permanenrly abstain from

conjugal relations [Cochini: 36]:

" Epist. lO ad Gallos episcopos 2:5 (col. ll84): "Primo in loco statutum est de

episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconibus, quos sacrificiis diuinis necesse est interesse, por quorummanus et gratia baptismatis traditur, et corpus Christi conficituq quos non solum nos, sed etsmipfura diuina compettit esse castissirnos, et patres quoque iusserunt continentiam corporalemseruare debere."

to Epist. l0 2:5-6 (cols. I 184-85): "Qua de re non praetereamus, sed dicamus et

causair. Quo enim pudore uiduae aut uirgini ausus est episcopus uel presbyter integritatem uelcontinentiarn praedicare, uel suadere castum cubile seruare, si ipse saeculo magis institit filiosgenerare quam deo?... De his itaque tribus gradibus, quos legirnus in scripturis, a ministris deimunditia praecepta est obseruari, quibus necessitas semper in promptu est. Aut enim baptismatradendurn est, aut offbrenda sunt sacrificia."

'o Callam 1980: 37: "Although the title nrentions a synod, Siricius seems to have

replied on his own."

i

494 A JounNql o[ [nsrrnn ChnisriqN Srudirs

Would an unclean person dare contaminate what is holy, when whatis holy is such for holy persons? Thus those who offered sacrifices inthe Temple, in order to be pure, quite properly remained in theTemple during the entire year of their service, having nothing to dou'ith their own households. Even idolaters, in order to carry out theirimpious acts and offer sacrifice to demons, impose on themselvesabstinence from women and keep themselves untainted by certainfoods; and you ask me whether a priest of the true God, who is tooffer up spiritual sacrifices (see I Pet. 2:5) should be perpetuallyuntainted, whether he should be concemed about the flesh fiikesomeone] totally in the flesh? If intercourse is a pollution, then thepriest must stand read for heavenly duties, as one who is to intercedefor the sins of others, otherwise he might himself be found unworthy.For if it is said [even] to laypersons, "Abstain for a time, that youmay leave time for prayer" (I Cor. 7:5), those who apply themselvesto the generation of creahres may rvell carry the name of 'priests', butthey cannot carry it with honour.3t

The alleged temporary abstinence from conjugal relations required oflevitical priests during their tour of duty in the Temple, and of the Jewishpeople generally on certain occasions, Cochini believes to be the solesuriviving remnant within Christianity of the purity codes of ancient Israel

[Cochini: 466]. The exceptional survival of this practice (confirmed, inCochini's view, by Paul in I Cor. 7:5) shows the importance with which it wasregarded in the apostolic era [Cochini: 47 L-72]; and the strengthening of thisrule to absolute continence for the clergy is characteristic, he says, of "the

t'Epist. l02:6 (cols. I 185-86): 'Numquid immundus ausus erit contaminare quodsanctum est, quando quac sancta sunt, sanctis sancla sunt? Denique illi, qui in ternplo sacrificiaoflerebarr! ut mundi essent, toto anno in templo, solo obseruationis merito, permanebant, domussuas penitus nescientes. Certe idolatrae, ut impietates exerceant, et daerronibus immolent,irnperant sibi continentiarn muliebrern, et ab escis quoque se purgari uolunt: et me intenogas,si saerdos dei ueri, spiritalia oblaturus sacrificia (cf. I Pet. 2:5), purgatus perpetuo debeat esse,an totus in carne canris curam debeat facere? Si cornrnixtio pollutio est, utique sacerdos staredebet ad oflcium coeleste praeparatus, qui pro alienis peccatis est postulaturus: ne ipseinueniatur indignus. Nam si ad laicos dicitur, 'Abstinete uos ad tempus, ut uacetis orationi' (ICor. ?:5), et illi creaturae utique generatione deseruiunt; sacerdotes tale possunt habere nornen,meriturn habere non possunt."

Recrrr lirrnanrnr oN crlibqc 49'

priesthood of Christ [which] brought the Old Testament to perfection"

[Cochini: 3l; see 466 and 468].In the fust (synodd) part of the citation from the second decretal, the rule

of continence supposedly demanded of Old Testament priests is applied to

those of the New Testament; but here it is also said that the Old Law isperfected and completed by the New. One must then ask what the criteria are

according to which one regulation of the Old Law is known to have been

abolished and another to have been subsumed into the new dispensation; or,

in this instance, "How could Christians again allow the force of ancient laws

of purity, when Jesus and the New Testament writers revoked the ritualprecepts of the Old Testament and declared them void?" [Schillebeeckx:2421.According to the author of Dominus inter [Callam 1980: 38], "the answer

must lie in the practice of the Church. When the customs of the Church are

parallel to those of the OT, they are to be trnderstood as the final development

of earlier usages. Where there is no colTespondence, the OT has given way to

the NT Hence the laws in these decretals are not deductions from the OT (or

theNT). Rather, it is confidently expected and believed that what the Church

is doing will have been prepared for by the OT and described in the NT."The second (and less clearly synodal) part of the citation contains [Callam

1980: 40] a statement that is unequivocally ritual. As used here, it malies a

weak argument. There is nothing about a daily Eucharist which would have

rendered an argument based on cultic abstinence compelling. The mention ofboth baptism and the Eucharist suggests that neither one was frequent enough

or suffrcient by itselfto ensure absolute continence, even granting that only a

cleric ritually pure was allowed to offrciate. The use of baptism is particularly

unconvincing for an argument based primarily on ritual pudty.Still, here the ritual argument, while not yet paramount, has gained

momentum since the first decretal [Callam 1980: 42-43]. And, as intimated

earlier, there is an assumption here that sex necessarily defiles the body'sholiness (si commixrio pollutio esl); hence it should be volurtarily abandoned

by all seeking perfection, but must be abandoned by those involved regularly

and by ordination in thc celebration of the sacred mysteries. We will return to

a consideration of ritual purity in the conclusion to this section (1.3.2).

(2c) Epist. 5 ad episcopos Africae (= Cum in unum)

Its title notwithstanding, the third decretal, Cum in unum, concems the

Church in ltaly, having originally addressed Italian bishops unable to attend

496 Loqos: A Jotrnr,ral o[ Fasrrnir Chnisrinn Srudies

a synod held at Rome in January of 386 [Callam 1980: 44]. Cochini [33]tsrms this decretal "an essential link whereby the bishops of the Roman synod

of 386 and Pope Siricius situate themselves in continuity with the apostolicage." But the link appears to be more tenuous than Cochini suggests.

The document first presents eight disciplinary canons (none of them on

continence, although one canon forbids a cleric to marry a widow, and anotherbars aspirants to the clergy who have married a widow). The canons are

followed by a brief exhortation on continence, which includes the text onwhich Cochini focuses [32]:

Besides, as is worthy, chaste and honest, we advise that priests andlevites not have intercourse with their wives, because they are

preoccupied by the daily demands of their ministry. For Paul writesto the Corinthians, "Abstain, that you may leave time for prayer" (ICor.7:5).If, therefore, abstinence is demanded of laypersons, so thatthey may be heard when thry pray, how much more should the priest,fortified by a spotless purity, be ready at every moment, in case he is

called upon to offer sacrifice or to baptize? If he were contaminatedby carnal concupiscence, what would he do? Excuse himself? Withwhat shame, in what state of mind would he assume [thesefi,urctions]? By what act of corxcience, by what right would he believehimself heard, when it is said, "All things are clean to the clean, butfor those who are tainted and unbelieving nothing is clean" (Tit.l:15)? That is why I exhort, I admonish, I request that thisopprobriurq which even the pagans would be right to charge against

[us], be lifted away. Perhaps someone believes it [is permitted]because it is written, "The husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3:2,12, Tit.l:6). But [the text] was not speaking of someone who persists in the

desire to procreate, but rather of the continence to be observed fromthen on.32

3t Epist.5 ad episcopos Africae 3 (cols. 1160-61): "Praeterea quod dignum etpudicum et honesfum est suadernus, ut sacerdotes et leuitae cum uxoribus suis non coeant; quiain ministerio, ministerii quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur. Ad Corinthios namque sic Paulusscribit, dicens, 'Abstinete uos, ut uacetis orationi' (I Cor. 7:5). Si ergo laicis abstinentiaimperafur, ut possint deprecantes audiri: quanto magis sacerdos utique omni momento paratusesse debet rnunditiae puritate securus, ne aut sacrificium offerat, aut baptizare cogatur? Qui sicontaminatus fuerit camali concupiscentia, quid faciat? Excusabit? Quo pudore, qua mente

lirrnarunr

Again, this passage does not seem to entirely originate from a synod per

,r, foionr. more an abrupt shift occurs from the first person plural to the

,i"g"rr, indicating that an individual's views have been interjected. If that is

indeed the case, the situation is similar to the preceding. decretal and to

Corrtrogr, where the compiler took no great care to distinguish between

q.JJ.;a individual views. Yet in each case the synodal statement is more

restrained in its tone and interpretation of Scripture than is the individual's'

In the quotation,s opening lines, the same noti of counsel ('suademus") is

.,oprov.a as in the earlier collective statements, with the same lack of

pr.iirio" as to duration and ckcumstance of the practice of continence.

The Old Testament model of the first decretal, while preserved in the

szuond, has been displaced in the third. The precision of absolute continence'

,.*.ii"g from the individual portion of the decretal, is derived from the

observan-ce of cultic abstinence, justified, not from temple priesthood' but

from Paul's enjoinder to laypersons in I corinthians 7:5. The decretal argues

that those who offeruo.rifi.. or baptize are much more strictly bound to

continence than are the married laypersons whom Paul advised to abstain so

that they might devote themselves to prayer. Thus the Pauline counsel is

extended to absolute continence [Callam 1980: 46]'

Even with the disappear*o oith. old Testament model, the ritual purity

arg.rment is here at iis strongest among the decretals-practically the only

arlrrment now offered.,, "ThJargum.niby which major clerics-are exhorted

to"perpetual abstinence from the]r wives is exclusively ritual. Continence is

no"rrory for worship to be acceptable to God, and the daily ministry of major

clerics, "it1.,

baptism or the Eucharist, obliges them to observe perfect

continence" [Callam 1980: 45].

