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 role in the Mass collided with actions taken by the king and ecclesiastics at Lillebonne, who placed the laity in a position of authority, at least in cases involving incontinent clerics.
On the other side of the English Channel, Lanfranc’s successor Anselm continued to battle clerical marriage, adopting even more severe measures. After Lanfranc’s death, English cathedral chapters experienced a “heyday” of married clerics, beginning around 1090.35 Anselm’s Council of Westminster (1102) reiterated that archdeacons, canons, priests, and deacons could not marry, and if currently married could not retain their wives. His measures marked a sharp departure from Lanfranc’s leniency thirty years earlier. Subdeacons, a group not always included in previous legislation, also had to renounce their wives, if they had made a profession of chastity. Priests could not celebrate Mass as long as they were married, and parishioners were banned from attending services officiated by concubinous priests. In recognition of the growth of the office of archdeacon and its concomitant power, those who became archdeacons had to be ordained, at a minimum, to the rank of deacon (which required celibacy). The harsher aspects of these decrees lay in the ban on attendance at Masses celebrated by married priests.36 By mandating that the laity boycott the church services of married priests, these laws once again provided the means of assault on the masculine honor of the clergy, an assault encouraged by distant reformers, whether from Rome or an Anglo-Norman council. The married priest was removed as a leader in his community, with respectable social status, and transformed into an object of derision, subject to ridicule and denigration at the hands of his parishioners. Yet it is not clear that the parishioners of these communities were opposed to the marriage of their village priest and would have ceased attending services. Daniel Bornstein’s work on late medieval Cortona indicates that, even centuries after the prohibition on clerical marriage, rural priests were still living with women, and that this was publicly known in the community without censure; the community was strictly concerned that church services not be neglected.37 Still, the most curious aspects of this council lie not in the canons promulgated but in those bishops present at this council. Of those prelates present, three already had, or would, marry and have clerical sons: Samson of Worcester, Robert Bloet of Lincoln, and Roger of Salisbury. The laws should have had some impact on these married bishops, even if they had married before their consecration. There is, however, no indication the laws adversely affected their personal or professional lives.
Anselm’s actions in 1102 produced a flurry of letters addressed to him from his ecclesiastical colleagues on the subject, especially from bishops who had difficulty with the implementation of these policies. After the council, Herbert of Losinga, bishop of Norwich, experienced such problems in enforcing the statutes. The priests in his diocese were unwilling to give up their women, and this posed a problem since married/concubinous priests were not allowed to officiate at services. Anselm advised Herbert to find chaste priests who could serve instead; if not, then the archbishop advised his suffragan that monks were to replace unchaste priests at the altar. Anselm also suggested that Herbert elicit the support of the laity in expelling such clerics from their churches; if these clerics were not willing to go, “let all the Christians act against them.” Referring to a specific case of clerical incontinence, Anselm went even farther with his directive, urging parishioners to expel both the fornicating priest and his wife from their community and to seize their land, “until they come to their senses.”38
Implementing such severe decrees on married priests would have resulted in a shortage of priests, as the letter to Herbert of Losinga suggested. Without a priest, a community would not have had access to final absolution. This was such a pressing issue that Anselm sought advice from Pope Paschal II on the matter, asking, “is it permitted to receive absolution and the body of the Lord when in danger of death from priests who have women when no chaste priest is present? If this is permitted, and such priests refuse to administer to those in need because their masses are scorned, what is to be done?” Paschal’s reply was that viaticum from any cleric, even an unchaste one, was preferable to jeopardizing the soul. This series of letter exchanges suggests that some married priests rebelled because their masses were banned by the Church, and they were being publicly denounced by their own parishioners. Paschal’s comment was that, if these priests refused to provide the last sacrament to a dying parishioner, “they are to be punished most rigorously as murderers of souls.”39
Married clerics found ways to keep their women, even claiming that it was legal to do so. Gerard, the archbishop of York, sought counsel from Anselm because those clerics closest to him, secular canons of his cathedral chapter, were devising loopholes to evade the statutes of Westminster. The canons argued to Gerard that “according to the council there will be no women in our houses. But no regulation of the Council prohibits us from meeting women alone and without witness in the houses of our neighbors.” Gerard complained that those canons who had been appointed priests and deacons had never renounced their wives and still publicly acknowledged them. These clerics seemed
