Semper enim luxuriæ et carnalibus illecebris deditus fuit.
[442] P. Damiani Opusc. VI. c. 18.
[443] Annal. Barenses, ann. 1035.—Shortly after this, we hear of two
bishops killed in battle (Ibid. ann. 1041).
[444] P. Damiani, loc. cit.
[445] Desiderii Dialog. de Mirac. S. Benedict. Lib. III. (Script. Rer.
Italicor. V. 396).
[446] John, a disciple of St. Peter Damiani, in alluding to the
prevailing twin vices of simony and marriage, says: “Quæ videlicet
pestes tam perniciosa consuetudine prævaluerant, tamque impune
totam ferme ecclesiam in omni Romano orbe fædaverant, ut vix jam
reprehensorem, tamquam licite, formidarent.”—Vit. S. P. Damiani c. 16.
[447] Cosmæ Pragens. Chron. Boem. Lib. III. (Mencken. Script. Rer.
German. III. p. 1782).
[448] Batthyani Leg. Eccles. Hung. I. 335.
[449] Adam. Bremens. Gest. Pontif. Hammaburg. Schol. ad cap. 29 Lib.
III.
[450] Perhaps as suggestive an illustration of the morals and manners
of the age as can well be given is afforded by a deed executed in 1055
by a noble count of Catalonia on the occasion of his marriage. He
pledges himself not to cast off his bride, except for infidelity—such
infidelity not being plotted for by him—and to secure the performance
of this promise he places in the hands of his father-in-law four
castles, to be held in pledge, subject to forfeiture in case of his
violating the agreement. (Baluz. Capit. Francor. Append. Actor. Vet.
No. 148.)
[451] Atton. Vit. S. Johannis Gualbert. c. 31.
[452] The popular feelings which greeted his interposition are well
conveyed in the jingling verse addressed to him by a holy hermit—
Una Sunamitis nupsit tribus maritis;
Rex Henrice, Omnipotentis vice,
Solve connubium, triforme, dubium.
(Annalista Saxo, ann. 1046.)
The invitation to interfere, however, was not needed. Henry’s
prerogative as the representative of Charlemagne and Otho the Great was
sufficient warrant, and his religious ardor an ample motive, without
any special reference to his tribunal.
[453] Anon. de Episcop. Eichstett. c. 34 (Patrolog. T. 146, pp. 1021-2).
[454] It would be a work of supererogation to quote the innumerable
evidences of this which crowd the pages of contemporary writers.
The generalizing remark of Glaber will suffice—“Omnes quippe gradus
ecclesiastici a maximo pontifice usque ad hostianum opprimuntur per
suæ damnationis precium, ac juxta vocem Dominicam in cunctis grassatur
spiritale latrocinium.”—Glab. Rodolph. Hist. Lib. V. c. 5.
[455] Damiani Lib. VIII. Epist. 3.
[456] Johannis Vit. B. P. Damiani c. 1.
[457] Alex. II. Epist. 15.
[458] Learning, on his death-bed, that he was not to be buried as a
pope, he requested the prelates around him to place his coffin at the
church-door securely fastened, and if the portals opened without human
hands, it would be a sign that he should receive papal honors. It was
done, when a gust of wind burst open the door and lifted the coffin
from the bier (Martin. Fuldens. Chron. ann. 1046).
[459] Martin. Fuldens. ann. 1050.
[460] Damiani Opusc. VII. (Liber Gomorrhianus).—Some ten or twelve
years later, Alexander II. obtained the manuscript from Damiani, under
pretence of having it copied, but prudently locked it up and refused to
return it. The saintly author complained bitterly of the deception thus
practised upon him, which he unceremoniously characterized as a fraud
(Damiani Lib. II. Epist. 6).
