The Manly Priest. Jennifer D. Thibodeaux
enacted by the archbishops in England and Normandy. The experiences of archbishops like Lanfranc and Anselm in eradicating clerical marriage reveal the many problems with the institution of such laws. What these bishops pursued as reform policy was not strictly Roman, although it shared some of the same goals. In addition to the severe policies toward clerical marriage and clerical concubines, the papacy also passed decrees against lay investiture, decrees that were not promulgated at the earliest reform councils in Normandy.25 Instead, the Anglo-Norman councils created laws on clerical marriage that fit into a wider initiative to define a standard of religious manliness.
Lanfranc’s council at Winchester (1076) took a departure from the stricter, Roman rules on clerical marriage by allowing currently married priests to keep their wives, but prohibiting both secular canons and new ordinands from doing the same. Lanfranc’s intent behind this decree was unclear but likely meant that married clerics should live with their wives chastely. When contrasted to the laws of 1072 promulgated by John d’Avranches at Rouen, these were lenient measures. John d’Avranches took a hardline approach worthy of the Roman initiatives by renewing the canons of Lisieux (1064). These decrees had said that priests, deacons, and canons who had taken wives and concubines since 1063 must put them aside; even clerics in minor orders were advised to remain unmarried, a clause unseen in any other legislation of this period.26 John’s position on this issue is interesting, given that his brother Hugh had been a married bishop of Bayeux. John’s Rouen synod also stipulated that married clerics could not obtain any part of the revenue of their churches, even if a continent vicar served as a substitute, and that archdeacons should also model chastity for their clergy and not “smuggle” any women into their homes. These decrees went farther than previous synodal legislation, stipulating that those clerics who had “lapsed” publicly would not automatically be allowed to return to their churches, even after doing penance, for this would only encourage further incontinence. Only in extraordinary circumstances should an incontinent priest be allowed to return.27
John’s decrees were significant, not only for their severity but also because they gestured toward the model of the manly celibate. A public lapse revealed a disorderly, priestly body, one that showed failure to restrain sexual desire. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, John’s renewal of the Lisieux canons and his extension of severe penalties were met with one of the most notorious riots in Norman history, in which the assembly of married priests reacted to the legislation by casting stones at the archbishop.28 Lanfranc, as abbot of St. Stephen’s of Caen, had presided with Archbishop Maurilius over a similar set of severe decrees at the earlier Council of Rouen. Lanfranc, then, was part of introducing hardline tactics against married priests in Normandy twelve years earlier; when presiding over the Winchester council as archbishop of Canterbury, he backtracked from his previous position. The reasons behind this move are entirely speculative. Lanfranc may have learned from previous experiences that such legislation was hardly enforceable and could result in short-staffed parish churches, or he may have been pressured by his suffragan bishops to take a more gradual approach to the problem.29 This raises an important question. Were Norman priests easier to discipline and separate from their wives than English ones? Or was the policy at Rouen in 1064 such an abysmal failure that Lanfranc learned to take a different approach with incontinent clergy?
Lanfranc’s experience as the new archbishop of Canterbury brought him into intimate contact with the problem of clerical marriage, as he encountered married bishops. In 1071, he wrote a letter to Pope Alexander II, seeking advice on how to treat the case of Bishop Leofwine of Lichfield, who publicly acknowledged his own wife and children. Leofwine was not the only married bishop, as Lanfranc discovered. In a second letter to Pope Gregory VII in 1073, Lanfranc admitted that “bishops, the very men who should be shepherds of souls, in their endless craving for worldly glory and the delights of the flesh are not only choking all holiness and piety within themselves but the example of their conduct is luring their charges into every kind of sin.”30 Lanfranc knew very well that the existence of married bishops reinforced a lay model of masculinity, making the problem of clerical marriage quite difficult to eradicate, as it modeled improper behavior to the lower clergy. If Lanfranc’s 1076 decrees had been effectively enforced, it would have created a two-tier system, with older clerics allowed to keep their wives but newer clerics displaced from this tradition; the effect would have been to encourage the perception that clerical marriage was allowed (for some).
