Article XXIII (XI) The Marriage of Priests
[1] In spite of the great scandal about their filthy celibacy, the adversaries arrogantly defend pontifical law under the wicked and false excuse of the divine name. They even encourage the emperor and princes, to the disgrace and scandal of the Roman Empire, to not allow the marriage of priests. This is how they speak.
[2] Where in any history can one read of greater rudeness than this of the adversaries? We will review their arguments later. Now let the wise reader consider how shameful these good-for-nothing men are. They claim that marriages produce scandal and disgrace to the government, as though this public scandal of criminal and unnatural lusts glowing among these very Holy Fathers were a great ornament to the Church, while they pretend that they are Curii and live like bacchanals! Most things done with the greatest license by these men cannot even be named without a breach of modesty. [3] These are their lusts, which they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand, Emperor Charles. (Certain ancient predictions name you as the king of modest face, for the saying appears about you, “One modest in face shall reign everywhere.”) Contrary to divine Law, the law of nations, and the canons of the councils, they ask you to break apart marriages, to punish innocent men horribly merely for the sake of marriage, to put priests to death, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to exile banished women and fatherless children. They bring such laws to you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity, however monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear. [4] But because disgrace or cruelty does not stain your character, we hope that you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when you have learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our belief, taken from God’s Word, which the adversaries reject with the most silly and vain opinions.
[5] Nevertheless, they do not seriously defend celibacy. They are not ignorant of how few there are who practice chastity. They create a counterfeit religion for their domain, which they think that celibacy helps. So we understand that Peter was right to advise that “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1). The adversaries say, write, or do nothing truly, frankly, and candidly in this entire case. They actually argue only about the domain they falsely think is in danger, and which they try hard to support with a wicked excuse of godliness.
[6] We cannot approve this law about celibacy that the adversaries defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and disagrees with the very canons of the councils. It is clearly superstitious and dangerous. It produces countless scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals. Our other disagreements need some discussion by the doctors. But in this matter the subject is so clear to both parties that it requires no discussion. It only requires as judge a man who is honest and fears God. Although we defend the clear truth, the adversaries still have created certain reproaches for mocking our arguments.
[Arguments for the Marriage of Priests]
[7] First, Genesis 1:28 teaches that people were created to be fruitful, and that one sex should desire the other in a proper way. We are not speaking about lustful desire, which is sin, but about that appetite that was in nature in its perfection. They call this physical love. This love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it makes sense that statutes or vows cannot remove the right to contract marriage.
[8] The adversaries object to these arguments. They say that in the beginning, the commandment was given to populate the earth. Now that the earth has been populated, marriage is not commanded. See how wisely they judge! Human nature is so formed by God’s Word that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of creation, but as long as this nature of our bodies exists. Humanity is fruitful just as the earth becomes fruitful by the Word, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed” (Genesis 1:11). Because of this ordinance, the earth not only started to produce plants in the beginning, but as long as this natural order exists, the fields are covered every year. Therefore, just as human laws cannot change the nature of the earth, so, without God’s special work, neither vows nor a human law can change a human being’s nature.
[9] Second, because this creation, or divine ordinance, in humanity is a natural right, jurists have said wisely and correctly that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. Natural right is unchangeable. Therefore, the right to contract marriage must always remain. Where nature does not change, that ordinance which God gave nature does not change. It cannot be removed by human laws. [10] Therefore, it is ridiculous for the adversaries to babble that marriage was commanded in the beginning, but is not now. This is the same as if they would say, “Formerly, when people were born, they were born with gender; now they are not. Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right; now they do not.” No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more crafty than these foolish things. They were created to dodge a natural right. [11] Therefore, let this point remain, that both Scripture teaches and the jurist says wisely: the union of male and female belongs to natural right. [12] Furthermore, a natural right is truly a divine right because it is an ordinance divinely imprinted on nature. Because this right cannot be changed without an extraordinary work of God, the right to contract marriage remains, the natural desire of one sex for the other sex is an ordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right. Otherwise, why would both sexes have been created? [13] As it has been said before, we are not speaking of lustful desires, which is sin, but of that desire called physical love. Lustful desire has not removed this physical love from nature, but inflames it, so that now physical love has greater need of a cure. Marriage is necessary not only for the sake of procreation, but also as a cure. These things are clear and so well established that they cannot be disputed.
