which was probably held in 1577, deplored the insane audacity
displayed by ecclesiastics in marrying, and threatened them with the
Tridentine anathema.[1438] This warning appears to have been completely
disregarded, for the Bishop of Breslau, a suffragan of the metropolis
of Gnesen, in opening his diocesan synod in 1580, still complained
that many of his clergy were guilty of this perversity, and he was at
some pains to disavow any complicity with it, or any connivance at the
licentiousness which was prevalent among the unmarried.[1439] In 1591
the synod of Olmutz asserted that many clerks in holy orders contracted
pretended marriages, and were not ashamed of the families growing up
publicly around them, while others indulged in scandalous concubinage
with women, whom they styled house-keepers or cooks. In endeavoring
to put an end to this state of affairs, the synod manifested its
estimation of the morals of the priesthood by renewing the hideous
suggestions which we have seen in the tenth and twelfth centuries, for
pastors were allowed to have near them the female relatives authorized
by the Nicene canons, but, in view of the assaults of the tempter,
were prudently advised not to let them reside in their houses.[1440]
The disregard of the Tridentine canon continued, and as late as 1628,
at the synod of Osnabruck, the orator who opened the proceedings
inveighed in the vilest terms against the female companions of the
clergy, who not only occupied the position of wives, but were even
dignified with the title.[1441]
Even in Spain, under Philip II., the new ideas had penetrated,
and priestly marriages became sufficiently numerous to render it
necessary for the Inquisition to add to its “Edict of Denunciations,”
which was read during Lent in every church, a command to reveal to
the authorities any case of marriage on the part of monks or of
ecclesiastics in holy orders.[1442]
* * * * *
We have seen above that the highest authorities in the church did not
hesitate openly to attribute the origin and success of the Reformation
to the scandalous corruption of the ecclesiastical body. The council
of Trent had not resulted in removing the scandal, and clear-sighted
prelates were not wanting who proclaimed that the same causes continued
to operate and to produce the same effect. Anthony, Archbishop of
Prague, in his synod of 1565, took occasion to declare that the
misfortunes of the church were attributable to the dissoluteness of the
clergy, and that the extirpation of heresy could best be effected by
reforming the depraved morals and filthy lives of ecclesiastics.[1443]
At the council of Salzburg, in 1569, Christopher Spandel, in the
closing address, asked the assembled prelates what title was more
contemptible or more odious than that of priest in consequence of the
license in which the clergy as a body indulged.[1444] The clergy of
France, assembled at Melun in July, 1579, when addressing Henry III.
with a request for the publication of the council of Trent, assured
him that the heresy which afflicted Christendom was caused by the
corruption of the church, and that it could only be eradicated by a
thorough reformation.[1445] Though the Inquisition took care that Spain
should not be much troubled by heretics, yet the synod of Orihuella,
in 1600, declared that the concubinage practised by ecclesiastics
was the principal source of popular animosity and complaint against
them.[1446] These complaints were general. In 1599, Cuyck, Bishop of
Ruremonde, published a work aimed at concubinary priests, in which he
assured them that they and their predecessors were the cause of the
ruin and devastation of the Netherlands for the last thirty years,
for their vices had led to the contempt felt for the clergy, and thus
to the heresy which had caused the civil wars. Those who kept their
vows he asserts to be as rare as the grapes that can be gleaned after
the vintage or the olives left after gathering the crop; but the only
remedy he can suggest is increased vigilance and severity on the part
of the prelates.[1447] Evidently, the Tridentine canons had thus far
been a failure. In 1609, at the synod of Constance, the Rev. Dr.