[461] The world can never know the long and silent suffering endured
in the terrible self-combat of ardent natures in the solitude of the
cloister. If many succumb, the indignation which Damiani and his class
so freely bestow on the victims should be transferred rather to the
system which produces them. A monk of the period has left us a vivid
and curious picture of his own tortures in the endless struggle with
the tempter; and the mental torments to which his fellow-unfortunates
were exposed are aptly condensed in the simple tale of the Abbess
Sarah, who for thirteen long years maintained her ground without
shrinking from the ceaseless assaults of the enemy by continually
invoking the aid of God—“Da mihi fortitudinem Deus!” (Othlon. de
Tentat. suis P. I.). The hagiology of the church is full of legends,
more or less veritable, of the sufferings of these martyrs and of their
triumphs over the flesh, from the time of St. Ammonius, who, when less
decisive measures failed, bored his flesh in many places with red-hot
iron, and thus vanquished passion by suffering. A collection of these
stories, more curious than decent, may be found admiringly detailed by
Giraldus Cambrensis in his Gemma Ecclesiastica, Dist. II.
[462] Batthyani Leg. Eccles. Hung. I. 401.
[463] Adami Bremens. Gest. Pontif. Hammaburg. Lib. III. c.
29.—Annalista Saxo, ann. 1048.
[464] Adam. Bremens. loc. cit.
[465] Tunc quippe in Neustria, post adventum Normannorum, in tantum
dissoluta erat castitas clericorum, ut non solum presbyteri sed etiam
præsules libere uterentur toris concubinarum, et palam superbirent
multiplici propagine filiorum ac filiarum ... Tandem ... Leo Papa ...
in Gallias A. D. 1049 venit ... Tunc ibidem (Remis) generale concilium
tenuit, et inter reliqua ecclesiæ commoda quæ instituit, presbyteris
arma ferre et conjuges habere prohibuit. Arma quidem ferre presbyteri
jam gratanter desiere, sed a pellicibus adhuc nolunt abstinere, nec
pudicitiæ inhærere.—Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c. 15.—This portion
of the work of Ordericus was written about the year 1125.
Ibi vero simoniaci, tam populares quam clerici, presbyterique uxorati,
persuasione sancti Hugonis, a catholicorum communione et ab ecclesiis
eliminati sunt.—Alberic. Trium Fontium Chron. ann. 1049.
[466] Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 7.—It was probably some vague
recollection of this provision, combined with the regulations adopted
at Pavia in 1022 (p. 178) that led Dr. Martin, one of the commissioners
who presided at the trial of Archbishop Cranmer, to declare to
that unhappy culprit that “his children were bondmen to the see of
Canterbury.”—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, Book III. chap. 27.
[467] Herman. Contract. Chron. ann. 1051.
[468] Muratori Annali, ann. 1053.
[469] S. Leonis PP. IX. Mirac. (Migne’s Patrolog. CXLIII. 525 sqq.)
[470] Humberti Card. contra Nicetam XXV. XXVI.
[471] Lambert. Schaffnab. ann. 1054.—Martin. Polon. ann. 1057.
[472] Leo. Marsic. Chron. Casinens. Lib. II. c. 97.
[473] Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 6.
[474] Ibid.
[475] Ut nullus missam audiat presbyteri quem scit concubinam
indubitanter habere aut subintroductam mulierem.—Concil. Roman. ann.
1059 c. 3.
Singularly enough, this clause is omitted in the synodical epistle
addressed to the Gallic clergy, as given by Hugh of Flavigny, Chron.
Lib. II. ann. 1059.
[476] How utterly this was opposed to the received dogmas and
practice of the church can be seen from the decision of Nicholas I.
on the same question—“Sciscitantibus vobis, si a sacerdote, qui sive
comprehensus est in adulterio, sive de hoc fama sola respersus est,
debeatis communionem suscipere, necne, respondemus: Non potest aliquis
quantumcumque pollutus sit, sacramenta divina polluere, quæ purgatoria
cunctarum remedia contagionum existunt.... Sumite, igitur, intrepide
ab omni sacerdote Christi mysteria, quoniam omnia in fide purgantur”
(Nicolai I. Epist. XCVII. c. 71). See also a similar decision in 727 by
Gregory II. (Bonifacii Epist. CXXVI.).
