The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy by Father Ignace de la Potterie, S.J.

[Father Ignace de la Potterie, S.J., a most extraordinary biblical scholar after his conversion to be a Catholic long after being a Jesuit[!] was a close friend and confidant in the last years of his life. Some publishing I hope to do in the future, please God, heavily involves Father Ignace. May the Lord grant rest to his soul. Thanks Father! The following bit is one of his extraordiary works which I used to teach seminarians in various seminaries throughout the world. Very, very cool. It is one of his works which showed some of his comrades in arms to be bitter enemies of his. Yikes! He really does have some awesome, far-reaching material in his last decades of life. The bit in this post can be found at Vatican.va Praise God, a miracle on its own!]

The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy

Ignace de la Potterie, S.J. – Biblical scholar

 For several centuries there has been much debate
as to whether the obligation of celibacy for clerics in major orders (or at
least that of living in continence for those who are married) is of biblical
origin or whether it is based merely on ecclesiastical tradition dating back to
the fourth century, since from then on, without question, legislation exists on
the subject. The first of these two possible answers has recently been
presented. once again, this time with an extraordinary wealth of material, by C.
Cochini in Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal.¹
Clearly set forth in the title, the author’s position is apparently that
celibacy can be and should be upheld, given that account is taken (more perhaps
than in the past) of the growth of ancient tradition, a point on which A.M.
Stickler also insists in his preface,² and H. Crouzel in a
review.³ In other words, it could be said that the obligation
of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century
but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence
(or in celibacy) was already held up to the ministers of the Church, and that
this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as a requirement by quite a number
(Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on all clerics in
major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic
times but which gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of
the fourth century.⁴

 The new Catechism of the Catholic Church
(n. 1579) seems to take the same line. Out of prudence, however, it
omits to mention the canon law on celibacy, which nonetheless forms part of
Church law today (CIC 277 par. 1), and merely sets out the biblical
reasons for celibacy. Yet even here it no longer refers (as often in the past)
to the Old Testament, and only quotes two passages from the New: the one in
Matthew 19:22, about celibacy: «for the sake of the kingdom of heaven»;
and then the Pauline text of 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, where the Apostle
speaks of those who are called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to
the Lord and «his affairs»; and adds by way of conclusion that «embraced with a
joyful heart, it (the celibate life) radiantly proclaims the kingdom of God».
Here of course one might quote other New Testament passages to which, for
instance, Paul VI referred in his encyclical Sacerdotalis coelibatus (nn.
17-35), to indicate the reasons for sacred celibacy (its Christological,
ecclesiological and eschatological significance). But the problem is that these
various texts describe, as a typically Christian ideal, the theological and
spiritual value of celibacy in genere. This ideal, however, is equally
valid for the religious and for people living consecrated lives in the world;
they do not show any particular connection with the ministries of the
Church.

 The precise question that arises, therefore, is
this: do texts .exist in Holy Writ which point to a specific connection between
celibacy and priesthood? It would seem so. But if this is the case, more
importance will have to be attached to certain New Testament passages which
(oddly) have not received much attention in the recent debates. These are the
texts in which the Pauline norm (much contested, to be sure) of ‘unius uxoris
vir’⁵ is set out, for analysis of which C. Cochini has also now
adduced new material. Enunciated several times in the Pastoral Letters, this
principle is uniquely important in our case for two reasons. The first is, as
has been convincingly shown by Stickler⁶ as well as by Cochini,⁷
that the stipulation was one of the main formulae on which the ancient
tradition was based for claiming an actual apostolic origin for the law of
priestly celibacy. This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one
base the celibacy of priests on the evidence of texts which talk about
married ministers? Such reasoning can only make sense if there is a
middle term between the two extremes (marriage of ministers and celibacy): it is
that of continence, to which, in fact, married ministers were
bound. It was probably because this mediating value of continence was
overlooked, that in recent times the formula unius uxoris vir dropped out
of discussions on celibacy. It is therefore timely today to re-examine
carefully the traditional argument.

