§ 1. In the morals and discipline of the Church, antiquity must especially be regarded; for all things were more sincere the nearer they were to their beginning. The earliest Church of Christ, freshly empurpled with the blood of her Redeemer, approved common life among the Apostles, and afterwards among the faithful following the Lord’s Ascension. Thus the Epistle of Clement: “To the most beloved brethren and fellow disciples dwelling at Jerusalem with our dearest brother and fellow Bishop James, Clement the Bishop: A common life, brethren, is necessary for all, and especially for those who desire to serve God blamelessly and wish to imitate the life of the Apostles and their disciples. For the common use of all things which are in this world ought to have belonged to all men; but through iniquity one said that this was his own and another that that was his, and thus division was made among mortals.
“Finally, a certain most wise man among the Greeks, knowing that these things are so, says that all things ought to be common among friends. And just as the air and the splendor of the sun cannot be divided, so, he says, the other things which were given in common in this world for all to possess ought not to be divided, but ought to be possessed in common. Hence the Lord also speaks through the Prophet, saying: ‘Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.’ Retaining the custom of this practice, the Apostles and their disciples also, as was said above, led a common life together with us and with you. Hence, as you well
know, the multitude of them had one heart and one soul; nor did any of them or of us say that anything among the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them and to us, nor was anyone in need among us. But all who possessed houses or fields sold them and brought their prices and the remaining things which they possessed, laying them before the feet of the Apostles, as some of your number learned and saw together with us; and they were distributed to individuals according as each had need. But Ananias, a harsh man, and Sapphira his wife, who lied to the Apostles concerning the price of their fields which they had sold, were, in our presence and in the sight of all who stood around, both carried out dead from the sight of the Apostles because of their sin and the falsehood which they committed. And the other things which we learned and saw concerning such persons are worthy neither of recollection nor demonstration. Therefore we command you to beware of these things and order you to obey the doctrines and examples of the Apostles, because those who put aside their commands become not only guilty but banished. These things must not only be guarded against by you but also preached to all.”
That the Epistle is authentic we are taught by Eusebius, History, Book 3, chapter 32; Jerome, in the Catalogue and in his commentary on Isaiah 55, chapter 10; and Epiphanius, Heresy 30. And that custom long existed at Jerusalem.
§ 2. Urban I afterwards testifies that the possessions of the faithful were conveyed to the Church so that they might live from the estates themselves. Thus the Epistle: “Therefore the chief priests and the others, and the Levites and the rest of the faithful, seeing that they could confer more utility if they handed over the inheritances and fields which they used to sell to the Churches over which Bishops presided, because from their revenues many more and finer things could be supplied, both in present and future times, to the faithful who led a common life of faith than from their price, began to hand over to the mother Churches the estates and fields which they used to sell and to live from their revenues. But these properties were, and remain even until now, under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of the individual parishes, who hold the place of the Apostles, and they ought always to remain so in future times. From these the Bishops and their faithful stewards ought to supply all necessities, as best they can, to all who wish to live a common life, so that no one among them may be found in need. For these properties are called the offerings of the faithful because they are offered to the Lord. Therefore they ought not to be converted to uses other than ecclesiastical ones and those of the aforesaid Christian brethren or the needy, because they are the vows of the faithful, the prices of sins, and the patrimonies of the poor, and were handed over to the Lord for fulfilling the aforesaid work.”
§ 3. Hence Jerome admonishes that Clerics possess nothing of their own, in the Epistle to Nepotian, Cause 12, question 1, canon 5: “Let the Cleric who serves the Church of Christ first interpret his own designation, and, after the definition of the name has been set forth, let him strive to be what he is called. For if κλῆρος is called lot in Latin, Clerics are therefore so called either because they are of the lot of the Lord or because the Lord is the lot, that is, the portion, of Clerics. But he who either is himself the Lord’s portion or has the Lord as his portion ought to show himself such that he himself possesses the Lord and is possessed by the Lord.