The only adverse authority of this period that I have met with is the
Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury, already referred to, prescribing
rebaptism for those baptized by priests of known unchastity (Lib. II.
cap. ii. § 12.—Haddan & Stubbs’s Councils, III. 192).
Damiani saw the danger to which a practice such as this exposed the
church, and lifted up his voice to prevent the evil results—
Audite etiam, laici,
Qui Christo famulamini;
Pro ullo unquam crimine,
Pastores non despicite.
(Carmen ccxxii.)
and when, about the year 1060, the Florentines refused the
ministrations of their bishop, whom they were determined from other
causes to eject, he reproved them warmly, adducing the only reasonable
view of the question, “quod Spiritus Sanctus per improbi ministerium
dare potest sua charismata” (Opusc. XXX. c. 2).
Simoniacal priests as well as concubinary ones were included in the
ban, and when, in 1049, Leo IX. commenced his vigorous persecution of
simony, there arose a belief that ordination received at hands tainted
with that sin was null and void. This was promptly stigmatized as a
heresy, and Damiani’s untiring pen was employed in combating it. He
argued the question very thoroughly and keenly when it was under debate
by a synod, and succeeded in procuring its condemnation (Opusc. VI. c.
12).
The prohibition, first proclaimed by Nicholas II. and finally enforced
by Gregory VII., caused no little trouble in the church. Towards the
close of the century, Urban II. found himself obliged to discuss the
question, and in an epistle to Lucius, provost of the church of St.
Juventius at Pavia, he admits that the sacraments administered by
guilty priests are uncorrupted, yet he approves of their rejection
in order to stimulate the clergy to virtue, and even declares that
those who receive them, except under instant and pressing necessity,
are guilty of idolatry (“nisi forte sola morte interveniente, utpote
ne sine baptismate vel communione quilibet humanis rebus excedat;
eis, inquam, in tantum obsunt, ut veri idolatræ sint”—Urbani II.
Epist. 273)—a decision the logic of which is not readily apprehended.
St. Anselm of Canterbury assents to the doctrine, but places it in
a more reasonable and practical shape—“non quo quis ea quæ tractent
contemnenda, sed tractantes execrandos existimet” (Epist. VIII.).
The consequences of such a system, however, if strictly carried out,
would have been most disastrous to the church, and when the zeal of
Hildebrand became forgotten his injunctions were overruled. The century
was scarcely out before Honorius of Autun maintained most positively
that Christ operates through the hands of the vilest as well as of
the most holy ministers, provided only they are orthodox in faith
(Eucharistion c. vi.—Pez, Thesaur. II. i. 355). About 1150, however,
Geroch of Reichersperg declares that he considered Gregory’s commands
as still in force, and that he paid no more attention to the masses of
concubinary priests than if they were so many Pagans (Gerhohi Dial.
de Differentia Cleri—Pez, Thesaur. II. ii. 463). Yet before the end
of the twelfth century, Lucius III. had returned to the policy of
Nicholas I.—“Sumite ergo ab omni sacerdote intrepide Christi mysteria,
quia omnia in fide Christi purgantur” (Post Lateran. Concil. P. L. c.
38), the positiveness of which was not much affected by the subtle
distinctions which he endeavored to draw between crimes notorious and
tolerated. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, affirmed that it
was a mortal sin to assist at the Mass celebrated by a priest who was
notoriously unchaste (Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience II. 1445). The
church, however, gradually returned to the old doctrine and practice.
The policy of Gregory was condemned as a heresy when adopted by the
followers of Arnold of Brescia (Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticorum—D’Achery I.
214) and an austere priest, Albero of Mercke, near Cologne, who taught
it was promptly silenced (Anon. adv. Alberonis errores—Martene Ampl.
