13
565.[1] Amidst several bishops composing the council, we meet with Saints Germanus of Paris, and Pretextatus of Tours. Now, the twelfth canon states, “that a married bishop ought always be accompanied by clerics, even in his chamber, and so separated from his wife that her servants could have no communication with his servants. The priest, or deacon, or sub-deacon, found in company with his wife shall be under an interdict for ayear”. Well, then, if Saints Germanus and Preetextatus, such bright examples and upholders of clerical celibacy, legislated for a married bishop, and for the living wife, probably in the same house, as may be inferred from reading the entire canon, how could any man in his senses say that the Irish clergy were not bound to continence, merely because the wife, and not mentioned as being in the same house, was obliged to wear the veil? Something, however, by way of objection—not that I anticipate it from Mr. Whiteside—may be urged. It may be asked, if no intercourse were to be between the cleric and the former wife, why not have the latter lead a conventual life, when the husband took holy orders? especially as some conventual houses, not improbably, were founded at the time under consideration. Perhaps she could have done so, but it was not necessary, or even usual. For this we have the authority of Fleury. “In the first ages”, he says, “virgins consecrated to God lived, for the most part, with their parents, never stirring out unless to go to church, where they had a place separated from other women”.[2] So it was in Ireland; for we read in the life of St. Bridget, by Cogitosus, that there was a place reserved for the nuns at one side the sanctuary, away from the other women, while the clerics were at the other side. And this arrangement was found convenient a full century after the canon in dispute was passed, and when there was ample time, one
