The prohibition, first proclaimed by Nicholas II. and finally enforced by Gregory VII., caused no little trouble in the church. Towards the close of the century, Urban II. found himself obliged to discuss the question, and in an epistle to Lucius, provost of the church of St. Juventius at Pavia, he admits that the sacraments administered by guilty priests are uncorrupted, yet he approves of their rejection in order to stimulate the clergy to virtue, and even declares that those who receive them, except under instant and pressing necessity, are guilty of idolatry (“nisi forte sola morte interveniente, utpote ne sine baptismate vel communione quilibet humanis rebus excedat; eis, inquam, in tantum obsunt, ut veri idolatræ sint”—Urbani II. Epist. 273)—a decision the logic of which is not readily apprehended. St. Anselm of Canterbury assents to the doctrine, but places it in a more reasonable and practical shape—“non quo quis ea quæ tractent contemnenda, sed tractantes execrandos existimet” (Epist. VIII.). The consequences of such a system, however, if strictly carried out, would have been most disastrous to the church, and when the zeal of Hildebrand became forgotten his injunctions were overruled. The century was scarcely out before Honorius of Autun maintained most positively that Christ operates through the hands of the vilest as well as of the most holy ministers, provided only they are orthodox in faith (Eucharistion c. vi.—Pez, Thesaur. II. i. 355). About 1150, however, Geroch of Reichersperg declares that he considered Gregory’s commands as still in force, and that he paid no more attention to the masses of concubinary priests than if they were so many Pagans (Gerhohi Dial. de Differentia Cleri—Pez, Thesaur. II. ii. 463). Yet before the end of the twelfth century, Lucius III. had returned to the policy of Nicholas I.—“Sumite ergo ab omni sacerdote intrepide Christi mysteria, quia omnia in fide Christi purgantur” (Post Lateran. Concil. P. L. c. 38), the positiveness of which was not much affected by the subtle distinctions which he endeavored to draw between crimes notorious and tolerated. Yet St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, affirmed that it was a mortal sin to assist at the Mass celebrated by a priest who was notoriously unchaste (Pontas, Dict. de Cas de Conscience II. 1445). The church, however, gradually returned to the old doctrine and practice. The policy of Gregory was condemned as a heresy when adopted by the followers of Arnold of Brescia (Bonacursi Vit. Hæreticorum—D’Achery I. 214) and an austere priest, Albero of Mercke, near Cologne, who taught it was promptly silenced (Anon. adv. Alberonis errores—Martene Ampl. Coll. IX. 1251). In 1292 the council of Aschaffenburg anathematized those who “præsumptione dampnabili” taught the heresy that priests in mortal sin could not perform the sacred mysteries, and it decided “licite ergo a quocumque sacerdote ab ecclesia tolerato, divina mysteria audiantur et alia recipiantur ecclesiastica sacramenta” (Concil. Schafnaburg. ann. 1292 can. i.—Hartzheim IV. 7). And when Wickliffe and Huss undertook to carry out the dicta of Nicholas II. and Gregory VII. to their legitimate conclusions, the policy was at once recognized as a heresy of the worst character and most destructive consequence. Thus in 1491 a Synod of Bamberg condemns as heretics those who refuse to receive the ministrations of sinful priests.—Synod. Bamberg. ann. 1491 Tit. xliv. (Ludewig. Script. Rer. German. I. 1241-2).
[477] Quicumque sacerdotum, diaconorum, subdiaconorum ... concubinam palam duxerit vel ductam non reliquerit, ... præcipimus et omnino contradicimus, ut missam non cantet, neque evangelium vel epistolam ac missam legat, neque in presbyterio ad divina officia cum iis qui præfatæ constitutioni obedientes fuerint, maneat; neque partem ab ecclesia suscipiat.—Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 3.
It is evident here that the opprobrious epithet “concubine” is applied to those who were as legally wives as it was possible to make them. Damiani, indeed, admits it, and even intimates that concubine was too honorable a word to be applied to the wives of priests—“Illorum vero clericorum feminas, qui matrimonia nequeunt legali jure contrahere, non conjuges sed concubinas potius, sive prostibula congrue possumus appellare” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 2). After this period it will be found that the wives of priests were rarely dignified with the title of “uxores,” although ordination was not yet an impediment destructive of marriage.