Hamerer, in an official oration to the assembled prelates, deplored
the continued spread of heresy, which he boldly told them was caused
by the perpetually increasing immorality that pervaded all classes of
the priesthood. The Reformation had begun, had derived its strength,
and was still prospering through their weakness, which rendered them
odious to the people, and made the Catholic religion a by-word and a
shame.[1448] In 1610, the Bishop of Antwerp, in a synodal address,
agreed with Bishop Cuyck in attributing the evils which had so
grievously afflicted the church of Flanders for nearly half a century,
to the same cause, and, while recounting the various successive efforts
at internal reform made since the council of Trent, he pronounced each
one to have been a failure in consequence of the incurable obstinacy
of the clergy.[1449] Damhouder, a celebrated jurisconsult of Flanders,
whose unquestioned piety and orthodoxy gained for him the confidence of
Charles V. and Philip II., does not hesitate to speak of the clergy of
his time as men who rarely lived up to their professions, and who as a
general rule were scoundrels distinguished for their indulgence in all
manner of evil.[1450] In a similar mood the Bishop of Bois-le-Duc, in
opening his synod of 1612, declared that the scandalous lives of the
ecclesiastics were a source of corruption to the laity and a direct
encouragement of heresy.[1451] So, in 1625, the synod of Osnabruck
gave as its reason for endeavoring to enforce the Tridentine canons
that the true religion was despised on account of the depraved morals
of its ministers, whose crimes were a sufficient explanation of the
stubbornness of the heretics. So little concealment of their frailty
was thought necessary that they openly enriched their children from the
patrimony of the church, and decked their concubines with ornaments
and vestments taken from the holy images, even as we have seen was the
custom among the Anglo-Saxons of the tenth century.[1452]
The Thirty Years’ War proved a more effectual bar to the spread of
heresy than these fruitless efforts to cure the incurable malady of
the church. After the Peace of Westphalia, there was no further need
to appeal to the dread of proselyting Lutheranism as a stimulus to
virtue, but still the same process of reasoning appears in exhortations
to regain the forfeited respect of the community. Thus, in 1652, the
Bishop of Munster expressed his horror at the obstinacy with which, in
spite of fines, edicts, and canons, his clergy persisted in retaining
their concubines, and he declared that the discordance between the
professions and the practice of the priesthood rendered them a stench
in the nostrils of the people and destroyed the authority of religion
itself;[1453] and in 1662 the synod of Cologne deplored that the
notorious want of respect felt for the ministers of Christ was the
direct result of their own immorality.[1454] A doctrine even sprang
up to the effect that it was not requisite to force a concubinarian
to eject his companion if she was useful to him in his housekeeping
or if it would be difficult for him to obtain another servant; and
this became sufficiently formidable to entitle it to a place among the
errors of belief formally condemned by the Roman Inquisition in its
decree of March, 1666.[1455]
* * * * *
In France the influence of the Tridentine canons had been equally
unsatisfactory. At a royal council held in 1560, which resolved upon
the assembly of the States at Orleans, Charles de Marillac, Bishop of
Vienne, declared that ecclesiastical discipline was almost obsolete,
and that no previous time had seen scandals so frequent or the life of
the clergy so reprehensible.[1456] From the proceedings of the Huguenot
Synod of Poitiers, in 1560, it is evident that priests not infrequently
secretly married their concubines, and, when the woman was a Calvinist,
her equivocal position became a matter of grave consideration with
her church.[1457] The only result of the Colloquy of Poissy, in 1561,
was that Catherine de Medicis prevailed upon the bishops to present
a request to the king asking him to use his influence with the pope
to concede the marriage of priests and the use of the cup by the
laity. Means were found, as we have seen, to prevent the former of
these demands from being made, while the latter, when presented, was
peremptorily refused.[1458] In the existing condition of affairs, the
council of Trent could not reasonably be expected to effect much, for,
as the orthodox Claude d’Espence informs us, the French prelates, like
the Germans, were in the habit of collecting the “cullagium” from all
their priests and informing those who did not keep concubines that they
might do so if they liked, but must pay the license-money, whether or
no.[1459] In 1564, the Cardinal of Lorraine, not long after his return
from the council, held a provincial synod at Rheims, where he contented
himself with declaring that the ancient canons enjoining chastity
should be enforced.[1460] The next year, 1565, a synod held at Cambray
reduced the penalties to a minimum, and afforded every opportunity for
purchasing immunity, by enacting that those who consorted with loose
women, and who remained obdurate to warnings and reprehension, should
be punished at the pleasure of the officials.[1461] In two years more
the same council was fain to ask the aid of the secular arm to remove
the concubines of its clergy[1462]—a course again suggested as late as
1631.[1463] The terms in which Claude, Bishop of Evreux, at his synod
of 1576, announced his intention of taking steps to eject those who
for the future should persist in their immorality show not only that
such measures were even yet an innovation, but also indicate little
probability of their being successful.[1464] The council of Rheims, in
1583, while proclaiming that the Tridentine canons shall be enforced on
all concubinary priests, manifests a reasonable doubt as to the amount
of respect which they will receive in threatening that those who are
contumacious shall be subdued by the secular arm.[1465] The council of
Tours, in the same year, deplores that the whole ecclesiastical body is
regarded with aversion by the good and pious on account of the scandals
perpetrated by a portion of them. To cure this evil, the residence of
suspected women, even when connected by blood, is forbidden, as well
as of the children acknowledged to be sprung from such unions, and
various penalties are denounced against offenders.[1466] The council of
Avignon, in 1594, declares that the numerous decrees relative to the
morals and manners of the clergy are either forgotten or neglected, and
then proceeds to forbid the residence of suspected women.[1467] That of
Bordeaux, in 1624, earnestly warns the clergy of the province not to
allow their sisters and nieces to live in their houses, and especially
not to sleep in the same room with them;[1468] and various other synods
held during the period repeated the well-known regulations on the
subject, which are only of interest as showing how little they were
respected.[1469]
No one, in fact, who is familiar with the popular literature of France
during that period can avoid the conviction that the ecclesiastical
body was hopelessly infected with the corruption which, emanating from
the foulest court in Christendom, spread its contagion throughout the
land. If Rabelais and Bonaventure des Periers reflect the depravity
which was universal under Francis I., Brantôme, Beroalde de Verville
and Noël du Fail continue the record of infamy under Catherine de
Medicis and her children.[1470] The genealogy of sin is carried on by
Tallemant des Réaux, Bussy-Rabutin, and the crowd of memoir writers
who flourished in the Augustan age of French literature. Into these
common sewers of iniquity it is not worth our while to penetrate; but,
when the high places in the hierarchy were filled with men to whom the
very name of virtue was a jest, we need not hesitate to conclude that
the humbler members of the church were equally regardless of their
obligations to God and man.