Coll. IX. 1251). In 1292 the council of Aschaffenburg anathematized
those who “præsumptione dampnabili” taught the heresy that priests
in mortal sin could not perform the sacred mysteries, and it decided
“licite ergo a quocumque sacerdote ab ecclesia tolerato, divina
mysteria audiantur et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica sacramenta”
(Concil. Schafnaburg. ann. 1292 can. i.—Hartzheim IV. 7). And when
Wickliffe and Huss undertook to carry out the dicta of Nicholas II.
and Gregory VII. to their legitimate conclusions, the policy was at
once recognized as a heresy of the worst character and most destructive
consequence. Thus in 1491 a Synod of Bamberg condemns as heretics those
who refuse to receive the ministrations of sinful priests.—Synod.
Bamberg. ann. 1491 Tit. xliv. (Ludewig. Script. Rer. German. I. 1241-2).
[477] Quicumque sacerdotum, diaconorum, subdiaconorum ... concubinam
palam duxerit vel ductam non reliquerit, ... præcipimus et omnino
contradicimus, ut missam non cantet, neque evangelium vel epistolam
ac missam legat, neque in presbyterio ad divina officia cum iis qui
præfatæ constitutioni obedientes fuerint, maneat; neque partem ab
ecclesia suscipiat.—Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 3.
It is evident here that the opprobrious epithet “concubine” is applied
to those who were as legally wives as it was possible to make them.
Damiani, indeed, admits it, and even intimates that concubine was too
honorable a word to be applied to the wives of priests—“Illorum vero
clericorum feminas, qui matrimonia nequeunt legali jure contrahere,
non conjuges sed concubinas potius, sive prostibula congrue possumus
appellare” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 2). After this period it will
be found that the wives of priests were rarely dignified with the title
of “uxores,” although ordination was not yet an impediment destructive
of marriage.
It is as well to observe here that at this period and for some time
later the position of the concubine had not the odium attaching to it
by modern manners, and this should be borne in mind when reviewing the
morals of the Middle Ages. The connection was a recognized and almost a
legal one, following the traditions of the Roman law, by which it was
legitimate and permanent, so long as the parties respectively remained
unmarried. A man could not have a wife and concubine at the same time
(Pauli Sentent. II. 20), nor could he legally have two concubines
together (Novel. XVIII. c. 5). Not only were such regulations thus
promulgated by Christian emperors, but the relationship was duly
recognized by the Christian church. The first council of Toledo,
in 398, enjoined upon the faithful “tantum aut unius mulieris, aut
uxoris aut concubinæ, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus”
(Concil. Toletan. I. c. 17), showing that either connection apparently
was legitimate, and this is quoted at the commencement of the tenth
century, as still in force, by Regino (De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. c.
100). A half century later, about 450, Leo I. was actually appealed
to to decide whether a man who quitted a concubine and took a wife
committed bigamy—which Leo reasonably enough answered in the negative
(Leon. Epist. XC. c. 5). The principle of the Roman law was still
the rule of the church in the 9th century, for a Roman synod held by
Eugenius II. in 826 declared “Ut non liceat uno tempore duas habere
uxores, uxoremve et concubinam. De illo vero qui cum uxore concubinam
habet, præcipit, ut si admonitus eam a se abjicere noluerit, communione
privetur.” (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 12.) The view entertained
of the matter at the time under consideration may be gathered from
a canon of the councils of Rome, in 1052 and 1063, suspending from
communion the layman who had a wife and concubine at the same time
(Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 12: ann. 1063 c. 10)—whence we may
deduce that a concubine alone was hardly considered irregular. During
the latter part of the succeeding century we find the concubine a
recognized institution in Scotland, for the laws of William the Lion,
after stating that the wife was not bound to reveal the crimes of her
husband, adds “De concubina vero et de familia domus non est ita; quia
ipsi tenentur revelare maleficia magistri sui, aut debent a servitio
suo recedere” (Statut. Willelmi c. XIX. § 9). In England, late in the
thirteenth century, Bracton speaks of the “concubina legitima” as
entitled to certain rights and consideration (Lib. III. Tract. ii.
c. 28 § 1, and Lib. IV. Tract. vi. c. 8 § 4). In Spain, at the same
period, the son of an unmarried noble by a concubine, was noble (Juan
Perez de Lara, in Arch. Seld. 130, Bib. Bodl.), and in the Danish code
of Waldemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, there is a
provision that a concubine kept openly for three years shall be held
to be a legitimate and legal wife (Leg. Cimbric. Lib. I. cap. xxvii.