Lanfranc was well aware of John d’Avranches’s efforts in Normandy to eradicate clerical marriage. In a letter to the archbishop of Rouen, Lanfranc openly acknowledged his admiration of John’s legislative efforts and dispelled any notions that he had criticized John for not controlling his clerics more effectively. Instead, he lauded John for his strong-handed efforts at ecclesiastical discipline and reiterated that he himself, as defined in the decrees of Winchester, would prohibit any new canons, priests, or deacons from marriages or else deprive them of their benefices.31 But Lanfranc’s understanding of implementing such strict policies is made evident from his advice to other bishops on the subject. In a letter to Herfast, bishop of Thetford, Lanfranc advocated a perhaps milder punishment for a cleric irregularly ordained a deacon and who also happened to be married. Lanfranc advised that, since the man was unwilling to put away his wife, he should be taken out of the deaconate and ordained to a minor order; if the cleric later decided to live chastely and commit to it permanently, then he could recover his deaconate.32 This was a quite reasonable solution for the time; the priesthood might bring a higher degree of manliness, but some were better off pursuing marriage like the laity. The importance of a chaste life was made evident once again when Lanfranc advised the archdeacons of Bayeux concerning the deposition of a priest who committed manslaughter. The archdeacons desired to know how long the priest had to wait to celebrate Mass, after having committed such a crime. Lanfranc’s response indicates what the archbishop saw as the paramount issue. He advised the archdeacons to examine the life of the priest and see if he was truly penitent; “above all whether he is determined to maintain physical chastity from now on and promises that he will maintain it until the end of his life.” While the circumstances of the case are not known, it appears that the priest may have been married or living with a woman. If the priest lived continently, he would be able to celebrate Mass after the completion of his penance for the crime of manslaughter. Lanfranc warned, “but if not, it will be hazardous for you and disastrous for him if with unclean hands he dare to sanctify the body and blood of Christ.”33 This case shows the relative view of such infractions in the mind of Lanfranc. Manslaughter could be expiated through penance and continent living, but incontinence risked the reputation of the priesthood and threatened pollution of the sacrament.
Overall, Lanfranc’s policy on clerical celibacy exhibits an understanding of the times and an ability to work with incontinent clerics while still maintaining loyalty to the campaign against clerical marriage. The decrees of Winchester had been largely ineffective, as the continued promulgation of celibacy canons suggest. Six years after Winchester and eight years after Rouen, a synod convoked at Lillebonne by William the Conqueror and Archbishop William Bona Anima of Rouen adopted measures that prohibited canons, deans, priests, deacons, and subdeacons from living with women and ordered that those accused of such would have to defend themselves in court. Those who failed to prove their innocence were deprived of their churches. The sentiment of Lillebonne was similar to earlier Norman synods, like that of Rouen (1072), but it departed sharply in its manner of penalty. It ordered incontinent clerics to clear themselves in the bishop’s court, unless they were accused by a parishioner or layman; in such a case, the accused was ordered to prove his innocence in a mixed court of laymen and clergy. The penalty was harsh for those deemed guilty: lifetime forfeiture of church benefice. William the Conqueror spearheaded this hardline policy, making it clear at the synod that he was not trying to usurp the power of the bishops over their clergy, while at the same time assigning blame on the bishops for their failure on this matter. The king also stipulated that bishops and their agents could not extort any fines from unchaste priests.34 Lillebonne, in encouraging the laity to take an active role in disciplining errant clerics, began the unseemly trend of lowering the masculine authority and status of the priest in his community. By allowing the parishioner to judge an unchaste priest, this measure reversed the roles of confessor and penitent. The reform ideal of elevating the spiritual status of the priest and sanctifying his