[14] Third, Paul says, “Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” (1 Corinthians 7:2). This is a clear command having to do with everyone unfit for celibacy. [15] The adversaries ask to be shown a commandment that commands priests to marry, as though priests are not men! We certainly judge that the things we hold about human nature in general also have to do with priests. [16] Does not Paul in this passage command marriage for those who do not have the gift of chastity? Paul interprets himself a little later when he says, “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:9). And Christ has clearly said, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (Matthew 19:11). Since Adam’s fall into sin, these two things agree: natural appetite and lustful desire. Lustful desire inflames the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its perfection. So Paul speaks of marriage as a cure, and because of these flames he commands marriage. Neither can any human authority, law, or vows remove this declaration, “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion,” because they do not remove the nature or lustful desire. [17] Therefore, all who burn keep the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul, “Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” [1 Corinthians 7:2], all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves chaste. The decision about chastity is one of individual conscience.
[18] Here the adversaries command seeking chastity from God, weakening the body through labor and hunger. Why do they not proclaim these magnificent commandments to themselves? As we have said before, the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously. [19] If chastity were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it needs a peculiar gift. Therefore, not everyone has it. God wishes the rest to use the common law of nature, which He has instituted. He does not wish His ordinances, His creations, to be hated. He wishes people to be chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just as He wishes that we use food and drink so that our life is nourished. [20] Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who tried very hard to subdue the body, and yet made little progress. So, Ambrose is right in saying, “Virginity is only a thing that can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vow rather than of precept.” [21] If anyone here would object that Christ praises those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12), let him also consider that He praises those having the gift of chastity. Because of this He adds, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” [22] For an impure chastity does not please Christ. We also praise true chastity. But now we are arguing about the law, and about those who do not have the gift of chastity. The matter should be left free, and traps should not be cast upon the weak through this law.
[23] Fourth, the pontifical law differs also from the canons of the councils. The ancient canons do not ban marriage. Neither do they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, even though they remove from clerical office those who contracted marriage during their ministry. At those times this dismissal was an act of kindness. The new canons, which have not been framed in the synods, but have been made according to the private judgment of the popes, both ban the contraction of marriages and dissolve them when contracted. This is to be done openly, contrary to Christ’s command, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). [24] In the Confutation the adversaries exclaim that the councils command celibacy. We do not find fault with the councils’ decrees. Under a certain condition they allow marriage. However, we do find fault with the laws enacted since the ancient synods, which the popes of Rome have created contrary to the authority of the synods. The popes hate the authority of the synods, just as much as they want that authority to appear holy to others. [25] Therefore, this law about permanent celibacy is peculiar to this new pontifical tyranny. Nor is it without a reason. For Daniel 11:37 attributes this mark to the kingdom of Antichrist: hatred for women.
[26] Fifth, the adversaries do not defend the law because of superstition. For they see that it is not generally obeyed. Yet, they spread superstitious opinions, while giving an appearance of religion. They claim that they require celibacy because it is purity, as though marriage were impure and a sin, or as though celibacy merited justification more than marriage! [27] To this end they cite the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because under the Law at the time of ministering, the priests were separated from their wives. The priest in the New Testament, because he should always pray, should always practice chastity. This silly comparison is presented as a proof that should urge priests to permanent celibacy, although in this very comparison marriage is allowed. Only during the time of ministry was its use prohibited. It is one thing to pray; it is another to minister. The saints prayed even when they did not exercise the public ministry. Conjugal intercourse did not hinder them from praying.