 The other reason why these texts are especially
important from the strictly biblical point of view lies in the fact that they
are the only passages in the New Testament where an identical norm is laid down
for the three groups of ordained ministers, and only for them. For,
according to the Pastoral Letters, the bishop ought to be unius uxoris vir
(1 Tim 3:2), so ought the priest (Tit 1:6) and so ought the deacon (I Tim
3:12), whereas that formula (a technical one, it would seem) is never used for
other Christians. So here we have a special requirement for the exercise of the
ministerial priesthood as such. Further, it should also be observed that
the complementary formula unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9) is only used of
widows at least 60 years old. That is to say, it does not apply to any Christian
woman only but to elderly women who exercise a ministry in the community
(comparable, one imagines, with that of deaconesses in ancient times). The
stereotyped character of this formula in the Pastoral Letters makes one suspect
it must have already been rooted in a long biblical tradition.⁸

So what does it mean that the minister of
the Church should be «the husband of one wife»? In the following pages we shall
first try to show that the formula unius uxoris vir, up to the fourth
century, was understood, as Stickler so well puts it, «in the sense of a
biblical argument in favour of celibacy of apostolic inspiration:
for the Pauline norm was interpreted in the sense of a guarantee assuring
effective observance of continence by ministers who were already
married before they were ordained.»⁹ In the second part, we shall
take a step forward: we shall propose a deeper theological interpretation of the
Pauline stipulation itself, to show that, already in New Testament times it
actually does propose the model for the ministerial priesthood of a marital
relationship between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride, on the
basis of the mystical view of marriage which St Paul frequently mentions in his
letters (cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-32).¹⁰ From this, it will become
abundantly clear that, for married ministers, their ordination implied an
invitation to live in continence thereafter.

 The stipulation unius uxoris vir: an
argument in

ancient tradition for the apostolic origin
of

celibacy/continence

 a. Ecclesiastical legislation from the fourth
century onwards

Scholars generally agree that the obligation of
celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century
onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly: three
pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of
Pope Siricius and Dominus inter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of
the Council of Carthage of AD 390.¹¹

 However, it is important to observe that the
legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical
enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for
instance, said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the
divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus):
«so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too
may observe».¹² The decree on the obligation of continence was
then passed unanimously: «It is pleasing to all that bishop, priest and deacon,
the guardians of purity, abstain from marital relations with their wives (ab
uxori bus se abstineant) so that the perfect purity may be safeguarded of
those who serve the altar.»

 The Pauline unius uxoris vir is not
explicitly quoted here but reference to this stipulation is implicit since, as
in the Pastoral Letters, the bishop, priest and deacon each are mentioned.
Besides, 1 Timothy 3:2 is quoted explicitly in an earlier text, the decretal
Cum in unum of Siricius himself, who presented the norms of the Council
of Rome of AD 386. Here the Pope first formulated an objection that the
expression unius uxoris vir of 1 Timothy 3:2, some said, specifically
guaranteed the bishop the right to use marriage after sacred ordination.
Siricius answered by giving the stipulation’s correct interpretation: «He (Paul)
was not speaking of a man who might persist in the desire to beget children
(non permanentem in desiderio generandi dixit); he was speaking about
continence which they had to observe in future (propter continentiam
futuram).» This fundamental text was repeated a number of times
subsequently.¹³ This is Cochini’s comment on it: «Monogamy (that is
to say, the law of unius uxoris vir) is a condition for receiving Order,
since faithfulness (observed up till then) to one woman is warranty for
supposing that the candidate will be capable (in the future) of
practising the perfect continence to be asked of him after ordination.»¹⁴
And the author goes on: «This exegesis of St Paul’s prescriptions to
Timothy and Titus is an essential link by which the bishops of the Synod of Rome
(AD 386) and Pope Siricius are cited in continuity with the apostolic
age.»