Exegetestodaywould*gu"thotth.recognitioninlCor.T:5thatspousesmay by agreement abstainln order to devote themselves to prayer is more

li6y ; co-ncession than an obligation. The concession probably stems from

the uie\- that nothing should distract from the prayer's intensity; at any rate'

usurpabit? Qua conscierrtia, quo merito hic exaudiri secredit, cum dicturn sit, .Ornnia munda

rr"G *i,iq"inatis autem et i'fidelibus nihil mundurn' (Tit' I :15)? Qua de re hortor' moneo'

rogo, tollatur hoc opprounur, quJ pot i id:F qTtilitas adcusare. Fort" ho" creditur, quia

scrioturn est, 'Vnirrs u*ori, uituttt' (I Tim' 1:2.'12'' Tit' l:6)' Non pennanentem rn

."'ii"pit.""tii generandi dixit, sed propier continentiam futuram'

" But the argument remains weak, in the view of Callam 1980: 46-48'

498 Loqos: A Jotrnnal ol Ensrrnr Cknlsrlan Srudirs Krvi^r Coyle: Rrcrnr lirrnallRr o.r crlibacy

there is no reference to a ritual motivation.3a We might also note that the

counsel to spouses not to refuse tlemselves to each other is addressed to all

married couples in the commturity; no exception is made for specially

designated ministers [Hastings: 175]. In fact, the Pauline text appears todiamefically oppose Cochini's thesis, for the idea of a basic Christian choice,either a life of prayer or a sexual life in marriage, is distinctly unpauline

[Hastings: 175].The same decretal interprets the stipulation of I Timothy 3:2,12 (or Titus

l:6) that the episkopos be "the husband of one wife" as a requirementintended to ensure the choice of men whose previous sexual morality was

irreproachable and who could therefore be trusted to keep the continencewhich would be required of them once they assumed office. Cochini admisthat this requirement clearly envisioned a married clergr; but he also believesthat it excluded those who, by the standards of the time, had rendered

themselves suspect with regard to continence by having remarried after the

death of the first spouse [Cochini: 3l].3s He approves of the decretal'sinterpretation of the phrase in the Pastoral Letters; but while this cozld be the

meaning, the text gives no suggestion that it is [Hastings: 175]. And whileSiricius may be correct in understanding "the husband of one wife" of I Tim.3:2,12 (Tit. l:6) to exclude the possibility of successive marriages, the

assertion that this moral requirement is meant to guarantee future continenceis questionable.36 It is therefore far from certain that the final words of the

third decretal passage (propter continentiam futuram) must be understood inthe sense of "en vue de la continence qu'il lui faudrait pratiquer" [Cochini:32], still less that the same interpretation was intended by the author of ITimothy (Titus) or, for that matter, of I Corinthians.

Yet the decretal's interpretation of "the husband of one wife" stipulationis crucial to Cochini's argument-particularly in light of the numerous

examples of married clerics from the first seven centuries which fill his fifth

s See H. Conzelmann, I Corirtthians. A Commenlary on lhe First Episile lo lheCointhians,Philadelphia: 1975 (trans. of Der erste Brief an die Korinlfter, Gdttingen: 1969),I 17.

35 Sce Vogels: 88. Even Galot 1983: 153, who is generally favorable to Cochini'sthesis, takes exception to this interpretation.

5 See , for example, Richard Kugelman, "The First Letter to the Corinthians" in J. A.

Fi?rnyer and R.E. Brown (eds.),The Jeronrc Biblical Commenlary, vol. 2 @nglewood Cliffs,NJ: 1968),263.

499

chapter [Cochini: I l2-158]. In the case of the more than twenty texts cited

which pre-date Ambrosiaster (ca. 385), he consistently reverses standardfianslations or hypothesizes the contexts of the texts in order to yield readingsfavourable to his thesis. ln short, it is clear that Cochini is determined toharmonize the biblical texts either with the claims of the authorities whereinhe found these texts employed, or else with the claim recorded at the Councilof Carthage that the rule of continence was "taught by the apostles." In either

case, he shows far more deference for such claims than he does for the

meaning of the texts, whether that meaning has been gleaned frorn the textsthemselves or is ascribed by modern exegesis.

(3) Elvira, canon 33, and Arles, canon 6

Since Cochini sets great store on it [83-186], we pause briefly at the

thrty-third of the canons ascribed to the regional Corurcil of Elvira (beginning

of the 4th cenhry).37 The Latin text of the canon in question reads: "Placuit intotum prohibere episcopis, presbyteris et diaconibus' uel omnibus clericispositis in ministerio abstinere se a coniugibus suis et non generare filios.

Quicumque uero feceret, ab honore clericatus exterminetur."38The text presents an immediate problem with its double negation

Qtrohibere... abstinere se... et non generare). This is possibly meant tore-enforce the ideas, but could be taken to mean that clergy are not to beabsolutely forbidden to have conjugal relations and to procreate. We will notdiscuss the precise reasons for the grammatical construction here. Whateverthis text's meaning, Gryson has shown that the canon belongs to the end of thefourth century, only the first 2l canons ascribed to the Courcil of Elvirahaving actually been enact,ed there.3e The thirty-third canon would then belongto the same time-frame as the four documents already discussed, and need

delay us no further here.

" Dassmann: 58. Cochini: 183, and Barstow: 23,date it at "ca. 305."t In the edition by Jos6 Vives, Concilios visigdticos y hispano*romanos,

Barcelona-Madrid, I 963, 7.3e Kornonchak: 5 seems unaware of this. See Gryson, "Dix ans...," l6l and 164,

following M. Meigne, "Concile ou Collection d'Elivre?," Revue d'Histoire eccltsiastique 7O

(1975), a8; Callarn 1980: 3 n. 2; Schillebeeckx: 24 I ; and Jes{rs Supe rbiola Martinez, Nuevosconcilios hispano-rontanos de las siglos III y IV. La colecci6n de Elvira (Malaga: 1987), 14

and 85-104. For all these authors, canon 33 is an anachronisrn.

I

tOO Loqos: A lotrnrnl o[ Easrrnn Chnisrlnn Srudirs

Nor, for similar reasons, is it necessary to dwell on the sixth canon

ascribed to the Council of Arles (314), another passage highlighted by Cochini

[18G194]. This canon, too, represents a case of enoneous attribution, a fact

Cochini has chosen to ignore.ao

(4) Augustine, De baptismo IV, 24:3 IThe methodology Cochini considers appropriate to his demonstration he

finds primarily 175-871 in hermeneutical criteria furnished th'rough

Augustine's De baptismo (written ca. 400): "That which is kept by the whole

Church and has ahvays been rnaintained, without having been established by

councils, is rightfully believed to have been transmitted only by virtue ofapostolic authority."ar

Cochini argues [76-83] that a point of doctrine may be deemed to have

been "kept by the whole Church" if it has been kept by (l) a majority of those

exercising the greatest moral and intellectual authoriry in the Church; (2)

individual churches which were founded by the apostles personally, or whichhave maintained a "consanguinity of doctrine" with such Churches; or (3) the

ag$egate of bishops (successors of the apostles), most particularly in theirsynodal and conciliar declarations.

Augustine's second criterion-that a teaching have "always been

maintained"--ran be considcred to have been fulfilled, Cochini says [83-85],if (a) retrojecting from the moment when we can veri$, that a teaching is being"kept by the whole Church" (in the sense just defined), there is found no

decision from an ecumenical council or from the incumbent of the ApostolicSee in Rome to prove the existence of a contrary belief or practice manifest in

the whole Church; (b) the teaching in question has never been the subject ofa prior contestation in the name of a parallel tradition among the apostolicallyfounded churches; and (c) the teaching is not in formal contradiction with a

text of Scripture. Cochini [85] terms this expansion of Augustine's formula

the "principle of spatio-temporal ruriversality." He then adds two furthermethodological safeguards: a "principle of progressive explanation," requiring

that the earliest text extant in support of a teaching not be identified with the

a0 See CCL 148, p. 25 (can. 29), to which Cochini alludes without comment.

o' Aug., De baptismo LY,24'31 (CSEL 51, p. 259.1-{): "...quod uniuersa tenet

ecclesia ncc corrciliis institutunr, sed senrper rctenturn est, non nisi auctoritate apostolicatraditum rectissime creditur."

lire nartrnr

origin of that teaching unless there is positive evidence in favour of the

identification, and a "principle of comprehensive interpretation," requiring that

obscure historical phenomena, texts, or aspects thereof be interpreted in the

light of phenomena, texts or aspects thereof which are clear.

Eager to expand the import of Augustine's criteria beyond the limits ofwhat they actually comprehend, Cochini fails to address at the outset a crucial

element: that the passage in question refers, not to a point of discipline, but to

one of liturgy and doctrine.a2 While Augustine's text admittedly deals with the

problem of unwritten traditions, the passage belongs to a very particularcontext-a controversy with the Donatists over who might receive baptism,

with the aim of clarifing the Church's understanding of the relationship

between the Church's holiness and its ability to mediate God's grace. It isimportant that in the above citation from De baptismo Cochini omits the

words which explicitly refer to this context: "tamen ueraciter conicere

possumus, quid ualeat in paruulis baptismi sacrarnentum."43 He thereby

deletes any direct reference to Augustine's immediate concern, the efficacy ofbaptism in someone (an infant) whose faith-consciousness is deemed to be

unavoidably but wquestionably absent.a Cochini's application of Augustine'stext therefore seems particularly inappropriate, especially as the question ofinfant baptism in early Christianity remains unsettled among scholars.a5

a2 See Y. Congar, La Tradition el les tradilions, t. I, Paris: 1960, 67.a3

Aug., De b ap ti sm o IY, 24 :3 1 (CSEL 5 1, p. 2 59. -5).*

The sa,n" application to liturgico-doctrinal issues is made in II, 7: 12, IV, 6:9 and

V,23:31.aJ See A. Beno'it, "Le problerne du pedobaptOrne" in Revae d'Hisloire el de

Philosophie religieuses 28 (1948), 132-141;J. Jerenias,lrfanl Baptism in the First FourCcnturies, London: 1960 (transl. of Die Kindertaufe in der erslen vier Jahrhunderten,Gotlingen: 1958); J.-C. Didier (ed.), Le bapthme des enfqnts dans la tradition de l'Eglise,Paris: 1959 (texts); id., Faa t-il baptiser les enfants? La rtiponse de la tradition (Chrdtiens de

tous les temps, 2 I ), Paris: 196?; K. Alartd, Did the Early Church Baptize Infans?, London:1963 (transl. of Die Stiuglittgslaufe im Neuen Teslanenl und in der Alten Kirche. EineAntwort an Joachim Jerenias [Theologische Existenz heute, N.F., 861, Munich: 1961); J.

Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptisn. A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland, London:1963 (transl. of Nochmals: Die Anfiinge der Kindertaufe. Eine Replik auf Kurt Alands Schrift"Die Sciuglingstaufe im Neuen Testanrent und in der Alten Kirclrc," Munich: 1962): P.A.Gramaglia, Il batlesimo dei banfiini nei primo quattro secalr, Brescia: 1973; R. de Latte,"sairrtAugustin et le bapt€me. Etude liturgico-historique du rituel baptismal des enfants chezsaint Augustin" it Questions liturgiqucs 56 (1975), 177-223, and 57 (1976), 4 l-55; V.

Grossi, "Battesimo dei barnbini e peccato originale. La problernatica storica e teologica nei

Padri"in Vitamonasticavol.34, no. 14i (1980), l0-24: D.F. Wright, "The Origins o[Infant

,O2 Loqos: A lorrnNal o[ fasrrnr,r ChnisrlaN Srudirs

Cochini anticipates this objection by arguing that, though "the domain ofnon-written traditions consists before all else of the truths of faith," the

elaborations of theological reflection and especially of the major councils over

the cenhrries have nuanced the distinction, so as to make it clear that the place

of disciplinary and liturgical customs in this "apostolic deposit transmitted by

the living voice" of tradition is also significant [Cochini: 7 41.ln other words,

Augustine's application is at least "quasi-disciplinary" libid.]. A more likelyreason is that he finds Augustine to be a more orthodox-and certainlyweightier-source for such a principle than Tertullian or Vincent of Lerins,both of whom enunciated similar notions, would have been [see Cochini: 76

n. l9l. Still, it remains a mystery how Cochini was inspired to employ the

Augustine text in the context of celibacy.a6

Cochini's "methodological principls"-1sp1s61 by Balducelli "a hybridtheological-historical methodology" [695-98; see also 704-7051-is also

susceptible to the following criticisms [Galot 1983: 153]: (l) Is it certain thatwhat has been preserved by the whole Church and has always been maintained

is derived from apostolic authority? (2) To maintain such a principle, is itsufficient to refer to a number of patristic witnesses (however numerous), inthis case to establish that the discipline of clerical continence goes back to a

positive will of the apostles? (3) The principle which supposes some sort ofapostolic but unwritten legislation is impossible to demonstrate, especially if'wegive to the biblical expression "husband of one wife" (I Tim. 3:2,12; Tit.l:6) the sense usually given it by exegetes, and if we take into account the

existence of many unquestionably manied "clerics" in the first centuries.a?

