Pope
Celestine III’s Grave Error on the Indissolubility of Marriage
During the current Papal crisis, it is beneficial
to look to historical precedents that demonstrate the extent to which God can
permit a Pope to fall into when he is not defining a doctrine ex cathdra. This
is beneficial not only to see what it is possible for God to permit, but also
to counter the error of “creeping infallibility”, which ends by maintaining
that every act of the Pope’s authentic Magisterium is necessarily be free from all error, or at least free from serious error. One historical case that puts the breaks on
creeping infallibility and shows the degree of error God can permit a Pope to
fall into when he is not defining a doctrine, is the little-known case of
Celestine III.
The case involves a Catholic woman whose
Catholic husband left the faith, abandoned her, and married another woman with
whom he procreated children. The abandoned wife consulted her archdeacon and
was given permission to enter into a second marriage, even though the validity
of her first marriage was not in question.
With the approval of her archdeacon, the
woman entered into a second marriage and had children with her new spouse. The situation became complicated when her
first (true) husband repented of his heresy, left the other woman, and desire
to be reconciled with his wife. Since the wife had entered into the second
marriage with the approval of the local Church authorities, it was unclear how
the matter was to be resolved.
Pope Celestine’s Error
The case eventually reached Pope
Celestine III (d. 1198), who responded to the dubia by misinterpreting the Pauline Privilege (1 Cor. 7) and stating
that the woman should remain in her second adulterous “marriage,” rather than returning
to her true husband. Now, this was no
minor error on the part of the Pope, either in itself or in its consequences;
for his judgment was not only based on a misinterpretation of Scripture, but it
had the effect of confirming a woman in the state of adultery. It should be noted that this error of
Celestine was not a private matter, but was included in an Epistle and hence
part of his “authentic Magisterium”.
The Dubia and Celestine’s Response
The following is the text from Pope
Celestine’s epistle, titled: ‘On the
Conversion of the infidels’:
“Again, is there
any right in the following case, which you have cared to propose: a Christian
man denied Christ out of hatred for his wife and united himself to a pagan
woman, with whom he procreated children. The Christian woman, who had been
abandoned unto the dishonor of Jesus Christ, went into a second marriage with
the assent of the Archdeacon and had children.”
Here is the Pope’s reply:
“It does not
seem to us (non enim videtur nobis)
that if the first husband returns to the unity of the Church she ought to
depart from the second [husband] and go back to the first, especially since she
was seen to have departed from him by the judgment of the Church. As St.
Gregory testifies, “the affront to the Creator dissolves the right of marriage
for the one who is left out of hatred of the Christian faith.”[1]
Notice that Celestine quoted the
authority of Pope St. Gregory to support his judgment. The problem is that Gregory’s
teaching is based on a correct interpretation of the Pauline Privilege (1 Cor.
7:15), which allows for the bond of a natural
marriage – i.e., a true marriage by spouses who are not baptized – to be
dissolved if one of the spouses becomes a believer and is then abandoned by the
unbeliever. By failing to properly distinguish between a natural vis-à-vis a
sacramental marriage, Pope Celestine misinterpreted these words of Scripture as
meaning that a valid sacramental
marriage – i.e., one entered into by two persons who were both baptized – can
be (or is) dissolved if one of the spouses falls into heresy. For erring so
gravely in this matter, Pope Celestine has been accused of heresy by men such
as Alphonsus de Castro.[2]
Pope Innocent III Corrects Celestine’s Error
Pope Innocent III corrected the error of Celestine by giving a contrary
ruling to a similar dubia in the letter
Quanto te Magis, which was addressed to the bishop of Ferrara. As the following shows, Pope Innocent
correctly interpreted the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:15) as being applicable
to a natural marriage bond of two
unbelievers (which can be dissolved in certain circumstances), rather than a
sacramental marriage bond which remains indissoluble until death do them part.
