Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 18: On the Celibacy of Priests: Whether Marriage Is Forbidden to Priests by Divine Law
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There follows the fourth Disputation, which is on the celibacy or continence of consecrated men, which will be of three members. For first it comes to be explained whether celibacy is annexed to the sacred orders by divine right. Then, if it be established that it is not so, whether at least by apostolic right, and most rightly, this was done. Lastly, whether the twice-married are barred from sacred orders by an apostolic law.
And, to begin with the first: John Major (on the fourth book, distinction 24, question 2) thought it was of divine right that the vow of priests is solemn, and accordingly is indispensable. Nearly the same taught Clichtove (in the book On the Continence of Priests, chapter 4 and following), where he says two things which I know not whether they well cohere with each other. One is, that it is of divine right that he who is initiated into sacred orders cannot take a wife, and that no dispensation can fall in this. The other is, that those who have taken wives cannot be initiated into sacred orders unless they henceforth wish to be continent — and that this is a precept of the Church, first issued by Pope Siricius, and never received by the Eastern Church. And so that in the whole Church it was lawful for priests to use the wives they had married before orders, up to the times of Siricius; but that in the Eastern Church it both now is lawful, and always was lawful.
But Blessed Thomas (in the Second Part of the Second Part, question 88, article 11) expressly teaches that the vow of continence is annexed to the sacred orders by the decree of the Church alone, and accordingly is dispensable. The same teaches Cajetan (in the Opuscula, volume 1, treatise 27), and Soto (Book VII On Justice, question 6, article 2), where he also teaches — what I hold most true — that this decree, by which the vow is annexed to orders, is not indeed properly divine, but yet is apostolic, and was kept in the whole Church from the times of the Apostles for a long time. But because we will confirm this by many reasons in the following chapter against the heretics, now it must only be briefly proved that marriage is forbidden to priests not by divine but by human right only, and accordingly that a dispensation can be granted in this.
It is proved, first, from the other of the things which Clichtove asserts. It is not of divine right that married men, if they be ordained, abstain from their wives; therefore neither is it of divine right that priests not take wives. For marriage does not conflict with orders by reason of its essence, but by reason of the conjugal office or exercise. For if God had forbidden marriage to priests, He would certainly have forbidden it on account of the conjugal act, which renders a man wholly carnal and unfit for divine things, and on account of the solicitude of house and children, which begets very many distractions — but not on account of the mere Sacrament of marriage, or on account of the contract of matrimony, which is celebrated by the mere consent of minds, and is a thing most brief and most honorable. If, then, it was lawful for priests by divine right to have the wives they had married before ordination, and to use them after the manner of husbands, why, I ask, would it not also have been lawful to marry after ordination? Add that the reasons which Clichtove adduces for himself are all taken from the purity of the priestly offices, to which certainly it is not repugnant to take a wife or to have taken one, but to cohabit with her.
And that it is not forbidden by divine right that priests use the wives they had married before orders is conceded by Clichtove. But on account of certain others who doubt of this matter, it is proved most openly from this, that the Roman Church for many ages now has permitted Greek priests the use of the wives they had married before ordination, as is plain from the chapter Cum olim (on married clerics). Add the testimony of Gregory (Book I, letter 42), where he permits subdeacons freely to use the wives they had married before ordination, though he forbids such men henceforth to be ordained, unless they vow continence.
Secondly it is proved, because in the whole Scripture no such precept exists. For in the Old Testament it was lawful for priests to take wives. And in the New the Lord said nothing of this matter. The Apostle indeed (in the epistles to Timothy and Titus) bids that bishops and deacons be chosen chaste; but what the Apostle commands is not a divine but an apostolic precept, of which we shall treat afterward.
They bring forward from Deuteronomy 33 the blessing of Moses, in which it is said of the Levites (that is, as they expound it, of Christian priests): “Who said to his father and mother, I know you not, and knew not their children.” But that is a divine prophecy, not a divine precept; for whether it be by divine or by human law that priests lack wives, the prophecy of Moses is fulfilled. They bring forward then that of Christ (Luke 21): “Take heed lest your hearts be burdened with surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this world” — which Leo testifies to pertain especially to priests (sermon 8 on the fast of the tenth month). But in this those who adduce this argument are openly deceived. For Leo in that very place says that Christ’s precept pertains to all the faithful, but to us especially, to whom the Day of the Lord is now nearer. Then, when Paul (1 Timothy 3) bids a bishop be chosen “who ruleth well his own house, having his children subject in all chastity,” nor yet teaches anything contrary to Christ, certainly Christ commands no one not to have care of wife and children, but not to be burdened with too much solicitude.
