Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 33: The Fifth Objection from the Councils Answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). 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).
The adversaries object also the testimonies of the Councils and of the Fathers, which nevertheless can be solved with no trouble. The first testimony is of the Council of Ancyra (canon 19): “As many as have transgressed the virginity they promised, the profession being contemned, let them be held among the twice-married.” This testimony John Brentius brings forward (in the prolegomena against Peter de Soto), that he may thence prove that marriage after a vow is not a sin, since it is established that digamy is not a sin. But John Brentius reasons ill; for the Council does not teach that those who take a wife after a vow are truly twice-married, but in punishment of their sin makes them unfit for the priesthood, as if they were twice-married. And from the fact that men of this kind are punished by the Council, it cannot be gathered that they did not sin, but rather, on the contrary, that they did sin; for punishment follows guilt. And since the Council itself says that they have transgressed their promise and contemned their profession, he only will be able to say that they did not sin who will dare to deny that transgression and contempt are sins.
But, says Peter Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Vows), this Council did not dissolve the marriage contracted after a vow, nor afflicted it with any other penalty by which it should be reckoned digamy.
I answer that the Council did not dissolve the marriage, because there was none which could be dissolved. For the Council does not say that they contracted marriage, but only that they transgressed their promise, which could be done both by fornication and by marriage. But even if their marriages were true, and therefore not to be dissolved — which even now we observe in those who after a simple vow take a wife — was it therefore lawful, by the opinion of the Council, for those who vowed continence to be joined in marriage? How many things are ill done which nevertheless, being done, hold? Certainly, if it were no sin so to be joined, those who did it would not be punished by the Council; whereas among the adversaries, where it is no crime to violate a vow of continence, not only are those who from monks are made husbands not barred from the ministry, but they almost alone are called to the ministry.
The second testimony is of the Council of Gangra (canons 9 and 10), where those are condemned who, having professed continence, execrate marriage or despise the married.
I answer that John Brentius (in the Wurttemberg Confession, chapter on vows) and Peter Martyr (in the book On Celibacy and Vows), while they bring forward these canons, show their impudence. For these canons teach nothing but that marriage is not evil, though a vow of continence is better; and that the professors of continence ought to be humble, not proud. Which same Saint Augustine fully teaches in some of the last chapters of the book On Holy Virginity. But let us hear the canons themselves. Canon 9: “If anyone, having professed either virginity or continence, judges marriage as abominable, and not for this reason alone, that the good of continence and virginity is a holy purpose, let him be anathema.” Canon 10: “If anyone, having professed virginity for God’s sake, through arrogance vituperates those placed in marriage, let him be anathema.” What is here read which all Catholics do not most willingly hear and embrace?
The third testimony is of the Council of Chalcedon (canon 16): “If any virgin has dedicated herself to God, and likewise a monk, it is not lawful for them to be joined in marriage; but if they be found doing this, let them remain excommunicated. But we have decreed that humanity can be shown them, if the bishop of the place so approve.”