* * * * *
It is evident from all this that the standard of ecclesiastical morals
had not been raised by the efforts of the Tridentine fathers, and
yet a study of the records of church discipline shows that with the
increasing decency and refinement of society during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries the open and cynical manifestations of license
among the clergy became gradually rarer. It may well be doubted,
nevertheless, whether their lives were in reality much purer. A few
spasmodic efforts were made to enforce the Nicene canon, prohibiting
the residence of women, but they were utterly fruitless, and were so
recognized by all parties; and the energies of the arch-priests and
bishops were directed to regulating the character of the handmaidens,
who were admitted to be a necessary evil. The devices employed for
this purpose were varied, and repeated with a frequency which shows
their insufficiency; and it would be scarce worth our while to do more
than indicate some sources of reference for the curious student who
may wish to follow up the reiteration which we have traced already
through so many successive centuries.[1471] Among them, however, one
new feature shows itself, which indicates the growing respect paid to
the appearance of decency—complaints that concubines are kept under the
guise of sisters and nieces.
That the monastic orders had profited more than the secular clergy by
the Tridentine reformation may well be doubted. Laurent de Peyrinnis,
one of the heads of the Order of Minims, in 1668, issued a code of
regulations in which he showed that scandal was more dreaded than
sin when he promulgated an exemption from excommunication in favor
of those brethren who, when about to yield to the temptations of
the flesh, or to commit theft, prudently laid aside the monastic
habit.[1472] Another celebrated jurist of the same Order bears
testimony to the demoralization of his brethren when he declares that
if the severe punishments provided for unchastity by the statutes were
enforced they would result in the destruction of all the religious
congregations.[1473]
* * * * *
In the New World the licentiousness of the priesthood, as might be
expected, began to vex the infant church as soon as it was organized
among the heathen. The earliest synods and councils which were held
contain the customary denunciations of concubinage and prohibitions
for ecclesiastics to keep their children in their houses, to celebrate
their baptisms and nuptials, and to be assisted by them in the ministry
of the altar. Many, as we are informed by the first council of Mexico,
held in 1555, brought with them from Spain their concubines under the
guise of relatives.[1474] For the most part, however, they formed
connections with the natives.
In fact, the institution of slavery and the subject populations among
whom its ministers were scattered gave rise to fresh problems, which
the church sought perseveringly, but vainly, to solve. Thus, in New
Grenada, before the conquest was fairly achieved, Bishop Barrios, of
Santafé, held his first synod, in 1556, and there, after premising
that the fruits of religion among the Indians depended upon the good
example of their pastors, he proceeded to prohibit any priest stationed
in an Indian town from having any Indian woman residing in his house;
his food was to be cooked by men, or, if this was impossible, his
female servant must be a married woman, residing with her husband
under another roof[1475]—a provision repeated by the synod of Lima in
1585.[1476] A curious experiment in dealing with the troubles arising
from slavery is seen in the Mexican canons, which directed that if an
ecclesiastic had children by his slave, the ownership of the woman
was to be transferred to the church and the children were to be set
free. It will be remembered (p. 178) that in 1022 the church insisted
upon the continued servitude of clerical bastards whose mothers were
serfs of the church; and the contrast between this and the regulation
which proclaimed the freedom of the children as a punishment inflicted
upon the father is perhaps the sorriest exhibit that could be made of
the character of those who were engaged in spreading the teachings of
Christ among the heathen.[1477]
While there can be no doubt that much heroic self-devotion was shown in
the efforts made to convert the new subjects of Spain, it is equally
unquestionable that a majority of the ecclesiastics who sought the
colonies were men of the worst description. The councils held in the
several provinces deplore the evil example which they set to their
newly converted flocks, and the regulations which were issued time
and again against their excesses show the impossibility of keeping
them under control. In Peru, for instance, when in 1581 St. Toribio
commenced the quarter of a century of labor as Archbishop which
worthily won for him the canonization accorded by Benedict XIII. in
1726, two councils had already been held in Lima, one in 1552 and
the other in 1567, which had essayed a reformation of morals. He, in
turn, lost no time in summoning a provincial council, which assembled
in 1583, the decrees of which, in their denunciation of all manner of
vices, show how ineffectual the previous efforts had been. The clergy
were not disposed to submit tamely to the new restraints which Toribio
