Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-02T04:34:41.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oblation or Obligation? A Canonical Ambiguity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

John Doran
John Doran*
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The practice of oblation, the giving of children to a religious community to be brought up and educated, is as old as monasticism itself. Oblation was a means by which parents were able to dispose of unwanted offspring and be fairly confident that they would be cared for by others. However, there were never any clear guidelines laid down by the Church with respect to oblation, and the confusion over the status of an oblate was never to be satisfactorily settled. Even the great effort put into removing ambiguities in canon law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries failed to clarify the technicalities of oblation. This was because there was no agreement on the nature of oblation from the start.

The practice of the Eastern Church with respect to oblation is best summed up by St Basil the Great, in his Regulae Fusius Tractatae. He took oblation for granted, noting that a child was easily moulded to the religious life, and stipulated no minimum age at which a child should be received, but he did insist that those under the care of their parents were to be received before witnesses. More importantly, Basil was anxious that a child oblate should be questioned strictly when he reached the age of sixteen or seventeen as to whether he wished to be professed. He then had to demonstrate perseverance in the religious life and was only to be professed after much pleading. This final profession was irrevocable. Clearly the tradition of the Church was in favour of the oblation of children, but the giving of a child was not considered a definitive act. Certainly with St Basil we can see that the abbot of a community was to have the final say as to whether or not a child oblate should be professed when he came of age. This was very much in the spirit of early monasticism. The abbot was not to be forced to retain unsuitable monks in his monastery.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 31: The Church and Childhood , 1994 , pp. 127 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I should like to thank the committee of the Ecclesiastical History Society for the generous award of a bursary which enabled me to attend the summer conference and present this paper.

References

1 On oblation, see Deroux, M. P., ‘Les origines de l’oblature bénédictine’, Revue Mabilbn, 17 (1927), pp. 1–16, 81–113, 193–216 Google Scholar; Boswell, J. E., ‘Exposiiio and Obtatio: the abandonment of children and the ancient and medieval family’, AHR, 89 (1984), pp. 10–33 Google Scholar; Jong, M. de. ‘Growing up in a Carolingian monastery: Magister Hildemar and his oblates’, J MedH, 9 (1983), pp. 99–128 Google Scholar; P. Riché, ‘L’enfant dans la société monastique du xii’ siècle’, Pierre Abélard, Pierre le Vénérable: Les Courants Philosophiques, Littéraires et Artistique en Occident au Milieu du Xif Siècle. Actes et Mémoires du Colloque International, Abbaye de Cluny, 2 au g Juillet, 1072: Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, no. 546 (Paris, 197s), pp. 689-701; Shahar, S., Childhood in the Middle Ages (London, 1990), esp. eh. 9, ‘Education for service in the secular church and in the monastery’, pp. 183–208 Google Scholar; Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England 940-1216 (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 418–22, 634–5; Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, edCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Naz, R. (Paris, 1935-65), I, p. 324.Google Scholar

2 Boswell, ‘Expositio’ p. 17.

3 PC 37, cols 905-1051, at cols 953-4.

4 Ibid., col. 951.

5 Ibid., cols 715-32; Epistola CXC1X: Amphilioco de canonibus, col. 719.

6 McCann, J., ed. and tr., The Rule of Saint Benedict in Latin and English (London, 1952). On oblates, see chs 30, 4s, 49, 63, and 70, pp. 80, 96, 106, 142, 144, 156.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., ch. 63, p. 142.

8 Deroux, ‘Oblature bénédictine’, p. 1$.

9 Ibid., p. 15.

10 Ibid., pp. 14-15.

11 PL 132, cols 390-1, 392. Reginonis Prumiensis Abbatis de ecclesiasticis disciplinis et religione Christiana.

12 Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols (Florence and Venice 1757-98) [hereafter Mansi], io, cols 611-50, at col. 631, canon 49Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., col. 632, canon 55.

14 Ibid., 11, cols 23-46, at cols 36-7, canon 6.

15 Leclercq, J., The Love of Learning and the Desire for Cod (London, 1961), ch. 6, ‘The ancient traditional spirituality’, pp. 111–38; Knowles, The Monastic Order, pp. 3–15, 16.Google Scholar

16 Deroux, ‘Oblature bénédictine’, p. 16.

17 On the Carolingian reforms see R. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms, 789-895 (London, 1977); Knowles, The Monastic Order, pp. 25-8.

