cardinals of the papal court by the emperor, in which the question was
argued at considerable length and with much vehemence. After asserting
that from the records of the primitive church celibacy was not then
recognized as imperative, it proceeded to declare that if marriage ever
were permissible, the present carnal and licentious age rendered it
a necessity, for not one Catholic priest out of fifty could be found
who lived chastely. All were asserted to be notoriously dissolute,
scandalizing the people and inflicting great damage on the church.
The request was made not so much to satisfy the priests who desired
marriage as to meet the wishes of the laity, for many patrons of
livings refused presentation to all but married men. However preferable
a single life might be for the clergy, it therefore was thought better
to give it up than to leave open the door to the scandalous impurities
traceable to celibacy. Another weighty reason was alleged in the great
scarcity of priests, caused alone by the prohibition of marriage, in
proof of which it was urged that the Catholic schools of divinity were
all but empty and the episcopal function of ordination nearly disused,
while the Lutheran colleges were crowded by those who subsequently
obtained admission into the true church, where they worked incredible
mischief. The argument that the temporal possessions of the church
would be imperilled by sacerdotal matrimony was met by indignantly
denouncing the worldly wisdom which would protect such perishable
interests at the cost of innumerable souls sacrificed by the existing
condition of affairs. For these and other reasons it asked that
marriage should in future be allowed to all the priesthood, whether
already in orders or to be subsequently admitted: that married men of
good character and education should be ordained to supply the want of
pastors: that those who had contracted matrimony, in contravention of
the canons, should no longer be ejected, seeing that it was most absurd
to turn out men because they were married, while retaining notorious
concubinarians, and that if, with equal justice, both classes should be
dismissed, the people would be left almost, if not entirely, destitute
of spiritual guides. The paper concluded by asserting that if the
prayer be granted the clergy could be retained in the church and in the
faith, to the great benefit of their flocks, and that the scandal of
promiscuous licentiousness, which had involved the church in so much
disgrace, would be removed.[1378]
This vivid sketch of the condition of the church, with the evils which
were everywhere felt, and the remedies which suggested themselves to
clear-sighted and impartial men, was as ineffectual as other similar
efforts had been, for to all such arguments the council of Trent was
deaf. France, too, was more than willing to see celibacy abolished.
M. de Lanssac, the French ambassador, was ordered to place himself in
close relations with the representatives of the emperor, and to unite
with them in seeking the relaxation of all regulations which tended to
prevent the reunion of the Protestants, while the Gallican bishops were
commanded to show themselves reasonable and yielding in such matters;
and when Lanssac reported the demands of the emperor, comprehending
clerical marriage among other changes, Charles IX. assented to them in
terms of warm commendation.[1379] The Cardinal of Lorraine, moreover,
was instructed to urge some measures efficient to reform the licentious
lives of the ecclesiastics which spread corruption and debauchery among
the people, while permission for priestly marriage was recommended
as one of the means essential to recall the heretics to the bosom of
the true church.[1380] As a compromise, however, the French prelates
contented themselves with suggesting that none but elderly men should
be eligible to the priesthood, and that the testimony of the people in
favor of their moral character should be a prerequisite to ordination,
in hopes that by such means the necessary purification of the clergy at
least could be effected, while the sharpest measures should be adopted
to punish their licentiousness.[1381]
All this was useless, and, in fact, it is difficult to imagine how
any one could expect a reform of this nature from a body composed of
prelates all whom were obliged by Pius IV., in a decree of September
4th, 1560, to solemnly swear to a profession of faith containing a
specific declaration that the vows of chastity assumed on entering
into holy orders or monastic life were to be strictly observed and
enforced.[1382] The question thus was prejudged, and the council was
more likely to listen to Bartholomew a Martyribus, the Archbishop of
Bracara, who laid before them a paper containing the points which, in
his opinion, required reformation, among which were the revival of the
canons respecting concubinary bishops and priests, the prohibition of
sons succeeding to their father’s benefices, and the excommunication
of confessors who debauched their fair penitents[1383]—though when
the sturdy archbishop in a stormy debate declared that “illustrissimi
cardinales egent illustrissima reformatione,” he doubtless was held to
be a most uncourtly and impracticable reformer.
Despite all the urgency from without, it was not until the 8th of
February, 1563, after the council had been in session for more than
a year, that the theologians at last arranged for disputation the
articles on matrimony, and laid them before the council for discussion.
They were divided into five classes, of which the fourth was devoted
to the bearing of the subject on the clergy, consisting of two
propositions artfully drawn up to justify rejection, while preserving
the appearance of presenting the subject for deliberation.—That
matrimony was preferable to celibacy, and that God bestowed grace on
the married rather than on the single.—That the priests of the Western
Church could lawfully contract marriage, notwithstanding the canons;
that to deny this was to condemn matrimony, and that all were at
liberty to marry who did not feel themselves graced with the gift of
chastity.[1384]
The disputation on the various questions connected with matrimony
commenced the next day, and was continued at intervals for six months.