Baptism-Child Believers' Baptisrn?" in Scottish Journal of Theologt 40 (1987), l-23; P.

Richd,'Taut-il baptiser les enfants?" in P. de Clerck and E. Palozzo (eds.), Riluels. Mtlangesoflerts au Pire Guy, o.p., Paris: 1990,447-53. This discussion has divided sharply alongconlessional lines. See e.9., G. Bavaud, in Traitis anti-donatistes, t. II @ibliothdqueaugustinienne,29), Paris: 1964, 614 (f{ote compldmentaire 25: "La Tradition sur le baptOrne

des enlants semble bien remonter aux Apdtres eux-m0mes").a6 Possibly the answer lies in J.H. Newman's An Essay on lhe Development of

Christian Doctrine, chap. 3 ("On the Historical Argurnent in Behalf of the ExistingDeveloprnents'), whose methodological principles Cochini accepts [85-871, even if no explicitreferenceismade toNcwman'swork. R. Cholij [AIIC 1987: 138-84, CCEW 1989: 69-105]is explicit in connecting Newman's work to the mcthodological principle of cumulativeresponsibility argued by Cochini. See below, p. 5l l.

a? For sirnilar criticisrns of Cochini's rnethodology see Faivre: 4'7 l-'72, and Hastings:

t't3-:14.

Krvin Coyk: Rrcrrr tirrnnrunr oN crlibAcy ,01

B. Concluding Observationsl. "Tradition"Cochini's approach evinces an understanding of tradition that may be

defined, in Jaroslav Pelikan's words, as "submission to the authority oftradition [as though] truth would not dare to appear outside it."48 Or, toformulate it negatively, it betokens the view that no error-particularly, noenor involving an interpretation of the tradition itself---could ever have beenreceived by that tradition. His understanding of tradition is also implicit inCochini's failure (or refisal) !o acknowledge the contextual factor (mentioned

earlier) pertaining to the text from Augustine's De baptismo which functionsas the centerpiece of his methodolory.

Perhaps the greatest drawback to Cochini's approach is that he reads intothe texts of the Christian past his firm conviction that the apostles themselvesobserved continence from the day of their calling by Jesus-a conviction basedon the testimony of the early Fathers, including the very texts he cites for thethesis that the observance of continence that began to be legislated in the Westfrom 385 on was in keeping with a practice derived from the origins of theChurcll from the leaching of the apostles, and from ancient custom [Cochini:89-1081. If the Church was silent on this tradition prior to the fourth century,he argues, it is because the practice was generally accepted. This, however,seems highly unlikely in the earliest period, particularly in light of the NewTestament insistence that the Temple, its priesthood, and its cult had all been

relegated to the past.

Though he cites numerous patristic and conciliar texts from the second,third and (especially) fourth centuries in support ofhis position, he has lefthimself protected in that most are distinctly ambiguous. One may grant thatmany of the texts he draws from the period behveen the Council of Carthagein 390 and that of In-Trul/o (Quinisext) in 69112 do favour the position thatchurches in both East and West maintained an absolute rule of continence formajor clerics. Yet the earliest texts which unequivocally support the thesis arefrom Ambrosiaster (ca. 385), Ambrose (t397) and Jerome (1420) [Cochini:249-253,26L-266, Md324-331; see Dassmann: 6l and 631-that is, fromthe period in which most commentators concede that a rule of continence forsuch clerics began-or at least became widespread [Schillebeeclx: 241; see

Cholrj AHC 1987:72; CCEW 1989: 21. What happened in the 4th century,

ot J. Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition, New Haven: 1984, 55.

,O4 Loqos: A Jotrnr,rql of Easrrnr Clrnisrinr,r Srudirs Krvir Coyk: Rrcrrr lirrnarunr on crlibacy ,O,

therq is not the issue. What rs at issue is Cochini's claim that Carthage and thedecretds were simply articulating a uriversally acknowledged law, one viewedas turquestionably reaching back to the apostles. It seems far more likely thatthe decretals were sharing the assumption of a widely-held and long-standingfadition; but the assumption does not prove that such a tradition was reallythe case. "C'est un des points de vue th6ologiquement les plus faibles de cet

ouvrage, par ailleurs documentd. Qui veut trop prouver risque de ne rienprouver du tout" [Martelet: 376 n.54).

Cochini therefore has no right to claim that "on ne trouve dans l'histoiredes praniers sibles aucune id6e d'dvolution, selon laquelle la discipline de lacontinence des clercs ne serait peu ir peu imposde aux esprits sous la pression

des courants favorables ir la virginitd" [Cochini: 277]. Tltrs lack ofevolutionary awareness is, in fact, as Crouzel remarks [295-296), one of themore troubling aspects of Cochini's book:

Il est inconcevable que si I'obligation au c6libat-continence avait et6

ressentie comme une loi obligeant strictement tous les clercs, il n'ensoit reste de trace plus nette, alors que la "loi de monogamie" venantde l"'unius uxoris virum" paulinien est signal6e en tant que loi parTertullieq Hippolyte, et Origdne [Cochini, p. 460, n. 3], sans aucune

tace de l'interprdtation qu'on en dorurera plus tard. Il est pareillementinconcevable qu'Origare, si s6vhe, et fr6quemment, pour les vices duclerge hson dpoque, n'aitjamais stigmatisd des situations contraires bl'obligation de la continence, alors que les auteurs eccl6siastiques des

sidcles suivants et les conciles le feront constammment.

Any text is the product of its author's (or compiler's) agenda, and is

shaped in its expression by cultural references and historical circumstances.In the case of the first decretal, for instance, it is important that the context forHimerius' query was probably the Priscillianist movement then threateningSpain with its promotion of an extreme asceticism [Hunter 1987: 57-58;Callam l9B0: 16-25 and 32]. In the case ofall three decretals, it is necessary

to note the religious climate in Rome at the time of Siricius' response, affectedas it was by the interrogations of Helvidius (in 383) against the validity ofasserting continence's superiority to marriage [Callam 1980: 5-6], and the

necessity of responding to these without sounding like the Manichees, also

active in Romeduring the 380s lHunter 1987: 49-62].ae Moreover, the Romandecretals were reflecting a (by then) general insistence in the church at Romeon absolute continence for major clerics after ordination,so the principle thatintercourse between husband and wife could only be for the purpose ofprocreatioq5r and a widespread attitude in antiquity that all sexual intercourserendered one somehow less human [Brown 1988: l8-23 ud passim). He isprobably also reflecting a contemporary presumption that clerical continencehas apostolic roots: but that is insufficient proof that such roots actuallyexisted, or that, even ifthey did, an unbroken tradition can be traced fromthem straight to late fourth century Rome.52

Far from having resolved the question conceming traditional claims forclerical continence (if not celibacy), Cochini's main contribution to thediscussion has been simply to move it to a new level of comprexity. Nospecific connection has been shown to exist between ministry and celibacy (oreven continence) in early Christianity. The most probable explanation for thefourth century emphasis on continence is not, as cochini pretends, that it isdue to "an wrwritten tradition of apostolic origin which... first found canonicalexpression in the fourth century," but that it reflects values which hadgadually arisen and were now finding greater scope for expression, such as:the clergr/laity distinction, the deep suspicion of all sexual acts, the exaltationof virginity [Komonchak: 8-9], the choice by individuals of permanent

" similarly, hostility !o Bonosus (ca. 390) and Jovinian (ca. 391) must in part accounrlor certain Roman decretals, beginning with Siricius' Episr. 7 ad diuersos episcopos(pl 13,cols. l]21-23): see callam 1980: 6-16. In the matter ofJovinian, see also Hunt"r t9g7;

"njA J' Budzin, "Jovinian's Four Theses on the Christian Life: An Altenrative Patristicspirituality," Toronto Journal of Theologt 4 (19s8),4449. cochini see ms prernature in hisconclusion that the decretals addressed to Spain and Gaul were in part a reaction to ..leraz-de-mardejovinianiste" (217). At any rate, he does not pursue the Jbvinian angle.

50 See the remarks of Callam 1980: 33-34.

t'On this see J. K. Coyle,'Empire a.d Eschaton: The Early Church and the euestion

of lomestic_Relationships," Eglise et Thiologie l2 (1981),35-94; and J. Boswiil, ?reKindn".:s of Strangers. The Abandonment of children in westem Europe from Lare Antiquitylo lhe Renaissarce, New York: 1988, 161 and passim.

. 52 Hastings: 1':.3-174: "The trouble is that while there may be no patristic evidence

absolutely incompatiblewith such a thesis, there is very little either cliarly in favour of it. Timeand again cochini.simply interprets unsure evidence in the light of the fo;rth--century westemconsensus, claiming that this is in principle the right thing to do: Ecclesiastical history shouldbe presumed to be consistent. It is a large presumptionllt can well be admitted that manymanied priests and bishops may have practised total continence from ordination long before thlfourth century, in most cases it is impossible to prove it and still less to prove any Jort of law."

celibacy or continence as an individual initiative [Brown 1988: 33-64], and

the growing influence of asceticism on all aspects of church life, particularly

on the notion of sanctity.s3 The latter influence would in turn have had fwo

results: ascetics were more and more considered likely candidates for the

episcopate [Hastings: 174-75; L'Huillier l99l: 286-87]; or at the very least

it would have been suggested that, if virginity was superior to marriage, the

clergy ought to be obliged to the former [Hastings: 176; L'Huillier 1991:

294-951. Such was precisely the argument of the second and third decretals.

All of this Cochini ignores, approaching all his texts in a singularly

mcritical fashion. He fails to observe, for instance, that from the standpoint

of modern exegesis none of Siricius' scriptural interpretations could pass

muster. There is nothing in Ephesians 5:27 which permits one to link it tochastity or to Judgement Day. There is no biblical (or mishnaic) basis for the

idea of a year-long temple duty served in continence by Old Testament priests

fCallam 1980: 27].s There is no hint anywhere of protracted continence being

required for those in a priesthood which was, after all, hereditary.

2. Ritual purityConscious, perhaps, that the orientation of the three decretals moves

steadily towards a justification of continence pinpointed on the argument ofcultic purity, Cochini suggests that it is time to do away with the cultic purity

argument for maintaining clerical continence. Such a justification, he says, is

53 See A' Rousselle, on Desire and lhe Body in Antiqui$t' oxford: 1988 (trans' of

Pomeia. De Ia nrdltrise du corps bla privation sensorielle, If -IW sidcles de l'ire chritienre,Paris: 1983); P. Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity (The Carl Newell Jacl<son Lectures for

I976), Cambridge, Mass.-London: 1978, esp. chap. 4; R. Rader, Breaking Boundaries.