From this passage Peter Martyr gathers that the marriages of monks and nuns could be permitted by the bishop. But the canon does not say this; nay, it openly denies that persons of this kind can be joined. And that humanity of which the Council speaks is not an indulgence of marriage, but an absolution from excommunication. For since the Council decrees a perpetual anathema on apostates of this kind, it yet permits that the bishop even before the article of death take away the anathema, if, namely, they come to penance and depart from the ill-contracted marriage, as the Council of Tribur expounds (canon 53). Now let us come to the testimonies of the Fathers, which are collected by Brentius, Calvin, Illyricus, but chiefly by Peter Martyr.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXIII. Solvitur objectio quinta ex Conciliis. Objiciunt adversarii quoque testimonia Conciliorum et Patrum, quae tamen nullo negotio solvi poterunt. Primum testimonium est Concilii Ancyrani, can. 19 : « Quotquot virginitatem pollicitam praevaricati sunt, professione contempta, inter bigamos ha¬ beantur. )) Hoc testimonium profert Joan- nes Brentius in prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto, ut inde probet matrimonium post votum non esse peccatum, cum constet di¬ gamiam peccatum non esse. Sed male Joan- nes Brentius ratiocinatur; nam Concilium non docet, eos, qui ducunt uxorem post vo¬ tum, vere esse digamos, sed in poenam pec¬ cati facit eos inhabiles ad sacerdotium, ac si digami essent. E£ eo autem quod ejus¬ modi homines a Concilio puniuntur, non potest colligi eos non peccasse, sed contra potius peccasse, poena enim culpam sequi¬ tur; et cum ipsum Concilium dicat eos prae- varicatos esse promissionem, et professio¬ nem contempsisse, is tantum dicere poterit eos non peccasse, qui praevaricationem et contemptum peccata esse negare audebit. At, inquit Petrus Martyr, in lib. de cceli- batu, et votis, Concilium hoc non diremit matrimonium contractum post votum, nec alia poena affecit, qua ut digamia reputare¬ tur. Respondeo, Concilium non diremisse ma¬ trimonium, quia nullum erat quod dirimi posset. Nec enim Concilium dicit eos matri¬ monium contraxisse, sed solum praevarica¬ tos promissionem suam, quod tam fornica¬ tione, quam nuptiis fleri potuit. Quod si etiam nuptiae fuerint verae illorum, et prop- terea nec dirimendae, quod etiam nunc ser¬ vamus in iis, qui post votum simplex uxo¬ rem ducunt, an propterea licuit ex Concilii sententia iis, qui voverunt continentiam, nuptiis copulari? Quam multa male fiunt, quae tamen facta tenent ? Certe si nullum es¬ set peccatum ita copulari, non punirentur a Concilio, qui id fecerunt : siquidem apud adversarios, ubi nullum est crimen votum continentiae violare, non solum non arcen¬ tur a ministerio qui ex Monachis mariti fac¬ ti sunt, sed ipsi prope soli vocantur ad mi¬ nisterium. Secundum testimonium est Concilii Gan- grensis,can.9 et 10. ubi damnantur, qui con¬ tinentiam professi, nuptias execrantur, aut despiciunt conjugatos. Respondeo, Joannem Brentium iri Con¬ fessione Wirtembergensi capite de votis, et Petrum Martyrem in lib. de ccelibatu et vo¬ tis, dum hos Canones proferunt, impuden¬ tiam suam ostendere. Nihil enim isti Cano¬ nes docent, nisi nuptias non esse malas, li¬ cet votum continentiae sit melius; et conti¬ nentiae professores humiles esse debere, non superbos. Quod ipsum fuse docet S. Augus¬ tinus in ultimis aliquot capitibus libri de sancta virginitate, sed Canones ipsos audia¬ mus. Canon IX : « Si quis vel virginitatem, vel continentiam professus tamquam abo¬ minabiles nuptias judicat, et non propter hoc solum, quod continentiae, et virginitatis (1) I. Cor. II, 14. CAPUT XXXIV. 593 bonum sanctum propositum est, anathema sit. » Canon X : «Si quis propter Deum vir¬ ginitatem professus, in conjugio positos per arrogantiam vituperaverit, anathema sit. » Quid hic legitur, quod non Catholici omnes libentissime audiahius et amplecta¬ mur? Tertium testimonium est Concilii Chalce- donensis can. 16: « Si qua se virgo Deo de¬ dicaverit, similiter et Monachus, non licere eis jungi nuptiis; si vero inventi fuerint hoc facientes, maneant excommunicati. Statui¬ mus vero posse in eis fieri humanitatem, si ita probaverit loci Episcopus. » Ex hoc loco colligit Petrus Martyr potuis¬ se permitti ab Episcopo connubia Monacho¬ rum, et Sanctimonialum. At non hoc dicit Canon, imo aperte negat posse conjungi ejusmodi personas. Humanitas porro illa, de qua loquitur Concilium, non est indulgentia nuptiarum, sed absolutio ab excommunica¬ tione. Cum enim statuat Concilium perpe¬ tuum anathema in ejusmodi apostatas, per¬ mittit tamen, ut Episcopus etiam ante mor¬ tis articulum anathema tollat, si nimirum il¬ li ad poenitentiam venerint, et a male con¬ tracto connubio discesserint, ut exponit Concilium Triburiense, can. 53. Nunc ad Patrum testimonia veniamus, quae a Bren- tio, Calvino, Illyrico, sed potissimum a Pe¬ tro Martyre collecta sunt.