Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 37: That It Is Lawful for the Married to Vow by Mutual Consent
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).
Of the third point — whether it be lawful for the married, by mutual consent, to undertake vows of perpetual continence. This Peter Martyr denies in express words (in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7), and proves it from the words of Paul: Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return again to the same. Where Paul grants a cessation from the conjugal use only for a time. The same teach the Magdeburgians (Century 4, chapter 10, column 1304), where they accuse Malchus the monk as a contemner of marriage, because by consent he perpetually abstained from the wife whom he had taken in his captivity. Where, by the way, their ignorance or wickedness is to be noted. For, as Jerome writes in the life of Malchus, Malchus was compelled by the barbarians to take as wife a certain woman who had a husband; since, then, he could not take her without the sin of adultery, he feigned marriage, that he might escape death, and held her as a sister; and yet the Magdeburgians reprehend him because he was unwilling to be joined to that woman.
But this error is most impudent; and I prove it, first, from the very passage of Paul; for Paul, after he says, Return again to the same, subjoins, But this I say by indulgence, not by commandment. Where that, by indulgence, cannot be referred to that, Defraud not one another; for there command has place, not indulgence; nor to that, Except by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; for to abstain for a time by consent for the sake of prayer needs no indulgence. For we are said to indulge that which we grant not willingly, but as it were compelled. But Paul greatly desired that they be continent, since he says, I wish all to be as myself; therefore that, by indulgence, is referred to that, Return again to the same. For this Paul grants not willingly, but indulges on account of their incontinence; as expound Jerome (Book 1 against Jovinian), Augustine (Book 1 against Julian, chapter 21), Ambrose, Theodoret, and others on this passage. Therefore those who perpetually are continent from a wife by consent do a thing most pleasing to Paul; so far is it from being that he forbade it.
Secondly, it is proved from the Fathers. Basil (in the questions fully explained, question 12): “Those,” he says, “who from the marriage bond come to such a life, one ought to ask whether they do this by consent,” etc. Epiphanius (heresy 59) and Jerome (in the book against Vigilantius) say that the married were not wont to be initiated into sacred orders unless they promised perpetual continence from their wife. Which same the Second Council of Arles establishes (canon 2). The same Saint Jerome too (in epistle 14 to Celantia) accuses that woman for having vowed continence without the consent of her husband.
Augustine (in the epistle to Ecdicia, which is 199): “What,” he says, “you both vowed to God by equal consent, you both ought perseveringly to have rendered unto the end. From which purpose, if he has fallen, do thou at least most constantly persevere.” And (epistle 45 to Armentarius and Paulina): “Both,” he says, “render to God what both vowed.” And below: “Let your consent be an oblation to the supernal altar of the Creator,” etc. And above: “But now, because thy promise is held with God, I do not invite thee to a great justice, but deter thee from a great iniquity.” The same Augustine (in epistle 32 to Paulinus) praises him, that with Therasia his wife he undertook a vow of continence. And Saint Paulinus himself (epistle 3 to Aper) wonderfully praises him, that with his wife he had vowed perpetual continence to God.
Gregory (Book 9, epistle 39, to Theoctista the patrician): “But if,” he says, “it be agreeable to both to lead a continent life, who would dare to accuse this, when it is certain that almighty God, who granted lesser things, did not forbid greater?” Theodoret (Book 4 of the history, chapter 13) praises Pelagius, bishop of Laodicea, that on the first day of his marriage, when he, himself a youth, had received a youthful bride, he persuaded her that they should together vow continence. Hilary of Arles (in the epistle to Augustine which is prefixed to the books On Predestination): “Let thy Holiness know,” he says, “that my brother, with his matron, by consent has vowed perfect continence to God. Whence we ask thy Holiness to deign to pray that the Lord may deign to confirm and guard this very thing in them.”