MalJFemale Faindship in Early Christian contmwrities, New York: 1983, chaps. 6-7; and

the two contributions in W.J. Sheils (ed.), Monks, Herrnils and the Ascelic Tradition. Papers

Read at the 1984 Summer Meeling and the 1985 lVinter Meeting otthe Ecclesiastical

Hisbical socicry (Studies in church History,22), Oxford: 1985, I-23 (H. Chadwick, "The

Ascetic Ideal in-the History of the Church," repr. in Herery and Orlhodory in the EarlyChurch,Aldersho!England: l99l),and 25-39 (J.A. McGuckin, "Christian Asceticism and the

Early School of Aleiandria'). On resistance to this.influence Hunter 1989: 298 remarks:

"Ambrosiaster's relatively uniroubled attitude towards human sexual relations was probably

typical of that held by most of the Rornan clergy."rn The only rabbinic directive in this regard is that the high priest be separated from

his spouse during tie week before Yom Kippur (M. Yonn l:l). See Anderson: 129 and

Rayrnund Kottje, "Das Aufkommen der t?lglichen Eucharistiefeier in der Westkirche und die

Zolibatsforderu t{' in Zeitsclrift fir Kirchcngeschichte 82 (191 l),225 n-

Kevir Coytr: Rrcrnr lirrnarune oN c[libAcy ,07

"chargde de r6sonances paiennes ou philosophiques (notamment stoiciennes)qui ne sont pas toujours homogdnes i I'esprit du christianisme" [280 n. 4I].In its place one ought to speak of "service de I'autel" and of "ministdresacerdotal." But the motivation he suggests [Balducelli: 702-703] is stillcultic: it is connecied with the liturgical fturction of the priest, and specificallywith the celebration of the Eucharist "where Christ himself comes to presenceand associates his ministers to his own person and sacrifice". Thesecatechetical commonplaces are to rescue clerical continence from the obscureintimidations that made themselves pass for a legitimation of it in the past, andusher in an enlightrened legitimation that is to sustain the validity of continencein the present and future.

Even if the ritual purity argument is at its least intrusive in the frstdecretal [Callam 1980:29; see 32 and 36],5s it is nonetheless already presentthere, and Cochini ought not to downplay it [Lawrence; see Balducelli: 700-70 ll.56

3. SummaryCochini's work is "formidably erudite" [Hastings: l7l], in the sense that

it closely documents studies dealing with the history of clerical continence, as

wsll as the available evidence of the first seven centuries. Many doubt whetherCochini's work has proved an1'thing new; still, while some critics havedeclared his method inadequate, none have branded him as naive in regiud to

" Dassmann: 62-53 sees the motive here as ritual puri$, as he does for canon 3 ofthe Synod of Rorne held in 386. In fact, for Kornonchak (7-9) ritual purity "appears to be thechief motive in these documents." This appears to be supported by Ambrosiaster,Quoestionesinuelerent et nouun, testanrcntum 127:36 (CSEL 50, p.415.14-17), who argues that, just asorte does not act in the emperor's presence as he would an).where else, so it is necessary thatGod's high priest be purer than others (ac per hoc antcstitem eius puriorem celeris esseoporbr). But on this passage see Hunter's comments [1989:294-295].

'uschillebeeckx:242 renarks, "What we have, then, is not a law of celibacy, but alaw ofabstinence connected with ritual purity, focussed above all on the eucharist." He goes onto affinn that ritual purity was the reason par excellatce lor translbrrning clerical continenceinto celibacy by the Middle Ages: "It is a fact that all church documents, down to and includingthe encyclical Sacra Virginitas of Pius Xtr (1954), always reler to the Levitical laws of purityin connection with priestly celibacy (the rnain passages quoted are: Ex. 19.15; I Sam. 2l .5-7;l,ev. l5.l6i;22.4)." Schilletreeck had not read Callam on the decretals before publishing eitherof his two books on ministry. As a result, he was led to assert (241):"It appears from lheseoflcial docurnerrts ttrat the dominant reason for the introduction of a law of abstinence is 'ritualpurity'." See also Barstow: 29: "It appears that the rnain irnpetus for clerical continence camefrorn the West and that lhe chief rnotive of these restrictions was the desire for cultic purity."

t0B A Jounnnl of [asrrnn ChnlsrlqN Srtrdies

history; and with good reason. For the work has undoubted value as a

reference tool framed by a scrupulous gathering of texts which in one way oranother deal with the continence rule. Moreover, once in place, Cochini'smethod allows him to avoid, in a manner which shows his thorough grasp ofthe way historiars themselves normally assess evidence, historical data whichmight otherwise embarrass his argument. On the other hand, the methodsuggests a defensiveness toward historical principles of selection and

discrimination at odds with Cochini's insistence that his approach is historical.In addition, his attempts to contextualize the texts frequently obscure morethan they reveal. And the ways in which he draws conclusions from silences

in the documentary record do not hold up well under close scrutiny.At the end of his book, Cochini alleges that, with the exception of

churches which followed schismatic movements, extant texts of the second toseventh centuries indicate remarkable unity throughout the Oriental as well as

the Occidental churches in their acceptance of the discipline of absolutecontinence from the time of ordination, for bishops, presbyters, and deacons

[Cochini: 3I2-18]. Even the Council in-Trullo (Quinisext) of 691 or 692,which established periodic continence as the rule for presbyters and deaconsin the East [Cochini: 431446),was in harmony with the spirit of the apostolicnrle. Cochini believes thatthe periodic natwe of in-Trullo's rule was due toa contemporary misinterpretation of the Apostolic Canons, a collectiondeemed apostolic by the synod but now generally regarded as apocryphal

[Cochini: 342,43516, and455-56] This brings us to a consideration of thewritings of Roman Cholij.

II. Roman Cholij

A. The methodWriting from a canon la*yer's perspective, Roman Cholij produced a

series of articles, culminating in a book,5? to counter the thesis that "in theEastem Church (apartfrom special cases) there exists no law ofcelibacy, andthat this state of affairs has existed since apostolic times" [AHC 1987: 7l;

tt AHC 1987 constitutes Cholij's doctoral thesis, defended at the GregorianUniversity in Rorne, his other publications being insights and material excerpted or popularizedfrorn it. It is therefore mainly AIIC 1987, and its reprint in book form (CCEW 1989), that arerefencd to here.

Krvir Coyle: Rrcrrr lirrnanrnr or crlibacy to9

CCEW 1989: ll. ln otherwords, the Catholic tradition of the West, rather than

of the Easl would have preserved the primitive tradition of clerical continence.The implications of this are far-reaching, for it would mean that the currentRoman Catholic practice of clerical celibacy camot be dismissed as merelydisciplinary.

Where Cochini's terminus ad quem is the 7th century, Cholij dealsprimarily with the late seventh-century council in-Trullo (Quinisext), and itsaftermath as far as Gratian (l2th century). In this period, as Cholij admits

[AHC 1987: 136; CCEW 1989: 67], "the discipline of continence was

regarded generally as not being of apostolic origin, nor attached in any strictlynecessary way to the exercise of orders." Hence, "if the canonists and

theologians of the l2th and l3th centuries had not been presented with thedifficulty of the Greek discipline legitimized above all by Gratian, it is quiteconceivable that they would have had little hesitation in attributing the law ofcontinence to the Apostles and relating the impediment to this law alone"

libid.l.The basis of Cholij's argument is that "the various aspects of the

legislation regulating clerical marriages form... one whole congruous

complex," and that by considering the parts of that complex in terms of each

other, one is certain to conclude in favour of "the early universal discipline ofcelibacy" [AHC 1987: 138; CCEW 1989: 69]. Forhistoricalinformation onthe first four cenhries he relies heavily on other authors, Cochini in particular,in order to prove similar points. Indeed, he accepts without question Cochini'sposition (constituting all of Cholij's third chapter) that the rule of clericalcontinence derives from the time and the teaching of the apostles [e.g., AHC1987: 109,277,and282, CCEW 1989: 40, 197, and 202).5t The argumentsproper to himself would therefore not apply earlier than in-Trul/o, Cochini'sterminus ad quem. Consequently, what has been said about Cochini's thesisand methodology applies as well to all of Cochini that is reflected in Cholij,and requires no repeating here [see Lawrence; and L'Huillier 1990: 18l].lVhat will be addressed here is the latter's interpretative practice.

Chohj admits that his method is not strictly historical, but rather"critico-interpretative" [AHC 1987: 73; CCEW 1989: 3], meaning that thecontribution he seeks to malie to the debate on the origins of the continence

5t Callam l99O:'726: "This bold statement is the single thread on which his thesisdangles; cut the thread and the argument comes crashing down."

IiiI[:

&

tlO Locos: A Jounnal of Easrrnn Chnlsrian Srudies

rule focuses less on the rule's chronological establishment than on itsanthropological foundations. The pristine legislation, reconstructed on the

basis of the earliest extant data, would not only have called for the depositionof clerics who contracted marriage after ordination, but would also have

forbidden the wife of a cleric to remarry after the death of her husband.se The

only reasonable explanation for a mle of continence concerned with the sexual

behaviour of the cleric's rvidow would have to be in terms of the consent she

must be presumed to have given to the perpetual continence she assumed uponherhusband's ordination [Chohj AHC 1987: 92; CCEW 1989: 23]. Needless

to sa1', her continence had nothing to do with personal service at the altar.

Therefore, says Cholij, contrary to the view of numerous nineteenth and

twentieth cenhry historiars, the rule of clerical continence in the early Churchis not to be ascribed to an "outdated and mistaken anthropology whichdemanded 'ritual purity' through sexual abstinence for the daily ministry ofpriests," but rather to a theology of consecration according to which clericalcandidates as well as their wives lvere deemed, upon the candidate's

ordination, to have dedicated their whole selves, including their bodies, "forthe exclusive use or possession of God" [Choh1 AHC 1987: 98; CCEW 1989:

271.

As an independent approach Cholij's work is difficult to assess, largelybecause of its ambiguous (though real) relation to Cochini. Cholij is prone to

citing both the historical and methodological positions of Cochini in suppo(of his own assertions [e.g. AHC 1987 244-247, CCEW 1989: 164-67],despite the fact that his o\Mr arguxent does not always appear compatible withits author's major positions. He maintains, for instance, that the Western rule

of clerical continence was not maintained as a bulwark of "ritual purity." Yethe glides over those texts (such as the decretals and Gratian) which affirm thatthis is the motivation [Lawrence]. A clear example of such incompatibility is

the claim just mentioned: that the Christian priesthood is based on a differentprinciplethan that of ritual puriry [Cholij AHC 1987: 279-80; CCEW 1989:

199-2001. Admittedly, Cholij has adopoed a methodology which on the surface

tn Cholii 4gg 1987: 9l (cCEw 1989:22): "There is no reason to suppose that thelegislation prohibiting re-maniage to a cleric's widow was not an expression of earlier praxis."Cited in support of this is Elvira's carron 33, which Cholij calls "the first known legislation oncelibacy" (Cholrj PP 1988: 208; SC 1987: 393), and which he dates "c. 305" (sce also AHC1987: 106:, CCEW 1989: 37). But the precise dating is not the issue here; the issue is thecanons' authenticity. See above, p. 499.

Krvir Coyte: Rrcenr lirrnarunr or celibacy ilI

much resembles Cochini's. In theory, it rests on "the argument of 'cumulative

probability"'[AHC 1987: 138; CCEW 1989: 69-70], which Cholij ascribes

to Nevrman. But "although Cholij invokes Newman's theory of development...

his ou.n view of Christianity is essentially static: what is must always have

been" [Callam 1990 727).In practice, it consists largely of a stratery ofinterpreting the obscure by the clear [AHC 1987: 138; CCEW 1989: 69]; butthis frequently turns out to mean interpreting a given text in the light of a"praxis" made apparent by contemporary attestations, deductive reasoning, orother evidence [e.g. AHC 1987: 90-91 and 173; CCEW 1989: 20 and 100].