 But is this exegesis, for which an apostolic
tradition is claimed, properly founded? Not without reason, some scholars think
it doubtful.¹⁵ For certain questions have to be asked: is it not
rather odd to discover in the past behaviour of the married minister
(that is to say, his faithfulness to one woman, even in sexual relations) a
sufficient guarantee of his future but different behaviour (that
is, continence in conjugal relations with that same woman, his lawful wife)? The
legislators saw in the past a guarantee for the future, but at the same time
they changed the tune to be played: from the (lawful) use of marriage to
renunciation of it. To justify this twofold transition from past to
future and from sexual relations to conjugal continence, we need an explanatory
tertium quid: such justification is only possible if an interpretation of
this same formula can be found to bring out, perhaps, some hidden and hitherto
unnoted aspect. And this is what we shall try to do in the second
part.

 But first let us briefly investigate whether, in
the history of exegesis and canonical legislation, there may not be elements
that can lead us to a deeper understanding of the Pauline
stipulation.

 b. Theological reasons for the continence and
celibacy of priests

From the patristic period until today, we find
ourselves faced with two different interpretations of the Pauline formula: for
some people, the norm unius uxoris vir prohibits serial polygamy;
for others, only simultaneous polygamy.¹⁶

 The first solution is undoubtedly the more
traditional: the expression then means that the sacred ministers could be
married men, but only married once; and if the wife had died, they must not have
contracted a second marriage, nor could they marry again later. Today, too, this
interpretation is the more commonly held among Catholic exegetes. According to
the other solutions, however, unius uxoris vir means only being forbidden
to live with more than one woman at the same time; it would thus simply be a
recommendation to observe conjugal morality.

 But neither of these two solutions is entirely
satisfying. To the first, it can be objected: if the union in which the married
minister was hitherto living was virtuous, why should a second marriage not be
so, after the first wife’s death? It is also the case that the Apostle himself
on the one hand required the elderly widow who served the community to have been
unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9), whereas he advised young widows to
get married again (1 Tim 5:14). But the other solution raises problems too:
conjugal faithfulness in married life is certainly required of all Christians.
Why then is the expression unius uxoris vir (and analogously unius yin
uxor) used only for those who exercise a ministry in the
community?

 We may add that the second interpretation goes no
further than the simple level of general morality; applied to ministers of the
Church, it has something commonplace and reductive about it. The first — the
prohibition of a second marriage — is rather of a disciplinary and canonical
nature, but its theological basis is not indicated. The same omission has indeed
already been noted in the canonical legislation of the fourth century: Pope
Siricius and many others after him interpreted the Pauline stipulation as the
obligation to continence for the married clergy. They did, it is true,
give their reason: the purity required of those approaching the altar. But it
has to be recognized that this is not in fact what is being talked about in the
text of the Pastoral Letters.

 At the end of Stickler’s historical investigation,
he too recognized that, in this whole problem of priestly celibacy, there had
been too much concentration on the juridical aspect.¹⁷ Throughout
that lengthy history there had been a lack of theological reflection on the
deeper significance of the ministerial priesthood, on the reason for its
celibacy and on its spiritual value. This is particularly true of the canonical
use of the norm unius uxoris vir from the fourth century onwards. So we
shall have to search the patristic and canonical tradition itself to see if any
theological reasons are given for basing the disciplinary obligation of clerical
continence on the Pauline stipulation.

 Three pieces of evidence are significant here. The
first is provided by Tertullian at the beginning of the third century. He
reminds the clergy that monogamy is not only an ecclesiastical discipline but
also a precept of the Apostle.¹⁸ It thus dates back to apostolic
times. Furthermore, he insists on the fact that, in the Church, not a few
believers are not married, that they live in continence and that some of
them belong to ‘ecclesiastical orders’.¹⁹ Now, the men and women who
live like this, Tertullian goes on, «have preferred to marry God» (Deo nubere
maluerunt);²⁰ and speaking about virgins, he says that they are
«brides of Christ».²¹