“Your brotherhood has announced that with one of the
spouses passing over to heresy the one who is left desires to rush into second
vows and to procreate children, and you have thought that we ought to be
consulted through your letter as to whether this can be done under the law. We, therefore,
responding to your inquiry regarding the common advice of our brothers by making
a distinction, although indeed our predecessor [Celestine III] seems to have
thought otherwise, [the distinction being] whether of two unbelievers one is converted to the Catholic Faith, or of two believers one lapses into heresy or
falls into the error of paganism.
“If one of the unbelieving spouses is converted to
the Catholic faith, while the other either is by no means willing to live with
him or at least not without blaspheming the divine name, or so as to drag him
into mortal sin, the one who is left, if
he wishes, will pass over to second vows. And in this case we understand
what the Apostle [Paul] says: "If the unbeliever depart, let him depart:
for the brother or sister is not subject to servitude in (cases) of this
kind" (1 Cor. 7:15). And likewise (we understand) the canon in which it is
said that "insult to the Creator dissolves the law of marriage for him who
is left” (Contumelia creatoris solvit jus
matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur).[3]
“But if one of the believing spouses either slips
into heresy or lapse into the error of paganism, we do not believe that in this
case he who is left, as long as the other is living, can enter into a second
marriage. (…)
Although indeed true matrimony exists between unbelievers [i.e. a natural
marriage], yet it is not ratified; between believers, however, a true and
ratified marriage exists, because the sacrament of faith [i.e., baptism], which
once was admitted, is never lost, but makes the sacrament of marriage ratified
so that it itself lasts between married persons as long as the sacrament of
faith endures.”[4]
Pope Innocent correctly interpreted the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:15)
as being applicable to a natural marriage
bond of two unbelievers (which can be dissolved in certain circumstances),
rather than a sacramental marriage bond which remains indissoluble until death
do them part.
Cajetan’s Commentary on Celestine’s Error
Cajetan discusses the error of Celestine III in his Apologia, which was
written in response to Almain, who denied that a Pope was personally
infallible, and pointed to the error of Celestine as one of several cases that
he believed proved it. The following is
Alamand’s objection and Cajetan’s reply:
[Cajetan] says
that the supreme pontiff, although he can err in believing in his personal
capacity, nevertheless cannot err in faith in his judicial capacity. (…) The
following is asserted against that proposition (…) two supreme pontiffs have
reached contrary decisions in those things which touch on the faith; (…)
Second, Innocent III and Celestine reached contrary decisions concerning this
proposition: ‘When one spouse has gone over to heresy, the other, who remains
in the faith, can proceed to a second marriage.’ Innocent’s decision that one cannot do this
is found in c. Quanto [x 4.19.7]’ Celstine’s decision, as the [ordinary] gloss says
at the same chapter, once was found amoung the decretals at the end of De concersione
Coniugatorum [x 3.32[5]].”[6]
Cajetan responds by stating that neither
of the two Popes intended to define
the doctrine.
“To the second
[point], the answer is that neither of these pontiffs determined definitvely. For Innocent III says Celstine in c. Quanto, ‘Although
one of our predecessors seems to have thought otherwise’; and he adds
concerning himself, ‘We do not believe that in this case the one who is left,
while the other one is living, could enter into a second marriage.’ The very words used there, ‘seems to have
thought otherwise,’ and, ‘we do not believe,’ show that they were not uttered
to define it as a matter of faith.”[7]
What Cajetan’s defense shows is that those
who defended Papal Infallibility, centuries before the doctrine was defined at
the First Vatican Council, realized that infallibility only prevents a Pope
from erring when he defines a doctrine; not in any and every official act of
his “authentic Magisterium.