"The indigpation that Cholij expresses against the bishops of Trullo seems

exaggerated... The bishops chose to follow a tradition-for what is traditionif not a long-continued practice?-which allowed priests and deacons, but notbishops, a limited use of marriage. Furthermore, the Catholic Church itself has

de facto honoured this tradition and the canons of Trullo for its uniate

members, a point which causes Cholij considerable ernbarrassment" [Callam1990 7271, and which he attempts to deflect by styling Rome's de factorecognition as "indulgent tolerance" [AHC 1987: 266; CCEW 1989: 186].

Pope Paul VI's acceptance of Eastem married clergy in SacerdotalisCaelibatus (1967) was based, he claims, on a "material error" [AHC 1987:

271; CCEW 1989: l9ll, by which he means "the insufficiently critical viewsof the historians of celibacy rather than the positive doctrine of the ordinarymagisterium." The irony is that Cholij bases his judgment on an uncriticalacceptance of the assertions of Cochini regarding the centuries preceding

in-Trullo. As regards the evaluation of in-Trulio itself, and its admission ofmarried men to the presbyerate and diaconate, but not to the episcopate,60 the

critique levelled earlier at Cochini's use of documents applies here as well toChohj [Hastings: 1741.

Cochini argues that it must have been an irnovation, brought on by adecline in ecclesiastical discipline, and that until then the East was as

comm.itted to clerical continence as the West. Yet there is no positive evidencefor this whatsoever. The only reasonable reading of the evidence is that the

Trullan synod was merely asserting Oriental tradition in explicit terms inreaction to Western pressure to fall in line with papal legislation.6'

{ On the reasons lbr the distinction, see L'Huillier l99l : 276-8l .

6'Sirnilarcriticisrns in Callarn 1990 128 29. However, Cochini's interpretation hasthe approval of Marchetto: 188.

i

,12 A lounNq[ of Ensrenn Chnlsrim Srudies

Nevertheless, whenever he is dealing with his own material, and not withthat bonowed from Cochini, Cholij demonstrates far more respect for the textthan does the former. His own readings of biblical passages, while they mayreflect a prior agenda, tend at worst to be slightly forced constructions ofelements which are nevertheless present. I Cor. 7:5 is interpreted as involvinga "mutual consecration of the body to God" [AHC 1987: 98, see also 212-16,CCEW 1989: 28, see also 14447} The positive purpose attributed to thespouses' abstinence seems to violate Paul's emphasis, but the elements ofmutuality, devotion to prayer, and physical separation can reasonably beabsfacted from the counsel; at the very least, this consecratory reading takes

the text's own terms far more seriously than does the ritual purity hypothesis.Cholij's attitude toward tadition is necessarily nuanced, since the council

and canons with which he is mainly concerned have been a subject of East-West dispute for centuries. A llkrainian Catholic who is questioning thepractice of married priesthood within a Chwch which has long claimedapostolic authority for it, Cholij nonetheless clearly does share the basic notionof an apostolic precept that can continue to command obedience. But morethan Cochini, the precept represents for Cholij a principle evoking assent onthe basis of what is deemed humanly reasonable or appropriate, rather than a

rule requiring submission qua authority or sheer irreformable discipline.Nevertheless, his writings leave unclear the extent to which he may or may notalso consider the principle to be a rule.

B. Cholij's deployment of the canons of in-Trullo'Cholij takes for his starting point Cochini's argument that to posit a rule

of absolute clerical continence observed from the beginning by both West andEast is the most satisfactory way of explaining the universal law againstcontracting marriage after the reception of holy orders [Cholij AHC 1987:105-106 and I l3; CCEW 1989: 33 and 391. Prior to his examination of thelaw's origin, he discusses the legal conditions for a married clergy as

promulgated at in-Trullo.62 as well as the qualities required of the maniedcleric'swife [Cholij AHC 1987: 8l-90; CCEW 1989: l6-21]. Canon l3 of

62 Texts of the pertinent canons are give n in an appendix to AHC 1987: 291-298(CCEW 1989: 204-l l), reproducing P.-P. Joannou, Discipline gdntirale antique (II"-IX s.),vol. Vl (Pontificia Comrnissione per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale, Fonti,fasc. 9), Grottaferrata: 1962, 125-86.

Kevin Coyle: Rrcrrt hrenarune oN c[libAcy ,11

in-Trullo stands out, in that it "expressly grants priests the faculty of using

their marriage and, therefore, of not being bound to the law of celibacy" [AHC1987 72; CCEW 1989: 2], although "temporary continence is prescribed,

especially at those times when the priest or cleric exercises his ministry at the

altar" [see also AHC 1987: 183-86; CCEW 1989: I l5-t8]. Cholij finds thisprescription "at odds with the traditional legislation regulating clericalmarriage and with the rest of the Trullan corpus itself' [AHC 1987 72;

CCEW 1989: 21. Indeed, "the canon itself misrepresented other legislativesources (the Canons of Carthage and Apostolic Canon 6)."63 Hence, for Cholij,clerical continence is closely related to priesthood, even in the Christiantraditions of the East. This is exemplified in the fact that, at least since

Justinian, celibacy was compulsory for bishops in the East.eIn-Trullo 's canon 3 specifies that one who has married twice after

baptism, or has had a concubine, is baned from entering any rank of the

clergy. ln addition, the council explicitly repeats certain injunctions of the

fourth-cenhrry Apostolic Canons6s to the effect that one who has espoused a

widow, a woman dismissed by her husband, or a harlot, servant or actress, maynot enter any clerical rank. Cholij considers that the stipulations of Canon 3

support the Roman decretals' reading of I Tim. 3:2,12 (Tit. l:6). Ths canon'sinsistence that a cleric not have married more than once after baptism,cohabited with a concubine, or espoused a woman who in the view of the timecould not be trusted to observe sexual propriety, reflects a suspicioincontinentiae which bears easy comparison with the third Roman decretal'sperception of an exclusion propter continenfiam futuram in the injunction that

6 The latter is trsated in AHC 1987: 166-74 (CCEW 1989: 97-105), the former inAIIC 1987: 187-9'l (CCEW 1989: I l8-24). See Cochini: 23-28 and 34143.

s It is interesting that Cholij's position-that in-Trullo's canon 12 (which forbidsalready married bishops to cohabit with their wives after their ordination) is at variance withearlier, even apostolic, practice-should be the same concem of some Orthodox, but with theopposite objective of removing the celibacy requirement for episcopal candidates. See L'Huillierl99I: 297, for a sample of this debate; also P.I. Bournes, "Married Bishops (AgreementBetweeir Sacred Scripture and Holy Canons)," Greek Orthodox Thcological Revicw 29 ( 1984),8l-93.

ut Canons l7 and 18. TheApostolicCanons forrnspartof theeighth bookof the

Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 380), which were repudiated as a whole as not apostolic and notorthodox. But the 85 lposlolic Canons gained respectabilily by in-Trullo's inclusion olthemin its legislation.

,14 Locos: A JounNq[ ol Easrrnr Chnisrian Srudirs

nepiskaposbeunius uxoris rir [Cholij AHC 1987: 84, 87-89, and 14l-43;CCEW 1989: 16, l9-Zl,and72-741.

Canon 6 IAHC 1987: 104-106; CCEW 1989: 35-37] forbidssubdeacons, deacons and presbyers to marry after their ordination. Cholijproposes that, on the basic of logic alone, this law as found in its firstlegislative formulations can have no other motive behind it than absolute

continence. If this is not the law's basis, it is inexplicable that from the timeof the earliest known enactments at synods in Ancyra (C.E. 314) and

Neocaesarea (314-325), no distinction is made to indicate that those who have

remained virginal up to the point of ordination are for that reason deemed free

to contract marriage [Cholij AHC 1987: 105-106, see 14447 CCEW 1989:

3940,see 75-781.6 The only tenable explanation why the impediment should

apply to them is that they, like men married prior to ordination (but who are

forbidden by contemporary legislation to have conjugal relations), would have

to live in perfect continence with their partner. In the case of those already

ordained, however, contracting marriage would imply consummating it, thus

brealiing, even if only onc€, the continence already enjoined upon them [Chol1AHC 1987: 106; CCEW 1989: 401. In reviewing objections to this thesis

Cholij mentions the story of Paphnutius' intervention at the Council of Nicaea

in 325 against mandatory continence for clergy,6? an account he dismisses as

inauthentic [AHC 1987: 15441; CCEW 1989: 85-92].tr Thus he argues that,at least from the Roman Catholic standpoint, "the Eastern discipline today can

thus at most be considered to have no more force than that of particular law"

IAHC 1987:272; CCEW 1989: 1921. And he concludes IAHC 1987: 278;CCEW 1989: 198]: "There is obviously no doubt at all that celibacy in its

* The argument is taken frorn Cochini: 194-203.6TSocrates,l/rs/ona ecclesiastica I,l I (PG 67, cols. l6l-163); Sozonen,Hist. eccl,

I, 23 (GCS 50, p. 44. l0 - 45.3).* As do Cochini: 221-2'1 , Trerneau: 108, and Schillebeeckx: 241 (citing Gryson,

'Dix ans...," 157-85). Schillebeeckx's point, however, is that clerical abstinence was not evenunder discussion at Nicaea. An opposing view is taken by Lawrence, and by F. Winkelmann,"Paphnutios, der Bekenner und Bischo8' in Problente der koptischen Lileratur(Tagungsmaterialien derII. koptologischen Arbeitskonferenz des Instituts ftir Byzantinistik, 12.

und 13. Derzember 1966), hrsg. vorn Institut fiir Byzantinistik (Wissenschaftliche Beitr?ige derMartin-Luther-UnivenitiitHallo-Wittenberg, 1968/l [K2]),Halle: 1968, 145-53,whileFaivrerightty queries (472) why, if one is going to surnrnarily dismiss the text, "ne pas ernployer lam€me dernarche critique pour tous les textes, surtout ceux de la fin du IV' sidcle?" For Galot[985: 249 n.471 not lhe entire account, but only the intervention of Paphnutius is unhistorical.

Krvirr Covlr: Rrctrr liltnqn,Rr oN ctlibncy ,1,

strict sense (of being unmanied) is not demanded by the priesthood of itself:

apostolic tradition and the witness of the first millenium [sic] in the Latin

Church are clear proof of this. Nonetheless, there would appear to be a more

intimate link between celibacy in its wider sense of continence and the

priesthood." Thus Canon 13 of in-Trul/o, in affirming that total continence

is not obligatory for presblters and deacons, constitutes a rupture with the

sense of pre-Tmllan marriage laws for clerics [AHC 1987:276: CCEW 1989:

1961. "The law of prohibition of marriage c:ul only be regaldod as a vestigial

positive disciptine expressing that simpler ancient discipline which

Larmonized the nafurat relation which exists between the priesthood and

celibacy" [Chohl AHC 1987: 137; CCEW 1989: 68]- "Celibacy, therefore,

would seem to be the natural state for the priest, for only then could he be truly

considered a minister totally given to his vocation or 'consecrated' to God for

the service of the church. It would seem that in the early church, since

apostolic times, this was how the priesthood was understood in relation to

celibacy" [AHC 1987: 282; CCEW 1989: 202].