It is proved, thirdly, by the examples of those who cannot in any way be denied to have done rightly in vowing continence by consent, since they were saints and shone with miracles. The first example is of Mary and Joseph. For that they were true spouses appears from the Gospel (Matthew 1): Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. And: Joseph her husband, being a just man, etc. And that they were perpetually continent by consent is certain. For it was the error of Helvidius, condemned by the whole Church, that Blessed Mary was not always a virgin. Whence Blessed Augustine (On the Agreement of the Evangelists, Book 2, chapter 1): “By this example,” he says, “it is magnificently intimated to the faithful married that, even continence being kept by equal consent, marriage can remain, not with the sex of the body mingled, but the affection of the mind kept.” Nor can the adversaries deny this example.
For the Centuriators (Century 1, Book 1, chapter 10, column 366) say that Joseph and Mary contracted a true marriage in such a way that they wished, at a fixed time, after the manner of other spouses, to procreate children. Which also Martin Bucer teaches (on Matthew 1), Peter Martyr (in the book against Smith, On Celibacy), and Calvin (on Luke chapter 1). And this, although it is blasphemous, since it strives to despoil Blessed Mary of the virginity of the mind, which alone is a virtue, yet serves us in this, that hence we have that the heretics cannot deny that Mary and Joseph were true spouses. Further, the same Centuriators (Century 4, chapter 5, column 405) say that it is the error of Helvidius to say that Blessed Mary at some time had intercourse with Joseph her husband; nor can they say that Blessed Mary was continent against Joseph’s will, nor the contrary, since each was most holy.
The second example is of Ammon the monk, who with his virgin wife by consent always remained a virgin, as Palladius testifies (in the Lausiac History, chapter 8); and that this pleased God is manifestly gathered from this, that Saint Anthony saw his soul borne to heaven by the angels with the highest glory, as Athanasius reports in the life of Saint Anthony.
The third example is in Cassian (Conference 14, chapter 7), where he reports that a certain layman, because with his wife by consent he cultivated virginal continence, so shone that a certain most ferocious demon, whom Saint John the abbot could not expel from a possessed body, he by his mere presence at once expelled.
The fourth is of Saint Paulinus and Therasia his wife, who by consent undertook a vow of perpetual continence. Of which see epistle 32 of Augustine to Paulinus.
The fifth is of Saint Maturianus and Maxima his wife, of which see Victor (Book 1 On the Vandal Persecution).
The sixth is in Gregory of Tours (On the Glory of the Confessors, chapter 32), where he reports that, when of two spouses who had always by consent lived chastely one had died, the other broke out into these words: “I give thee thanks, almighty Creator, that as thou didst deliver this maiden to me undefiled and pure from all contagion of pleasure, so I restore her to thee.” But she, even though she was dead, smiling said: “Be silent, man of God, for it is not necessary to speak forth our secret, no one asking.”
The seventh is of Saint Edward, king of England, of whom Surius (tome 1), from an ancient manuscript, reports that, since he had remained a virgin together with his wife, he shone with many miracles, and a hundred years after his death was found altogether whole, so much so that not even his beard, which had been long and gray, had fallen off.
The eighth is of Saint Henry I the Emperor, but the second king, and Cunegund his wife, who likewise by consent remained virgins and shone with miracles, so much so that Saint Cunegund trod on a glowing plowshare without injury in testimony of her virginity; of whom see Krantz (Book 3, chapter 32, of his Saxony).
The ninth is of Peter Orseolo, Doge of the Venetians, in Volaterranus (Book 4), who, living chastely with his wife by consent, was illustrious with miracles.
The tenth is of Saint Catherine of Sweden, who remained a virgin with her husband and shone with miracles. Volaterranus (Book 22).
The eleventh, of Boleslaus the Chaste, king of the Poles, of whom Clement Janicius the Pole sings thus: “The husband, a virgin, grew old with a virgin wife, devoted to thy pursuits, chaste Diana.”
The twelfth is of Alfonso II, king of Castile, of whom Volaterranus reports the like (Book 2), namely that he shone with miracles and perpetually contained himself from his wife.
It is proved lastly by reason. For the whole cause why it is not lawful for a husband to profess continence is because he has not power over his own body, and no one can give another’s property against the will of the owner. But this cause ceases when the vow is made by consent.