 But what is the connection between monogamous
marriage on the one hand and continence on the other? Tertullian does
not say, but here invokes the example set by Christ who, according to the flesh,
was not married and lived in celibacy (he was not, therefore, «a husband of one
wife»); yet, in the spirit, «he had one bride the Church» (unam habens
ecclesiam sponsam).²² This doctrine of Christ’s spiritual
marriage to the Church, here inspired by the Pauline text of Ephesians 5:25-32,
was common in early Christianity; Tertullian saw this spiritual marriage as one
of the main theological bases for the law of monogamous marriage: «because
Christ is one and his Church is one» (unus enim Christus et una eius
ecclesia).²³ But it does not follow from this that Tertullian had
already- made the connection between this doctrine and the formulae unius
uxoris vir or unius yin uxor of the Pastoral Letters, where
monogamous marriage is explicitly referred to; this connection between the two
themes is what we shall be trying to establish further on.

 Besides, in the last text quoted, Tertullian’s
reasoning was not soundly based: the problem dealt with in Ephesians 5:25-32 was
not monogamous marriage but, in principle, the relationship of every Christian
marriage with the covenant. Here Paul is speaking of all married
members of the Church. When, referring to Genesis 2:24, the Apostle says that
husband and wife «will be one flesh» (v. 31), he is justifying the use of
marriage for them.²⁴ The formula unius uxoris vir of the
Pastoral Letters, however, is not used for all married men but only for
ministers of the Church (this fact has been too little noted); yet
subsequently it came to be regarded as the biblical basis of the law of
continence for clerics. This is the point that still needs to be cleared
up.

 With St Augustine we take a step forward. He,
having taken part in the deliberationsof the African synods, was certainly aware
of the ecclesiastic law governing the ‘continence of clerics’.²⁵ But
how does Augustine then explain the stipulation unius uxoris vir which is
used by Paul for married clerics? In De bono conjugali (written in about
AD 420), he advances a theological explanation for it, and asks himself why
polygamy was accepted in the Old Testament, whereas «in our own age, the
sacrament has been restricted to the union between one man and one
woman; and consequently it is only lawful to ordain as a minister of the
Church (ecclesiae dispensatorem) a man who has had one wife (unius
uxoris virum)». And here is Augustine’s answer: «As the many wives
(plures uxores) of the ancient Fathers symbolized our future churches of
all nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditas Christo),
so the guide of the faithful (noster antistes, our bishop), who is
the husband of one wife (unius uxoris vir) signifies the union of all
nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditam
Christo)».²⁶

 In this text, where we find the formula unius
uxoris vir being applied to the bishop, the whole accent falls on the
fact that he, ‘the man’, in his relations with his ‘wife’, symbolizes the
relationship between Christ and the Church. An analogous use of the phrase ‘man
and wife’ occurs in a passage of De continentia: «The Apostle invites us
to observe so to speak three pairs (copulas): Christ and the Church,
husband and wife, the spirit and the flesh».²⁷ The suggestion these
texts offer us for interpreting the stipulation unius uxoris vir applied
to the (married) minister of the sacrament is that he, as minister, not only
represents the second pair (husband and wife) but also the first: henceforth he
personifies Christ in his married relationship with the Church.
Here we have the basis for the doctrine which was later to become a classic
one: Sacerdos alter Christus. Like Christ, the priest is the Church’s
bridegroom.

 One further word on the canonical legislation of
the Middle Ages. On various occasions, in penitential books, it is said that for
a married priest to go on having sexual relations with his wife after ordination
would be an act of unfaithfulness to the promise made to God. It would be an
adulterium since, the minister now being married to the Church, his
relationship with his own wife «is like a violation of the marriage
bond».²⁸ This weighty accusation against a lawfully wedded, decent
man only makes sense if something is left unexpressed because it is well-known,
i.e., that the sacred minister, from the moment of his ordination, now lives in
another relationship, also of a matrimonial type — that which unites Christ and
the Church in which he, the minister, the man (vir), represents Christ
the bridegroom; with his own wife (uxor) therefore «the carnal union
should from now on be a spiritual one», as St Leo the Great
said.²⁹

 With these various historical and theological
preliminaries, we have gathered enough material for us to be able to tackle the
exegetical problem, that is to say, to make an accurate analysis of the actual
formula unius uxoris vir in the Pastoral Letters.