However, Hastings (174) takes the exactly opposite view of what 1n-

Trullo's canons imply:"The only reasonable reading of the evidence is that

the Trullan slmod was merely asserting Oriental tradition in explicit terms in

reaction to Western pressure to fall in line with papal legislation." Hence, far

fiom preserving the most pristine tradition in this matter, it is the West which

would have to be judged as the innovator.

III. Three other authorsTo compare the approaches of Cochini and many of his critics is to study

the encoutter of various views regarding tradition-not to mention regarding

what limitations might be imposed on whatever chain of "authorities" is

assumed to derive uninterruptedly from the apostles themselves-, without

thereby discrediting the entire appeal of the Church to "apostolicity" for her

doctrines and practices. This is not to say that prior to Cochini historians

ignored the question. Gryson himself, whom Cochini portrays as supporting

a nineteenth cenhry thesis that the celibacy law is a perversion of New

Testament teaching [60-62], makes it clear in his overview that he does not

consider historical continuity between the Gospel and the traditional

continence mle to be the only kind of continuity whereon the rule might validly

t 16 Locos: A lounnal ol Ensre nn Chnisrian Srudirs Krvilr Coyk: Recrrr [ireRnnrnr or crlibacy

rest.6e

A. Daniel CallamAyear before the appearance of Cochini's book, Daniel Callam published

an article which dealt in part with the early Roman decretals, but in much morecareful fashion than Cochini. Despite its title, the article was not whollydevoted to clerical continence; but the frequent citation of Callam's essay-unacknowledged by Cochini or Cholij-in subsequent writings dealing withthe origins and evolution of the continence rule reflects the rigour his work isseen to employ in the dissipation of misconceptions or half-truths, as anec€ssarypreludeto any study ofthe relation between clerical continence and

ritual purity.Callam begins by recapitulating several points of received wisdom about

this relation [980: 3]:

It is well known that the early Church ordained married men but didnot allow an unmarried man or a widower to marry after ordination.As a result, the first step towards the law of clerical celibacy in theLatin Church was to require married clerics in major orders to refraincompletely from conjugal intercourse. The earliest instance known is

Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira (ca. 306). About eighty years laterthe first papal decretals enforcing continence on major clerics wereissued, during the episcopate of Pope Siricius (384-399) Generalobservance of ritual purity and evidence that Mass began to be

celebrated daily at that time have suggested that Siricius' legislationwas simply a logical deduction from these two facts: by the principleof ritual purity intercourse was forbidden the day before a religiousrite and, since Mass was said every day, married clerics wouldobviously, almost automatically, have been bound to total continence.

He then interrogates each of these assumptions. He finds that (as notedearlier)?o daily eucharistic celebration was not the usual practice in fourthcentury Italy, and that the Elvira canons represent a collection rather than the

statements of a single council, while canon 33 originally intended a meaning

t Gryson, "Dix ans...," 195?o

See above, p.499.

,17

almost directly confary to that which has traditionally been assigned to it. He

raises the question of what ritual purity meant and what form its observance

would have taken in the 4th century. He points out that the polemics of both

Ambrose and Jerome against Jovinian are, predictably, concerned withvirgnty as an expression of what they perceive to be under attack: asceticism.Jerome's Aduersus louinianum malies it 'lclear that ritual continence was

observed both by the laity and clerics before the Eucharist"; even here,

however, where (if nowhere else) one would expect to find a basis in the notionof rirual purity, we find instead that the main reason for this temporarycontinence "is simply to imitate the higher state of virginity" [Callam 1980:

l6]. Jerome does not trace even the absolute continence of major clerics "tothe demands of cult except in the most general terms"; rather, "his main

conc€rn is to show that virginity is practiced, or at least desired, by all serious

Christians, ordained or not" [ibid.].In his close reading of the three decretals ascribed to Siricius, Callam finds

that, though these documents reveal "that there were celibate clerics and, at

least in Spain, some who observed perfect continence in marriage, and that

both of these practices had been challenged successfully," the documents do

not suggest that ritual purity was at issue in the challenge. In fact, "the root ofthe problem faced by Siricius is better identified as ascetical rather than ritual"

[Callam 1980: 48]. Though the decretals employ ritual elements in theirargumentation, to perceive these as primary to their defense of the absolute

continence of major clerics is to minimize the great difference between this and

occasional periods (however prolonged) ofcontinence. Indeed, the decretals'

heatnent of the continence of Old Testament priests during the fulfillment oftheir priestly duties evinces an anachronistic understanding of the

phenomenon, since it is viewed through the prism of absolute continence

conceived as an ascetic ideal which is unfortunately impracticable in the case

of a hereditary priesthood [Callam 1980'.27].After placing the decretal Directa in its Priscillianist context, Callam

attempts to detach its terminology from a conceptual structure the decretal

frequently ignores. True, Directa is free with the language of ritual holiness,

seemingly applying the model of the Old Testament priesthood to the

contemporary situation; but Callam sees its real movement as precisely the

reverse. For, first inventing a biblical description of the temple priesthoodinvolving sexual abstinence by tums for a year at a time, it goes on to impose

t;,

in

t I B Locos: A Jotrnnal o[ [asrenn Cfrnisrlan Srudirsir-

u-pon the Jerusalem priests' ritual purity a decidedly anachronistic conception

of dedicated continence [Callam 1980: 27].Siricius even describes their continence by the word integrifas, which

elsewhere is applied to the celibacy of virgins and widows. Furthermore, he

does not mention that the sacrifices in the Temple were performed every day,

which would have clinched a ritual argument for continence. None of the

standard ritual sections of the OT are invoked.

Callam admits that the careful construction of Directa 's eighth section,

which deals with the question of specifically clerical continence, is evidence

"that Siricius fully realized what he was saying and meant what he said, and

that the absence of a complete and unambiguous appeal to cultic abstinence

was not an oversight but an indication of his basic attitude to the question"

[Callam 1980: 36]. But in the end, even after a rigorous examination of the

three texts, Callam remains skeptical about the possibility of abstracting an

overall policy on clerical continence from any one, or even a combination, ofthem [Callam 1980: 48]. His respect for the subtle obscurities introduced into

every text by the particular conditions of its composition is complemented by

his reluctance to perceive linear or causal development of practices and theirmotivations where parallel development is also a feasible explanation [Callam1980: 491.

Despite his circumspection, Callam moves quickly from the discovery ofanachronistic significations in the Roman decretals, to the conclusion that theirnotions of ritual purity are little more than ideas about consecration in

disguise. On this point, Adrian Hastings' criticism of Callam (advanced in his

review of Cochini) seerns more in the spirit of Callam's observations about the

pervasiveness and elusiveness of symbolic meanings than are Callam's own

conclusions regarding the decretals. As Hastings points out [173], the

decretals' explicit reference is to the cult, whatever the more implicitresonances might be.

Callam ends his 1980 article with an observation on the broader contextof the Judaic understanding of ritual purity [Callam 1980: 50]: "The notion

that sacred things themselves pollute is... an important aspect of the question."

The gap between conceiving of this pollution in terms of holiness and

conceiving of it as impurity is obviously prodigious, and the extent to which

anti-materialistic perceptions of sexuality have brought about misconstruals-whether of Jewish beliefs by early Christians, or of both by us-will have

1

11

h

profound bearing on our understanding of what the absolute continence ofclerics in the early Church could have implied.

As to Cholij, Callam's criticism rests mainly on a perception that he has

failed to explain how he could project fourth-<entury (or later) developments

onto..the early church." It can only be, he says, because cholij employs that

term to refer to apostolic times as well as the third and even later centuries,

and thus permig himself the use of later texts to veri$ earlier reality. However

[Callam 1990:727],"one faults Cholij not primarily for these anachronisms

but for not facing the challenge they present to his tradition: for it is essential

to Orthodoxy thot *hot may appear to be anachronisms to an unslmpathetic

Westem mind are actually the realized forms of principles present in germ

fiom the beginning of Christianity. What one could hope for, therefore, from

that blend of Orthodoxy and Catholicism that should characterize the uniate

theologian, would be a rigorous historical method combined with a rigorous

sensibility capable of disceming a cause in its remote effects." What Cholij

has provided instead, he says, is disturbing evidence that "the voice ofuniate

Christianity has acquired a strong Roman accent" [Callam 1990: 728].

B. Peter BrownThe chapter by Peter Brown on "Late Antiquity" [Brown 1987], and his

firll-length study of sexual renunciation [Brown 1988], have contributed to the

rurderstanding of celibary in general and clerical continence in particular, with

a sensitivity !o the way social and cultural codes mcdiate synbolic meanings'

Brown acknowledges that continence among clergy, already highly visible at

the end of the third cenhry [1987: 270], became associated with service at the

attar in the early fourth--century Western Church. This association gave rise

to a rule which would become entrenched, due to practical considerations,

during the course of that cenhry. But Brown's recognition of this development

has little to do with the dynamic he considers to have promoted the emergence

of a continent church leadership.

unwilling to give too much weight to the alleged influence of pagan

disfust of the body upon the burgeoning Christian religion, Brown insists on

"the importance of sexual renunciation as a means to singleness of heart in the

radical Judaism from which christianity emergcd" [1987: 266]. Because they

lacked the clear ritual boundaries provided in Judaism by circumcision and

dietary laws, Christians highlighted "their exceptional sexual discipline" as

"expressing the difference between themselves and the pagan world" [Brown

III

L

,2O Loqos: A lolnna[ ol EasreRrr Cknisrian Srudirs

1987: 2631. Thus, "sexuality became a highly charged sl,rnbolic markerprecisely because its disappearance in the committed individual wasconsidered possible, and because this disappearance was thought to register,more significantly than any other human transformation, the qualitiesnecessary for leadership in the Christian community" [987: 267].The extentto which this renunciation gained ground in Christian circles constituted a

sharp divergence from the practice of mainstream Judaism; but the initialmotivations for this divergence can more credibly be attributed toeschatological considerations than to any other cause. For certain prominentChristians, at least, sexual continence was an emblematic way of declaring"the fragility of a seemingly changeless order" [988: 6a]. By abandoning thenormal means of social continuity, these Christians were expressing theirconviction that time had grown short, but also that they had discovered a

greater continuity than sexual relations could effect. Thereafter, thcphenomenon of sexual renurciation would be interpreted repeatedly over timeby Christians in various geographical and cultural situations. Even themotivation of singleness of heart became an increasingly complexphenomenon, evolving into a means of assuring a solidarity ethic by (among

other means) restraint in sexual behaviour.By evoking the life of Christian communities continually scrutinized by

"a suspicious pagan world on the relentlessly public stage of everyday life inthe ci6'," Brown seeks to explain the emergence of clerical continence as thecreation of "public space... in the bodies of the leaders themselves," whose

effect "was to place the society of the Church, ruled and represented in publicby celibate males, over against the society of the world, in whichdouble-hearted pride, ambitioq and the stubborn solidarities of family and kingroup raged unchecked" [987: 269]. However, of the early Roman decretals,Brown deals only with Directa, and then with nothing approaching thedetailed study by Callam. He considers the decretal in terms of its response topressures upon the church of Spain which, he argues were being appliedsimultaneously by groups of ascetics who wanted admission to the urbanclergy, and by aristocrats who, also entoring the clerical ranlis in increasingnumbers, were men whose habituation to exercising authority made them atonce potential leaders and, to many minds, "grossly stained by the world"[Brown 1988: 358]. The decretal is thus presented by Brown as a resolutiondesigned to avoid rejecting either of the newer elements, despite the concernsmainstream Christians entertained about both [988: 358-359]: "Clergyrnen

Krvin Covle: Rrcrrr lirrnnrtrRr oN crlibAcy '21:i-

in the more insecure and warlike provinces of the Western Empire could not

be expected to have avoided violence and the dark taint of power in the course

of their previors caleer: it was, indee4 their effectiveness as wielders of power

that made them desirable as bishops. But, once ordained, they could at least

be safely expected to abandon sex."Oni of Brown's footnotes acknowledges Callam's article and its grasp of

the complexities occasioned by demographic shifts in the Spanish church

[988: 358 n. 80]. But Brown does not refer explicitly to another complexity

pointed out by Callam: 'othe narrow limits ritual purity seems to have assumed

theq" in opposition to the widespread use it enjoyed in Judaism and paganism

as safeguards for all "the findamental areas of human life" [Callam 1980: 49].