By August 7th all the canons on the subject were agreed to, except
the one on clandestine marriages, which gave the fathers much more
trouble than the more important decision respecting the retention of
celibacy.[1385] This latter, indeed, was a foregone conclusion. In the
minute account, transmitted from day to day by Archbishop Calini to
Cardinal Cornaro, in which all the details of internal discussion and
external intrigue attainable by a quick-witted member of the council
were reported, there is no allusion to the subject. No debates or
diversity of opinion are mentioned, no intimation that the matter
was regarded as open to a doubt, and even the appeals made by the
emperor and other potentates are passed over in silence, for the very
sufficient reason that the papal legates, who controlled all the
business of the council, refused to allow them to be read.[1386] In
their reply to the emperor’s remonstrances, indeed, they declared that
to have such a subject publicly broached in the council would create
a fearful scandal throughout Christendom, and Pius IV. approved of
their answer as the best that could be given.[1387] It is no wonder,
therefore, that in the correspondence of the nuncio Visconti the only
allusion to the matter is a simple reference, under date of March 22,
1563, to the demand previously made by the Duke of Bavaria.[1388]
In fact, when, on March 4th, the 5th and 6th articles were reached,
they were both unanimously pronounced heretical without any prolonged
debate. Doctor Juan de Ludegna pronounced a “disputation” on the
subject, the tone of which showed that the result was already decided,
and that the only disposition of the council was to vilify those who
desired the abrogation of celibacy.[1389] A discussion, however,
then arose as to the power of the pope to dispense the clergy, both
regular and secular, from the obligation of celibacy, and on this
point there was considerable diversity of opinion, occupying numerous
successive meetings in its settlement. The majority were in favor of
the papal power; and its exercise in the existing condition of the
church was even recommended by those who recognized the evils of the
system, but shrank from the responsibility of themselves introducing
the innovation. This was promptly rebuked by the conservatives,
according to Fra Paolo, with the remark that a prudent physician
would not attempt to cure one disease by bringing on a greater.[1390]
The legates, indeed, were blamed for allowing any discussion on so
dangerous a topic, since, if priests were permitted to marry, their
affections would be concentrated on family and country, in place of
the church; their subjection to the Holy See would be diminished, the
whole system of the hierarchy destroyed, and the pope himself would
eventually become a simple Bishop of Rome.[1391] If such consequences
as these were anticipated by the able men who represented the papal
interests, we may readily believe that Pallavicini speaks the sense of
the managers of the council when he remarks, concerning the princes
who exerted themselves in favor of sacerdotal marriage, that they
seemed to consider that the council had been convoked for the purpose
not of condemning but of contenting the heretics, whom they proposed
to convert by gratifying in place of repressing their contumacious
desires.[1392] If this be so, the Protestants were amply justified in
refusing to submit their cause to a body so different in its objects
from that free and unbiased œcumenic council to which they had so often
appealed from their persecutors.
Yet, notwithstanding that the policy of the church was thus immutable,
there seems to have been no hesitation in holding out fallacious
hopes to the expectant populations. When, in the spring of 1563, the
Bavarians, wearied with endless promises, rose in revolt and demanded
the use of the cup and priestly marriage, their duke was obliged to
make a promise to his Diet that if the required concessions were not
granted in June, by either the council or the pope, he would himself
give the desired permission. The threatened defection of this Catholic
stronghold caused such alarm that the legates at Trent forthwith
despatched Niccolo Ormanetto to the duke, to persuade him to withdraw
his promised reforms under a pledge that the council would take such
order as would satisfy the demands of his people.[1393]
These promises were soon forgotten, though it was not until the 11th
of November that the canons on matrimony were finally adopted and
formally published. Of these there are two relating to our subject.
