Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-nine Articles Article 32 - Of the Marriage of Priests

Articles XXXII to XXXIX: Miscellaneous

Article XXXII

Of the Marriage of Priests

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by God's laws either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

De Conjugio Sacerdotum

Episcopis, Prebyteris et Diaconis nullo mandato divino praeceptum est, ut aut coelibatum voveant aut a matrimonio absteneant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut caeteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere iudicaverint, pro suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere.

Archbishop Peter Robinson

The history of celibacy in the Western Church is a convoluted one, and worthy of a full length book in its own right. As early as the sixth century clerical celibacy was strongly encouraged in the Western Church, and at times, attempts were made to make it a positive law, mainly to prevent church benefices becoming heritable property. However, on the whole clerical celibacy was only intermittently enforced, and in some provinces, it was not enforced at all. 

The Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Danish kingdoms that preceded a unified England certainly did not enforce clerical celibacy, and it seems that even some senior bishops, such as Stigand, Edward the Confessor's Archbishop of Canterbury were married men. Clerical celibacy was only enforced after the Norman conquest and remained the norm for the rest of the Middle Ages, though as much in the breech as in the observance. Clerical unchastity was common enough for it to be used to extract a laugh or two from the reader of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales.' The Lollards opposed clerical celibacy during the 14th century, and it was an open secret that many senior clergy had irregular or illicit relationships with women, including William Wareham, and Thomas Wolsey. Ironically, Henry VIII was opposed to clerical marriage, which was a major inconvenience to Thomas Cranmer, who had been married since 1532, illegally so far as English Law was concerned, to a niece of Osiander in Nurnberg who he had met whilst serving as Henry's ambassador there. 

Clerical celibacy, or rather the lack of it, was an open scandal in England in the early 16th century, and it was clear that something had to be done, which it duly was in 1548 when clerical marriage was legalized by Edward VI's first parliament. It seems that about a third of the English clergy took wives, or regularized their existing sleeping arrangements, between 1548 and 1553, and this one measure, it has been asserted, probably did more to popularize reform with the clergy than any other. Clerical celibacy returned under Mary I, but when the reformed Church returned under Elizabeth, clerical marriage was again legal, though the Queen herself seems to have been uncomfortable with married clergy. There was no married Archbishop of Canterbury between Matthew Parker (1559-1575) and the reign of William III (1688-1702), though most parish clergy were married by the 1580s

Fr. Robert Hart

This Article is very short and to the point. On this subject the Lutheran document, the Augsburg Confession, in its Article XXIII, gives a much fuller treatment, one which goes into more detail about what the Bible says on this subject, one in which history is accurately examined, and in which a very useful criticism of Rome's required priestly celibacy experiment was shown already, five hundred years ago, to have failed. What is written there is completely in accord with Anglicanism, and mostly in accord with the Eastern Orthodox practice, though in that tradition two things developed in earlier centuries: 1) A man is forbidden to marry after he is ordained, and 2) their bishops are all required to be celibates. But, in both Lutheran and Anglican tradition a deacon, priest or bishop may marry after receiving Holy Orders. 

Evidence from early councils shows that the Eastern Orthodox practice concerning bishops was not the universal rule of the Church in its most ancient times, not even as late as the fifth century. Indeed, when one council of bishops exceeded its regional authority, they tried to require episcopal celibacy of African churches that had never practiced it as a rule. For example, a historian named Philip Delhaye wrote the following: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."

We also have this, by St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second and early third centuries: "Marriage, if used properly, is a way of salvation for all: priests, deacons, and laymen (Stromata 1.3.12; Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne, 8:1189)." It is well-known that the grandfather of St. Patrick was a priest in fourth century Briton. Also, in the fourth century, St. Hillary of Poitiers was a bishop who was married, as was Pope Felix III in the fifth century, and Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century. It can be argued, and quite rightly, that some ancient writers, including St. Jerome, believed that bishops who were married should, after consecration, abstain from sexual relations with their wives. However, in those centuries this was never a law of the universal Church, and seems more in keeping with the pagan stoics than with anything we can know about the Apostles, those other than St. Paul who were married men, and about the earliest bishops.

The first two Lateran Councils of the Latin (or western) Church, in the years 1123 and 1139, forbade all clergy to contract a marriage, and even rules such marriages as invalid; "For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony (Second Lateran Council, Canon 7)." These new rules, regarding priests and deacons, contradicted what is called the Quinisext Council, that had met in Constantinople in 692. In Canon 13 we find this:

"Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence."

In short, we can say that the history is very complicated. But, a major point of having a reformation in England, from the time of King Edward VI, and again from the time of Queen Elizabeth I, was to be true to the teaching and practice of the most ancient Catholic bishops and doctors. Therefore, it is best to begin with Scripture, and then to practice and teach what the Apostolic Church practiced and taught. And, we should do so bearing in mind the last part of our Article: "Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." The issue is godliness. What serves better to help a man live a godly life? Here is where the Augsburg Confession, in its Article XXIII, makes points that are both drawn from the Bible, and indisputably true about the consequences of casting aside what the Bible teaches. The first two paragraphs summarize scriptural teaching, and refer to problems that were no secret then, and are no secret today. 

"There has been common complaint concerning the examples of priests who were not chaste. 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. 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 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 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. 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, those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

"It is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men. For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3:2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife. 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. 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.]"

When it says, "Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation," the allusion appears to be to I Corinthians 7:7, in which St. Paul sees his own life of celibacy as coming from a gift (χάρισμα, i.e. charisma) of God. The Greek word is the same used elsewhere in the Epistle to speak of supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, gifts that include tongues, prophecy, the working of miracles, and so forth. The problem, therefore, is that what God gives to certain individuals as a gift, cannot be enforced as a discipline without severe consequences. It is not that a man cannot live a successful celibate life, but that without a gift from God, he is going to face unnecessary temptations, and most likely troubling of conscience. So the Augsburg Confession states in the same Article:

"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 the marriage of priests. God has given commandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered commonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. But now men, and that, priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the intent of the Canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul, in 1 Tim. 4:3, calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. This may now be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by such penalties.

"But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 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."

The failed experiment of required clerical celibacy was known then to cause crimes and scandals, and today we have seen that among those crimes and scandals are perversions, including the sexual abuse of children. True celibacy, as a gift of God, does not cause these evils. But, enforced "celibacy" gives a hiding place to disordered and perverted individuals, provides them with means and opportunity to carry out their crimes on helpless victims, and greatly narrows the field of men who may carry out priestly ministry, perhaps ruling out those whom St. Paul would have considered most qualified.

And, whereas that last line may seem to run against his personal regard for genuine celibacy as expressed in I Corinthians chapter seven, when it came time to issue instructions to those he left in charge, St. Timothy and St. Titus, he seems to have prefered married men, that is, those who rule well their own households, have their children in subjection, and are free from scandals, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? (I Tim. 3:5)" The relevant texts are I Timothy chapter three, and Titus 1:5-9. In light of those passages, especially in I Timothy, and in light of history and experience, we may well agree with the words of the Augsburg Confession, 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."

To limit the talent pool, and exclude the very men St. Paul considered generally to be most qualified, runs contrary to Scripture, and also to what history reveals. Therefore, whereas others inflict the enormous burden on their own communion, we do not.