It is as well to observe here that at this period and for some time later the position of the concubine had not the odium attaching to it by modern manners, and this should be borne in mind when reviewing the morals of the Middle Ages. The connection was a recognized and almost a legal one, following the traditions of the Roman law, by which it was legitimate and permanent, so long as the parties respectively remained unmarried. A man could not have a wife and concubine at the same time (Pauli Sentent. II. 20), nor could he legally have two concubines together (Novel. XVIII. c. 5). Not only were such regulations thus promulgated by Christian emperors, but the relationship was duly recognized by the Christian church. The first council of Toledo, in 398, enjoined upon the faithful “tantum aut unius mulieris, aut uxoris aut concubinæ, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus” (Concil. Toletan. I. c. 17), showing that either connection apparently was legitimate, and this is quoted at the commencement of the tenth century, as still in force, by Regino (De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 100). A half century later, about 450, Leo I. was actually appealed to to decide whether a man who quitted a concubine and took a wife committed bigamy—which Leo reasonably enough answered in the negative (Leon. Epist. XC. c. 5). The principle of the Roman law was still the rule of the church in the 9th century, for a Roman synod held by Eugenius II. in 826 declared “Ut non liceat uno tempore duas habere uxores, uxoremve et concubinam. De illo vero qui cum uxore concubinam habet, præcipit, ut si admonitus eam a se abjicere noluerit, communione privetur.” (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 12.) The view entertained of the matter at the time under consideration may be gathered from a canon of the councils of Rome, in 1052 and 1063, suspending from communion the layman who had a wife and concubine at the same time (Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 12: ann. 1063 c. 10)—whence we may deduce that a concubine alone was hardly considered irregular. During the latter part of the succeeding century we find the concubine a recognized institution in Scotland, for the laws of William the Lion, after stating that the wife was not bound to reveal the crimes of her husband, adds “De concubina vero et de familia domus non est ita; quia ipsi tenentur revelare maleficia magistri sui, aut debent a servitio suo recedere” (Statut. Willelmi c. XIX. § 9). In England, late in the thirteenth century, Bracton speaks of the “concubina legitima” as entitled to certain rights and consideration (Lib. III. Tract. ii. c. 28 § 1, and Lib. IV. Tract. vi. c. 8 § 4). In Spain, at the same period, the son of an unmarried noble by a concubine, was noble (Juan Perez de Lara, in Arch. Seld. 130, Bib. Bodl.), and in the Danish code of Waldemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, there is a provision that a concubine kept openly for three years shall be held to be a legitimate and legal wife (Leg. Cimbric. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. Ed. Ancher); while the elaborate provisions for the division of estates between legitimate and illegitimate children, contained in the code compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden, in the 13th century, show that certain legal rights were recognized in the latter (Legg. Scan. Provin. Ed. Thorsen pp. 110-2). Indeed, in the Norwegian law of that period, when the king left no legitimate sons the crown descended to illegitimates (Jarnsida, Kristendoms-Balkr, c. III.). In Bigorre, concubines, under the name of Massipia, were recognized by law, and formal notarial contracts were drawn up, as late as the close of the fifteenth century, specifying the price to be paid and the duration of the connection; and when the man was already married he sometimes engaged to marry the massipia in case of his wife’s death during the term (Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 377). We must therefore bear in mind that, until the rule of sacerdotal celibacy became rigorously enforced, the “concubina” of the canons generally means a wife, and that for some time afterwards the concubine was by no means necessarily the shameless woman implied under the modern acceptation of the term.
[478] Hujus autem constitutionis maxime fuit auctor Hildebrandus, tunc Romanæ ecclesiæ archidiaconus, hæreticis maxime infestus.—Bernaldi Chron. ann. 1061. Benzo declares, in his slashing way, stigmatizing Hildebrand as a Sarabite, or wandering monk, “De cetero pascebat suum Nicholaum Prandellus in Lateranensi palatio, quasi asinum in stabulo. Nullum erat opus Nicholaitæ, nisi per verbum Sarabaitæ” (Comment. de Reb. Henr. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2). The verses of Damiani on the influence of Hildebrand are too well known to quote.
... Hic [Nicholaus] ecclesiastica propter
Ad partes illas tractanda negotia venit;
Namque sacerdotes, levitæ, clericus omnis
Hac regione palam se conjugio sociabant.