How Did the Old Church Deal With Celibacy?
The original review-article appeared under the title Wie hielt es die Alte Kirche mit dem Zölibat? Wollbolds Quellenedition wirft neues Licht auf eine alte Frage. In: Forum katholische Theologie Vol. 40 (3/2024), pp. 208-2016
How Did the Old Church Deal With Celibacy?
Wollbold’s source edition sheds new light on an old question
In more than ten years of work, Andreas Wollbold, Professor for Pastoral Theology in Munich, compiled a collection of sources entitled: Zölibat. Schlüsseltexte aus den Anfängen bis zum 5. Jahrhundert [Celibacy: key texts from the beginnings to the 5th century], published by Pustet: Regensburg 2024 (1040 pp.).
The source edition comprises 459 key texts from the early history of celibacy. With it, Wollbold aims to contribute to placing research on celibacy in the early church on a solid, unbiased foundation.[1] Accordingly, the author sees his work neither as an “apologia” nor as a “textbook”, but as a “working instrument” (p. 45).
The structure
The chronologically arranged, mostly Greek or Latin original texts are accompanied by a legible German translation. This is followed by a brief discussion of possible translation and interpretation variants.
The detailed introduction (pp. 45-98) comprises three sections. It first recapitulates the history of research, then identifies methodological steps and challenges of source work and finally opens up interdisciplinary perspectives on celibacy research.
The source texts (pp. 100-943) range from the turn of the 1st to the 2nd century (e. g. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome) to the 5th century (Leo the Great). Following the source texts, selected key documents of the Western Church from the First Lateran Council (1123) to the current Codex (1983) are presented and explained (pp. 945-960). The final chapter is devoted to seven selected “themata” (pp. 961-994): “Cultic purity”, “Monogamy rule”, “East-West divide of the abstinence requirements?”, “Marital abstinence”, “Legal character of the abstinence requirements”, “Celibate clergy”, “Syneisacts”.
An extensive bibliography (pp. 995-1035) concludes the work and at the same time opens up prospects for further research. An index of authors and keywords has been omitted, but the table of contents is detailed and informative (pp. 7-44).
Which celibacy?
To say it right away: In research on the early history of celibacy, there is no debate as to whether there was a married clergy in the early church. This was demonstrably the case. The debate is rather
„whether there were habits, social norms or even authoritative regulations in their [i.e. the clergy’s] communities that in some way demanded abstinence after their ordination, be it in a ban on marriage after ordination, be it in a ban on remarriage after widowhood or be it in disapproval of marital sexual relations and especially of procreation after ordination“ (S. 84).
The texts mainly deal with the obligatory celibacy of abstinence, while the obligatory celibacy in the sense of staying unmarried is a later development. A popular view of celibacy in the early church is that there were no reliable sources for rules of abstinence before the time of Constantine (around 313). Accordingly, the rule of abstinence for higher clerics was “an invention of the 4th century and, moreover, limited to individual regions” (p. 977; cf. Wolf, note 1). It is sometimes even claimed that it only became church law in the Latin Church under Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) or at the Second Lateran Council (1139).
To the sources!
The relevant sources paint a different picture. The collection of texts presents 148 texts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage and others are mentioned. The selected texts first of all demonstrate how much sexual abstinence and thus self-control, fidelity, monogamy, the orientation of sexuality towards procreation and especially virginity were held in high esteem among Christians from an early stage. A succinct quote from Justin Martyr summarizing the early Christian sexual ethos is: „If we previously enjoyed lewd things, we now worship chastity alone“ (Apologia 1, 14,2 quoted on p. 135).[2] Wollbold characterizes the connection between early Christian sexual morality and the expectation of abstinence as follows:
„[T]his connection with the piety and life practice of zealous Christians is decisive in order to make the abstinence requirements for the clergy appear plausible or even probable. Those who teach Christians like him, who preside over the congregations, to whom virgins and widows are entrusted for special care and who celebrate the liturgy, are expected to fulfill the general Christian ideals“ (p. 47).
Accordingly, the source texts repeatedly contain an argumentum a minore ad maius, i.e. what is considered ideal for all Christians is to be expected all the more from the higher clergy. Wollbold explains this as follows:
„The abstinence of the clergy, therefore, does not consist in a completely different lifestyle from that of the laity, but in the fact that it is made obligatory because of the exemplary and representative character of the office, the special chastity requirements of their sacred ministry, their responsibility and leadership of the celibate classes in the Church, their special obligation to perfection and in imitation of the lifestyle of many apostles, whereas it is optional for the laity. In short, the celibacy of the clergy only increases something that was quite common among the Christian people of their own free will […]“ (p. 976).
What does the monogamy rule mean?
