[W]e must look at the history of clerical celibacy. The tradition ... dates back to apostolic times. From the fourth century we find widespread (although not unanimous) evidence that the Church indeed ordained married men, but expected them to refrain from relations after marriage. Early Christians felt great (although perhaps not totally warranted) confidence in the ability of Christians to remain continent within and outside marriage.This would indicate to me that continence dates back to apostolic times, not celibacy.
Not having read much on the subject (ahem!) I can only have recourse to my intuition, which is that celibacy was honored from apostolic times, but practiced only informally and irregularly at least in the ante-Nicene period. Certainly I suspect it was regarded universally as the ideal. How many of the Fathers were married?
Askel, it's not as though I lack for stuff to read, but I would like to get my hands on that book. But mailing it across town seems needlessly stand-offish, even for you. Besides, I'm holding your issues of Inside the Vatican, remember? For pete's sake, let's just pick a convenient time and effect a swap.
Tertullian asserts that second marriages should be eschewed by the laity because they're forbidden to the priesthood. Furthermore, he asserts that of the Apostles, only Peter was married.
Eusebius preserves a fragment of a letter by Polycrates to Pope Victor (c. 190) in which the author asserts that Philip had three daughters, who remained virgins.
The Council of Elvira, ca. 300 (canon 33) states bluntly that married clergy "are to restrain themselves completely and are to keep away from their wives and are not to beget children."
The council of Arles, ca. 314 (canon 1) states that the presbyter that marries is to be "removed from the ranks."
Basil (letter to Amphilochius) bluntly refers to the marital relations of "clerical persons" as fornications, asserting that "their union must certainly be broken."
Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 374) states that the ecclesistical canons unambiguously prohibit the ordination of men not continent from their wives.
Jerome (letter to Pammachius, 392) states that "persons chosen to be bishops, presbyters, or deacons are either virgins or widowers; or certainly, having once received the priesthood, they remain forever chaste."
Leo I (letter to Rusticus, ca. 458) states as an accepted fact that married laymen or lectors might marry and be subsequently ordained or consecrated as bishop, but "what before was lawful ceased to be such. In order, therefore, that their marriages may become spiritual rather than carnal, it behooves them not to dismiss their wives, but to 'have them as if they had them not'; and this way, while they retain the affection of their wives, their marital relations will cease."
Finally Gregory I writes to Peter, a subdeacon in Sicily: "Three years ago the subdeacons of all the churches in Sicily, in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church, were forbidden all conjugal intercourse with their wives. But it appears to me hard and improper that one who has not been accustomed to such continency, and has not previously promised chastity, should be compelled to separate himself from his wife, and thereby (which God forbid) fall into what is worse. Hence it seems good to me that from the present day all bishops should be told not to presume to make any one a subdeacon who does not promise to live chastely; that so what was not of set purpose desired in the past may not be forcibly required, but that cautious provision may be made for the future. But those who since the prohibition of three years ago have lived continently with their wives are to be praised and rewarded, and exhorted to continue in their good way. But, as for those who since the prohibition have been unwilling to abstain from intercourse with their wives, we desire them not to be advanced to a sacred order; since no one ought to approach the ministry of the altar but one who has been of approved chastity before undertaking the ministry."