sought to impose, and, while the active resistance which some of them
raised was subdued, the underhand management of others was so far
successful that the royal assent to the proceedings of the council
was delayed till 1591.[1478] Notwithstanding the activity of Toribio,
who, between 1583 and 1604, held three provincial councils and ten
diocesan synods, who three times personally visited every portion of
his vast archbishopric, and who repeatedly ordered his vicars to send
secret reports of concubinary and dissolute priests, he was obliged,
in the provincial council of 1601, to content himself with renewing
the regulations of 1583, sorrowfully observing that they had received
scant obedience, and that consequently the corruption and abuses
prevalent among the clergy deprived them of usefulness among their
Indian parishioners.[1479] We can thus readily understand the grief
with which the honest Fray Gerónimo de Mendieta, a contemporary, after
depicting the eager docility with which the natives at first welcomed
Christianity, contrasts it with the hatred which sprang up for the very
name of Christian when they realized the hopeless wretchedness of their
position under their new taskmasters; and the Fray does not conceal the
fact that this was partly owing to the character of some of the clergy,
while the better ones were disheartened and discharged their trusts
mechanically, without expectation of accomplishing good.[1480] This
condition of morals did not improve with time. In his official report
of 1736, the Marques del Castel-Fuerte, Viceroy of Peru, remarks that
the greater portion of those of Spanish blood born in the colonies
embraced an ecclesiastical life, as offering an easier and more assured
career than any other. Surrounded by their Indian subjects, the
pastors lived in luxury and license, which their superiors did little
or nothing to check. In 1728 the civil power was ordered to make an
investigation into the morals of the priesthood, and especially to
designate those whose concubinage was open and notorious—an invasion
of the sacred immunities of the church which provoked a storm against
the secular authorities, although only an examination was proposed, and
there was no attempt to be made of conviction or punishment.[1481]
That the monastic establishments shared in the general dissoluteness
we may fairly conclude when we see the precautions which St. Toribio
found necessary to preserve the purity of the spouses of Christ. Thus
one regulation provides that no ecclesiastic shall visit a nun without
a written permission, to be granted only by the Archbishop himself, or
his Provisor; and so little confidence did he feel in the guardians
whom he himself appointed, that he directs that the official visitors
who inspected the nunneries should not enter them without some special
and urgent reason.[1482]
A curious rule adopted by the first council of Mexico in 1555 shows how
much more scandal was dreaded than sin. In order, as it says, to avert
danger and infamy from the clerical order and from married women, it
prohibits the Fiscal, or prosecuting officer, from taking cognizance
of cases of adultery committed by ecclesiastics, unless the husband be
a consenting party, or the adulterer makes public boast of it, or the
fact is so notorious that it cannot be passed over in silence; and even
when action thus is not to be avoided, in no case is the name of the
woman to be mentioned in the proceedings. The Provisors, however, are
not forbidden to take notice of such crimes, but are allowed to settle
them, if they can, with all due discretion.[1483] As might be expected
these regulations, by giving practical immunity, led to an increase in
crime, and the third council of Mexico in 1585 tells us that many of
the clergy indulged in it, in preference to ordinary concubinage, in
the confidence that they would not be prosecuted; but the amended rule
adopted by the Council to meet this trouble differs so little from its
predecessors, that we may reasonably doubt whether it was followed by
any diminution in the evil.[1484] And this, judging from Rivera’s notes
to his edition of 1859, is the existing state of ecclesiastical law
in Mexico,[1485] although the Tridentine canon specially orders the
Episcopal Ordinaries to proceed _ex officio_ in all such cases, even of
laymen.[1486]
* * * * *
The church of the post-Tridentine period began to find a darker
and more dangerous sin attract closer attention than of old, and
call for more serious efforts to prevent its offending the awakened
consciousness of the faithful. The power of the confessional, one of
the most effective instrumentalities invented by the ingenuity of man
for enslaving the human mind, was peculiarly liable to abuse in sexual
relations. No one can be familiar with the hideous suggestiveness
of the penitentials without recognizing how fearfully frequent must
be the temptations arising between confessor and penitent, while
their respective relations render seduction comparatively easy, and
unspeakably atrocious.[1487] To deprive such relations of danger
requires the confessor to be gifted with rare purity and holiness, and
when these functions were confided to men such as those who composed
the sacerdotal body, as we have seen it throughout the Middle Ages, the
result was inevitable.