 ‘Unius uxoris vir’: a covenantal
formula

 We have already seen that, of the two traditional
interpretations of the stipulation, one (the more widespread) was of a
disciplinary type, and the other exclusively moral. But it was virtually never
explained why a minister of the Church should be ‘the husband of one
wife’. We shall now attempt to show that the reason for this norm, its deeper
meaning and its implications are already present in the text itself if we
succeed in analyzing it properly. First we need to clear up the problem of where
this mysterious form comes from, with its undeniably fixed, technical,
stereotyped nature. But let it be said forthwith: the stipulation is actually a
covenantal formula.

 This becomes plain when we consider the
parallelism between the formula in the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2
Corinthians 11:2, where Paul describes the Church of Corinth as a woman, as a
bride, whom he has presented to Christ as a chaste virgin:

 I am jealous about you with the jealousy of God,
because I have betrothed you to one man (uni viro), to present you to
Christ as a pure virgin.

The context of this passage is particularly clear
if we read it with 1 Timothy 5:9. The same formula unus vir is used of
the relations whether of the ~2hurch with Christ, or of the
widow who has only had one husband and discharges a ministry in
the community. In 2 Corinthians 11:2, Christ’s bride is the Church itself. Let
us carefully read the text over again. The jealousy of which Paul speaks is a
sharing in God’s jealousy over his people.³⁰ It is the zeal devouring
the Apostle that his Christians may remain faithful to the covenant made with
Christ, who is their true and only bridegroom. Another detail confirms this
interpretation:

the Church-bride is paradoxically presented to
Christ the bridegroom as ‘a pure virgin’. This is a reference to the Daughter of
Sion, sometime called ‘virgin Sion’, ‘virgin Israel’ by the
prophets,³¹ especially when she is invited, after past infidelities,
once more to be true to the covenant, to her marriage relationship with her only
Bride groom.

 The other decisive New Testament passage is the
classic text in Ephesians 5:22-23: husband and wife united in matrimony are the
image of Christ and the Church. Now Christ, the bridegroom, gave himself up for
the Church, so as to make her his glorious, holy and spotless bride (cf vv.
26-27). But the fact that the expression unius uxoris vir is not used
here in the Letter to the Ephesians for all married Christians, and is reserved
in the Pastoral Letters for the married minister, shows that the formula
refers directly to the priestly ministry and the Christ-Church relationship: the
minister must be like Christ the bridegroom.

 We can also point out another important
consequence of the connection between the unius uxoris vir (or unius
viri uxor) of the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2 Corinthians 11:2. It
is that the Church-bride is called a ‘pure virgin’. Marital love between Christ
the bridegroom and his bride the Church is ever a virginal
love.

 For the Church of Corinth (where obviously the
great majority of Christians were married), it was an immediate question of what
St Augustine calls virginitas fidei, virginitas cordis, unblemished
faith,³² well described also by St Leo the Great: «Discat Sponsa
Verbi non alium virum nosse quam Christum».³³ But for the married
ministers of whom the Pastoral Letters speak, it is the norm that — in that
mystical view of their ministry — the radical call to virginitas cordis
should also be lived by them as a call to virginitas carnis as
regards their wives, that is to say, as a call to continence, as becomes clear
in Tradition, at least from the fourth century onwards. So we are now no longer
dealing with an external, ecclesiastical prescription but rather with an inner
perception of the fact that ordination makes the priestly minister a
representation of Christ the bridegroom in relation to the Church, bride and
virgin, and hence he cannot live with another wife.

 The decisive relationship between the unius
uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the ‘pure virgin’ of 2 Corinthians
11:2 has also been well brought out by E. Tauzin: men who are consecrated to
God, he says, «should represent Christ; now, he is only the bridegroom of one
bride, the Church: ‘Virginem castam exhibere Christo’»³⁴ And
he then applies this principle to the parable in Matthew 25:1-13, where the ten
‘virgins’, who are (in the plural) the brides of Christ, in fact present this
one bride: «Outwardly there is multiplicity; inwardly, unity. Isn’t
virginity perhaps the best outward image of an inner unity?»

