You say that when your confrere is prostrate for the sake of praying, an evil spirit approaches him, places its hands on his genital organs, and does not stop rubbing his body with its own until he is so agitated that he is polluted by an emission of semen. You say also that this apparition does not bother him in his thoughts or in his sleep. This experience takes place while he is praying and is done by [what seems to be] truly a man’s hand.104
The bishop was informed that the young monk had followed all the rules, that he was a “virgin, that he has never eaten cooked meat, and that he has avoided the vices of the flesh.” Nonetheless, he expressed skepticism that this event was involuntary and the result of an evil spirit. He advised the abbot to have the monk “examine his conscience carefully, and if he finds that he has fought the temptation manfully (viriliter), let him continue to pray.” If, the monk finds he is, in fact, consenting to such masturbation, “let him pray more devoutly … let him pursue the path of sacred fasting, let him weep in his bed every night, let him undertake frequent and grave penances, let him chastise his body as Paul did and bring it into subjection.”105 In order to explain why this righteous monk would face such temptation, Gerald explains that “this temptation was given, therefore, either to augment the youth’s merits (provided he resisted manfully (viriliter), without giving any consent) or to increase his punishment (if he had given, perhaps, some slight consent).”106
The fight against the flesh appeared often in religious texts as a military battle, underscoring the traditional presentations of vowed celibates as soldiers of Christ (milites Christi). The notion of monks as milites Christi is so well established in monastic literature that it is unnecessary to supply an extensive discussion of the model. Katherine Smith’s excellent study has already shown that military imagery was profoundly central to male monastic life during the age of reform.107 The monk as soldier was not an asexual being; he was, instead, a warrior who defended his vow of chastity. The group of monks behind an 1132 polemic portrayed the monastic life in such a manner. While the use of such metaphors in this tract can be connected to ancient monastic literature, its presence here was clearly intended to create a masculinized monastic life, centered around the battle against carnal desire. For example, the writers devote a considerable amount of this tract to arguing that monks form an elite military corps. Using well-known biblical passages, these monks argue that a soldier should not get involved in civilian affairs, especially the vices of the flesh; after all, good soldiers [monks] fight the “good fight.”108 By this argument, they set up an anti-norm of the religious male body, the clerical body that engaged in fornication and concubinage. They further argue that the faithful in the Church, undoubtedly referencing priests, “ought to imitate the virtues and work of holy men manfully (viriliter).”109 The monk-soldier, dominated by ascetic self-control, defends the citadel of God with his brethren and stands in stark contrast to the disorderly priestly body.
Military imagery was most powerful when it was tightly connected to the battle against the flesh. Ecclesiastical writers overarticulated this struggle against the flesh in all genres of writings. Gerald of Wales positioned the agon (struggle) as a continuous battle against the flesh in his Gemma Ecclesiastica. He reminds his readers that “it is the outcome, not the battle, which is crowned. Victory is crowned after the day’s battle.” In criticism of those clerics who wait until old age to commit to the religious life, out of fear they will be unable to remain continent, Gerald lectures that “no crown is given unless the struggle of a fierce battle has taken place. It is highly praiseworthy if they restrained themselves in the heat and passion of youth. Thus might they exercise the rule of reason over their reluctant flesh and chastise their body … otherwise they will wallow in unbridled wantonness.”110 Gerald believed that life on earth was an eternal battle with the “enemy” and so posed this question:
who is more victorious—he who overcomes the enemy after a severe struggle and long battle, or he who immediately and powerfully triumphs over him in the first stages of the struggle? … The enemy is conquered by force and overcome by strength if he is overthrown immediately, without delay. He who dallies and at length begins to do battle seems hardly likely to win.111
Continuing on from his discussion of patristic authors, Gerald reiterates some of the ideas found in these ancient texts. He advises those who struggle against their sexual urges to do what early fathers like Jerome and Augustine did: “If, therefore, you are tempted and troubled as these men were, resist manfully (viriliter) and do battle as they did, in order that you may receive the crown which they received and for a temporary struggle receive everlasting rewards.” Quoting St. Paul, Gerald urges, “No one will receive the crown unless he strives manfully.” He follows with a quote from St. Jerome: “You are an effeminate (delicates) soldier if you hope to be crowned without a battle.”112 Gerald further underscores that those “servants,” undoubtedly referencing priests, “are effeminate and deserving of reproach who, having given themselves over to every excess, refuse to follow their Lord through difficulties and hardships.” He concludes his argument by stating that, if one cannot die for Christ, “let us at least carry it in the other two ways (by being compassionate and by disciplining the body and manfully (viriliter) resisting temptations).”113
The battle against the flesh was so important for priests because many writers believed the purity of the altar and sacrament was at stake. Monastic writers made great use of the motif of the fornicating priest who polluted the altar through his licentious behavior. Here the connection between the priestly body and the Christ body was conveyed. Despite the frequency of this concept, that priests taint the altar and sacrament by their sexual behavior, ecclesiastical authorities were not unified on this position. Anselm of Canterbury did believe that a corruption of the sacrament could occur if an impure priest ministered at the altar. In a letter to William, abbot of Fécamp, Anselm advised the abbot to uphold the rule of clerical celibacy because those priests who minister at the altars “do not serve, but pollute them by their very presence.”114 Pope Paschal’s letter (1102) to Anselm illustrates the problem with removing such priests from their churches. Paschal advised Anselm that when there was imminent death, it was better to receive the sacrament from the hand of a fornicating priest than to do without the sacrament entirely because no suitable priest could be found.115
Several months later, Anselm himself was in a position to advise Gerard, archbishop of York, on the same matter. Gerard’s chief complaint was that the priests and deacons who had wives and concubines were still serving at the altar. In addition, some rebellious clerics claimed they had violated no laws, since the Council of Westminster had only barred them from cohabitating with women, not from meeting with them in the homes of their neighbors. Regarding the consecration of the Host, Gerard said these men “long carried out these things within the filth of lust so that they repeatedly go back and forth, publicly, from the beds of their concubines to the altar, and then from the altar to the beds of wickedness.” Furthermore, Gerard stated he had trouble getting clerics to ascend the higher orders because “they resist me with stiff necks in case they should have to profess chastity at their ordination.”116 These sentiments were echoed by Geoffrey Grossus, hagiographer of Bernard of Tiron, who described the concubinous priests of Normandy as binding themselves to a life of fornication and, as a result, “never to approach the body and blood of Christ except as unworthy criminals.”117
Some writers believed bodily impurity could be alleviated by periodic abstinence. Gerald of Wales believed a period of sexual abstinence before consecration of the Host could mitigate the sexual corruption of the sacrament. While Gerald admonished unchaste priests, he also appealed to them to remain chaste for at least three days before consecrating the Host. He asked, “let the priest who lives and rolls about as if in his own pig-pen of impurity show at least this reverence to the sacred altar and to the Eucharist.” Gerald shunned to think, however, that three days was not enough to cleanse the impurity of unchaste priests, who “pollute themselves by fornication and concubinage.” For this reason, he argued that “they ought to shun not only concubinage, but also cohabitation with women.”118 In another section of the Gemma, he bluntly questions, “How will a priest who does not abhor to arise