The first one pronounced the dread anathema on all who should dare
to assert that clerks in holy orders, monks, or nuns could contract
marriage, or that such a marriage was valid, since God would not
deny the gift of chastity to those who rightly sought it, nor would
He expose us to temptation beyond our strength. The other similarly
anathematized all who dared to assert that the married state was more
worthy than virginity, or that it was not better to live in celibacy
than married.[1394]
Thus the church, in endeavoring to meet the novel exigencies caused
by the progress and enlightenment of mankind, in place of making the
concessions demanded by almost all beyond the narrow pale of the papal
court, devoted its energies to the miserable task of separating itself
as widely as possible from those who had left it.[1395] Its rulers
seemed to imagine that their only hope of safety lay in intrenching
themselves behind the exaggerations of those particular points of
policy which had afforded to their adversaries the fairest chances
of attack. The faithful throughout Germany might suffer from the
absence of the ministers of Christ, or might endure yet more from the
unrestrained passions of the wolves in sheep’s clothing let loose among
their wives and daughters, but the church militant in this conjuncture
dreaded even more to lose the aid of that monastic army which, in
theory at least, had no earthly object but the service of St. Peter;
it selfishly feared that the parish priest who might legitimately see
his fireside surrounded by a happy group of wife and children would
lose the devotion which a man without ties should entertain for the
prosperity and glory of the ecclesiastical establishment; and perhaps,
more than all, it saw with terror avaricious princes eager for the
secularization of that immense property to which it owed so large a
portion of the splendor which dazzled mankind, of the influence which
rendered it powerful, and of the luxury which made its high places
attractive to the ambitious and able men who controlled its destiny.
To put an end, therefore, at once and forever, to the mutterings of
dissatisfaction among those who compared the calm and virtuous life
of the Protestant pastors with the reckless self-indulgence of the
ministers of the old religion, it was resolved to place the canon
of celibacy in a position where none of the orthodox should dare
to attack it, and to accomplish this the simple rule of discipline
was elevated to the dignity of a point of belief. As the church had
already been forced, in defending the rule from the assaults of the
reformers, to attribute to it apostolic origin, we may not perhaps be
surprised that it was made a point of doctrine, but we cannot easily
appreciate the reasons that would justify the anathema launched against
all who regarded the marriage of those in holy orders as binding. The
dissolution of such marriages, as we have seen, was not suggested
until the middle of the twelfth century, and the decision of the
council thus condemned as heretics the whole body of the church during
three-quarters of its previous existence.
Although the doctrinal canon threw the responsibility of priestly
unchastity upon God, yet as the council had so peremptorily refused
to adopt the remedy urged by the princes of the empire, it did
not hesitate to employ human means to remove, if possible, the
scandals which God had permitted to afflict the church. The decree
of reformation, published in December, 1563, contained provisions
intended to curb the vice which the Tridentine fathers, with all
their reliance on Divine power, well knew to be ineradicable. These
provisions, however, were little more than a repetition of what we have
seen enacted in every century since Siricius. Any ecclesiastic guilty
of keeping a concubine, or woman liable to suspicion, was admonished;
disregarding this first warning, he was deprived of one-third of his
revenue; if still contumacious, suspension from functions and benefice
followed; and a persistence in guilt was then visited with irrevocable
deprivation. No appeal from a sentence could gain exemption; these
cases were removed from the jurisdiction of inferior officials and
confided to the bishops, who were enjoined to be prompt and severe
in their decisions; while guilty bishops were liable to suspension
by their provincial synods, and, if irreclaimable, were sent to Rome
for punishment. The illegitimate children of priests were pronounced
incapable of preferment. Those already in orders, if employed in
their fathers’ parishes, were required, under pain of deprivation, to
exchange their positions within three months for preferment elsewhere,
and any provision made by a clerical parent for the benefit of his
children was pronounced to be a fraud.[1396]
Such were the regulations which this great general council of the
Catholic church considered sufficient to relieve the establishment
of the curse which had hung around it for a thousand years. There is
nothing in them that had not been tried a hundred times before, with
what success the foregoing pages may attest. In some respects, indeed,
they were not as prompt and efficacious as the decrees which Charles
V. and his bishops had promulgated a few years previous, and which had
proved so lamentably inefficient. There were not wanting enlightened
members of the council who bitterly felt the inefficiency of what they
were doing, but the undignified haste of the closing sessions, and the
all-powerful opposition of Rome, rendered them unable to accomplish
more. As the Bishop of Astorga said in a letter to Granvelle—“They
are not as we would have wished, to correct the abuses and scandals
of the church, which cause so many to fall into error, but we have to
do what we are permitted to do, not what we would wish to do.”[1397]
Heretics, indeed, who asserted that there was in reality no intention
of suppressing concubinage, could point in justification to the curious
fact that, while previous councils had provided heavy penalties against
the concubines of priests, that of Trent passed them over as though
they were guiltless.