[28] We will reply to these daydreams in an orderly way. In the first place, the adversaries should acknowledge that in believers, marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by God’s Word. That is to say, it is a matter that is permitted and approved by God’s Word, as Scripture testifies abundantly. [29] Christ calls marriage a divine union when He says, “What therefore God has joined together” (Matthew 19:6). [30] And Paul says of marriage, of meats and similar things, “It is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:5), that is, “by the Word,” by which consciences become certain that God approves, and “by prayer,” that is, by faith, which uses it with thanksgiving as God’s gift. [31] Likewise, “The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:14), that is, the use of marriage is permitted and holy because of faith in Christ, just as it is permitted to use meat, and so on. [32] Likewise, “She will be saved through childbearing,” and so on (1 Timothy 2:15). If the adversaries could produce such a passage about celibacy, then certainly they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paul says that woman is saved by childbearing. What more honorable thing could be said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by the conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing children and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let the reader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without faith are not praised. “If they continue,” he says, “in faith.” For he speaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore, he requires especially faith, through which a woman receives the forgiveness of sins and justification. Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every person a good work of a particular calling should follow faith. This work pleases God because of faith. So the duties of the woman please God because of faith, and the believing woman is saved who devoutly serves her calling in such duties.
[33] These references teach that marriage is a lawful thing. Therefore, if purity illustrates that which is allowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they have been approved by God’s Word. [34] Paul says about lawful things, “To the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15), to those who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore, as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly, marriage is pure because of God’s Word and faith.
[35] Again, if purity is properly opposed to lustful desires, it illustrates purity of heart, that is, lustful desires put to death [mortified]. For the Law does not prohibit marriage, but lustful desires, adultery, fornication. Therefore, celibacy is not purity. There may be greater purity of heart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those who are even truly chaste.
[36] Finally, if they understand that celibacy is pure in the sense that it merits justification more than marriage does, we most forcefully deny it. We are justified neither because of virginity nor because of marriage, but freely for Christ’s sake, when we believe that for His sake God is merciful to us. [37] Here perhaps they will cry out that, like Jovinian, marriage is made equal to virginity. But, because of such racket, we will not reject the truth about the righteousness of faith, which we explained before. [38] Yet, we do not make virginity and marriage equal. For just as one gift excels another, as prophecy excels power of speech, the science of military affairs excels agriculture, and power of speech excels architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage. [39] Just as a public speaker is not more righteous before God because of his ability to speak than an architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does not merit justification by virginity any more than a married person merits it by conjugal duties. Each person should faithfully serve in his own gift and believe that for Christ’s sake he receives the forgiveness of sins and through faith is regarded righteous before God.
[40] Neither Christ nor Paul praise virginity because it justifies, but because it is freer and less distracted by domestic occupations in praying, teaching, and serving. For this reason Paul says, “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32). Virginity, therefore, is praised because of meditation and study. So Christ does not simply praise those “who have made themselves eunuchs,” but adds, “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” that is, they may have freedom to learn or teach the Gospel. He does not say that virginity merits the forgiveness of sins or salvation.
[41] To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do not establish the duty of demanding permanent celibacy from the priests. Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be transferred to us. Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity. Now it is not an impurity because Paul says, “To the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). The Gospel frees us from these Levitical impurities. [42] If anyone defends the law of celibacy with the intent to burden consciences by these Levitical commands, we must labor against this, just as the apostles in Acts 15:10 labored against those who required circumcision and tried to force Moses’ Law upon Christians.
[43] In the meantime, good people will know how to control the use of marriage, especially when they occupy public offices. These often give good people so much labor that all domestic thoughts are expelled from their minds. Good people know this also, that Paul commands everyone “to control his own body in holiness” (1 Thessalonians 4:4). They also know that they must rest sometimes, so that there may be freedom for prayer. Paul does not wish this to be permanent (1 Corinthians 7:5). [44] Such chastity is easy to those who are well occupied. But the great crowd of unemployed priests in the fraternities cannot afford, in this sensuality, even this Levitical chastity, as the facts show. The lines are well known, “The boy used to pursuing a lazy life hates those who are busy.”