“He who possesses the Lord and says with the Prophet, ‘The Lord is my portion,’ can possess nothing outside the Lord. But if he possesses anything else besides the Lord, the Lord will not be his portion—for example, if gold, silver, estates, or varied furnishings; together with these portions, the Lord does not deign to become his portion. But if I am the Lord’s portion and the cord of his inheritance, I do not receive a portion among the other tribes; rather, like a Levite and priest, I live from the tithes and, serving the altar, am sustained by the altar’s offering. Having food and clothing, I shall be content with these, and naked I shall follow the naked Cross.”
And Gregory, to Augustine, Bishop of the English, responses 1 and 2: “Your Fraternity, instructed in the rules of a monastery, ought not to be separated from your Clerics in the Church of the English, which has recently been brought to the faith by God’s authorship. You ought to institute that manner of life which existed among our Fathers at the beginning of the nascent Church, among whom none said that anything among the things which he possessed was his own, but all things there were common.”
§ 4. Saint Augustine and Ambrose attempted to restore the common manner of life of Clerics, as is clear in their lives and books. Augustine shows the great utility of that matter in his book On the Common Life of Clerics. Mark instituted all the Christians of Alexandria in this manner, as Jerome testifies in On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Mark. Nevertheless, that same Augustine permitted his Clerics to live from their own property. “Because,” he says, “I preferred to have them blind and lame rather than dead.” For he who is a hypocrite is dead, and there was great danger from hypocrisy for those who lived a social life with Augustine unwillingly. Therefore he removed from them the necessity of pretending.
§ 5. Since, therefore, Clerics are permitted to possess property of their own and to dwell privately in their own houses or in the common fellowship of several persons, I judge this second manner more useful to the Church and to morals. Therefore labor must be expended so that, as far as it can be done, Ecclesiastics dwell together. That which the holiest men in the Church always both desired and did must also be done now. Therefore statutes which impede the common habitation of Clerics are contrary to common law and thus void by the law itself. Nor can any be compelled to dwell alone in their own house, to maintain a hearth, and to be administrators of their own household; rather, they can dwell near their Church with any honorable ecclesiastical man, with colleagues, or with Prelates, unless the necessity of separation is evidently shown. Concerning boys and adolescents it was established in the Council of Aachen, chapter 135. But the causes have force at every age; thus the Council judged: “The rulers of Churches ought vigilantly to keep watch that boys and adolescents who are maintained or instructed in the congregation committed to them be so corrected by continual ecclesiastical disciplines that their wanton age, very prone to sinning, can find no place in which it may rush into the commission of sin. Therefore, for guarding and spiritually instructing those of this kind, the Prelates must appoint a brother of approved life who may exercise care of them with the greatest industry and restrain them very strictly, in such manner that, imbued with ecclesiastical doctrines and clothed in spiritual arms, they may both serve the utilities of the Church and sometime be worthily promoted to ecclesiastical grades. Furthermore, for suitable edification and instruction in the matter which is treated, it has pleased us to insert into this work a certain judgment of the holy Fathers, which reads as follows: Every age from adolescence onward is prone to evil. Nothing is more uncertain than the life of adolescents. On this account it was necessary to establish that, if anyone in the Clergy is a boy, or if there are adolescents, they all dwell in one chamber of the court, so that they may pass the years of slippery age not in luxury but in ecclesiastical disciplines, assigned to a most approved elder whom they may have both as master of doctrine and witness of life, and so forth. With these things thus premised, boys ought to be assigned to a most approved elder for custody, although they may be instructed by another. But if the brother to whom this care is entrusted esteems their care lightly, teaches something other than what he ought, or
inflicts upon them in any respect the stain of any injury whatsoever, let him, most severely rebuked, be removed from office, and let it be entrusted to another brother who may both form them by examples of innocent life and incite them to accomplish good work.”
