In modern dialogue between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, it’s often assumed that the Latin discipline of clerical celibacy is a late medieval novelty. Often impressed by the “ancient ethos” of Eastern Christianity’s married priesthood, interlocutors on both sides tend to look at the Roman Church’s unmarried priesthood as something foreign to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the first millennium. However, the reality is much more complicated than that.
It should be stated from the outset that, contrary to the opinion of some Orthodox apologists, clerical celibacy constitutes not a dogmatic difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but only a disciplinary one. This is true not only because celibacy is, in fact, a discipline that could change (though ought not to, and likely never will), but more fundamentally because Catholics and Orthodox are in full agreement about the theology that underlies this discipline.
In the fifth century, one of the greatest fathers of the Eastern Church, St. John Chrysostom (347-407), beautifully and succinctly laid out the theological rationale behind clerical celibacy. Commenting on why St. Paul said that bishops should be “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2, Chrysostom writes,
If he who is married cares for the things of the world (1 Cor. 7:33) and a bishop ought not to care for the things of the world (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-3), why does [Paul] say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none (1 Cor. 7:29). For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.
According to Chrysostom, the essential message of 1 Timothy 3:2-3 is that clerics shouldn’t be concerned about “the things of the world.” This is how he interprets Paul saying that clerics should be “above reproach,” “sober-minded,” and “self-controlled.” However, Chrysostom notes that Paul says elsewhere that married men, unlike celibate men, are concerned about the things of the world. Paul even hints that marriage is primarily for those who have a “lack of self-control” (1 Cor 7:5, 8). Therefore, the saint reasons that it would be fitting for pastors to be either celibate (“remain free from a wife”) or continent—i.e., not sexually active—if they’re already married (“he that has a wife may be as though he had none”). These are the theological principles that led the Eastern churches to mandate celibacy for their bishops and the Latin Catholic Church to mandate celibacy for its bishops and priests.
Indeed, the Church has always interpreted Paul’s requirement for a cleric to be “the husband of one wife” to mean that there’s an intimate connection between sexual continence or celibacy and the pastoral ministry. This is because the Church Fathers read 1 Timothy 3:2 in light of 1 Timothy 5:9: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, being the wife of one husband.”
In this passage, Paul is speaking about the qualifications a woman must have to be enrolled in the order of widows, a proto-monastic group of women that existed in the early Church. His first requirement is that she be at least sixty years old, which he explains is because “the passions” of younger widows “draw them away from Christ” if they don’t remarry (1 Tim. 5:11). This isn’t intended to be a definitive ban on young women living lives of celibacy, otherwise Paul would be contradicting his own counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:8, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.” Rather, Paul’s assumption seems to be that, generally, young widows have already proven themselves unfit for the celibate life (which is why they got married in the first place), and so because “they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9).
In order to avoid scandal, it seems Paul wanted to admit women to the order of widows only if there was a reasonable expectation that they would remain faithfully celibate. This sheds light on Paul’s second requirement: that the woman be “the wife of one husband.” This obviously can’t refer to a widow having been monogamous, as polyandry was unheard of in the Greco-Roman world. Instead, being “the wife of one husband” means that the woman never remarried after her husband’s death, which, once again, would demonstrate her ability to handle a life of continence or celibacy in the order of widows.
According to the early Church Fathers, this interpretation of a widow being “the wife of one husband” applies equally to Paul’s requirement that a cleric be “the husband of one wife.” In other words, rather than monogamous marriage being Paul’s requirement for the pastoral ministry, the earliest Christians agreed that what’s actually required is that the man never remarried after his wife’s death, which demonstrates his ability to handle sexual continence.
This was the interpretation given by Origen of Alexandria (185-253), who, in the third century, wrote that the “qualification” for clerics laid down by Paul was “a man who has been once married rather than he who has twice entered the married state” (Contra Celsum, III, 48). Tertullian of Carthage (160-240) likewise affirmed in the same century that the apostle “suffers not men twice married to preside over a Church,” since second marriages are “obstructive to holiness” (Ad Uxorem, I, VII). In the fourth century, St. Jerome (342-420) attests that “[Paul] does not say, Let a bishop be chosen who marries one wife and begets children, but who marries one wife,” even going on to declare, “You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children” (Against Jovinianus, 1:34). St. Ambrose of Milan (339-397) further explains that Paul by no means permitted a cleric “to beget children in the priesthood; for [Paul] speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again” (Epistle 63, 63).
