Pope St. Gregory VII and the Marriage Sacrament

[Mort_Alz]

I THINK this is where this thread belongs…

Anyway, I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the Crusades and about the Medieval churches and I am fascinated! Particularly with Pope St. Gregory VII. I can say that I agree with nearly all of his political and spiritual moves.

Except for one…

While I don’t mind the law of priestly celibacy, I do believe Gregory went about it the wrong way. When he enforced the law, he offered the existing married clergy the option to either leave their wives or leave the clergy.

I was shocked, alarmed, and shamed at this. How can somebody, (even the Pope), command somebody to abandon their profession or abandon their wife?? These people had were already married, their wives were expecting them to stay with them on account of a promise (yes, I’m aware, marriage was not an official sacrament by this time, but it was still binding). Doesn’t this strike anyone else as unfair, even contradictory to the Church’s teachings? Gregory was basically giving the existing clergy the option to quit or DIVORCE their wives!! A downright outrage!

If my history is wrong, corrections are, of course welcome. Could someone explain this to me a bit better than I seem to be receiving it?

 

[Corki]

Do you have a citation?

Marriage was a Sacrament.

From what I have read, Gregory was not creating a new law but enforcing existing laws. I am not sure if the men in question were married men who were later illicitly ordained or priests who were then invalidly married. It makes a difference.

 

[SonCatcher]

According the Catholic Encyclopedia article, a celibate clergy was already the norm in the Latin Church but was not adhered to. Complicating the matter was that of people essentially buying their way into the priesthood (simony - similar to the selling of indulgences that played a prominent role in the time of the Reformation). Pope Gregory determined that these two issues were connected and forbade them both as a more sure way of eliminating both (though simony, in retrospect, was the greater problem, there were many problems in the West with a married priesthood). Some ancient records suggest that married men who became priests gave up the conjugal aspect of their marriage.

Unfair?
Perhaps - for some who were legitimately married and ordained (possibly through ignorance). Certainly not, however, for those who obtained their priesthood illicitly. Many laws are unfair, yet we obey them for the sake of peace within society.

Contradictory to church teaching?
No. In the Gospel, Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom so that whatever he bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed was loosed. Since the popes are the successors to St. Peter, the authority of binding and loosing transfers to them. The Latin Church had already settled on a celibate clergy and simony was always a sin (it gets its name from Simon the Magician in Acts who attempted to buy his way into the episcopacy). Enforcing settled law was the only think left to do.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I do have a citation:

Robinson, John J. Dungeon, Fire and Sword. New York. M. Evans and Company, Inc., 1991. Print.

 

[Mort_Alz]

According the Catholic Encyclopedia article, a celibate clergy was already the norm in the Latin Church but was not adhered to. Complicating the matter was that of people essentially buying their way into the priesthood (simony - similar to the selling of indulgences that played a prominent role in the time of the Reformation). Pope Gregory determined that these two issues were connected and forbade them both as a more sure way of eliminating both (though simony, in retrospect, was the greater problem, there were many problems in the West with a married priesthood). Some ancient records suggest that married men who became priests gave up the conjugal aspect of their marriage.

Unfair?
Perhaps - for some who were legitimately married and ordained (possibly through ignorance). Certainly not, however, for those who obtained their priesthood illicitly. Many laws are unfair, yet we obey them for the sake of peace within society.

Contradictory to church teaching?
No. In the Gospel, Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom so that whatever he bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and whatever he loosed was loosed. Since the popes are the successors to St. Peter, the authority of binding and loosing transfers to them. The Latin Church had already settled on a celibate clergy and simony was always a sin (it gets its name from Simon the Magician in Acts who attempted to buy his way into the episcopacy). Enforcing settled law was the only think left to do.

For the sake of peace within society? I’m not sure that justifies a “You’re fired or you divorce your wife.” Something slightly odd is that I would be much more comfortable if it was a “you’re fired” position. This is the only instance I see divorce as being allowed in the Church, and my conscience cannot let me accept this as OK.

Furthermore, yes, we do accept laws for the sake of peace within a society. Homosexuality, for instance.

 

[Corki]

For the sake of peace within society? I’m not sure that justifies a “You’re fired or you divorce your wife.” Something slightly odd is that I would be much more comfortable if it was a “you’re fired” position. This is the only instance I see divorce as being allowed in the Church, and my conscience cannot let me accept this as OK.

Furthermore, yes, we do accept laws for the sake of peace within a society. Homosexuality, for instance.

Since your source is not something we can access, we are operating at your mercy.

Did the Pope tell them to divorce or to set their wives aside? In earlier centuries there were other options besides divorce. You haven’t answered my original question. Were these married men who were ordained or clergy who married? If the latter, their marriages would not be considered valid so it would not really be divorce anyway.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Since your source is not something we can access, we are operating at your mercy.

Did the Pope tell them to divorce or to set their wives aside? In earlier centuries there were other options besides divorce. You haven’t answered my original question. Were these married men who were ordained or clergy who married? If the latter, their marriages would not be considered valid so it would not really be divorce anyway.

I don’t know. The book’s description was “all married clergy.”

I believe it did say “set their wives aside.” perhaps I hastily assumed that meant divorce.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t know. The book’s description was “all married clergy.”

I believe it did say “set their wives aside.” perhaps I hastily assumed that meant divorce.

Setting a wife aside is certainly not the same as divorce. These priests were still married but renounced their marriage rights. I think they were required to live separately. I don’t know how well they ensured their wives’ well being.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Hmmm, ok. That clears it up a bit, thank you.

 

[Corki]

Setting a wife aside is certainly not the same as divorce. These priests were still married but renounced their marriage rights. I think they were required to live separately. I don’t know how well they ensured their wives’ well being.

In many instances in medieval times, when a man set his wife aside, he arranged for her care with a convent or abby. This is a recurring theme in the lives of the saints but I am not posiitve it applies when speaking of a married priest of the day.

 

[Digitonomy]

I believe it did say “set their wives aside.” perhaps I hastily assumed that meant divorce.

Even up to this day there is some debate over the issue of married clergy having relations with their wives, although I don’t know how widely this principle was followed back in the day.

Corki:

Were these married men who were ordained or clergy who married? If the latter, their marriages would not be considered valid

This is probably true, but I wouldn’t bet the bank on it. It has long been a discipline of the Church that priests cannot marry, but the key question here is whether anyone other than the pontiff could grant a dispensation from that discipline. It’s also conceivable that at the time it was against the rules, but not a true impediment. So such a marriage could be illicit, but not invalid.

 

[laszlo]

The hard core fact is, that the celibacy of the secular priests was kept in the 4th century, the 12the century and in the 20th century. In the rest of the time people and priests believed that God does not wants impossible things.

I know this from an in depth study form my friend, a priest who kept his life mostly celibate. One of his quote from the 19th century average parochial visitations

• Is the priest religious? Yes he is.
• Does he have children? Yest he has three.

 

[Corki]

The hard core fact is, that the celibacy of the secular priests was kept in the 4th century, the 12the century and in the 20th century. In the rest of the time people and priests believed that God does not wants impossible things.

I think you mean that celibacy was kept from the fourth century, made mandetory in the 12th century and still is kept in the 21st century.

Of course God wants impossible things. He knows we are all faible, incuding priests, but he want holiness.

I know this from an in depth study form my friend, a priest who kept his life mostly celibate.

I hope this is a typo. Since, for a priest, celibacy is the state of being unmarried, a priest needs to be more than mostly celibate.