§ 6. And so that I may touch the matter more closely, I shall speak about Canons and their Vicars, although formerly there were no Vicars in the manner in which they now exist. It would be expedient, and altogether to the greater glory of God, for Canons, with whatever splendor of birth or dignities they may shine, to perform all the divine offices and worship God with their whole heart and inward humility, whom God deigns to preserve and maintain so splendidly in his Church. Nevertheless, I should wish either all or several of them to dwell together, take food together, read, and converse. For this was their original institution. Read chapter 117 of the Council of Aachen under Stephen V, in the time of Louis the Pious: “It is the duty of Provosts continually to fortify the minds of their subjects with readings from the holy Scriptures, lest the invisible wolf find an entrance by which he may enter the Lord’s sheepfold and be able to carry off one of the sheep. And although this ought to be done by them spiritually with the greatest urgency, it is nevertheless necessary that they surround on every side with firm defenses the cloisters in which the Clergy committed to them must live canonically, so that there may be no entrance at all for anyone to enter or depart except through the gate. Let there also be within dormitories, refectories, storerooms, and the other dwellings necessary for the uses of brethren living in one fellowship. But he who refuses to do these permitted things according as ability suffices is to be held unequal and insufficiently suitable for performing the other ecclesiastical offices. And although he is worthy of divine vengeance, he must nevertheless be struck by a synodal sentence.”
Behold, the Council confirms not only the union of the Canons but the fortification of the cloisters; and lest you suspect that they are monks, in chapter 115 and chapter 125 it distinguishes them from monks.
For they were not monks, since they are expressly prohibited from putting on monastic clothing unless they also wish to assume the profession of monks. Therefore I am not writing a new counsel, but pointing my finger toward ancient and more approved things.
§ 7. The mutual cohabitation of Canons is most useful for the study of letters and divine matters. For they can both possess a Library in the same place, and then consult one another, inquire, dispute, and employ all the exercises of the disciplines in most pleasant fellowship. The progress of some incites others, charity advances them, and learning perfects them. For we have hitherto seen no persons whom solitary studies have brought to the height of learning. Learning requires varied agitation, the judgments of many, and disputation; therefore it is a public affair, and the more it is in public, the more it flourishes and thrives.
What I say concerning the more liberal studies or those of philosophy and other sciences, I affirm likewise concerning wisdom, prudence, and affability in conduct; for the principal fruit of this exists in fellowship with many. For just as metals become bright by mutual friction, so the human mind, while it is solitary or lives with only one or another person, grows sluggish in some manner and contracts rust; while it is exercised in the fellowship of many, sees many things, and hears more, it is wonderfully polished toward prudence and familiarity and affability in living. This will be most useful if the younger are given into companionship with the mature and the aged, as I should wish. Seneca truly says in Epistle 11: “Among all fellowships none is more excellent, none more firm, than when good men, similar in morals, are joined by familiarity.”
§ 8. This one advantage alone outweighs all the disadvantages which can be imagined in fellowship: suspicions arising from hazardous cohabitation, true dangers and occasions of sinning, and sins themselves are avoided.
The Church laments the falls of very many; good men are ashamed of the relatives of very many; and heresy is strengthened and increased by the scandals of very many, for no other cause than that companionship, lodging, and association offered an occasion of sinning together with hope of concealment. Occasion possesses great power, which suddenly casts down well-ordered minds and entangles them before the danger is perceived. Formerly certain Provosts gathered several Canons, seeking empty glory from men so that they might appear to possess a numerous congregation of Clergy, for whom they cared to provide neither consolations of body nor of soul, as the Council of Aachen complains. What followed from this? It is explained in the same Council, chapter 118: “For those gathered in this manner, when they do not receive necessary stipends from their Prelates, neither preserve the canonical order nor apply themselves to the divine offices; abandoning the cloisters and the fellowship of the rest, they become wandering and lascivious, given to gluttony, drunkenness, and their other pleasures, and make lawful whatever has pleased them.” The cause of such great evils was that they abandoned the cloisters and fellowship. What, then, is now to be hoped concerning Clerics who do not preserve the canonical order, do not apply themselves to the divine offices, live outside the fellowship of the good with wicked or suspect persons, and receive immense revenues from the Church, which some most vainly believe they merit by one little walk? The ruin of many bears witness to how great incitements to crimes solitude, riches, and idleness provide them. They would remove all these occasions if they procured food and habitation for themselves with some one of the Prelates or more mature fellow brethren. For I urge this: if many do not yet consent to assemble into one or another house, let at least some do so—three or four Canons and as many Vicars; let their zeal be commended and let the Prelates approve it. Let every Cleric have a Cleric as witness of his life.
