ABOUT THOSE ICELANDIC PRIESTS
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Bruce Webb
Date: May 22, 2003
Although my graduate training was in medieval history, my particular emphasis was Britain before 1066, and so while I am not an expert on the subject of Icelandic priestly celibacy and marriage or cohabitation, I do have some background in this area. [See "Married Priests in Iceland," The Rittenhouse Review, May 20.]
First I would refer to you this article, which explains that Pope Alexander VI, elevated in 1490, was the father of the Borgias -- yes, those Borgias -- and openly secured riches and lucrative offices for his many children.
And while the Icelandic Bishop Jón Arason may have been ignorant of the finer points of the Second Lateran Council, presumably some of his near-contemporaries at the Vatican were at least vaguely aware of the strictures incumbent on priests.
Although Alexander VI was not typical for Roman Pontiffs he was fairly representative for the clergy at the time. The point you have missed, but one that is clear on first examination of the texts, is that clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage. And even more clear is that in medieval Europe marriage was not about sex, it was about legitimacy, which means inheritance.
The one constant of medieval history is the attempt by king and bishop alike to keep property from being permanently alienated from their control. Property rights that initially were granted in return for a specific service (whether war or preaching) were constantly being transformed into inheritable property. While on the whole this was a losing battle for kings, who gradually had their income base shifted from property to taxes, it largely was won by the Church.
Property that accrued to the church remained under its control. And while there are multiple examples of "nephews" of high clergy being granted lucrative clerical offices, the principle of clerical celibacy prevented large chunks of property being permanently alienated.
To your specific example, note that your quote was "priests commonly lived with women and had children." Now there is nothing in that that implies "marriage." And my reading leads me to conclude that priests openly cohabitating and procreating with women was rather the norm than the exception in Western Europe, particularly as you move down the income scale. And, generally, where property rights were not at risk, the Church really didn't care.
Bruce Webb
Everett, Wash.
Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:
Thank you for your interesting and informative letter.
As relates to the example of married or cohabitating Icelandic priests in the 16th century, as discussed in A Brief History of Iceland, by Gunnar Karlsson, I presumed, probably incorrectly as you imply, that the phase "priests commonly lived with women" implied marriage.
However, lacking access to Karlsson's text in the original Icelandic, I cannot offhandedly determine what the author actually wrote. I suppose I am filtering the English translation by Anna Yates through a decidedly 21st century view, keeping in mind that this is a book that runs to just 72 pages, implying a need for Yates to be brief and concise.
I think a definitive finding on this matter would require an investigation into the prevalence of cohabitation in Iceland during the period, among the clergy and the populace at large, but that is a topic for another day.
I must disagree, however, with your point that "clerical celibacy is not at all about sex, it is about marriage." This may have been true centuries ago, but I don't think this notion applies to the Church today. But that, too, is a topic for another day.