The evidence from the 2nd century is still sparse and only allows cautious conclusions to be drawn. Stefan Heid therefore speaks of the “saeculum obscurum of clerical discipline”. However, the rules of monogamy and abstinence for senior clerics in the 3rd century are already relatively well documented.
The monogamy rule (pp. 970-973) recommends that Christians should not remarry after the death of their spouse. What is an ideal for believers becomes the norm for clerics: remarriage is forbidden following 1 Tim 3:2 (keyword: unius uxoris vir, i.e. one wife´s husband). Why? Presumably because remarriage was seen as a lack of willingness or ability to abstain. The monogamy rule only really makes sense if the ban on remarriage is accompanied by abstinence from sex after the procreation phase or marriage. This is also known as the rule of abstinence (pp. 975-976).[3] Therefore, the thesis of a celibacy of abstinence that goes back to the apostolic era is based not least on the early attested rule of monogamy (p. 128). Seen in this light, it is “the most important rule on the lifestyle of the clergy […]” (S. 970).
Apostolic origin of celibacy?
Wollbold takes a critical look at Stefan Heid’s pertinent monograph Zölibat in der frühen Kirche.[4] Heid´s trenchant core thesis is:
„[T]he unius uxoris vir is the linchpin of ecclesiastical abstinence celibacy. The bishop should only have one wife and live chastely with her. Chastity here certainly means more than mere modesty, but rather the ability to lead an abstinent marriage after consecration” (p. 83; on this context and on the discussion of any objections, cf. ibid. pp. 29-49).
According to a widespread view in the early church, the apostles had left their wives and families when they were called (Mt 19:27). This in turn was understood to mean that they had either lived celibate or (if they were married like Peter) celibate lives (e.g. Jerome, Epistula ad Pammachium 49,21,3, quoted in Wollbold, p. 902). Indeed, caring for family and children would have been difficult to reconcile with the apostles´ ministry, which included extensive missionary journeys and thus long periods of absence.
If the unius uxoris vir was understood in this sense by authoritative theologians and legal sources of the post-apostolic church, then this is less the result of exegetical speculation than the expression of an ecclesiastical hermeneutic that refers to a binding, lived tradition.
A controversial question in celibacy research is whether the discipline of celibacy in the early church is a later development or whether its origins can be traced back to apostolic practice. (See also the Blickell-Funk controversy of 1878-1879 and its reception by authors such as Ch. Cochini, A. M. Stickler, St. Heid, M. Bolens, R. Gryson and G. Denzler). Wollbold remarks on this:
„Before beginning work on this collection of texts, the author assigned himself to the development paradigm […]. He assumed a gradual spread of the abstinence rules only from the 4th century and through the energetic efforts of the popes since Damasus and Siricius, while until then and also in the East the ’normal‘ clergy living in marriage was the rule. But the study of the pre-Constantinian sources gave food for thought, so much so that in the end the author became a differentiated supporter of the thesis of the apostolic origin of celibacy […]“ (p. 54).
The development thesis is also supported by the fact that the sources apparently “testify early on to an expectation of abstinence that never sees itself as an innovation, but as a continuation of the apostolic order” (p. 54). However, it should be noted that “this expectation is generally assumed rather than justified […]” (S. 55).
For this reason, it is not appropriate—as is often the case in secondary literature —to look for legal norms in the early post-apostolic period as we know them from later centuries. Nevertheless, there must have been a binding, traditional order early on. This order was characterized by a
“close connection between law and ethos as well as group norms, ideals and corresponding expectations of exemplary behaviour on the part of the leading elites […]” (S. 55).
It should be kept in mind that a rejection of the development paradigm in no way denies the development of the discipline of abstinence. Such a development is expressed, for example, in its legalization and sanctioning (p. 77).
The rule and practice of abstinence (lex continentiae), which is linked to the moral and religious role model character of the higher clergy, is therefore probably much older than often assumed. Whether it goes back to apostolic times cannot be determined with certainty due to the uncertain source situation in the first two centuries. With regard to the source situation, it can be stated:
“As in many questions of early church institutional history, the history of celibacy only entered solid ground in the 4th century” (p. 48).
On the other hand, it would be highly unlikely that such a drastic rule and practice would be introduced anywhere and enforced in a comparatively short time without tangible resistance in very different local churches. These include the Greek-speaking regions of “Egypt, Antioch and Palestine, Cappadocia, Constantinople, Syria […], followed by the Latin-speaking regions of North Africa, Italy, Illyricum, Gaul and Spain” (p. 48).
Deepening and consolidation
The sources of the 4th century include church teachers and church writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, but also synods such as Elvira (around 300), Arles (314) and councils such as Ankara (314) and Nicaea (325).