 This sacramental and spiritual argument of the
unius uxoris vir, based on the theology of the covenant, emerges first in
the Western tradition with Tertullian, then with St Augustine and St Leo the
Great. We find it well summed up by St Thomas in his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2
(Oportet ergo episcopum… esse unius uxoris virum): «This is so, not
merely to avoid incontinence, but to represent the sacrament, since the Church’s
bridegroom is Christ and the Church is one: Una est columba mea (Song of
Songs 6:9).³⁵ But St Thomas does not as yet make the connection with
the text in 2 Corinthians 11:2, which speaks of the bride-virgin; and therefore
he does not add that the representational role of the monogamous priesthood also
entails the call to continence for the married minister, and
consequently, for the unmarried ones, the call to celibacy.

 Conclusion

 In order to grasp the way in which we have tried
to show the biblical basis of priestly celibacy, it is important to distinguish
between celibacy and continence. In the ancient Church, many priests were
married. This explains why, in speaking of the ministers of the Church, the
formula unius uxoris vir came to be used. It also explains the great
interest the Fathers had in monogamous marriage (cf for instance Tertullian:
De monogamia). But it becomes clearer still in the Tradition that for a
minister of the Church, united once in matrimony with a woman, acceptance of the
ministry brought with it the consequence that he had to live in continence
thereafter.

 In later times, the separation was introduced
between priesthood and marriage. And so the formula unius uxoris vir, in
its literal and material sense, is no longer of immediate application to the
priests of today, since they are not married. Yet paradoxically, precisely in
this lies the interest of the formula. We set out from the fact that in the
apostolic Church it was only used for clerics; and so it took on, besides the
immediate sense of conjugal relations, a further, mystical sense, a direct
connection with the spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church. St Paul
was already hinting at this. For him, unius uxoris vir was a covenantal
formula: it introduced the married minister into the marriage relationship
between Christ and the Church; for Paul, the Church was a ‘pure virgin’, it was
the ‘bride’ of Christ. But this connection between the minister and Christ, due
to the sacrament of ordination, today no longer requires as human support for
the symbolism a real marriage on the part of the minister; so the formula is
still valid for priests of the Church, although they are not married. Hence,
that which in the past was continence for married ministers, in our own
day becomes the celibacy of those who are not. Yet the symbolic and
spiritual meaning of the expression unius uxoris vir remains ever the
same. Indeed, since it contains a direct reference to the covenant, that is to
say, to the marriage relationship between Christ and the Church, it
invites us to attach much greater importance today than in the past to the fact
that the minister of the Church represents Christ the bridegroom to the Church
his bride. In this sense, the priest must be «the husband of one wife»; but that
one wife, his bride, is the Church who, like Mary, is the bride of
Christ.

 It is precisely thus that on various occasions
John Paul II expresses himself in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation
Pastores dabo vobis. By way of conclusion, we quote some of the more
telling passages from it.

 In n. 12, having said that, as regards the
identity of the priest, his relationship with the Church must take second place
to his relationship with Christ, the Pope goes on: «As a mystery, the Church
is essentially related to Jesus Christ. She is his fullness, his body, his
spouse… The priest finds the full truth of his identity in being a derivation,
a specific participation in and continuation of Christ himself, the one High
Priest of the new and eternal covenant; the priest is a living and transparent
image of Christ the Priest. The priesthood of Christ, the expression of his
absolute ‘newness’ in salvation history, constitutes the one source and
essential model of the priesthood shared by all Christians and the priest in
particular. Reference to Christ is thus the absolutely necessary key for
understanding the reality of priesthood.» On the basis of this very close union
between the priest and Christ, the deep theological reason for celibacy is
easier to grasp.

 In some editions of the document, n. 22 bears the
crosshead: «Witness to Christ’s spousal love». Further on, it reads: «The priest
is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the spouse of the Church.» The
Pope then quotes a proposition of the Synod: «Inasmuch as he represents Christ,
the Head, Shepherd and Spouse of the Church, the priest is placed not only in
the Church but also in the forefront of the Church.»