For the Church Fathers, rather than positively prescribing a married priesthood, 1 Timothy 3:2 actually demonstrates the intimate connection between continence or celibacy and the pastoral ministry. The passage reveals that Christian ministers ought not to be out getting married and having children, as is so common among Protestant sects today. Instead, like his monastic counterparts, a Christian minister is expected to be wholly devoted to “the things of the Lord” and “how to please the Lord” rather than “the things of the world” and “how to please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:32-33). Thus, if we take the Fathers as authoritative interpreters of Scripture, we must conclude that, although the apostles may not have required clerical celibacy as the Church does today, they did require a kind of clerical continence. Since the days of the apostles, a cleric, whether married or not, was expected to refrain from sexual activity during his pastorate.
Indeed, the history of “clerical continence” in the early Church is documented well by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J. in his book The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. He points out how, although it’s true that the ancient Church was full of married priests, bishops, and even popes, it was generally the case that these married clerics were forbidden from having sexual relations with their wives. For example, Pope St. Leo the Great (400-461), whose feast the Orthodox Church celebrates on February 18, not only believed that bishops, priests, and deacons are forbidden from marital relations, but even that “sub-deacons are not allowed carnal marriage” (see also p. 260).
The rationale behind this was further explained by Pope St. Innocent I (344-417) in his Letter to Exupery of Toulouse. Innocent observes that, under the old covenant, priests abstained from marital relations during their time of priestly service so as to avoid ritual impurity (cf. Lev 15:16-18), and they only engaged in relations outside of their time as priests to ensure their genealogical continuation. “How much more so must they,” writes St. Innocent, “observe chastity, these priests and deacons whose priesthood or ministry is not hereditary, and for whom there is not one day without their having to offer the divine sacrifice or administer baptism” (see p. 257). In other words, Ss. Innocent and Leo believed that the new covenant intensified the old covenant’s demand for priestly purity.
Nor was it just the Romans who thought this way in the early Church:
- Around 305, the first ever Spanish synod, the Council of Elvira, decreed that it is “good absolutely to forbid the bishops, priests, and the deacons, i.e. all the clerics in the service of ministry, to have relations with their wives and procreate children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honor of the clergy” (canon 33; see p. 159).
- In 314, the bishops of Gaul declared at the first Council of Arles, “We exhort our brothers to make sure that priests and deacons have no relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision will be deposed from the honor of the clergy.” (canon 29; see p. 161).
- In 390, the Council of Carthage ruled that “those who are at the service of the divine sacraments, had to observe perfect continence so as to obtain in all simplicity what they asked from God: what the apostles taught, and what antiquity itself observed, we also have to keep” (canon 3; see p. 267).
Like the Romans, it seems the Spanish, Gauls, and Carthaginians of the fourth century believed that mandatory clerical continence was a discipline that originates with the apostles and therefore ought to be observed.
When it comes to the history of clerical continence in the East, things become a bit more interesting. One of the first canonical legislations that was both authoritative in the East and (arguably) spoke to the issue of clerical continence was issued by the Council of Nicaea. In its third canon, the Nicene fathers declared that a cleric is forbidden from having “a subintroducta dwell with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.” The precise meaning of this canon is disputed by scholars, and I would recommend reading Fr. Cochini’s full treatment of this issue in chapter X of his book. However, what I will point out is that the most straightforward reading of this law is that, for those promulgating it, it would have been scandalous for the faithful to believe a cleric was sexually active. Why else would the canon say that the only woman a cleric is permitted to live with (who he’s not related to) is one who’s “beyond all suspicion,” and not simply a wife? Why would the canon, in fact, be ambiguous about whether or not a cleric is permitted to live with his wife at all, if it were simply the most normal thing in the world for a cleric to be sexually active with his wife?
Indeed, not long before the Council of Nicaea, the renowned Eastern historian Eusebius of Caesarea commented on 1 Timothy 3:2 in the following way: “Yet it is fitting that those in the priesthood and occupied in the service of God, should abstain after ordination from the intercourse of marriage” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1, 9). This is strong evidence that clerical continence was a known and (at least somewhat) accepted discipline in the pre-Nicene East, making it more likely that Nicaea would have codified this practice into law.
It’s also telling that, just over a century after the Council of Nicaea, the historian Socrates Scholasticus attests to a story in the East concerning St. Paphnutius of Thebes, wherein he’s recorded as preventing the Nicene fathers from mandating continence for married clerics (Church History, 1, 11). To me, this suggests that the Eastern Church was well aware that Nicaea’s third canon was frequently interpreted as mandating clerical continence, but perhaps due to pressure from the newly created Nestorian sect that had a more liberal interpretation of that canon, some orthodox churchmen in the East decided to fabricate this story to lend credibility to relaxing the discipline of continence. Though this is just speculation on my part.
Regardless, the Eastern Church wouldn’t explicitly address this issue again until the seventh century Council in Trullo. At this point in its history, the Eastern Church was surrounded by a wide array of heretical sects that all permitted their clerics to be sexually active with their wives (e.g. Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites). It’s therefore not too surprising that Trullo wanted to minimize the temptation to apostatize for orthodox clerics by officially watering down the East’s discipline of clerical continence.
