It would, of course, be vain to expect, at the present day, from the rulers of the church, the outspoken candor of the Middle Ages, when evils were denounced openly and in the coarsest terms. In those days councils could speak, because none but those connected with the church were likely to be cognizant of their proceedings; while, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the immorality of ecclesiastics was so notorious that no harm could arise from admitting it in the efforts made for its correction. In modern times, however, when an external veil of decency is to be maintained before the eyes of antagonistic critics, when scandal is, of all things, to be avoided, and when the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies are carefully revised at Rome, before they are allowed to become public, with the consciousness that they may be spread by the press before a world of hostile mockers, ready to jeer at the woes of the church, only the most guarded allusions can be made to such subjects, and these only when the case is urgent. When, therefore, we see that almost every council held in modern times has deemed it necessary to insist on the supreme importance of preserving chastity—lying, swearing, stealing, and other sins not being even alluded to; when the caution against undue familiarity with women, even devotees, is constantly urged; and when the relations between the priest and his servant are frequently indicated by directions that he must not admit her to companionship at the table, or on walks and journeys, and especially not in visiting fairs and merrymakings, it would be difficult not to recognize under this guarded phraseology an admission of the actual relationship existing between the good pastors and their female inmates, and a friendly warning, si non caste saltem caute.[1611]

It is not often that we can obtain an inside view of these matters, especially from a source that is at once well informed and not hostile, but such a view, confirming the worst suspicions, is afforded by an indignant remonstrance addressed, in 1832, to Monseigneur Sterckx, Archbishop of Mechlin, by the Abbé Helsen, who for twenty-five years had been a popular preacher in Brussels.[1612] The abbé calls upon his prelate to enforce the Tridentine canon by banishing the women who are universally inmates of the houses of priests, and thus put a stop to the sin and the scandal which destroy the influence of the church and spread immorality among the faithful. Even the bishops and dignitaries of the church are not spared, and the archbishop himself is summoned to dismiss the “Petronilla” who had accompanied him from the curacy of Bouchout to the cathedral of Antwerp, and from Antwerp to the metropolitan seat of Mechlin.[1613] Throughout this plain-spoken epistle the author assumes as a matter of course not only that the relations between the clergy and their servants are guilty, but that they are so recognized by every one—so notorious, indeed, as to need no proof—and, as a natural consequence, he regards the priesthood as a source of infection destructive to public morals. The cure is to be found in putting a stop to these irregular unions—“If women were forever banished from the houses of ecclesiastics vowed to celibacy, I think we should not see so great a number of prostitutes who ply their trade at night in our great cities, nor so many illegitimate children who curse their destiny as they multiply more and more around us. We ridicule the Seraglio of the Grand Turk and the polygamy of the Moslem, but they too, on their side, ridicule the infinite number of strumpets with whom Christian Europe is deluged, and the custom of keeping as many concubines as can be afforded. Whence comes to us this shameful trade, so hurtful to society, which is found under our religion more than under any other? We dare not doubt that it is the result of our own misconduct; we dare not accuse only the heretics and the philosophers of modern times; no, no! the most poisonous spring is in us, among us, with us, and it will not dry up without us. Let us blush to our eye-balls; let us hide ourselves from public sight! Oh for the times and the virtues of the primitive church! Why come ye not again?”[1614] That this sort of scarcely veiled concubinage is, in fact, a fruitful source of prostitution can scarcely be doubted if, as Helsen asserts, the ordinary custom is, when one of these priest’s servants becomes pregnant and cannot be saved by a prudent absence, to dismiss her and take another, perhaps younger and more attractive; and that this may occur repeatedly without the ecclesiastic being subjected to any special annoyance or supervision—unless, indeed, he is so ill-advised as to take pity on the unfortunate girl and refuse to send her away. In that case he becomes a public concubinarian, liable to the canonical penalties, with which he is sometimes disciplined. As Helsen indignantly exclaims, “Would the Mahometans tolerate such infamy in their fakirs and dervishes? The Japanese, the Chinese, the Hindus in their bonzes? The pagans in their Vestals? Our ancestors in their Druids? Even the Jews and Protestants have blushed for it, since they advise their Rabbis and ministers to marry rather than thus to contaminate themselves.”[1615] Helsen does not fail to allude to the public familiarity of these servants with their employers—the familiarity condemned in almost the same words by many of the councils cited above—and it would seem the extreme of Pyrrhonism to doubt that almost universal concubinage is tolerated, even where on the surface there are no public scandals to attract the attention of the malicious.