 In n. 29, in the very paragraph where the Holy
Father speaks of virginity and celibacy, he cites in full the Synod’s
Proposition 11 on this subject. Then, to explain «the theological
motivation for the ecclesiastical law on celibacy», he writes: «The will of the
Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred
Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse
of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by
the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and
Spouse loved her.»

 NOTES

 1. Christian Cochini, Origines apostoliques du
célbat sacerdotal (Le Sycomore), culture et vérité,
Lethielleux/Namur, Paris 1981. On the much debated problem of celibacy in
the Church today, see a special number of the review Conciluum: Le Célibat du
Sacerdoce catholique, in Concilium 78 (1972).

2. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra),
Préface, p. 6.

3. H. Crouzel, Une nouvelle étude sur les
origines du célibat ecclésiastique, in Bull. de Litt. eccl. 83
(1982), 293-297.

4. See also two studies by canonists: P.
Pampaloni, Continenza e celibato del clero. Leggi e motivi delle fonti
canoniche dei secoli IV e V. in Studia Patavina 17 (1970), 5-59;
J. Coriden, Célibat, Droit canonique et Synode 1971, in Concilium
78 (1972), 101-114.

5. See our article Man d’une seule femme. Le
sens théologique d’une formule paulinienne, in Paul de Tarse, apôtre de
notre temps (ed. L. De Lorenzi), Rome 1979, 619-638. In the present study we
confine ourselves to the Latin tradition; as is well known, a different
discipline obtains in the Oriental Churches.

6. A.M. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline
du célibat dans l’Église en occident de la fin de l’âge patristique au Concile
de Trente, in Sacerdoce et célibat. Études historiques et théologiques
(ed. I. Coppens), Gembloux-Louvain 1971, pp. 373-442.

7. Cochini, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

8. See our study Mari d’une seule femme, (ut
supra), p. 635, n. 64, where we show that the formula unius uxoris vir
(1 Tim 3:2) expresses the marriage relationship of the covenant between God
and his people, between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church.
Furthermore, the similarity of the formula in 1 Tim.3:2 with the one nearby in 1
Tim 2:5: unus Deus, unus… homo Christus Jesus permits the connection to
be made with the prophetic theme of the covenant, and to uncover a link with the
Old Testament; cf especially Mal 2:14 (LXX): ‘the wife of your
covenant’ 2:10: ‘the covenant of our forefathers’.

9. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra),
Préface, pp. 5-6 (our italics).

10. Cf our article La struttura di alieanza del
sacerdozio ministeriale, in Communio 112 (July-August 1990), 102-114,
where we summarise the results of the previous study: Man d’une seule femme,
(vide supra), in order to apply them specifically both to the case of
priestly celibacy and to that of the priesthood of men (not of
women).

11. For this historical part, see the texts in
Cochini, op. cit., pp. 19-26.

12. The text (taken from CCL 149, 13) is given in
the original Latin with a French translation in Cochini, op. cit., pp.
25-26.

13. For the decretal Cum in unum of Pope
Siricius, cf Ep. V. c. 9 (PL 13, 1161 A); it is also found in the African
Council of Theleptis (AD 418): Conc. Thelense (CCL 149, 62): French
trans.: Cochini, op. cit., p. 32; see also the two letters of Pope
Innocent I (AD 404-405) to the bishops Victricius of Rouen and Exuperius of
Toulouse: Ep. II, (PL 20, 476 A. 497 B; Cochini, op. cit., pp.
284-286). Africa, Spain and the Gauls thus take direction as indicated by the
Popes.

14. Cochini, op. cit., p. 33 (our
italics).

15. For P. Pampaloni for instance (art. cit.,
41-42), this would involve «a forced interpretation of the Apostle»; he does
however concede that, according to the sources of the period, that
interpretation was probably regarded as the correct one. H. Crouzel (art.
cit., 294) also rightly observes: if it were true, as these Fathers thought,
that the Apostle regarded ‘monogamy’ as guaranteeing suitability for continence,
we should then have to suppose that, for Paul, it was a known fact «either that
the wife was dead or that the candidate was to live with her as with a sister:
which unfortunately the Pauline text does not make clear.» This is true. But the
Pauline text does contain a literary contact with 2 Cor 11:2 (vide infra),
which allows the indirect recovery of the theme of continence as a
covenantal theme.

