10
the laity, and separated from the Church”. Does this prove that priests were allowed to marry? Certainly not; it would rather prove the contrary. Is it reconcileable with ecclesiastical celibacy? Most certainly. And first, the mention of the “veil”, to my mind, points to a profession of chastity. The “veiling of the head”, or “taking the veil”, in ecclesiastical language, means a profession of religion or chastity. Now supposing— though some deny it[1]—that the canon was drawn up in the middle of the fifth century, yet the “taking of the veil”, even so early, was in use for the religious profession.
Was the veiling of the head a civil ceremony? No.
- ↑ I dissent with reluctance from Dr. Lanigan and Villeneuve. The former cannot necessarily infer the spuriousness of the canon from mention of the tonsure. It is not necessary to suppose that the clipping of the hair was anything more than what propriety or decency called for; nor is it necessary to suppose that the Roman custom is introduced in opposition to the oriental, but rather to the barbarian custom of letting the hair grow long. St. Jerome says that the clerics ought to distinguish themselves, by the cut of the hair, from the barbarians or Goths, who wore it long. The custom of the ancient Romans was to wear the hair short; and this practice, common to the Romans, laics and ecclesiastics, was recommended by St. Jerome. On the other hand, he would have them not shave the head all over, like the priests of Isis and Serapis. Besides, the canon alludes to the impropriety of having the clothes fit too tightly to the body, but recommended the full, flowing garment. Now this, certainly, was not to conform to any precise canon or fashion of Rome, but to follow the natural dictates of propriety. More than that, Fleury (Institution au Droit Ecclesiastique) observes, that in 428, just four years before St. Patrick came to us, Pope Celestine said that the dress even of bishops in their civil actions did not differ from seculars. St. Jerome, in his letter to Nepotien, says the same thing. But, while I may say that there was not necessarily mention of the tonsure as an ecclesiastical rite, so I may with great probability say, against Villeneuve, that the Roman tonsure, as such, was not known in Ireland; for, if once introduced, it would not have been given up, such was the respect for St. Patrick and Rome. To repeat, the object of the canon was to prevent the wearing the hair long—the “coulin”, to which the Irish were so attached; as it was the object of St. Jerome, about the same time, to prevent ecclesiastics from imitating the barbarians rather than the Romans.