§ 9. I have spoken of the danger in the promiscuous habitation of Clerics and laymen, because they have no witnesses of their life except at the time when they assemble in the Church. Saint Charles Borromeo and the First Council of Milan agreed with me in this, and from that judgment he gave good laws concerning clerical houses: “Since it is necessary not only to avoid evil but also to flee every suspicion of evil, lest we fall into offense for anyone, we prohibit any women whatsoever, even those joined by any bond of blood relationship or affinity, from dwelling in houses built for the residence and use of Canons or other Clerics, or in other houses in which they dwell, unless the Bishop shall have declared in some case of urgent necessity that it must be done otherwise; we burden his conscience greatly in this matter.
“Let neither parish priests nor Clerics generally, even those endowed with any dignity, in any manner lease to a layman the houses of a Church—even a commended one—or parts of them situated in a city or towns, in which they themselves are accustomed or bound to dwell, unless the Church is pressed by great poverty and that house can conveniently be divided in the Bishop’s judgment.
“But if the houses are situated in the country outside the city and towns, let them possess the faculty of leasing them, provided that their division can be made rightly and conveniently in the judgment of the same Bishop.
“Let the Bishop also take care that houses of this kind, either in the city or outside it, or other houses separated from the Church, even if they are patrimonial and privately owned, not be leased to those whose faith, life, or morals he has judged to be suspect.”
§ 10. There is no one who does not understand how honorable it is for a younger Canon to live with his Prelates and the most distinguished men of his Church and to have present one whom he reveres. Indeed, we value highly certain men whose virtue is unknown to us for this reason, that they associate with the good. Indeed, if they have contracted some stain, it is worn away and washed out by companionship and familiarity with grave men. Nothing recalls dishonorable minds inclined toward wickedness to what is right more than intercourse with good men. For to be frequently seen and frequently heard descends gradually into the breasts and obtains the force of a precept. For when among them there are pious, honorable, and learned conversations, ingenuous recreations, and even games and relaxations of minds that are cheerfully conducted with maturity and liberal jests, not dissolute, the mind drinks in these things in such a manner that it passes wholly into honorable conduct. It has a witness of its life, retains modesty, and soon becomes itself worthy of reverence to others.
It is indeed becoming both to the dignity of Prelates and to the venerable gray hair of the aged to draw a company of younger men or even brethren of their own age; to live publicly and have witnesses of all their acts, words, and indeed proceedings; and to possess such a reputation that every most honorable man desires his intercourse and familiarity. It is not unworthy of a Prelate to have Clerics of the Church, whom he has been accustomed to call fellow brethren, as his companions at table. For he opens his house not from desire for gain but from love of discipline, as a refuge for those who would otherwise be in danger and a school for studies and virtues for those who would otherwise make less progress. The First Council of Milan, section On the Bishop’s Household: “But we vehemently exhort him to have as many Clerics as possible in his household, who use only clerical dress, and among them, if it can conveniently be done, namely two initiated into sacred orders and of good reputation, who may more studiously attend the Bishop while he keeps vigil, prays, applies himself to works of mercy, and searches the mysteries of divine letters, and may be, as it were, witnesses and imitators of his actions and holy conduct. Let him then possess an ecclesiastical person, proven and approved, who is placed over the morals of the household and solicitous for the salvation of all, who may sustain spiritual life and take care that it is instructed in good and pious arts, and especially sacred letters, according to the sense and intelligence of each.”
If a multitude of Clerics is an honor of a Bishop, why is it not so in Germany for Prelates or distinguished Canons?