Add lastly that the only thing that can be objected on the contrary is that of Matthew 19: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. But this is easily solved; for marriage is not dissolved by a vow of continence. Whence Augustine (Book 1 On the Lord’s Sermon, chapter 25): “More blessed indeed,” he says, “are those marriages to be judged which, whether without children procreated, or even this earthly offspring being contemned, have been able to keep continence between themselves by equal consent; which is neither against that precept by which the Lord forbids a spouse to be dismissed, and that is kept which the Apostle says: It remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXVIL Licere conjugatis ex consensu vovere continentiam. De tertio, an liceat conjugatis ex consensu mutuo suscipere vota perpetuae continentiae. Negat hoc disertis verbis Petrus Martyr in commentar. I. Cor. VII. et probat ex verbis Pauli. Nolite fraudare invicem , nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi, et iterum revertimini in idipsum (3). Ubi Paulus solum ad tempus concedit vacationem ab usu conjugali. Idem docent Magdeburgenses Cent. IV cap. 10, coi. 1304, ubi accusant Malchum Monachum, tamquam matrimonii contemptorem, quia ex consensu perpetuo abstinuit ab uxore, quam duxerat in captivi¬ tate sua. Ubi obiter notanda est imperitia, vel nequitia ipsorum. Nam, ut Hieronymus scribit in vita Malchi, cogebatur Malchus a Barbaris ducere in uxorem mulierem quam¬ dam,. quae virum habebat ; cum igitur non posset sine peccato adulterii illam accipere, simulavit nuptias, ut mortem evaderet, et illam pro sorore habuit, et tamen Magde¬ burgenses illum reprehendunt, quod illi mulieri misceri noluerit. (1) Luc. IX, 59 et 60. — (2) Luc. XIV. 26. - (3) I. Cor. VII, 5. 608 LIBER II. At hic error impudentissimus est ; et probo primo ex ipso Pauli loco : nam Paulus postquam ait : Iterum revertimini in idipsum , subdit : Hoc autem dico secundum indulgen¬ tiam , non secundum imperium. Ubi illud : Se¬ cundum indulgentiam , non potest referri ad illud : Nolite fraudare invicem. Ibi enim lo¬ cum habet imperium, non indulgentia ; ne¬ que ad illud : Nisi ex consensu ad tempus , ut vacetis orationi. Nam abstinere ad tempus ex consensu propter orationem, non eget in¬ dulgentia. Id enim dicimur indulgere quod non libenter concedimus, sed quasi coacti. Paulus autem maxime cupiebat, ut contine¬ rent, cum dicat : Cupio omnes esse sicut rneip- sum; ergo illud : secundum indulgentiam, refertur ad illud : Iterum revertimini in idip¬ sum (l).Id enim Paulus non libenter conce¬ dit, sed indulget propter incontinentiam illo¬ rum; quomodo exponunt Hieronymus lib. I. contra Jovinianum. Augustinus lib. I contra Julianum, cap. 21. Ambrosius, Tbeodoretus, et alii in hunc locum. Ergo qui perpetuo continent ab uxore ex consensu, rem gratis¬ simam Paulo faciunt; tantum abest, ut ipse id prohibuerit. Secundo, probatur ex Patribus, Basilius in quaestionibus diffuse explicatis, quoest. 12: « Eos , inquit , qui in conjugio matrimoni, ad, talem vitam accedunt , percunctari opor¬ tet , an ex consensu hoc faciant etc. » Epi- phanius haeresi 59. et Hieronymus lib. con¬ tra Vigilantium dicunt , conjugatos non consuevisse sacris initiari, nisi continentiam perpetuam ab uxore promitterent. Quod idem statuit Concilium Arelatense II, can. 2. Idem quoque S. Hieronymus in epist. 