* * * * *
Strange as it may seem, the anathema so decidedly enunciated by the
council did not deter Albert of Bavaria and the Emperor Ferdinand from
continuing their efforts to procure for their subjects the benefit of
a relaxation of the canon. The decision of a majority of the doctors
of the council favoring the papal power of dispensation suggested the
mode of obtaining it. Although the form of the canons had been adopted
on the 7th of August, and the previous proceedings left no doubt as to
their authoritative promulgation in full session, yet, on the 26th of
August, the nuncio Visconti writes that he had heard from his colleague
Delfino, then in Vienna, that the three ecclesiastical electors
(Mainz, Trèves, and Cologne), the Archbishop of Salzburg and the Duke
of Bavaria had held a conference, in which it was resolved to unite
with the emperor in an appeal for Bulls permitting the marriage of the
clergy and the use of the cup by the laity.[1398] Early in September
the emperor wrote to his ambassadors, stating that he had called
together at Vienna the deputies of the electors and princes of the
empire, where, after mature deliberation, it had been determined to ask
the cup and clerical marriage of the pope and not of the council; that
a protocol had already been drawn up, which accompanied the despatch,
but as it was a matter not yet fully settled, he desired it to be
communicated to no one but the Count de Luna, the ambassador of Philip
II.[1399]
It was not, however, until February, 1564, after the conclusion of
the council, which brought its weary labors to an end on the 4th of
December, 1563, that Ferdinand and Albert presented their requests
to Pius IV. The two papers were essentially the same. In the name
of the princes of the empire, after demanding the communion in both
elements for the laity, they proceeded to argue earnestly for the
other concession. Perhaps the decided opposition of the council to
the principle of sacerdotal marriage had produced an influence upon
them; perhaps they had found themselves obliged to yield some of
their own views in order to secure the coöperation of the Teutonic
hierarchy; be this as it may, their demands were greatly abated. In
place of asking, as before, the privilege for the clergy at large,
they now reduced their entreaties to the simple request of allowing
such Catholic priests as had entered into matrimony, to retain their
wives and perform their functions, which they assured the pope was
absolutely essential to the preservation of the fragments of the
church still doing battle with the prevailing heresies throughout
Germany.[1400] They likewise asked that in such places as could not
obtain a sufficiency of pastors, the bishops should be empowered to
ordain married laymen of approved piety, learning, and fitness.
These appeals were successful as far as communion in both elements
was concerned, for, on April 16th, Pius granted that concession
under certain conditions. The subject of priestly marriage, however,
he still postponed, and on June 17th we find Ferdinand writing to
Cardinal Morone, to express his thanks for what he had obtained, and
to urge the other subject on the consideration of the papal court. He
had instructed his ambassador, he said, to press it earnestly, and he
besought the Cardinal to aid in so pious and advantageous a work.[1401]
Nor was this the only means which Ferdinand, then verging rapidly
to the grave, adopted to attain the object of his unwearied pursuit.
George Wicelius had thrown aside the monastic gown in 1531, to embrace
the errors of Lutheranism, but had returned to the old religion. His
learning and piety earned for him a deserved reputation, and elevated
him to the position of imperial councillor, where his talents were
devoted to the endless task of bringing about a reconciliation between
the churches. George Cassander, equally eminent, had never incurred
the imputation of apostasy, but had labored with tireless industry
to convert his erring brethren from heresy to the true faith. Men
like these might perhaps be heard when the voice of princes and
prelates, actuated by motives of personal advantage, met a deaf ear;
and Ferdinand applied to them for disquisitions on the subject.[1402]
Before their labors were concluded the monarch was dead (July 25,
1564), but his son Maximilian II. inherited his father’s ideas, and
gladly made use of the opinions which the learned Catholic doctors had
no hesitation in expressing.
Both took strong ground against celibacy. Cassander, while defending
the church for originally introducing the rule, deplored the terrible
and abominable scandals which its untimely enforcement caused
throughout the church, and he urged that the reasons which had led
to its introduction not only existed no longer, but had even become
arguments for its abrogation, since now the choice lay only between
married priests and concubinarians. He declared it to be the source
of numerous evils, chief among which was promiscuous and unbridled
licentiousness, and he added that the already scanty ranks of the
priesthood were deprived of the accessions which were so necessary,
since men of a religious turn of mind were prevented from taking
orders by the universal wickedness which prevailed under the excuse of
celibacy, while pious parents kept their sons from entering the church
for fear of debauching their morals. On the other hand, those who
sought a life of ease and license were attracted to the holy calling
which they disgraced. He was even willing to permit marriage in orders,
arguing that it was only a question of canon law, in which faith and
doctrine were not involved. As regards the monastic orders, while
fully appreciating the principles upon which the system was founded,
he warmly deplored the corruption engendered by wealth and luxury.
Though the convents contained many pious and holy men, still for the
most part religion was forgotten in the observance of ceremonies that
had lost their significance, and nothing could be more licentious and
profane than the life led in many of the monasteries.[1403] Wicelius
was equally severe in his denunciations of the clerical licentiousness
attributable to the rule of celibacy, and concluded his tract by
attacking the supineness, blindness, and perversity of the prelates who
suffered such foulness to exist everywhere among the priesthood, in
contempt of Christ, and to the burdening of their consciences.[1404]