§ 11. But all colleagues ought to favor this matter, for both a good name is thereby acquired for the Church and there will be greater attendance at the divine offices. For if ten others dwell with some Canon, while present they will observe the diligence of others and will not readily remain at home or take themselves elsewhere. For modesty causes them to offend rarely; rare offending introduces the practice of virtue, because a rare evil exists only together with a dense good. Never will all ten remain away at once, both because we suppose them to be good and because they will never all conspire in culpable negligence. Indeed, the father of a household of so honorable a fellowship will not bear with equanimity the sloth of those whom he has as members of his household. Those evils and dangers which wholly call men away from the divine offices will also be absent.
§ 12. How much will be subtracted from expenses will be felt especially by those who are willing to give themselves to a common life. One fire will burn in place of ten; there will be no need to maintain furnishings, repairs of roofs, or services of attendants that are either perilous to chastity or unfaithful to patrimonies; no expenses of banquets or contracts. Yet there will be no need to abandon hospitality, for it will be common, and individuals will be able to contribute more to guests than all do now.
But lest this matter be called into doubt, I assert that by the theft and malice of their household the wealthier Canons now lose more than they would expend upon a year’s sustenance if several wished to dwell together. But what, you will say, will become of that priestly opulence? I reply that riches must be restored to Christ. It is a good deed to live sparingly so that you may feed the poor liberally. He who denies that this pertains to his dignity considers it equitable that, while Christ hungers, he himself should live sumptuously.
§ 13. Finally, necessity itself counsels this union of several persons, so that when sick and dying they may furnish consolations to one another. For harsh indeed is the condition of those who when sick scarcely have faithful aids and whose property is seized amid their very funerals. It is certain that this has sometimes happened not only to Canons but to Bishops and Cardinals.
Therefore it would be prudent to assist by expense, privilege, and favor those who wish either to admit their fellow brethren in collegiate Churches to their table at a fair price or to be companions at the table of others.
And more spacious houses and gardens could be granted for this end.
But where it can be done, this must be effected: either that most dwell together or certainly that no one dwell among secular persons.
Nor does anything prevent the establishment of a rule that all who are not members of Chapters and are not occupied in studies should not freely and at their own discretion choose lodgings for themselves, but by a capitular statute should be commanded to dwell with some grave man of their own or another Church and to bring an attestation of their life when they are to be admitted to the Chapter.
But by judgment of the Chapter or Bishop prudent and grave men of good example could be designated. For when their studies have been completed or broken off, younger Canons readily go astray in the highest liberty.
And I judge that this must gradually be introduced not only among the younger but even among those more advanced in age, although they have been admitted to the senate or Chapter. The reins must be placed upon license by a salutary decree. For what burden would there be if such a statute were made? “Since, alas, the falls of many have taught us that in promiscuous habitation with secular persons there are great dangers and that many young men and men of good purpose have been drawn from piety by evil association, the Chapter, wishing by virtue of its office to provide for the salvation of all and each, establishes that the following be inviolably observed.
“First, younger Canons who devote themselves to studies, whether they do so in the city of their residence or in distant Academies, shall take lodging only with the consent and approval of the Scholasticus and shall change it if it shall seem good to him, knowing for certain that throughout the whole time the fruits will be denied to those who have not obeyed, as though they were suspended. But the Scholasticus shall establish that they lodge only with parents or guardians, in seminaries, or with an Ecclesiastic of exemplary life and a modest household, who shall also be bound to render an account to the Chapter concerning their domestic conduct. But if they wish to dwell with honorable and pious citizens, this shall not be permitted without the consent of the Chapter. The same is established concerning those who do not devote themselves to studies and yet are not in the Chapter, whom we altogether
wish to dwell near the church with their fellow brethren. Finally, we have judged the same concerning all who are under twenty years old, whom it is fitting to make progress in piety by the example of the aged and not to be occupied by the care of domestic affairs.”
If these or similar things, whether stricter or more lenient, are introduced gradually, reformation will follow of its own accord without labor.
I shall speak concerning parish priests in a particular place.