There are several clear indications that the Council of Trullo was, in fact, innovating when it issued its thirteenth canon allowing for clerical incontinence. First, Canon 13 of Trullo appeals to the “Apostolic Canons,” presumably Apostolic Canon 6, in defense of its permission of clerical incontinence. However, the actual text of the canon being referenced doesn’t prove what Trullo claims:
Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretense of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.
What this is teaching is that the bond of matrimony, expressed in cohabitation, ought not to be thought of as severed on account of ordination. This does seem to differ from the teaching of Nicaea (though not completely), but there’s no reason to think it doesn’t share the same assumption as Nicaea, viz. a perfectly continent priesthood. Indeed, Church Fathers like Pope St. Leo the Great and St. Epiphanius of Salamis would gladly affirm Apostolic Canon 6, while simultaneously upholding the absolute ban on sexual activity among clerics. (See St. Leo’s Letter to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne and St. Epiphanius’s Panarion, Heresy 59.)
According to these ancient witnesses, not “putting your wife away” doesn’t entail that it’s permitted to have sex with her, unlike what Trullo claims. So the Roman practice did not violate Apostolic Canon 6, and Trullo isn’t actually being consistent with it. This is further evident by the fact that that Apostolic Canon 6 states that bishops too are not to put away their wives, even though Canon 12 of Trullo actually mandates just this, showing that Trullo violates its own (already incorrect) interpretation of Apostolic Canon 6.
Trullo then appeals to “they who assembled at Carthage,” referring to the collection of North African canons from the Councils of Carthage 390, 401, and 419 (Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Afticanae). Trullo claims that these canons recommend only temporary continence for clerics when they’re ministering the sacraments. However, that’s just not what these canons actually teach.
Unlike how Trullo interprets them, the Carthaginian canons say absolutely nothing about temporary periods of continence. Instead, it’s affirmed that “perfect continence” must be maintained among bishops, priests, and deacons. All married clerics are to live in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:29, “as if they did not have any [wife].” That bishops are listed among those who have to observe perfect continence is significant because, once again, Trullo itself teaches that bishops must be perfectly continent, unlike priests and deacons.
So any way you slice it, Trullo is innovating. That is, Trullo is deviating from the historic practice of the Church of both East and West, which, going back to Nicaea, was to mandate perfect continence amongst all clerics. This is why Trullo is contradicting the very canonical precedents it cites.
To be sure, I’m not saying that the Council of Trullo’s decision to do this was illegitimate or wrong, or that we should start enforcing mandatory continence or celibacy on the Eastern churches. No, I’m simply saying that Trullo and the East innovated on this point, and relaxed ancient canonical disciplines for the sake of adapting to a new cultural situation.
Indeed, its reasoning for doing so isn’t too far off. The basis of clerical continence is that sexual activity is an imperfection, and clerics shouldn’t have any imperfections as they celebrate the mysteries. Thus, it is a legitimate expression of this principle (though a less perfect one) to have clerics only be temporarily continent, rather than perfectly. Contrary to Dn. Dragani’s claim in his article, “Is Clerical Celibacy an Apostolic Tradition?,” the “modern Magisterium” has not abandoned this line of reasoning. Neither Pope St. Paul VI nor Pope St. John Paul II condemn this traditional view c. Even the Eastern Orthodox churches still uphold this teaching on paper, just read Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s canonical commentaries.
So where does all of this leave us with respect to the Latin discipline of clerical celibacy? For starters, what’s written above demonstrates that this discipline is not contrary to divine revelation. Far from contradicting God’s word, requiring all priests and bishops to be celibate is perfectly harmonious with the teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Tradition of both East and West. Secondly, although even the Latin Church recognizes that priestly celibacy is a discipline that could, in theory, change, she nonetheless affirms that the indissoluble link between sexual continence and the pastoral ministry comes from the apostles. Thus, although the Church’s disciplinary expressions of this apostolic tradition may vary, they still must express it in some way. For the Latin Church, this means celibacy for priests and bishops, and conditional celibacy for deacons (no remarriage after the death of a deacon’s wife). For the Eastern churches, this means celibacy for bishops and conditional celibacy (and conditional continence) for priests and deacons.
The Church certainly does have the authority to make disciplinary changes, even if those disciplines originate with the apostles themselves (as clerical continence does). But it must always be remembered that changeable disciplines exist to express the unchangeable Faith. When it comes to celibacy or continence, the unchangeable Faith teaches that those who embrace this way of life are important witnesses to the reality of God’s kingdom on earth. The Faith also teaches that, because of this, the Church’s ministers ought to reflect the “angelic life” in at least some way. This is why the Catholic Church celebrates the discipline of clerical celibacy, has enthusiastically defended it throughout the ages, and (most likely) always will.