In the 4th century, there was a theological deepening and disciplinary codification of what was already firmly established in the Latin-speaking West as well as in the Greek- and Syriac-speaking East. The common property of early church discipline included: “the rule of monogamy, the prohibition of marriage after ordination, the expectation of abstinence and the willingness to impose sanctions” (p. 48).
Cultic ideas of purity?
It is almost a commonplace in the celibacy literature that cultic ideas of purity played a decisive role in the demand for sexual abstinence in the early church (cf., for example, Wolf, note 1, chapter 4), especially in the context of frequent and in some regions even daily church services. However, the sources do not support this thesis:
The texts show impressively that one can only speak of cultic purity in an analogous sense at best. In contrast, the sexual taboos known from religious history concerning proximity to and contact with the sacred sphere are hardly verifiable in the actual sense (p. 85).
While a number of key texts (against sexual and marriage-critical tendencies) repeatedly emphasize that marital intercourse is not sinful and marriage is good, they nevertheless consider permanent sexual abstinence among clerics to be appropriate.
The “exemplary character of priests and the general orientation of the Christian ideal of perfection towards the dominion of the spiritual over the sensual and towards the contemplative contemplation of God” (p. 85) play a role here.
Overall, therefore, it is not cultic ideas of purity in the sense of the sacred-profan distinction that prove to be decisive, but the ideal of a constant and undivided focus on the spiritual life: Prayer, fasting, worship (often following on from 1 Cor 7:5). The example and order of the apostles is also referred to.
Milestones in the history of celibacy
The Spanish Synod of Elvira (around 300) should not be missing from a volume of sources on the early history of celibacy. It obliges deacons, priests and bishops to give up sexual relations with their wives and to no longer father children, with offenders being removed from office (can. 33, pp. 683-694, here 690). Furthermore, the probably legendary episode of the confessor and ascetic Paphnutius, who opposed an obligation to abstain in Nicaea (325), should not be forgotten.
The papal interventions of Damasus (366-384) and Siricius (384-388/399) through to Leo the Great (440-461) should also not be forgotten. They inculcate the obligation of permanent abstinence for higher clerics, i.e. the so-called celibacy of abstinence. In doing so, they see themselves as guardians and advocates of the apostolic tradition.[5] The principle that the traditional ethos comes before the codified law must be kept in mind with regard to the juridification of clerical discipline.
And the churches of the East?
The Synod of Constantinople, also known as Trullanum II (691/692), led to a regional, partial departure from the previous discipline and tradition. Although the Orthodox churches adhered to the rule of monogamy and the prohibition of digamy, they restricted celibacy to bishops. They are even required to separate from their wives upon ordination. (Earlier church assemblies had still rejected this.) A “momentous innovation” (Heid, see note 4, p. 285, contra Wolf, note 1, p. 94). It led to the early church monogamy rule appearing “strangely empty of meaning”. “Incidentally,” as Wollbold notes en passent, “something similar applies to the post-conciliar Roman Catholic regulations for permanent deacons in the Latin Church—with explicit reference to the discipline of the early church” (p. 89).
The further development
The further development of the Western Church, from the Gregorian reform to the Council of Trent to the Second Vatican Council and the Codex of 1983, does not represent a fundamental departure from the discipline of the early Church in the light of the first millennium. The most momentous innovation, the transition from abstinence to celibacy, is not intended to abolish it, but to enforce it effectively (p. 49).
The widespread opinion that Pope Gregory VII or the first two Lateran councils introduced the law of celibacy is therefore wrong. Gregory VII’s legislation (1073-1085) was not innovative with regard to celibacy, but downright conservative: it consisted “in a decisive return to the regulations of the early Church” (p. 56). The same applies to the First and Second Lateran Councils (1139). Strictly speaking, the councils did not prohibit the marriage of priests, but declared marriages after ordination null and void and the children born of them illegitimate (pp. 944-945). It was only at the Council of Trent that celibate clergy became the norm in the Latin Church (albeit less canonically than de facto) (p. 944; pp. 951-953, cf. also Heid, note 4, p. 12).
The Second Vatican Council
The Second Vatican Council provided a new justification for celibacy. The Decree on Priests Presbyterum Ordinis (no. 16) speaks cautiously of the appropriateness (convenientia) of celibacy for priests, not least out of consideration for the priestly marriage of the Orientals. In addition to “undivided devotion”, the decree emphasizes the ecclesiological and eschatological symbolic character of celibacy for priests:
“Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven [is] commended by Christ the Lord… [cf. Mt 19:12].” The “precious gift of priestly celibacy” is based “in the mystery of Christ and his mission”. It points “to the mysterious marriage established by Christ, and fully to be manifested in the future, in which the Church has Christ as her only Spouse…“ [cf. LG 42.44; PC 12].