Ed. Ancher); while the elaborate provisions for the division of estates
between legitimate and illegitimate children, contained in the code
compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden, in the 13th century, show
that certain legal rights were recognized in the latter (Legg. Scan.
Provin. Ed. Thorsen pp. 110-2). Indeed, in the Norwegian law of that
period, when the king left no legitimate sons the crown descended to
illegitimates (Jarnsida, Kristendoms-Balkr, c. III.). In Bigorre,
concubines, under the name of _Massipia_, were recognized by law, and
formal notarial contracts were drawn up, as late as the close of the
fifteenth century, specifying the price to be paid and the duration
of the connection; and when the man was already married he sometimes
engaged to marry the _massipia_ in case of his wife’s death during
the term (Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p.
377). We must therefore bear in mind that, until the rule of sacerdotal
celibacy became rigorously enforced, the “concubina” of the canons
generally means a wife, and that for some time afterwards the concubine
was by no means necessarily the shameless woman implied under the
modern acceptation of the term.
[478] Hujus autem constitutionis maxime fuit auctor Hildebrandus, tunc
Romanæ ecclesiæ archidiaconus, hæreticis maxime infestus.—Bernaldi
Chron. ann. 1061. Benzo declares, in his slashing way, stigmatizing
Hildebrand as a Sarabite, or wandering monk, “De cetero pascebat suum
Nicholaum Prandellus in Lateranensi palatio, quasi asinum in stabulo.
Nullum erat opus Nicholaitæ, nisi per verbum Sarabaitæ” (Comment. de
Reb. Henr. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2). The verses of Damiani on the influence
of Hildebrand are too well known to quote.
[479]
... Hic [Nicholaus] ecclesiastica propter
Ad partes illas tractanda negotia venit;
Namque sacerdotes, levitæ, clericus omnis
Hac regione palam se conjugio sociabant.
Concilium celebrans ibi, Papa faventibus illi
Præsulibus centum jus ad synodale vocatis,
Ferre Sacerdotes monet, altarisque ministros
Arma pudicitiæ, vocat hos et præcipit esse
Ecclesiæ sponsos, quia non est jure sacerdos
Luxuriæ cultor: sic extirpavit ab illis
Partibus uxores omnino presbyterorum.
(Gulielmi Appuli de Normann. Lib. II.)
[480] Concil. Turon. ann. 1060 c. 6.
[481] Porro autem nos contra divina mandata, personarum acceptores,
in minoribus quidam sacerdotibus luxuriæ inquinamenta persequimur; in
episcopis autem, quod nimis absurdum est, per silentii tolerantiam
veneramur.—Damiani Opusc. XVII. c. 1.
[482] Sanctis eorum femoribus volui seras apponere. Tentavi genitalibus
sacerdotum (ut ita loquar) continentiæ fibulas adhibere.... Hujus
autem capituli nudam saltem promissionem tremulis prolatam labiis
difficilius extorquemus. Primo, quia fastigium castitatis attingere
se posse desperant; deinde quia synodali se plectendos esse sententia
propter luxuriæ vitium non formidant. ... Si enim malum hoc esset
occultum, fuerat fortassis utcunque ferendum; sed, ah scelus! omni
pudore postposito, pestis hæc in tantum prorupit audaciam, ut per ora
populi volitent loca scortantium, nomina concubinarum, socerorum quoque
vocabula simul et socruum ... postremo, ubi omnis dubietas tollitur,
uteri tumentes et pueri vagientes etc.—Damiani Opusc. XVII.