Testimony of the same nature exists as to Italy, where the upheaval of the last quarter of a century has created discussion and brought forth statements of facts and opinions which reveal to some extent the internal condition of the church. That immorality should be prevalent would seem to be inevitable, if only from the overgrown number of the clergy, which has been fostered by the ambition of the church. In Rome itself, by the census of July 1st, 1867, there were no less than 7404 ecclesiastics of both sexes, in a population of 215,573, or one to every 29 inhabitants of all ages. In the Pontifical States, prior to their absorption by the Kingdom of Italy, the proportion was one to every 55 of the population. In Northern Italy, embracing the Pontificate, the Duchies, Lombardo-Venetia and Piedmont, there was one to every 140; while in the whole of Italy, exclusive of the Pontificate, in 24,231,860 souls there were 174,001 ecclesiastics, showing a proportion of one to 239. These numbers are so wholly beyond the spiritual needs of the people that it is evident that an ecclesiastical career must be sought by thousands who have no vocation for a life of abstinence and self-denial; while even among those who are induced in the fervor of youth to bind themselves by the irrevocable vow of chastity, there must be other thousands who find too late that they have over-estimated their strength. That passions thus denied their appropriate relief in the institution of marriage should degenerate often into brutal license, is too natural to excite special wonder.[1616]

It would be difficult to restrain the appetites of so vast a body as this even with the most determined vigilance on the part of prelates and in the presence of the sternest popular feeling, but both of these elements of repression may safely be assumed to be lacking. The scandal of the Countess Lambertini, whose suit for a share of the estate of her father, Cardinal Antonelli, has for ten years been before the Roman courts, would seem to show that even the virtues of Pius IX. were powerless to eradicate the license which has been traditional in the papal court; and when a theological manual, which is still largely used as a text-book in Catholic seminaries, coolly states that in Italy lust is not regarded as disgraceful,[1617] though we may hope that the standard of morality has improved since it was written, yet we cannot expect to find in the people of which such a statement could be made, the virtue that would hold to strict account a priesthood whose example has been one of the efficient means of its degradation. That there is no restraining influence would in fact appear from the consensus of opinion of all who have had an opportunity of forming a judgment.

An address purporting to emanate from sixteen bishops to Cardinal Catarini, begging for an enlargement of the questions to be discussed in the Vatican Council, assumes the rule of celibacy to be the cause, not only of heresy and schism, but of scandal to the people and of disgrace to the church. It speaks of the disgusting trials which are perpetually coming before the tribunals, making the priestly garb a source of shame to its wearers, and leading the people to regard them, not as the flower of the soldiers of Christ, but as a colony sprung from Sodom.[1618] The Archbishop of Tarento, Giuseppe Capecelatro, has had no scruple in urging the abrogation of the canon in order to reduce the immense number of bastards whose existence disgraces the church.[1619] In a similar mood, D. Marco Petronio, a priest of Pirano, in Istria, declares that the boasted chastity of the priesthood has filled the church with demons in place of angels, who lead their flocks to ruin by their acts and example,[1620] and Panzini describes the church as a brothel filled with men ruined by the attempt to deprive them of marriage. When the latter, indeed, was on his trial before the Inquisition, he asserted that in consequence of the canon, there were daily committed in Rome itself more than twenty thousand mortal sins, and the advocate of the Holy Office, D. Giuseppe Cipriani, contented himself with quietly responding, “Perhaps not so many.”[1621] We may therefore feel confident that there is no exaggeration in the remarks of the Rev. William Chauncy Langdon, who had ample opportunities of observation during his long residence in Italy as agent of the American Episcopal Church—“I learned to regard a priest, who had lived all his mature life, openly and faithfully with a woman to whom he had not of course been married; by whom he had children now grown up, and for all of whom he was faithfully providing—with a relative respect as one who had greatly risen above the morality of his church, and of the society around him, and whose life really might be considered, on the dark moral background behind him, a source of relative light.”[1622]

We have here an example of the tolerated concubinage which Helsen describes as universal under the interpretation put upon the Tridentine canons. It would seem that it ought to be in some degree a safeguard against worse offences and more public scandals, as a kind of substitute for marriage; but unlawful indulgence weakens the power of resistance to temptation and hardens the conscience to sin. In spite, therefore, of this practical relaxation of the canons, we see the old troubles of the relations between spiritual directors and their fair penitents continue to vex the pious. As we have seen with the less delicate matter of the female companions of the clergy, the councils of modern times are not likely to be outspoken with regard to such a subject, but the frequency with which they reiterate commands that the confessions of women shall not be heard, save in case of infirmity, except in church; that when heard elsewhere it shall always be with open doors, and that in church the confessional shall be in a spot publicly visible, with a grating between the confessor and his penitent; that before and after sunset the lamps shall always be lighted, with other similar precautions, shows that the risk is fully recognized and requires constant watchfulness.[1623] Helsen, in fact, alludes to the scandals of the confessional as a cause of its avoidance by the faithful and as contributing powerfully to the growth of religious indifference;[1624] and that these scandals exist is not a mere matter of conjecture or inference. If it were so, there would be no need for reiterating the prohibitions against the absolution by confessors of their fair partners in guilt, which is still occasionally found to be necessary by modern councils;[1625] nor would Pius IX. in 1866 have felt himself obliged to declare that the power granted to bishops to absolve in cases reserved to the Pope shall not in future extend to offences reserved for papal absolution by Benedict XIV.’s Bull “Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ.” In fact, the crime of “solicitation” must have become notoriously frequent before the Congregation of the Inquisition of Rome could have felt impelled, in 1867, to put forth an Instruction addressed to all archbishops, bishops, and ordinaries, complaining that the constitutions on the subject did not receive proper attention, and that in some places abuses had crept in, both as to requiring penitents to denounce guilty confessors, and as to the punishing of confessors guilty of solicitation. It therefore urged the officials everywhere to greater vigor in investigating such offences and gave a summary of the practice of the Inquisition in regard to these matters, supervision over which, it will be remembered, was confided to the Holy Office by the Bulls of Pius IV. and Gregory XVI. From this it appears that when such a denunciation is received, it is the custom of the Inquisition to order the accused to be watched, and not to prosecute him unless he is the subject of three separate accusations. When this number has been reached, a special court is convened whose business it is to examine whether there may not be some special enmity on the part of the accusers. Failing this, the accused is then examined under oath, care being taken not to reveal the names of the accusers nor to violate the seal of the confessional. If the transgressor confesses or is convicted, he is deprived forever of the faculty of hearing confessions and must abjure the heresy implied in his crime; but the severer punishments decreed by Gregory XV. of degradation from holy orders and delivery to the secular arm are not to be inflicted. Those who voluntarily confess without being denounced, even though they may subsequently be denounced, are allowed to escape with a suitable penance and are ordered merely not to hear subsequently the confessions of those whom they have solicited; confession after denunciation, but before trial, also diminishes the penalty. The utmost secrecy is enjoined on all concerned, who are to be sworn to silence, and so great a stress is laid on this that even priests are required to take the oath on the Gospels. The accuser is not to be asked whether she consented to the solicitation, and if she voluntarily makes such a statement it is not to be entered in the proceedings of the case. After the trial is finished, moreover, the whole is to be consigned to oblivion.[1626] In view of this nervous anxiety for secrecy, and the tenderness manifested throughout to the offender, it is surely not uncharitable to conclude that scandal is more feared than sin in these matters.