Compared to the early church sources, the orientation towards the counsel and model of Christ is striking. The more explicit christological foundation may have at least partly to do with the transition from abstinence to celibacy: As long as a significant proportion of priests lived abstinent but not celibate lives, it was not opportune to refer to celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12), “the eschatological vita angelica, in which there is no more marriage (Mt 22:30), as well as various words of succession” (p. 959) for the justification of celibacy. “Instead, the focus was on the ‚unius uxoris vir‘ of 1 Tim 3:2, abstinence for the sake of prayer from 1 Cor 7:5 or generally the contrast between flesh and spirit” (p. 959).
A passage from the Didaché, which was not included in the text edition, deserves attention in this context. This early Christian writing not only teaches us to distinguish between true and false prophets by the “way of life of the Lord” (11:8). It possibly also knows (following Mt 9:15; 1 Cor 7:1; Eph 5:32 and the model of Old Testament prophets) a christological and ecclesiological justification for permanent spousal abstinence:
And every tried and true prophet who makes the mystery of the church visible on earth [i.e. Christ and his bride, the church, by living with a woman he does not touch]; if he does not require of others what he himself does, do not judge him. God will do it. Such sign acts are also known from the ancient prophets (Didaché 11:11).[6]
Berger´s interpretation is an early testimony to the idea that voluntary sexual abstinence in (spousal) cohabitation with a woman refers to the mystery of the marriage covenant between Christ and his Church. Such christological and ecclesiological ideas were therefore not alien to Christians and could resonate with the rule of monogamy and the rule of abstinence. Apart from this, every voluntarily abstinent way of life (virginity, widowhood, marital abstinence) refers to the eschatological marriage of the Lamb and therefore has a Christological, ecclesiological and eschatological dimension. (Cf. 1 Cor 7:29: Since the time until then is short and the form of this world is passing away, anyone who has a wife should behave as if he had none).
In any case, from the 3rd century onwards, one repeatedly encounters the idea that “abstinence in conjunction with all virtues is a prerequisite for higher, unceasing prayer and worship […]” (p. 273). With Stefan Heid, one could also formulate it like this:
The “discipline of complete and permanent abstinence of higher clergy [was] from the beginning under the influence of the genuinely Christian idea of total devotion to God and his service. This was therefore a very comprehensive clerical discipline. It was secondary whether the cleric was married or not when he was ordained. In the first case, he was no longer allowed to have marital relations with his wife, i.e., no more children. The virgin or widowed higher cleric was not allowed to enter into marriage” (Heid, see above note 4, p. 19).
Critical Assessment
Wollbold´s annotated collection of texts is a milestone for research into celibacy. It enables an exciting journey of discovery ad fontes: to the sources of celibacy in the early church. The source edition not only offers many fascinating, sometimes strange insights into late antique Christianity and its cultural environment with regard to the topics of sexuality, marriage, priesthood, abstinence, virginity, church discipline and much more.
Wollbold´s source edition also sheds new light on old questions. It makes it clear, for example, that celibacy (in the sense of a lex continentiae) was not just a changeable church discipline for the early church, but an expression of generally binding apostolic tradition. We hope that the source volume will be widely received.
Footnotes
- See, for example, Hubert Wolf, Zölibat. 16 Thesen, München 2019. Wollbold comments: “The most recent monograph on the subject […] unmistakably places the plea for the abolition of celibacy in the foreground, so that the selective use of early church sources, which only touches on the relevant literature, contributes little to their understanding” (p. 60, note 27). ↑
- Justin is committed to natural law thinking when he writes elsewhere: „Rather, from the outset we have either entered into marriage solely for the purpose of raising children, or we have renounced marriage and remain completely abstinent“ (Apologia 1, 29,1 quoted in Wollbold, p. 138). ↑
- This would also fit with the fact that the Syrian Didascalie and the Apostolic Constitutions stipulate a minimum age of 50 years for candidates for ordination (p. 154; 165f). ↑
- Stefan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West, San Francisco 2000. My translation refers to the German edition Zölibat in der frühen Kirche. Die Anfänge der Enthaltsamkeitspflicht für Kleriker in Ost und West, Paderborn u. a. 32003. ↑
- For example, Innocent I (401-417), following the tradition of his predecessors Damasus and Siricius, explains in a letter to Bishop Victricium: „Not as if we were ordering new rules, but because we wish that what has been neglected through the laziness of individuals should be observed by all, which is established by the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers“ (quoted in Wollbold, p. 825). ↑
- Partly my own translation, partly quoted in: Klaus Berger, Der Zölibat. Eine theologische Neubegründung, Heiligenkreuz i. W., 22. ↑