18 Hallinger, K., ed., Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum, I (Siegburg, 1963) [hereafter Corpus I], pp. 283–303, at p. 291.Google Scholar

19 Boswell, ‘Expositio’, p. 26. Deroux, ‘Oblature bénédictine’, p. 90.

20 PL 107, cols, 419-40.

21 Ibid, cols 421, 419.

22 See especially Jong, M. de, ‘Magister Hildemar’.Google Scholar

23 Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 19; Jong, de, ‘Magister Hildemar’, pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

24 Deroux, ‘Oblatore bénédictine’, p. 105; Jong, de, ‘Magister Hildemar’, p. 122.Google Scholar

25 Deroux, ‘Oblatore bénédictine’, p. 91.

26 Mansi, 18a, cols 129-66, at col. 144, canon 23.

27 Ibid, cols 144-5, canon 24.

28 Leclercq, , The Love of Learning, pp. 89–91; Boswell, ‘Expositio’, p. 26.Google Scholar

29 Leclercq, The Love of Learning, pp. 89-91.

30 Corpus I, pp. 469-81.

31 Ibid., pp. 473-81, at p. 477, canon 17. Deroux, ‘Oblatore bénédictine’, p. 89.

32 Corpus I, pp. 529, 549, 560.

33 Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 419.

34 Kuttner, S., ‘The revival of jurisprudence’Google Scholar, in Benson, R. L., Constable, G. and Lanham, C. D., eds. Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1982), pp. 299–323, at p. 303.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., p. 304.

36 J. Rambaud-Buhot, ‘Le Decrét de Gratien, legs du passé, avènement de l’âge classique’, in Gandillac, M. de andJeauneau, E., eds, Entretiens sur la Renaissance du 12 siècle (Paris, 1968), pp. 492–506, at p. 496.Google Scholar

37 Tellenbach, G., Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest (Oxford, 1940), P.137.Google Scholar

38 Kuttner, ‘Revival ofjurisprudence’, p. 310.

39 Rambaud-Buhot, ‘Le Décret de Gratien’, pp. 498-9; Kuttner, ‘Revival of jurisprudence’, p. 311.

40 Robinson, I. S., ‘Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ’, History, 58 (0973), pp. 169–92 1, at pp. 169–70.Google ScholarPubMed

41 PL 187, col. 1105. C.20 q.2 C.4.

42 Ibid., cols 1155-6, C.22 q.5 c.14.

43 Ibid., col. 1156, C.22 q.5 C.15.

44 Ibid., col. 1156, C.22 q.5 C.16.

45 Leyser, K., ‘The polemics of the papal revolution’Google Scholar, in Smalley, B., ed., Trends in Medieval Politicai Thought (Oxford, 1965), pp. 42–64, at p. 55.Google Scholar

46 Decretales Gregorii IX, ed. A. Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, 2 (Leipzig, 1879), cols 6-928 (hereafterDecretales]. On the purpose of the collection, see Gregory’s bull Rex pacijicus, in Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. Auvray, L. (Paris, 1896-1955)Google Scholar [hereafter Reg. GIX], 1. cos 1125-6, no. 2083.

47 Decretales, 3. 31. 1, col. 569.

48 Ibid., 3. 31. 2, col. 569.

49 Isidore’s definition was given in Decretales, 4.2.3, col. 673; see Shahar, Childhood, pp. 21-31.

50 Decretales, 3.34.2, col. 589.

51 Ibid., 4.2.1, col. 672.

52 Ibid., 4.1.25, col. 670.

53 Ibid., 4.2.8, col. 675.

54 Leclercq, The Love of Learning, pp. 93-4.

55 Decretales, 3.31.8, col. 571.

56 Ibid., 3.31.9, col. 570.

57 Ibid., 3.31.11, col. 572.

58 Deroux, ‘Oblature bénédictine’, p. 15.

59 Decretala, 3.31.12, cols 572-3.

60 See, for example, de Jong, ‘Magister Hildemar’, p. 119.

61 Decretales, 3.31.14, col. 573.

62 Ibid., 3.31.16, cols 574-5.

63 Ibid., 3.31.20, col. 577.

64 Ibid., 3.31.21, col. 577.

65 Ibid., 3.31.22, col. 578.

66 Ibid., 3.31.23, col. 578.

67 Ibid., 3.31.24, col. 578.

68 Reg. CIX, cols 317-18. Auvray suggests that the need for reform is shown in the following letters in the registers: nos 1288, 1289, 1492, 2385, 2504, 2551, 2689, 2710, 2750, 2836, 2933.

69 Reg. CIX, 1, no. 745, cols 469-74.

70 Ibid., no. 745, cols 469–74, at col. 473.

71 Ibid., no. 572, cols 364-5.

72 ‘De statutis monachoium et monialium nigri ordinis’, Reg. GIX, 2, no. 3045, cols 319, 321, 323, 325, 327. 329, 331; ‘Ordinatione monachorum nigrorum’, ibid., no. 3045 bis, cols 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, 330, 332.

73 Ibid., col. 319.

74 Ibid., col. 327.

75 Ibid., col. 331.

76 Ibid., 1, no. 2163, col. 1162.

77 Ibid., 2, no. 3045 bis, col. 319.

78 Ibid., no. 3045, col. 320. See cols 317–18 for Auvray’s comments.

79 Ibid., 2, no. 3045, col. 319.

80 Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, i, p. 324.

81 Knowles, The Monastic Order, p. 421, wrongly asserted that the Fourth Lateran council of 121s outlawed the practice of oblation. In fact, the council had nothing to say on the matter.