THE PRIEST'S RULE OF LIFE.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sirt,—My attention has been called to a notice in the Spectator of October 7th of my small pamphlet, entitled The Priest's Rule of Life. I am honoured by the notice, and I recognize that the criticisms are legitimate, though I might be able to say something in reply to them. But I am writing at the moment in order to draw attention to a somewhat serious error into which your reviewer has fallen, and which I am sure you will allow me to correct.
He states that I give a list of ten societies " which either have a celibate roll, &c., or pledge their members to live as bound by the ancient and universal rule that clerks in Sacred Orders may not contract marriage." The impression left on the minds of your readers would be that all the ten societies mentioned were only for unmarried priests. On the contrary, I state expressly that out of two societies which have a celibate roll one includes married priests, and that there is a third society (and one only) which has as one of its rules " To live as bound by the ancient and universal rules," &c. As a matter of fact, five out of the ten societies mentioned in my list include married priests.
There are (as I also state in the pamphlet) strong arguments in favour of a married priesthood. But there are also strong reasons why the possibility of celibacy should be definitely faced by the younger clergy and why they should be warned against drifting into marriage. I am not pleading for enforced celibacy, and I have, as it happens, read Mr. H. C. Lea's book, but I do claim Divine authority for voluntary celibacy in the words of our Lord when He said : " There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive
Previous page