But, they say, natural reason dictates that a most pure ministry ought to be performed by continent men. I answer that reason indeed dictates this, but as a fitting thing, not as altogether necessary.
Thirdly it is proved from the Council of Ancyra (chapter 10), where it is said that deacons can, with the license of the bishop, take wives even after receiving the diaconate; therefore it is not of divine right, for bishops do not dispense in divine right. And this Council is most ancient, and confirmed by Pope Leo (distinction 20, canon De libellis). Let there be added, lastly, that the Councils and Fathers to be produced in the following chapter everywhere testify that this law is ecclesiastical — which we also read in the Council of Trent (session 24, canon 9).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. « De caelibatu Sacerdotum : Sitne jure divino annexus sacris ordinibus coelibatus , an non ? Sequitur quarta Disputatio, quae est de ccelibatu, seu continentia hominum sacrato¬ rum, quae quidem trimembris erit. Primum enim explicandum occurrit, sitne jure divino annexus coelibatus ordinibus sacris. Deinde, si constiterit non ita esse, utrum saltem jure Apostolico, ac rectissime, id factum sit. Pos¬ tremo, num Digami Apostolica lege arcean¬ tur a sacris ordinibus. Ac, ut a primo incipiamus, Joannes Major in IV, dist. 24, quaest. 2. de jure divino esse putavit, quod votum Sacerdotum solemne sit, ac proinde indispensabile esse. Idem fere docuit Clichtovaeus lib. de continentia Sa¬ cerdotum, cap. 4. et sequentibus, ubi duo dicit, quae nescio, an inter se bene cohae¬ reant. Unum est, de jure divino esse, ut qui est sacris ordinibus initiatus, non possit uxo¬ rem ducere, neque in hoc ullam dispensatio¬ nem cadere posse. Alterum est, eos, qui uxores duxerunt, non posse sacris ordinibus initiari, nisi deinceps continere velint, esse praeceptum Ecclesiae, et a Siricio Papa pri¬ mum editum, nec unquam ab Ecclesia Orien¬ tali receptum fuisse. Itaque licuisse in tota Ecclesia Sacerdotibus uti uxoribus, quas ante ordines duxerant, usque ad tempora Sirici ; in Ecclesia autem Orientali, et nunc licere, et semper licuisse. At B. Thomas in 2. 2. qutest. LXXXVIII, artic. 11. diserte docet, votum continentiae esse annexum ordinibus sacris ex solo Ecclesiae decreto, ac proinde dispensabile esse. Idem docet Cajetanus in opusculis, tom. I, tract. 27. et Sotus lib. VII de jus¬ titia, quaest. 6, artic. 2. ubi etiam docet, quod ego verissimum puto, decretum hoc, quo votum est annexum ordinibus, non qui¬ dem proprie divinum esse, sed tamen esse Apostolicum, et in tota Ecclesia a tempori¬ bus Apostolorum, longo tempore esse serva¬ tum. Sed quia hoc multis rationibus in se¬ quenti capite contra haereticos confirmabi¬ mus, nunc solum breviter probandum est, non jure divino, sed humano dumtaxat pro¬ hibitum esse conjugium Sacerdotibus, et proinde in hoc dispensari posse. Probatur primo, ex altero eorum, quae Clichtovaeus asserit ; non est de jure divino, ut conjugati, si ordinentur, ab uxoribus suis abstineant; igitur neque est de jure divino, ut Sacerdotes non ducant uxores. Nam ma¬ trimonium non pugnat cum ordinibus ratio¬ ne essentiae suae, sed ratione officii seu exer¬ citii conjugalis; si enim Deus prohibuisset Sacerdotibus conjugium, certe prohibuisset propter actum conjugalem, qui hominem reddit totum carnalem, et ineptum ad divi¬ na ; nec non propter sollicitudinem domus, et liberorum, quae plurimas parit distractiones, non autem propter solum Sacramentum con¬ jugii, vel propter contractum matrimonii, qui celebratur solo consensu animorum, et est res brevissima et honestissima. Si ergo licuit Sacerdotibus jure divino habere uxo¬ res, quas ante ordinationem duxerant, et eis uti maritorum more : Cur, quaeso, non licuis¬ set etiam post ordinationem ducere? Adde, 454 LIBER I. quod rationes, quas Clichtovteus pro se ad¬ ducit, omnes sumuntur a puritate munerum sacerdotalium, cui certe non repugnat, uxo¬ rem ducere, vel duxisse, sed ei cohabitare. Non esse autem jure divino prohibitum, ne Sacerdotes utantur uxoribus, quas duxe- rant ante ordinem, conceditur a Clichtovseo. Sed propter quosdam alios, qui de ea re du- hitant, probatur apertissime ex eo, quod Ec¬ clesia Romana multis jam saeculis permisit Graecis Sacerdotibus usum uxorum, quas ante ordinationem duxerant, ut patet ex ca¬ pit. Cum olim, de Clericis conjugatis. Adde Gregorii testimonium, lib. I, epist. 42. ubi permittit Subdiaconis, ut libere utantur uxo¬ ribus suis, quas duxerant ante ordinatio¬ nem, licet prohibeat deinceps ejusmodi ordi¬ nari, nisi continentiam voveant. Secundo probatur, quia in tota Scriptura nullum tale exstat praeceptum. Nam in Tes¬ tamento veteri Sacerdotibus licitum erat uxores ducere. In novo autem nihil de hac re Dominus locutus est. Apostolus quidem in epistolis ad Timotheum, et Titum, jubet Episcopos et Diaconos eligi castos, sed qiiod Apostolus praecipit, non divinum, sed Apos- tolicum praeceptum est, de quo postea age¬ mus. Proferunt illi ex Deuter. cap. XXXIII. be¬ nedictionem Mosis, in qua dicitur deLevitis, id est, ut ipsi exponunt, de Sacerdotibus Christianis; Qui dixerunt patri suo et matri ; Nescio vos et filios ignoraverunt. At istud, divinum vaticinium, non divinum praeceptum est; sive enim lege divina, sive humana fiat, ut Sacerdotes uxoribus careant, impletur vaticinium Mosis. Proferunt deinde illud Christi Lucae XXI : Videte, ne graventur corda vestra crapula, et ebrietate , et curis hujus mundi (1) : quod ad Sacerdotes praecipue spectare testatur Leo, serm. 8. de jejunio decimi mensis. Sed in hoc aperte falluntur, qui hoc argumentum adducunt. Nam Leo in isto ipso loco ad om¬ nes fideles, Christi praeceptum pertinere di¬ cit; sed ad nos praecipue, quibus Dies Do¬ mini jam est vicinior. Deinde, cum Paulus I. Timoth. III. jubet Episcopum eligi : Qui domui suce bene prcesit, et filios habeat subditos in omni castitate (2) ; nec tamen contraria Christo doceat : certe non jubet Christus ulli, ne habeat curam uxoris ac liberorum, sed ne gravetur nimia sollicitudine. At inquiunt, ratio naturalis dictat, ministe¬ rium purissimum a continentibus esse pera¬ gendum. Respondeo, dictare id quidem ra¬ tionem, sed ut rem convenientem, non ut omnino necessariam. Tertio probatur, ex Concilio Ancyrano, cap. 10. ubi dicitur posse Diaconos cum licentia Episcopi uxores ducere, etiam post susceptum Diaconatum ; ergo non est de jure divino ; nec enim Episcopi in jure di¬ vino dispensant. Estque hoc Concilium anti¬ quissimum, et confirmatum a Leone Papa, dist. 20. can. de libellis. Accedat postremo, quod Concilia, et Patres in sequenti capite producendi, passim testantur, hanc legem esse Ecclesiasticam ; quod etiam legimus in Concilio Tridentino, sess. XXIV, can. 9 (3).