Bellarmine’s Commentary
Bellarmine addresses the error of Celestine III in Book Four of De Romano Pontifice. He doesn’t deny that the Pope erred in his judgment,
but defends him from the accusation of personal heresy by noting that the
doctrine had not yet been defined by the Church. He then defends the infallibility of the
Church using the same argument of Cajetan – namely, by stating that Celestine
did not intend to define the doctrine ex
cathedra. He also states that it is “certain” that Celestine’s epistle was contained
in the Decretals. Here’s is Bellarmine’s
treatment of the case:
“The
thirty-third [Pope accused of heresy] is Celestine III, whom Alphonsus de
Castro asserted could not be excused of heresy in any way because he taught that Matrimony could be dissolved by heresy, and
that it would be lawful for one to enter into another marriage when his prior spouse
had fallen into heresy. Even if this decree of Celestine were not extant, still
it was formally in ancient Decretals, the chapter, Laudabilem, ‘On the conversion of infidels,’ which is the decree
Aphonsus says that he saw. Moreover,
that this teaching of Celestine is heretical is clear, because Innocent III
(Cap. “Quanto,” c. 3) taught the contrary on Divorce and the Council of Trent
also defined the same thing.
“I respond:
Neither Celestine nor Innocent stated anything certain on the matter; but each
responded with what seemed more probable to them. That is manifestly gathered from
the words of Innocent who, when he says his predecessor thought otherwise,
shows in his opinion that the whole matter was still being thought out. On the
other hand, Alphonsus says the epistle of
Celestine was at one time among the epistles in the decretals. While certainly that is true, it cannot
thence be gathered that a plainly apostolic decree was made by Celestine, or
even one ex cathedra; since it is certain that there are many epistles in the
decretals which do not make any matter de
fide, but only declare to us the opinions of the Pontiff on some affair.” [8]
By defending Celestine’s error by
stating that many papal teachings contained in Epistles – even those included
in the decretals - are not intended to be de
fide, it shows that Bellarmine did not believe infallibility would prevent
a Pope from errig in a non-definitive teaching of his authentic Magisterium.
Celetine’s Error in the Decretals
The following is the text from Laudabilem, “On the conversion of
infidels,” which Bellarmine referred to above. It is taken from the Decretals
of Pope Gregory[9]
as found in the Corpus Iuris Canonici:
“Decretals of
Gregory IX, Lib. III, Tit. XXXII, Laudabilem,
‘On the Conversion of the infidels,’ by Pope Celestine III:
“A Christian man
denied Christ out of hatred for his wife and united himself to pagan woman,
with whom he procreated children. The
Christian woman, who had been abandoned unto the dishonor of Jesus Christ, went
into a second marriage with the assent of the Archdeacon and had children. It does not seem to us that if the first
husband returns to the unity of the Church she ought to depart from the second
and go back to the first, especially since she was seen to have departed from
him by the judgment of the Church. And, as St. Gregory [the Great] testifies,
‘the affront to the Creator dissolves the
right of marriage (solvat ius matrimonii)
for the one who is left out of hatred of the Christian faith’. (…)
After addressing four more related questions concerning this case,[10] Pope
Celestine concluded by saying:
[Concerning this
matter we have] the rule and the doctrine of the Apostle, by which it is said
"if the infidel depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not
under servitude in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15), as well as the famous decree
of Gregory: ‘it is not a sin if [the spouse], having been dismissed for God's
sake, joins another; the departing infidel [however], has sinned and against
God and against matrimony’[11].”[12]
It
should be noted that Sedevacantists have noted that recent authors, such as
Cardinal Billot, stated that Pope Gregory did not approve this particular
decree, even though it is was left in the Decretals. While that may indeed be the case, it only excuses
Gregory XII from error; it does not excuse Pope Celestine.
Conclusion
The case of Celestine III highlights
the limitations of papal infallibility by showing that it is possible for a true
Pope to misinterpret Scripture, and as a result issue a judgment, as part of
his authentic Magisterium, which contradicts divine revelation and confirms a person
in objective mortal sin. Such a thing is possible
provided the Pope is not exercising his Magisterium in an extraordinary manner
by (1) issuing a final and definitive judgment (2) concerning a matter of faith
or morals (3) to be held by the universal Church. If these conditions, as
defined by the First Vatican Council, are not met, error – even serious error – is possible.