14. ad Celantiam, arguit eam foeminam, quod sine consensu viri continentiam vovisset. Augustinus in epistola ad Ediciam, quae est 199 : « Quod, inquit, Deo pari consensu ambo voveratis , perseveranter usque in finem reddere ambo debuistis, A quo propo¬ sito si lapsus est ille, tu saltem contantissime persevera. » Et epist, 45. ad Arment, et Paulinam : « Ambo, inquit, Deo reddite, quod ambo vovistis. » Et infra : « Sit vester consensus oblatio ad supernum altare Crea¬ toris etc. » Et supra : « Nunc vero quia te¬ netur apud Deum sponsio tua, non te ad magnam justitiam invito, sed a magna ini¬ quitate deterreo. » Idem Augustinus in epist. 32. ad Paulinum, laudat eum, quod cum Therasia conjuge sua continentise votum susceperit. Ipse etiam S. Paulinus epist. 3. ad Aprum, mirifice eum laudat, quod cum uxore perpetuam continentiam Deo voverat. Gregorius lib. IX. epistola 39. ad Theotis- tam patriciam : « Si vero, inquit, utrisque conveniat continentem vitam ducere, hoc quis audeat accusare, quando certum est, quod omnipotens Deus, qui minora conces¬ sit, majora non prohibuit? » Theodoretus lib. IV. hist. cap. 13. laudat Pelagium Laodi¬ censem Episcopum, quod prima die nuptia¬ rum, cum ipse juvenis juvenem sponsam accepisset, ei persuaserit, ut simul continen¬ tiam voverent. Hilarius Arelatensis in epist. ad Augustinum, quae praeponitur libris de praedestinat : « Sciat, inquit, sanctitas tua, fratrem meum cum matrona sua ex consensu perfectam Deo continentiam devo¬ visse. Unde rogamus sanctitatem tuam, ut orare digneris, quo hoc ipsum in eis Domi¬ nus confirmare et custodire dignetur. » Probatur tertio , exemplis eorum, quos recte fecisse, quod ex consensu continentiam voverint, nullo modo negari potest, cum sancti fuerint, et miraculis claruerint. Primum ex¬ emplum estMariae et Joseph. Quod enim veri conjuges fuerint, patet ex Evangelio Matth. I. Joseph fili David , noli timere accipere Ma¬ riam conjugem tuam. Et : Joseph vir ejus, cum esset justus etc. (2) quod autem ex consensu perpetuo continuerint, certum est. Fuit enim error Helvidii a tota Ecclesia damnatus, quod B. Maria non fuerit semper virgo. Unde B. Augustinus de consensu Evangelis- tarum, lib. II. cap. I : « Hoc exemplo, in¬ quit. magnifice insinuatur fidelibus conju¬ gatis, etiam servata pari consensu continentia, posse permanere conjugium, non permixto corporis sexu, sed custodito mentis affectu. » Neque hoc exemplum adversarii negare pos¬ sunt. Nam Centuriatores Cent. I. lib.I. c. 10. coi. 366. dicunt, Josephum et Mariam ita verum conjugium contraxisse, ut voluerint, statuto tempore, more aliorum conjugqm liberos procreare. Quod etiam docet Martinus Buce¬ rus in c. I. Matth. Petrus Martyr in lib. con¬ tra Smitheeum de coelib. et Calvinus in I. cap. Luc. Id autem etsi blasphemum est, cum B. Mariam virginitate animi, quee sola virtus est, spoliare nitatur, tamen in eo no¬ bis deservit, quod hinc habemus non posse (1) I. Cor. VII, 5, 6 et 7. — (2) Math. I. 20 et 19. CAPUT XXXVII. 