Although Brown, like Callam, is dealing here with a document v'hich neither

considers to be ritual in its basic motivations, his idea of a "whittling" of the

notion of flesh in response to social realities which render the Pauline standard

for pleasing God (I Cor. 7:5) impractical in its ampler form might at least

suggest a model for considering the ritual issue as well. At any rate, in paying

attention to the more pragmatic aspects of the human context in fourth century

Spain, Brown complements Callam's more conceptual approach to situating

Directa 's response to Himerius. Further, Brown's insistence that "nothing...

is more sfiking to an observer of the Christian churches of the second century

than is the variety of meanings that had already come to cluster around the

mute fact of sextal renunciation" II988: 64] suggests the need for studies on

Callam's model of references in the earliest Christian texts to continence,

sexual pleasure, and related notions.

C. Uta Ranke-HeinemqnnOnly because it figures among the most recent books to touch on our

subject, we pause at the work of Uta Renke-Heinemann, whose overall

concem is with what she perceives as an attitude of "hostility to pleaswe" on

the part of the Roman Catholic Church. Her tone is highly incendiary, as when

she labels Siricius a "sexual neurotic" [6]. Christianity, according to her, has

been largely "the reign of an unmarried ruling caste over a largely married

mass of people treated as minors" [6]. Jesus "has been made into the listless

and lust-hating christ of the bedroom inspectors and conjugal police" [7].Ranlie-Heinemam sees the Christian tradition of virginify/celibacy as "a

legacy of Antiquiry'" [9], "a Gnostic-Stoic legacy, which as far back as

Clement [of Alexandria] was superimposed on the Christian Gospel" [50]'

,2? Loqos: A Jounlval o[ Easrrnn Chnisrinr Srudies

"The first-century Stoics," she concludes, "were thus the fathers of the

twentieth-century birth control encyclicals" [2]. However, "in the

development of Christian sexual morality the immediate determininginfluences were Judaism and Gnosticism" [27]. The latter "even infiltrated theNew Testament, although only to a small extent" [27].

Ranke-Heinemann alludes to none of the literature listed at the end of thepresent article. This is perhaps in part because the issue of clerical continenceis for her only one facet of her more sweeping condemnation of Catholicattitudes to sexuality. Thus her statements on that issue add nothing to thedebate, and, as elsewhere in her book, her references to sources (especiallyprimary ones) are usually vague. Some are also inaccurate. She does note

[32-34] that Matt. 19:12 does not attempt to apply Jesus' words to sacerdotal

celibacy; but she then claims that the Catholic Church continues to translate

the exception of Matt. l9:9-which "almost all catholic theologians, includingJohn Paul II, see... as the supreme moment of celibacy and monasticism" [42;see 49], as "not even for adultery" [36]. Against the "antisexual"understanding of the Catholic Church, "in reality all apostles were married"

[3 8]For her part, Rnnke--Heinemann affrms that "'apostolic doctrine' teaches

that all officeholders in the church have the right to get married" [38]. The

only proof oflered for this-besides I Tim. 3:2,12 (Tit. l:6)-is I Cor. 9:5 (38:"all the apostles and Peter, who is despite that still considered the first pope,

were married and took their wives along on missionary trips"). I Cor. 7 she

dismisses by simply saying that it "cannot be enlisted in support ofcompulsory celibacy" [3 9].

For Ranke-Heinemam, "Catholic celibacy has pagan roots" [99], in the"age old belief'that "closeness to the gods requires sexual abstinence" [99].With no regard for the controversy surrounding its authenticity, she cites I I 0 I ]Elvira's canon 33, to show that celibacy has "near-apostolic" origins. Thusshe would agree with the thesis of Cochini and Cholij; the difference is that she

does not regard clerical celibacy as being in any way a positive development.

IV. Finsl RemarksIt should be apparent by now that the celibacy debate is part of a series of

larger questions, for example, how written revclation relates to tradition, andhow that tradition itself is formed, altered by circumstances, and to beunderstood at any given moment.

In an atbempt to delineate what he perceived to be the two major attitudes

toward tradition among writers on-celibacy aithe "nd

of the 1970s' Joseph

fomonthat wrote in 1981 [16-17]:

There are many people in the Church today' scholars and others' uho

believe that the "Iai't"

it io ut rouni ty studf ing its'historical

monuments' If this shows that a certain disciptine is based on views

that the Church now expressly repudiates' then"' the Church may feel

free to change tftt aittipfi"e' bn the other hand' there are many

people, srttota". anJ otl""' who argue that the Church's tradition

may rest lloon ,fi',!n"rl'", i".ii"or-that can never be adequately

articulated in discrisive language, and that the mere fact of a

cenhries-long rJtion must aileast caution against change and may

even exclude it altogether'

This proposed division glauthol.does not fully apply to those treated

here. Far fromhaving resolved the questton concerning tiaditional claims that

Cochini placed on the decade's opening agenda' Cholij' Callam' and Brown

(among others) f'o"t tlitt" It io u n"*f"utl of complexity which could not

easily have u..n *'liiliti it"t C"clri1,s wort alone' Inasmuch as all the

just-named outr'o" iffii::""':l111ize traditional claims' thev can be

distingulshedintermsoftheirinterpretivestrategies:CochiniandBrowncanbe ranged together ;r;ffiiecretal Oirtltti p"^arily to illustrate or fill

out more general'it"'i"p'*t and persuasive projects relating to the

developmenr oro, "r.i.J Jontinence "rr";

iot couam, ihe text of the decretal

and the immediate #;;;iil intended meaning are coextensive with his

project; a"a Cnofli, io' iit pon' '"tt' to intt"ogite problem'rtic texts and

practices by mears ;#;d;, anticipating that tie {actol3

motivating them

relate more directly and clearly ,o ,rr. "*iore rather than to individual

**ff:rte perspecrive of their conclusions, rhese writers may be divided

accordingt" rh. #;;ffi il;.tp.re(s) ttrev p"rceive to be operative in the

development of tf'J*'ontintn" ruf'' C*ftti understandt tnt''lt:t^TlY

clerical practice 'oi-"ontintntt in terms of mediatory intercesston'

distin gui shin g it sharplv froa1 .91te"t lo' tonttcrated v irginitv lYli:l i:

concedes evolved g"i"hlylt Cholij'onthe contrary' favours consecratron as

the rule's first principle' while Callam clearly believes the decretals'

,24 loqos: A Jounnal of Ensrrm Cl-rnisrlan Srudies

promulgation of the rule to have had consecratory rather than ritualmotivations, though he does not speculate on the question of whether the ruleoriginated in this symbolic context or simply underwent a displacement of itsoriginal meaning. Finally, the "singleness of heart" whereof Brown writes is

a disposition which by his own account proved susceptible to widely variantconstructions and expressions from one Christian community to another

fBrown 1988: 64], and therefore it cannot, despite some surface resemblances,

be reduced in any simple way to the idea of consecration.One lesson which may be extracted from this discussion is that the second

position on tradition sketched by Komonchak ("the Church's tradition mayrest upon insights or instincts that can never be adequately articulated indiscursive language') does not necessarily imply a conservative stance. Of the

four writers named above, the two who malie the most of non-discursivesymbolism and inarticulate social and cultural insights are the two whoadvance no personal position on the traditional status of the clerical continencemle. On the other hand, Cochini's "principle of comprehensive interpretation"stipulates that in order to understand historical facts in all their complexity itis necessary "to perceive the numerous connections which link phenomena, orthe different aspects of the same phenomenon, together" [Cochini: 85]. Cholijrecognizes the mutually conditioning nature of the formulation and praxis ofa discipline, and their consequent reciprocal usefulness for interpreting one

another [Cholij AHC 1987: 138; CCEW 1989: 67].ln a sense, the only difference between views such as Callam's or Brown's

and those served by these interpretive devices, is that (unlike Cochini orChohj) neither Callam nor Brown displays any expectation of finding a simpletruth beyond the complexity of the phenomena, or a pure truth unadorned bythe mediations of formulation or praxis. Instead, their interpretive approaches

seem to imply that we cannot assess the meaning of celibacy, or any othertraditional practice, by abstracting it from what Angela Tilby has called the"whole system of living and believing" within which the tradition first made

sense.tt lt is less a question of whether or not the Church expressly maintainsor repudiates a certain view, than it is of whether or not that view can still be

said to exist coherently, given the disappearance ofa cultural and intellectualperspective which not only formulated or glossed the vierv's meaning, but was

in fact a necessary constituent of it. From this perspective, to question the

t' A. Tilby, "The Pastor's Wil'e", in Thc Tablet ( l2 August, 1989), 9 16.

relevance of a traditional belief today nced not imply that we are contradicting

the tradition's claim to represent a truth. It is only to suggest that the

fadition's implication in the fabric of a living culture also implicates it in any

significant transformation of that culture.

In passing, it should be observed that recent papal documents have tended

to refer to priestly celibacy from the standpoint represented by Cochini and

Cholij.?2 In Pope John Paul II's Holy Thursday letters of 1978, 1982 and

1988, celibary is invariably enjoined "for the salie of the Kingdom ofHeaven."?3 This line of thought appeared as recently as 1992, in the Apostolic

Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis, on the formation of priests,'a and in an

allocution (December l) to the presidents of the Bishops' Conferences ofEurope.?s However, the biblical reference (Matt. 19:12)---+nshrined in the

revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 (can. 277, pw. l)-has virtually been

abandoned by authors, even those defending the celibacy ru1e.76 Cochini, for

instance, is quite read to concede Schillebeeckx's point that the verse (which

has no Synoptic parallel) has nothing to do with celibacy as an intrinsic

requirement in Christian pnesthood.