And if anyone believes, as do some Sedevacantists, that all non-infallible
judgments of a Pope must at least be “infallibly safe” (even if not infallibly true),
they will have a difficult time explaining this one - unless their definition
of “infallibly safe” includes teachings that are contrary to Divine law and which
confirm a person in objective mortal sin.
[1] Idem si quidem iuris erit in
sequenti casu, quem proponere studuisti, quum S. Christiano viro propter odium
uxoris Christum negante et sibi copulante paganam et ex ea filios procreante
Christiana in opprobrium Iesu Christi relicta, cum assensu archidiaconi sui ad
secundas nuptias convolavit et filios suscepit ex ipsis; non enim videtur
nobis, quod si prior maritus redeat ad unitatem ecclesiasticam, eadem a secundo
debeat recedere et resignari priori, maxime quum ab eo visa fuerit ecclesiae
iudicio discessisse et teste Gregorio contumelia creatoris solvat ius
matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur odio fidei Christianae.
[2] Alphonsus de Castro, First Book Against the Heresies (1565),
ch. 4.
[4] Pope Innocent III, Quanto te Magi, to Hugo, Bishop of
Ferrara, May 1, 1199, Denz. 405-406.
[5] The following footnote was
included by Burns & Izbicki in their translation of this text: “Alamain
seems to have confused Celestine’s decretal Laudabilem [x 3.33.1[, which was
the last chater of De Concersionam Infedelium, in Compilatio II
[6] Alamond, the Authority of the Church,
ch. X.
[7] Cajetan, Apologia, translated by
Burns & Izbicki, in Conciliarism and
Papalism, p. 246.
[8]
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, bk.
4, ch XIV.
[9] Although this decree is included
in the Decretals of Gregory, Cardinal Billot said that Pope Gregory did not
give this decree his approval.
[10] The four
related questions are loosely translated as follows: 1. However, the woman
could enter the monastic life even if her first husband, who returned to the
faith, refused. 2. If the abandoned wife
died, and her first husband returned to the Church, he could licitly enter into
a true marriage with his second wife, if she were to convert to the Faith. 3. That, in the case of #2, the children born
of the illicit union of their father and pagan mother would be considered
legitimate by virtue of their parent’s later marriage in the Church. 4. That
the children born of the first wife and her second husband, whom she married
with the approval of her Archdeacon (while her first husband was still living),
are considered legitimate. Quod autem mulier possit primo viro qui ad fidem
reversus est nolente ad vitam monasticam remeare, vel utrum ille reversus ad
eam, quam ritu gentili sibi coniunxit, et quae propter eum ad fidem nostram cum
liberis suis est conversa, mortua prima possit habere uxorem, et an filii ante
conversionem geniti obtentu nuptiarum, quae post conversionem ritu
ecclesiastico celebratae fuerunt, et similiter si filii illius, quae cum
licentia archidiaconi sui marito priore vivente sed facto infideli nupsit viro
catholico, legitimi sint habendi.
[11]
"Si infidelis discedit odio Christianae fidei, discedat. Non est enim
frater aut soror subiectus seruituti in huiusmodi. Non est enim peccatum dimisso propter Deum, si alii se copulauerit. Contumelia
quippe creatoris soluit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur. Infidelis autem
discedens et in Deum peccat, et in matrimonium…” (Gratiana,
Secunda Pars. Causa XXVIII. Quaet. II, c. 2).
[12]
Corpus Iuris Canonici - Volume 2, Decretal. Gregory IX, Lib. III, Tit. XXXII, “Concerning the
Conversion of the infidels,” Cap. 1, pp. 587-588.
No comments:
Post a Comment