Article XXIII. Of the Marriage of Priests

1] There has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who were not chaste. 2] For that reason also Pope Pius is reported to have said that there were certain causes why marriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightier ones why it ought to be given back; for so Platina writes. 3] Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals, they married wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contract matrimony. First, because 4] Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2. 9: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Also: It is better to marry than to burn. Secondly 5] Christ says, Matt. 19, 11: All men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1, 28. 6] Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation. [For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.] Therefore, 7] those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to 8] contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons 9] the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.



10] It is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men. 11] For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife. 12] And in Germany, four hundred years ago for the first time, the priests were violently compelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such resistance that the Archbishop of Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's decree concerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by the enraged priests. 13] And so harsh was the dealing in the matter that not only were marriages forbidden for the future, but also existing marriages were torn asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human, contrary even to the Canons themselves, made not only by the Popes, but by most celebrated Synods. [Moreover, many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity.]



14] Seeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is gradually growing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal into Germany.



15] Furthermore, God ordained marriage to be a help against human infirmity. 16] The Canons themselves say that the old rigor ought now and then, in the latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness of men; which it is to be wished were done also in this matter. 17] And it is to be expected that the churches shall at some time lack pastors if marriage is any longer forbidden.



18] But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of the Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty exercised than against 19] the marriage of priests. God has given commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all 20] well-ordered commonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. 21] But now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the intent of the Canons, for no other cause than 22] marriage. Paul, in 1 Tim. 4, 3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. 23] This may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by such penalties.



24] But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 25] Accordingly, Cyprian also advises that women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words are these (Book I, Epistle XI): But if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts; they should certainly give no offense to their brethren and sisters.



26] And even the Canons show some leniency toward those who have taken vows before the proper age, as heretofore has generally been the case.

This happens to be an unusually long article in the confessions, and the second of the articles on "abuses which have been corrected". The article hits close to home, because it is something that makes my life very different from the average Catholic priest- I am a married priest.

Two months back or so my wife and I went to view "Luther: The Movie." There's plenty to complain about in the movie. A recent review in First Things does an excellent job of summarizing the complaints, both theological and historical. Nevertheless, a surprising result of my viewing the movie was the realization that the particular act of Luther, getting married, was rebellious in the extreme. Although the movie way over-dramatizes and romanticizes the issue, I believe the act as an heroic act deserves our attention. The average Christian of the time expected their priests to be celibate. It was canon law, common practice, and therefore accepted and expected custom. So for a priest to get married, and remain a priest, must have been scandalous. To lift up the act as virtuous, as honoring the vocations and Christian estates, probably seemed even more troubling. So for Luther and other evangelical pastors to take this step seems brave in the extreme. I can't help but wonder what it would have been like to go through the decision-making process. Did the knees of the priests and nuns tremble not out of nerves at what they were entering into, but because of what they were violating?

And then I wondered, what must it be like to discover some thing in one's own church tradition that is deeply engrained, bears the weight of tradition and the authority of the church leaders, but that you believe to be wrong? And then what must it be like to risk excommunication and condemnation in actually doing what was proscribed? Although we might lift up communion and right reception of the elements as more central to the life of faith because it is a more central sacrament to the church's life, marriage hits us more closely at the level of daily existence. What must it be like to get married "as an act of faith", as an act even of protest of abuses in the church?

I was surprised in re-reading this article to note that it focuses much more on what marriage does for a priest by way of restraining or curtailing sin than it does on Luther's emphasis on marriage as a proper and honorable vocation qua vocation. The article also briefly discusses the marriage of priests in the context of texts referring to the marriage of bishops. It briefly lifts up issues of historical precedence in the early church, as the AC often does. I am surprised it makes no mention of the eastern church practice of priests marrying.

Nevertheless, in the end the argument is straightforward and easily summarized. Priests should marry to restrain sin, lest they engage in sexual activity outside the bounds of Christian marriage. It's really that simple.

When we lived in Slovakia, we attended some Catholic churches that still communed in only one kind. But the overwhelming practice, I am led to understand, and the practice of the Catholic church post-Vatican II, is for communion in both kinds. So the abuse to be corrected in article XXII has been corrected, or is at least on its way towards correction. I wonder if there will be any rapprochement, or agreement, on this XXIII article between Lutherans and Catholics.

Thomas in Latin

Thomas in Latin

Greg recently provided me with a link to fuel my pretentions of learning medieval Latin. Sertillanges encourages the reading of Thomas for the sake of the intellectual life, and mentions in passing that it would take only two months to learn the Latin necessary for reading Thomas in the original, something no serious intellectual, so he says, should foresake. This may be a pipe dream. For those of you wanting access to such a text, this is a beautiful resource.

The Eucharist and Reconciliation in Diversity

This document, still worth reviewing, from 1979, shows the connection between liturgical imperatives and sacramental theology. On Article XXII, see sec. 76 of this document for some concluding remarks. I think they are all on the mark because they do not see ecumenical future in straightforward agreement on doctrine. They do not expect their ecumenical encounter to persuade the other party to their own position.

As the Second Vatican Council has taught, there is a hierarchy of truths, so that certain matters are of course more important than others. Agreement in doctrine touches only one level of churchly communion because unity in the sacraments and the preached word are of a different sort of thing than doctrine. Reconciliation in diversity finds unity in such things as the sacramental life of the church and only secondarily in such things as doctrine. Thus, we do not have to agree on this or that theory of Jesus' presence but instead act in such a way as to respect legitimate diversity and true unity. The liturigical imperatives that encompass such a unity are such things as the consumption of all bread and wine in the service. This usage does not commit Lutherans, especially given the diversity of approach to the extent of the presence of Jesus in the Confessions, to any one of the views, but it does allow for a common practice of the sacrament, satisfying the Tridentine decrees and the Lutheran Confessions.

Article XXII: Of Both Kinds in the Sacrament.

With this article we now move to consider the abuses or matters under dispute even though the previous articles did bear the fire of controversy.

"To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26, 27: Drink ye all of it, 2] where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. 3] And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11, 27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. 4] And this usage has long remained in the Church, nor is it known when, or by whose authority, it was changed; although Cardinal Cusanus mentions the time 5] when it was approved. Cyprian in some places testifies that the blood was given to the people. ..."

Trent responded directly to this article and allowed for the usage of reserving the cup by referring to the fact that the whole Christ is present under both bread and wine, so that no one is faulted where one to have one and not the other. It did note with the Augsburg Confession that the ancient practice of Communion was under both kinds. This latter pratice has been officially restored in the Second Vatican Council: "The Holy Communion becomes a clearer sign if it is received under both kinds. ..." (SC 55). And so it goes. I have been witness to Masses that are giving both bread and wine.

The German Ecumenical Working Group argues that from the Lutheran side there is implicit agreement with the Tridentine/Vatican II position because "...it is agreed that for grave pastoral reasons it is possible to modify and adapt the practice of Communion (e.g. only wine, or only bread, in the case of the sick; unfermented wine [grape juice] in the case of those who might be endangered by alcohol" (The Condemnations of the Reformation Era, p. 109).

I never know what to think of the latter issue. Sometimes it seems to me to divide the cup, others it seems loving. But the latter is often messed up because we belong to a congregation that has a variable communion age (whenever parents and child are ready) and many children not yet communing feel left out get the glass of grape juice instead.