Leo Ix And Clerical Celibacy

[awyers]

A friend (Anglican) recently gave me a novel to read called "Council of the Cursed" by Peter Tremayne.

In the foreword it says that Pope Leo IX "sanctioned the rounding up of the wives of priests to become slaves in the Lateran Palace" and that Urban II decreed that the wives of priests and religious be sold as slaves.

Please tell me this not true and any help in formulating a response to her insistance that celibacy is not valid, necessary, invented by the Pope etc. would be greatly appreciated!!

[mommas_boy]

I can't find anything like that at all. Also, both Leo and Urban were declared Saints, which means that their lives were looked into a great deal, and put under much scrutiny, which pretty much rules out anything crazy like that.

Both Leo and Urban were champions of clerical celibacy, however. They called for "acountibility in clerical celibacy", which sounds to me like clerics who were caught with mistresses should be defrocked.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm willing to bet without looking any further that this is completely fabricated. Leo IX relaxed the disciplines regarding celibacy, which is nothing to get excited about. Pretty sure the story ends there.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 April 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1270702359' post='2089049']
I'm willing to bet without looking any further that this is completely fabricated. Leo IX relaxed the disciplines regarding celibacy, which is nothing to get excited about. Pretty sure the story ends there.
[/quote]

I'm afraid there is in fact something to this story as p. 486 of volume 3 of the old Catholic Encyclopedia (copyright 1908) confirms. It's the article entitled "Celibacy". In an attempt to enforce celibacy measures such as described in the first post were in fact imposed:
" The incidents of this long final campaign, which began indeed even before the reign of Pope St. Leo IX and lasted down the First Council of the Lateran in 1123 are too complicated to be detailed here. We may note however, that the attack was conducted along two distinct lines of action. In the first place, disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition, debarred from sacred orders, and in particular incapable of succeeding to their fathers' benefices. The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church and never to be enfranchised seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018."

See: [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=ynMqAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=%22leo+IX%22+slaves+lateran&source=bl&ots=Pj51JwWJyB&sig=47XaSA120Kxz65RAg38GFbB-Wvg&hl=en&ei=drfBS_vZLYL7lwf16rXbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22leo%20IX%22%20slaves%20lateran&f=false"]http://books.google....lateran&f=false[/url]

I should also point out that Urban II was beatified but not canonized.
S.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' date='11 April 2010 - 07:23 AM' timestamp='1270988612' post='2090874']
I'm afraid there is in fact something to this story as p. 486 of volume 3 of the old Catholic Encyclopedia (copyright 1908) confirms. It's the article entitled "Celibacy". In an attempt to enforce celibacy measures such as described in the first post were in fact imposed:
" The incidents of this long final campaign, which began indeed even before the reign of Pope St. Leo IX and lasted down the First Council of the Lateran in 1123 are too complicated to be detailed here. We may note however, that the attack was conducted along two distinct lines of action. In the first place, disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition, debarred from sacred orders, and in particular incapable of succeeding to their fathers' benefices. The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church and never to be enfranchised seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018."

See: [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=ynMqAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=%22leo+IX%22+slaves+lateran&source=bl&ots=Pj51JwWJyB&sig=47XaSA120Kxz65RAg38GFbB-Wvg&hl=en&ei=drfBS_vZLYL7lwf16rXbBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22leo%20IX%22%20slaves%20lateran&f=false"]http://books.google....lateran&f=false[/url]

I should also point out that Urban II was beatified but not canonized.
S.
[/quote]
Hm, that's an unfortunately incident then. Maybe a bit of an overreaction against simony?

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 April 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1271011560' post='2091011']
Hm, that's an unfortunately incident then. Maybe a bit of an overreaction against simony?
[/quote]


Possibly, but I think it was more an attempt to stamp out clerical marriage, or to enforce mandatory continence on clergy who were married. The history of celibacy is not very well understood by many today. Many are of the opinion that the Church did not require celibacy of clerics until the second millenium. In fact, church documents going back to the fourth century show that while marriage of clergy was tolerated they were still expected to observe continence and NOT have relations with their wives after ordination. Pope Siricius, for example wrote legislation in the fourth century requiring "perpetual continence" of bishops, priests and deacons. The Eastern churches had a looser approach, requiring only periodic continence of their married priests. Looks as if we won't be so strict with the Episcopal or Anglican clergy who enter the Church though.

There is an interesting commentary here from the "Homiletic and Pastoral Review : [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7663&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=343349"]http://www.catholicc...searchid=343349[/url]

S.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Skinzo