[45] Many heretics misunderstand the Law of Moses and have treated marriage with contempt. Yet they admire celibacy very much. Epiphanius complains that, especially by this approval, the Encratites captured the minds of the gullible. They refrained from wine even in the Lord’s Supper. They refrained from eating the flesh of all animals, in which they excelled the Dominican brethren, who live upon fish. They refrained also from marriage, and this in particular gained the chief admiration. They thought that these works and services merited grace more than the use of wine, flesh, and marriage. To them those things appeared to be profane and unclean and could scarcely please God, even though they were not condemned.
[46] In Colossians 2:18, Paul greatly disapproves these angelic forms of worship. For when people believe that they are pure and righteous because of such hypocrisy, they hinder the knowledge of Christ and the knowledge of God’s gifts and commandments. God wishes us to use His gifts in a godly way. [47] We might mention examples where certain godly consciences were greatly disturbed because of the lawful use of marriage. This evil was taken from the opinions of monks superstitiously praising celibacy. [48] Yet, we do not find fault with self-control or chastity. We have said before that spiritual exercises and putting the flesh to death are necessary. Certainly we deny that confidence should be placed in certain ceremonies, as though they made one righteous. [49] Epiphanius has said elegantly that these ceremonies should be praised “for restraining the body or because of public morals,” just as certain rites were set up for instructing the ignorant, and not as services that justify.
[50] Our adversaries do not require celibacy through superstition. They know that chastity is not ordinarily practiced. The adversaries fake superstitious opinions to fool the ignorant. They should be hated more than the Encratites, who seem to have erred by a show of religion. These Sardanapali ‹Epicureans› willingly misuse the appearance of religion.
[51] Sixth, we have many reasons for disapproving the law of permanent celibacy. Besides these, there are also dangers to souls and public scandals. Even if the law were just, these should discourage good people from approving such a burden that has destroyed countless souls.
[52] For a long time, good people have complained about this burden, either for themselves or for others whom they saw to be in danger. But the popes do not listen to these complaints. It is beyond doubt that this law is injurious to public morals, and has produced vices and shameful lusts. The Roman comedic plays still exist. Rome still recognizes and reads its own morals in them.
[53] So God punishes the hatred of His own gift and ordinance in those who ban marriage. For other laws the custom was that if a benefit could clearly be shown, they were changed. Why isn’t the same done with this law? There are weighty reasons to support such a change, especially now. Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming weaker. Vices are increasing. Therefore, the divine cures should be used. [54] We see what vice God condemned before the flood and before the burning of the five cities. Similar vices have come before the destruction of many other cities, such as Sybaris and Rome. These illustrate what it will be like in the end times. [55] So now, marriage should be strongly defended by the strictest laws and warning examples. People should be encouraged to marry. This duty belongs to public officials, who should maintain public discipline. Meanwhile, the teachers of the Gospel should do both of these things: encourage unchaste people to marry; encourage others not to hate the gift of chastity.
[56] The popes daily enact and change other excellent laws. However, when it comes to the law of celibacy, they are as hard and cold as iron, even though it is clear that this is simply a human right. [57] They are now making this law more burdensome in many ways. The canon asks them to suspend priests. These rather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but from trees. They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage. [58] These very murders of close relatives show that this law is a doctrine of demons [1 Timothy 4:1]. Since the devil is a murderer [John 8:44], he defends his law by these murders.
[59] We know that there is some offense regarding schism. We seem to have separated from those who are considered regular bishops. But our consciences are very secure. We know that, though we earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot please the adversaries unless we cast away clear truth and then willingly agree with these very men to defend this unjust law, to dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put priests to death if they do not obey, and to drive poor women and fatherless children into exile. But since these conditions clearly displease God, we cannot feel sorry that we are not allied with the multitude of murderers among the adversaries.