609 negare haereticos, quin veri conjuges fuerint Maria et Joseph. Porro iidem Centuriatores Centur. IV. cap. 5. coi. 405. dicunt errorem Helvidii esse, dicere B. Mariam aliquando cum Josepho viro suo rem habuisse : nec possunt dicere, B. Mariam, invito Josepho continuisse, nec e contrario, cum uterque sanctissimus fuerit. Secundum exemplum est Ammonis Mona¬ chi, qui cum uxore virgine ex consensu semper virgo permansit, teste Palladio in historia Lausiaca, cap. 8. et quod hoc Deo placuerit, ex eo manifeste colligitur, quod ejus animam S. Antonius in coelum ab An¬ gelis deferri cum summa gloria vidit, ut Athanasius refert in vita S. Antonii. Tertium exemplum est apud Cassianum Collat. XIV. cap. 7. ubi refert, Laicum quem¬ dam, quia cum uxore sua, ex consensu con¬ tinentiam virginalem colebat, adeo claruisse, ut Daemonem quemdam ferocissimum, quem S. Joannes Abbas expellere ab obsesso' cor¬ pore non potuerat, Ipse sola sua praesentia mox expulerit. Quartum est S. Paulini et Tharasiae uxo¬ ris, qui ex consensu votum perpetuae conti¬ nentiae susceperunt. De quo vide epist. 32. Augustini ad Paulinum. Quintum est S. Maturiani et Maximae uxo¬ ris, de quo vide Victorem lib. I. de persecu¬ tione Wandalica. Sextum est apud Gregorium Turonicum de gloria Confessorum, cap. 32. ubi refert, quod cum ex duobus conjugibus, qui semper ex consensu caste vixerant, altera mortua esset, alter in haec verba prorupit : «Gratias tibi ago, omnipotens Conditor, quod hanc puellam, sicut eam tradidisti impollutam, et ab omni voluptatis contagio puram, ita tibi restituo. Illa vero etiamsi mortua esset, su¬ bridens ait : Sile vir Dei, quia non est ne- cesse proloqui nostrum, nemine interrogante, secretum. » Septimum est S. Eduardi Angliae Regis, de quo Surius tom. I. ex antiquo manus- cripto refert, quod cum una cum uxore virgo permansisset, multis miraculis claruit, et post annos centum a morte, inventus est om¬ nino integer, adeo ut ne barba quidem illi, quae prolixa et cana fuerat, decidisset. Octavum est S. Henricf I Imperatoris, sed secundi Regis, et Kunegundis uxoris ejus, qui similiter ex consensu virgines perman¬ serunt, et miraculis claruerunt, adeo ut vo¬ merem candentem sine laesione calcaverit S. Kunegundis in testimonium virginitatis, de quibus vide Krantzium lib. III, cap. 32. suae Saxoniae. Nonum est Petri Urseoli Ducis Venetorum, apud Volaterranum lib. IV. qui cum uxore ex consensu caste vivens, miraculis illustris fuit. Decimum est S. Catharinae Suecae, quae cum viro suo virgo permansit, et miraculis claruit. Volaterranus lib. XXII. Undecimum Boleslai Pudici Polonorum Regis, de quo sic canit Clemens Janitius Polon. Conjuge consenuit cum virgine virgo maritus, Addictus studiis casta Diana tuis. Duodecimum est Alphonsi II, Regis Cas- tellae, de quo similia refert Volaterranus lib. II. quod nimirum miraculis claruerit, et ab uxore perpetuo se continuerit. Probatur ultimo ratione. Nam tota causa, cur non liceat viro profiteri continentiam, est, quia non habet potestatem corporis sui : et nemo potest rem alienam donare in¬ vito domino. At ista causa cessat, cum ex consensu fit votum. Adde postremo, quod solum contra objici potest illud Matth. XIX: Quod Deus conjunxit , homo non separet (1). Sed hoc facile solvitur; nam non solvitur conjugium per votum con- tinentiee. Unde Augustinus lib. I. de serm. Domini, cap. 25 : « Beatiora, inquit, sane conjugia judicanda sunt, quae sine filiis pro¬ creatis, sive etiam ista terrena prole con¬ tempta, continentiam inter se pari consensu servare potuerint; quod neque contra illud praeceptum sit, quo Dominus dimitti conju¬ gem vetat, et illud servatur quod ait Apos¬ tolus : Reliquum est, ut qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. » (1) Math. XIX, 6. Tom. II. 39 610 LIBER II.