[483] Decret. Nicolai PP. c. 3, 4 (Baluz. et Mansi II. 118-9).
[484] “Dogmatizatis enim sacri ministros altaris jure posse mulieribus
permisceri ... Jam vero quod impudenter asseritis, ministros altaris
conjugio debere sociari etc.”—Damiani Lib. V. Epist. 13.
[485] Ad Cadaloum Lib. I. Epist. 20.
[486] In 1060, Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candida, in combating the
prevailing vice of simony, made use of this argument, reasoning that
an immoral priest may be suspended or may be tolerated in hope of
amendment, but if he trenches on heresy, there can be neither hope nor
mercy for him (Humbert. Cardinal. adv. Simoniac. Lib. III. c. 43).
Damiani applied this to the defenders of marriage with all his vigor.
“Qui nimirum dum corruunt, impudici; dum defendere nituntur, merito
judicantur hæretici” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 8). “Nam cum peccat
homo, quasi in puteum labitur; cum vero peccata defendit, os putei
super eum, ne pateat egressus, urgetur ... Hoc autem inter peccatorem
et hæreticum distat: quia peccator est qui delinquit, hæreticus autem
qui peccatum per pravum dogma defendit” (Opusc. XXIV. Præf.).
[487] Opusc. XXVII. Diss. ii. c. 8.
[488] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 3.
[489] Obeunte igitur pellice, viduatus adjecit iterare conjugium. Quid
plura? Confœderat sibi quasi tabularum lege prostibulum, amicorum atque
confinium congregat nuptiali more conventum, epulaturis etiam totius
affluentæ providet apparatum—Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 6.
[490] Nec vos terreat quod forte, non dicam fidei sed perfidæ, vos
annulus subarrhavit: quod rata et monimenta dotalia notarius quasi
matrimonii jure conscripsit; quod juramentum ad confirmandam quodammodo
conjuii copulam utrinque processit. Totum hoc quod videlicet apud alios
est conjugii firmamentum, inter vos vanum judicatur et frivolum—Opusc.
XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 7.
[491] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. Præf.
[492] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii.
[493] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 1, 2.
[494] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 3.
[495] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. i.
[496] Alex. II. Epist. 125.—Batthyani (Leg. Eccles. Hungar. I. 407)
remarks that this lenity arose from the fact that otherwise divine
service would have ceased—“omnes ecclesiæ a divinis officiis vacassent.”
It is also observable that subdeacons are not included in this
prohibition—a remarkable exemption, since by this time their subjection
to the law of celibacy had become a settled rule in the Roman church. I
may here remark that I had collected considerable material to trace the
varying practice with regard to the subdiaconate, but as it involves no
principle, merely depending in earlier times upon the local custom as
to the functions of that grade, the discussion would scarcely repay the
space that it would occupy.
[497] De manifestis loquimur; secretorum autem cognitor et judex Deus
est.—Alex. II. Epist. 118.
[498] Cenomanensem electum, pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si
cæteræ virtutes in eum conveniunt, non rejicimus; sed, suffragantibus
meritis, patienter suscipimus; non tamen ut hoc pro regula in posterum
assumatur, sed ad tempus ecclesiæ periculo consulitur.—Gratian. Dist.
LVI. c. 13.
[499] Nam pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si cæteræ virtutes in
eum conveniant, non rejicimus, sed suffragantibus meritis connivendo,
eum recipimus.—Alex. II. Epist. 133. Baronius attributes to this the
date of 1071.
The contrast between the weakness of Alexander and the unbending
rigidity of his successor, Hildebrand, is well shown by comparing this
unlimited acceptance of priestly offspring with the refusal of the
latter to permit the elevation of a clerk requested by both his bishop
and the King of Aragon, simply because he was illegitimate, although
in other respects admitted to be unexceptionable (Gregor. VII. Lib.
II. Epist. 50). We have already seen that even amid the license which
prevailed during the early part of the century, some German bishops
habitually refused orders to the sons of priests.
[500] Alex. II. Epist. 112.