16. Cf our article Mri d’une seule femme, (art.
cit): ‘I. Histoire de d’exégèse’ (pp. 620-623); ‘II. Insuffisance des deux
interpretations en présence’ (pp. 624-628).

17. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline dui
célibat, (ut supra), pp. 441-442.

18. Cf Ad uxorem, 1, 7, 4 (CCL 1, 381); the
reference here is to 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6; see too De exhort, cast.,
7,2 (CCL 2, 1024).

19. De exhort. cast., 13, 4 (CCL 2, 1035):
on this passage, see Cochini’s comment, 01). cit., pp.
168-171.

20. Ibid., cf Ad uxorem, 1, 4, 4,
speaking of women who, instead of choosing a husband, have preferred a virginal
life: «Malunt enim Deo nubere. Deo speciosae, Deo sunt puellae» (CCL 1,
377).

21. De virg. vel., 16, 4: «Nupsisti enim
Christo, illi tradidisti carnem tuam, illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam,» (CCL
2, 1225); De res., 61, 6: «virgines Christi maritae» (CCL 2,
1010).

22. De monog., 5,7 (CCL 2, 1235)

23. De exhort, cast., 5, 3 (CCL 2, 1023);
hence, Tertullian goes on, the law of single marriage is also founded on
‘Christi sacramentum’.

24. The Apostle thus in no way excludes the
‘carnal’ use of marriage between Christian husbands and wives, despite what
Tertullian the Montanist was to pretend to the contrary, cf De exhort.
cast., 9, 3 (CCL 2, 1028): for the latter, marriage as such (not a second
marriage) was to be regarded as a sort of stuprum. As can be seen from
this brief analysis, ‘una caro’ (Eph 5:31) and ‘una uxor’ (1 Tim
3:2) have very different functions, although the same adjective una
occurs in both texts: Tertullian’s mistake was to have virtually identified
them: ‘una caro undoubtedly legitimizes conjugal relations;
whereas ‘una uxor’, as we shall see, excludes them, and instead
becomes the theological basis for continence.

25. St Augustine speaks of this in the De
coniugiis adulterinis, II, 20, 22: «solemnus eis proponere continentiam
clenicorum» (PL 40, 486).

26. De bono coniugali, 18, 21 (PL 40, 3
87-388).

27. De continentia, 9, 23 (PL 40,
364).

28. Stickler, L’évolution… (ut supra), p.
381; sundry texts from penitential books are quoted in the notes.

29. St Leo the Great, Ep. ad Rusticum
Narbonensem episc. Inquis. III: Resp. (PL 54, 1204 A): «ut de carnali fiat spirituale coniugium».

30. Cf J. Daniélou, La jalousie de Dieu, in
Dieu vivant, n. 4, 16(1950), 61-73.

31. Cf our work Mary in the Mystery of the
Covenant, New York 1992, pp. xxiii-xxv, xxxv-xxxvii.

32. Cf R. Hesbert, Saint Augustin et la
virginité de la foi, in Augustinus Magister. Congrès international
augustinien (Paris, Sept. 1954), II, Paris 1954, pp. 645-655.

33. St Leo the Great, Epistolae, 12, 3 (PL
54, 648 B).

34. E. Tauzin, Note sur un texte de Saint Paul
(Essai d’exégèse synthétique) in Revue apologétique 36
(1924-1925), 274-289 (see p. 289, in the note). It should be noted that this
author too has spontaneously made the connection between the formular unius
uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the virgo casta of 2 Cor
11:2.

35. In 1 ad Tim., c. III, lect. 1 (ed.
Marietti 1953, n. 96); see too Denis the Carthusian, on 1 Tim 3:12
(Opera omnia, 13, 420).