[Conclusion]
[60] We have explained why we cannot with a good conscience agree with the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law about permanent celibacy. It conflicts with divine and natural law, and it varies from the canons themselves. It is superstitious and full of danger. Finally, the whole affair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake of religion. It was enacted for the sake of control, and this is wickedly given the appearance of religion. No sane person can produce anything against these most firmly established reasons. [61] The Gospel allows marriage for those to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel marriage for those who can be chaste, provided they are truly chaste. We hold that the priests should be allowed this freedom also. We do not wish to compel anyone to be celibate by force, nor do we want to break up marriages that have been contracted.
[62] We have also shown on the side how the adversaries object to several of our arguments while we presented them. We have explained away these false accusations. As briefly as possible, we will now relate what important reasons they claim to have for defending the law. [63] First, they say that it has been revealed by God. You see the extreme rudeness of these sorry fellows. They dare to affirm that the law of permanent celibacy has been divinely revealed, although it is contrary to clear Scripture passages. These passages command that “because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Likewise, they forbid breaking up marriages that have been contracted. (See Matthew 5:32; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 7:27.) Paul reminds us what kind of author such a law has when he calls it “teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). Fruit show their author; many monstrous lusts and murders are now committed under the appearance of that law.
[64] The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests should be pure, according to Isaiah 52:11, “Purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the LORD.” And they cite many things to this effect. We have dealt with this particularly false reason before. We have said that virginity without faith is not purity before God, and marriage is pure because of faith, according to Titus 1:15, “To the pure, all things are pure.” We have also said that outward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to be demanded today, because the Gospel requires purity of heart. A husband’s heart, as in the case of polygamists Abraham or Jacob, may be purer and burn less with lusts than that of many virgins who are truly chaste. What Isaiah says, “Purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the LORD,” should be understood as referring to the cleanness of heart and to the whole of repentance. [65] Besides, in the exercise of marriage the saints will know to what extent it is beneficial to restrain its use, and as Paul says, “to control his own body in holiness” (1 Thessalonians 4:4). [66] Finally, since marriage is pure, those who are not chaste in celibacy are rightly told that they should marry wives to be pure. So the same law, “Purify yourselves, you who bear the vessels of the LORD,” commands that impure celibates become pure husbands.
[67] The third argument is horrible: the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! This is a new crime, that marriage is a heresy! In the time of Jovinian the world did not as yet know the law about permanent celibacy. Therefore, it is a rude lie that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, or that such marriage was then condemned by the Church. [68] In such passages we can see what plan the adversaries had in writing the Confutation. They determined that the ignorant would be the most easily excited if they would hear frequently the charge of heresy, and if they pretend that our cause had been condemned and executed by many previous decisions of the Church. So they frequently cite falsely the Church’s judgment. Because they knew about this, they were unwilling to show us a copy of their Apology, lest this lie and these charges be exposed. [69] We have already expressed our opinion, however, regarding Jovinian, which concerns the comparison of virginity and marriage. We do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither virginity nor marriage merits justification.
[70] The adversaries defend a law that is godless and destructive to good morals by such false arguments. By such reasons they set the minds of princes firmly against God’s judgment. God will call them to explain why they have broken apart marriages and why they have tortured and killed priests. For do not doubt that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out (Genesis 4:10), so the blood of many good men, whom they have unjustly attacked, will also cry out. God will punish this cruelty. There you will discover how worthless are these reasons of the adversaries. You will discern that in God’s judgment no lies against God’s Word remain standing, as Isaiah says, “All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flower of the field” (40:6).
[71] Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to comfort themselves with the consciousness of right counsels. Even if the priests had done wrong in contracting marriages, this disruption of marriages, these prohibitions, and this cruelty are clearly contrary to God’s will and Word. Neither novelty nor dissent delights our princes. Especially in an undoubted matter more regard had to be paid to God’s Word than to anything else.