Possibly the abuses of the confessional may be less frequent now than they were in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, yet it is evident that they are still quite prevalent enough to require a much more efficient system of repression than they are at all likely to receive. It is true that the questions put to the penitent by the confessor are divested of the extremity of brutal coarseness prescribed by Bishop Burckhardt, but they are still sufficiently suggestive to be revolting to the pure-minded, and dangerous in no small degree to those who are likely to lapse.[1627]

What in reality is the extent of these abuses can only be a subject of conjecture. Their very nature causes them to be scrupulously concealed not only by the principals, but by those who may incidentally find themselves wronged, and the church itself exerts all its influence to shield the guilty and suppress the scandal. How powerfully and how unscrupulously its influence is exerted to this end may be judged from a few examples. In 1817, at Availles, in France, the sacristan complained to the mayor that his daughter was received every night by the curé, to the scandal of the people. The mayor thus invited entered the priest’s house suddenly one night and found the girl in dishabille, hidden in a corner. He drew up an official statement of the facts and forwarded it to the authorities, and the response to this was his summary dismissal from office on the ground of having violated the domicil of the curé and increased the scandal.[1628] More recent than this is the notorious case of the Abbé Mingrat, who while curé of Saint-Opre, near Grenoble, got into trouble by seducing one of his penitents, but was saved from prosecution and transferred to Saint-Quentin. Here he established relations with a devout young married woman, which ended in his cutting her in pieces with his pocket-knife and throwing the fragments into the river Isère. Even yet no action would have been taken had not the mayor of the place insisted, but Mingrat was enabled to escape to Savoy, where he was provided for as a persecuted saint.[1629] Similarly, in 1877, the Abbé Debra, condemned at Liège in default, for no less than thirty-two offences, was, after proper seclusion in a convent, given a parish in Luxembourg by the Bishop of Namur.[1630] In the case of the Abbé Mallet, which occurred in 1861, the church was unable to save the culprit from punishment, but did what it could to conceal his crimes from the faithful. As a canon of Cambray, he seduced three young Jewish girls and procured their confinement in convents under pretext of laboring for their conversion. One of his victims lost her reason in consequence of her sufferings, and the court of Douay condemned him to six years at hard labor—a sentence which was announced by an orthodox journal thus—“M. le chanoine Mallet de Cambrai, accusé de détournement de mineurs pour cause de prosélytisme religieux a été condamné à six ans de reclusion”—where the skilful use of the masculine “mineurs” and the characterization of his offence as religious proselytism elevate the worst of criminals into a martyr for the faith.[1631] It is quite within the bounds of probability that, as such a martyr, he may, since the expiration of his sentence, have been enjoying, in some cure of souls, the opportunity of repeating his missionary experiments.

It is evident from these various causes that the criminal records can give only the barest suggestion as to the extent of crimes thus committed in secret by a class shielded by influences so powerful. The records of the ministère de la justice, moreover, are not in France open to the public, and the only mode of obtaining even an approximate idea of the number of prosecutions in these cases is to gather them from the journals in which they chance to appear as items of news. An attempt to effect this has been made by Dr. Wahu, and though, from the nature of the case, necessarily imperfect, it affords some interesting and suggestive statistics. His list extends from the beginning of 1861 to April, 1879, and is thus tabulated:—

18613cases.
18622”
18631”
18641”
18662”
18673”
18683”
18693”
187210”
18736”
18755”
18761”
187716”
1878 35”
1879(Jan. to April)19”