For Cochini this concession is not a major one, as he is more interested in

pro-celibacy interpretations of I Cor. 7:5 and I Tim. 3'.2,12 (Tit. l:6), on the

basis of which he affrms [278-279]. "ks obligations des clercs se justifient il

l'epoque par la fonction originale du sacerdoce minist6riel... En permanence

devant Dieu pour le peuple dont il a la charge, le ministre de la Nouvelle

z Given Cochini's claim [91 ] that Cardinal Danielou encouraged hirn to expand a-nd

publish his doctoral work (on whichclairn see the severe remarks of Kanncngiesscr: 621,

endorsed by Gryson 1983: 92-93). and introductory rerrrarks in the books olboth Cochini and

Cho|j by Alfons Stickler, then Fretbct of the Vatican Library and later cardinal, the whole

enterprise "may be seen as a rnajor scholarly expression olthe presertt Roman_calnpaign to

vindicate the eiisting discipline"(Hastings: 171; see also 175). Indeed, Cardinal Stickler has

termed the books of these i*o urihorr'1he two delinitive studies on celibacy of the clergy in

the Christian Church" (Cholij CCEW 1989: vii).?3 In the letter for Holy Thursday of 1979, the Pope argues (par. 8) that priestly

celibacy is an "apostolic doctrine."to Par. 50, in Origins, vol. 21, no. 45 (April 16,1992)'742-tt La documentation catholique, no. 2064 (17 janvier 1993)' 60?6 An exception is Galot 1985:232-39. See also Vatican II's Constitution on the

church (Lunrcn Gentiun), par. 42, and Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests

(PresbyterorumOrdU*),par.lB, with the renrarks of Komonchak: I l-12, and Schillebeeckx:

i44. dn the use of Matt. i9:12 in rhis regard, see the helpful bibliography in Mazotto: 334 n.

3;337 nn. 16, 17, and 22',and 354 n. 103.

!

,26 loqos: A lotrnnnl of fasrrnn Cknisrian Srudies

Alliance n'a plus de loisir pour la vie conjugale, plus de liberte pour vaquer it

ce qui ali6nerait desormais ses energies spirituelles."On October 28, 1990, the Vatican issued a summary of the proposals of

the fiftecnth regular assembly of the Synod of Bishops just held in Rome.

Among the proposals was the reaffirmation of clerical celibacy: "The celibate

stat€ of life is a precious gtft of God which perfectly fits the priest's image."?7

During the synod it was revealed that Pope John Paul II had authorized the

ordination of two manied men in Brazil urder certain conditions, one of which

was "total separation from the wife in the matter of cohabitation."T8 This

would appear to be firmly in line with the consensus of historians and

theologians that perpetual continence was required of candidates to major

orders, married or not. But the textual evidence for a law is affirmed only for

the West and only beginning in the late fourth century. The case for an earlier

history of the requiremcnt has yet to be made.

Indeed, on the existing evidence, the case for the apostolic origins of a

married Christian ministry would seem to be at least as plausible as the case

for the apostolic origins of continence/celibacy. In the end, neither Cochini

lpace de Margerie: 261] nor anyone else has satisfactorily demonstrated a

connection between ministry and celibacy in early Christianiry fCrouzel:294,Faiwe: 442l.The most probable explanation for the fourth century emphasis

on continence is not that it is due to "une tradition non4crite d'origineapostolique qui... trouva sa premidre expression canonique au 4" siecle"

[Cochini: 475, his emphasis], but that it reflects certain values (noted earlier)

which had gradually arisen and were now given wider expression.

Of course, in this, as in all aspects of the Church's life, one cannot

discount the possibiliry of the Holy Spirit's guidance, as Newman rightly

observed.?e But Newman was addressing the development of doctrine, not ofpraxis; and to uncritically ascribe every experience of the Church to the

Spirit's express will is no more acceptable than dismissing a practice out ofhand.

'? Origins, vol. 20, no. 22 (f{ov. 8, 1990),354.78 See Origzrs, vol.20, no.2l (Nov. I, 1990),334, also La documentation

catholique, no.20l7 (9 dec. 1990), 1061.?n Newman,,4zr Essay. , chap. III, Section l, l: "And then, in addition, there is the

high antecedcnt probability that Providence would watch over His own work, and would direct

and ratily those developments oldoctrine which werc irrevitable."

Krvin Covle: Rtcrnr lin,narunr or celibacy ,27

The apostolic origrns of clerical mntinence/celibacy are therefore far fromproven. lndeed, in their attempts Cochini and his supporters may have

achieved the opposite objective, by showing that a historiccl demonstration

of celibacy's validity is a fruitless quest.to Scripture appea$ to support, at

most, a personal commitment to consecrated virginity--one that would then

apply to the unordained as much as to the ordained. The long period between

the close of tleNew Testament and the late fourth century adds little else. The

arguments for maintaining mandatory clerical celibacy will, then, have to be

sought elsewhere than in an "apostolic tradition."

{. .E .i * .!.}..1 .}

BIBLIOGRAPHY

l. Balducelli, Roger, "The Apostolic Origins of Clerical Continence'. ACritical Appraisal of aNew Book," Theological Studies 43 (1982), 693-705

[review of Cochini].

2. Barstow, Arure Llewel\ryMarried Priests and the Reforming Papacy: The

Eleventh-Cennry Debates (Texts and Studies in Religion, l2), Lewiston,NY: Edrvin Mellen Press, 1982.

3. Bror.rn, Peter, "Late Antiquity'= chapter 2 in Paul Veyne (ed.),History ofPnvate Life, vol.l (From Pagan Rome to Byzantium), Cambridge, MA: The

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987,237-31 I, esp. 266-70.

t0 See Hastings: I ? I : "One must indeed be grateful to the auth'r for so sustained,

erudite and charitable a work. If the thesis here presented is unconvincing then, one mightreasonably conclude, no further approach on these lines is ever likely to satisfy." See also Gryson

1983: 92: "C'est assez tard dans le cours du moyen Age que I'Eglisc d'Occident a

d6finitivernent renonc6 d ordonner les hommes maries. Cela n'emp€che pas que cette loi soit

respectable, et qu'il soit souhaitable de la maintenir aujourd'hui dans I'Eglise latine. Mais ses

partisans seraient mieux inspires de s'employer d la fonder th6ologiquement et pastoralement,plutdt que d'y chercher d tout prix unejustification d'ordre historique."

,28 Loqos: A jorrniral o[ Ensrrnn Cknisrinn Snrdirs

4.

-, The Body and Sociery: Men, Yf/'omen and Sexual Renunciation in

Early Christianity,New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

5. CallarL Daniel, "Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century," TheologicalStudies 4l (1980), 3-50.

6.-, [Review of Cholij CCEW l989f,Journal of Theological Studies n.s.

4l (1990),725-29.

7. Cholij, Roman M.T., "The 'Lex continentiae' and the Impediment ofOrders," Studia canonica 2I (1987),391-418 (= SC 1987).

8.

-, "Married Clergy and Ecclesiastical Continence in Light of the

Council in Trullo (691)," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum l9 (1987),7l-230,241-96 (: AHC 1987).

9.

-, "De caelibatu sacerdotali in Ecclesia Orientali nova historica

investigatio," Periodica de re morali canonica liturgica 77 (1988), 3-3 l.

10.

-, "Celibacy: A Tradition of the Eastern Churches," Priests and

People 2 (l 988), 208-22.

I l. -,

"Celibacy in the Eastem Church. The Historical Evidence,"Canadian Catholic Review 7 (1989), 17-26 (abridged version of thepreceding).

12.

-, Clerical Celibacy in East and l/'est, Leominster (Herefordshire):

Fowler Wright Books, 1989 (reprint of AHC 1987: CCEW 1989).

13. --, "Clerical Celibacy in the Western Church: Some Clarifications,"Priests and People 3 (1989),301-12 (: PP 1989).

14. Cochini, Christian, Origines apostoliques du cdlibat sacerdotal, Puis'.Lethellieux / Namur: Culture et Vdrit6, l98l (English: Apostolic Origins ofPriestly Celibacy, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990).

Urrnqrunr

15. crouzel, Henri, "lJne nouvelle etude sur les origines du c€libat sac€rdotal,"

Bullerin de Littdrature eccltisiastique 83 (1982), 293-97 [review of Cochini]'

l6.Dassmann, Emst, "Diakonaturd Z.6bba\" in Josef G' Ploger and Hermann

J.Weber(eds.),DerDiakon:.1!/iederentdecLangundErneuerungseinesDienstes, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1980' 5747 '

17. Faivre, Alexandre, [review of Cochini], Rewe d'Histoire et de

philosophie religieuses 63 (1983), 47 L-73'

18. Galot, Iean,Theologt of the Priesthood,san Francisco: Ignatius Press,

1985. (Trans.'of Teoiigii aa sacerdozio fNuova Collana-di -Teologia

catolica, l4], Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, l98l = Galot l98l).

19.

-, [review of Cochini], Gregorianun 6a (1983)' 152-53'

20.Gryson,Roger,[reviewofCochini],Revued'HistoireeccldsiastiqueTS(1983), 90-93.

21. Hastings, Adrian, "The Origins of Priestly Celibacy"' Heythrop Journal

24 (1983), L7l-77 [review of Cochini].

22. Hunter, David G., "Resistance to the virginal Ideal in Late Fourth-

century Rome: The case of Joviniarq" Theological studies 48 (1987), 45-64'

23.

-,"On the Sin of Adam and Eve: A Little-Known Defense of

Maniage and childbearingby Ambrosiaste r," Harvard Th e ologi ca I Revi ew

82 (1989), 783-99,esP' 293*96'

24.Kannengiesser,Charles,[reviewofCochini],RecherchesdeSciencereligieuse 70 (1982), 620-21.

25. Komonchak, Joseph A., "celibacy and Tradition," chicago studies 20

( I 98 I ), 5- I 7, esP. 6-9.

,rO Locos: A JounNa[ of Ensrenir ChnisriqN Srudirs

26. Lawrence, C.H., "Unconvincing Arguments Against a ManiedPriesthood," The Tablet 244 (Ianuary 6, 1990), 14 [review of Cholij CCEWr e8el.

27. L'Huillier, Peter, [review of Cholij CCEW 1989], Sobornost n.s., 12

(i990), 180-82.

28.

-,

"Episcopal Celibacy in the Orthodox Tradition," St. Wadimir'sTheological Quarterly 35 (1991), 271-300.

29. Marchetto, Agostino, [review of Cochini], Rivista di Storia della Chiesain ltalia 37 (1983), 186-90.

30. de Margerie, Bertrand, [review of Cochini], Science et Esprit 35 (1983),260-61.

31. Martelet, Gustave, Deux mille ans de l'Eglise en question, t. II (Des

martyrs d I'Inquisition), Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1990, 374-77.

32. Martin, Charles, [review of Cochini], Nouvelle Revue Thdologique 105

(1983), 437-38.

33. Marzotto, Damiano, "Il celibato nel Nuovo Testamento," La ScuolaCattolica I l0 (1982), 333-70.

34. Ranke-Heinemann, Uta, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women,

Seruality, and the Catholic Church, New York: Doubleday (British edition:Eunuchs /br Hecwen: The Catholic Church and Sexuality, London: Deutsch),1990. (Trans. of Eunuchen f)r das Himmelreich: Katholische Kirche undSexualitdt, Hamburg: Hoffinann und Campe, 1988).

35. Schillebeeckx, Edward, The Church Ll/ith a Human Face: A New andExpanded Ministry of Theologt, New York: Crossroad, 1985, 24049.(Trars. of Pleidooi voor mensen in de Kerk: Chnsrcliike identiteit en ambtenin der Kerk, Baam: H. Nelissen, 1980,236-44.)

36. Tremeau, Marc, [review of Cochini], Esprit et Vie 92 (1982), 106-109.

: Rrcrrr lirrnnnrne on crlibncy

37. Vogels, Hans-Jirrgen, "The Communify's fught to a Priest in Collision

with Compulsory Celibacy," Concilium 133 (1980), 84-92.

ia

.r. f.aa

.1.a