BAGNO. – Daily bathing in special thermal buildings had become so deeply ingrained in general custom throughout the Roman Empire that it is continually referred to in early Christian literature; for example, in the letter written by the faithful of Lyons to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, 1: PG 20, 409); Tertullian declares that «ad lavacra frontem crucis signaculo terimus» (De corona, 3: PL 2, 99); he chooses the most convenient hour (Apol., 42: PL 1, 555–56) or deplores Christian virgins who appear in the baths in sumptuous attire (De virg. vel., 12: PL 2, 955); Clement of Alexandria (Paed., 3, 5: PG 600), St. Cyprian (De habitu virg., 19: PL 4, 471–72), and St. Jerome (Adv. Iovin., 2, 36: PL 23, 349–50) deplore those faithful who frequent mixed baths, lavacra mixta, which were explicitly condemned in 320 by the Council of Laodicea (Mansi, II, 569); indeed, in this regard St. Ambrose praises the ancient Roman traditions of modesty (De officiis, 1, 18: PL 16, 51).
St. John Chrysostom sees in the bath a symbol of the Church, which removes the stains disfiguring the soul (In ep. ad Cor., hom. XV: PG 61, 510) Reprehensio eorum qui aberant ab ecclesia: PG 51, 146).
Among the personnel employed at the baths, a certain Cucumio is known who wished to recall on his tomb that he had been a cloakroom attendant at the Antonine Baths (of Caracalla): Capsarius de Antoninianas (G. Marchi, I monumenti primitivi dell'arte cristiana, Rome 1844, p. 27). There is frequent documentation that baths were built near sacred buildings for the use of the faithful. Pope Damasus donated a balneum iuxta titulum at the establishment near the Theatre of Pompey (Lib. pontif., ed. Duchesne, I, Paris 1886, p. 183). Pope Hilary built cold and hot baths beside the basilica of S. Lorenzo on the Via Tiburtina (ibid., p. 245), and Symmachus did so near S. Pancrazio on the Via Aurelia (ibid., p. 262). In the sixth century, a certain Eusebius erected one at S. Paolo on the Via Ostiense.
A fragment of a metrical inscription from the basilica of S. Martino ai Monti contains a series of precepts concerning the baths (O. Marucchi, I monumenti del museo cristiano Pio lateranense, Milan 1910, pl. 45, 1.).
Outside Rome, Eusebius recalls the baths built by Constantine near the Basilica of the Apostles at Constantinople (De vita Costantini, IV, 59; PG 20, 1209). At Ravenna, in 540, Bishop Victor built one adjoining the Episcopal Palace. An inscription of the seventh century records, among the works carried out by Bishop St. Damian at Pavia, the baths together with the episcopal palace. diaconia (v.) established in Naples by Bishop St. Agnellus around the middle of the seventh century, soap was distributed for bathing twice a year (Gesta episcop. Neapol., ed. Waitz, chap. 39, p. 419). In addition to public baths, there are also descriptions of baths in private Christian buildings. Thus Sidonius Apollinaris emphasizes the sobriety of the decoration of his bath at Avitacum (Ep., II, 2: PL 58, 474–76); Cassiodorus, the baths he had built in the monastery of Vivarium (De instit. divin. litterarum, 29: PL 70, 1143–44); and the poet Fortunatus, the baths in the villas of Leontius, bishop of Bordeaux, and at Praemiacum (Miscellanea, 28: PL 88, 84–85).
The answer is easy: 1) No condemnation of baths is found in the Gospel. Jesus Christ himself chose to submit to the symbolic bath of penance and purification instituted by the Forerunner (Mt. 3:17-18), and in turn raised the bath in Baptism to the dignity of a Sacrament. It is true that he reproached the Pharisees for their frequent ablutions and purifications, but only because these had become for them a mere formality, without any accompanying interior spirit. 2) The same can be said of later periods; neither the Fathers nor the Councils ever formally condemned baths. In addition to the examples cited in the first part, many others could be adduced, drawn from the customs and regulations of monasteries and from the very statements of the Fathers and Councils. “It was customary for Christians to wash on Saturday in honor of Sunday, and to change their clothing before entering the earthly house of the king of heaven, that is, the church, pure in soul and body” (Vita a Melanit, [d. ca. 530], in Acta SS. Ianuarii I, ed. Paris 1863, col. 334). And s. Gregorio Magno observes: “If someone wishes to take a bath for reasons of lust and sensual pleasure, we do not permit it on any day; if, however, one takes it because the body feels the need, we do not prohibit it even on Sunday. For it is written: ‘No one hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it’” (Eph. 5:29); (Epist. Gregorii M., lib. XIII, ep. 1: PL 77, col. 1254; cf. P. Galland, L'Eglise et l'hygiène au moyen-âge, Paris 1933, pp. 15-29). 3) If severe words and prohibitions, at times excessive, are found in the Fathers and Councils, this is explained or understood when one considers the circumstances. In the first centuries of Christianity, the public baths of pagan cities enjoyed a poor reputation because of the mingling of the sexes and the licentiousness of the pagans (Giovenale, Satira 6, 422; Clemente Aless., Paedagogus, III, 5). The same abuses also occurred throughout the Middle Ages and especially at the beginning of the Renaissance. The Church therefore could not fail to intervene in order to deplore abuses and harm to souls. 4) Abstinence from baths, practiced for a longer or shorter period and advocated by ascetics, derived rather from the spirit of penance and mortification—sufficient proof of the importance attached to baths. 5) If exaggerations or excesses were not lacking in this matter, they must be attributed to individuals, not to any nonexistent ecclesiastical legislation.
THE B. AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY. - Baths in water or sunlight, taken in moderation, are beneficial to hygiene, health, and care of the body; they invigorate and strengthen the nerves, promote agility and well-being, and also accustom one to a natural and unselfconscious attitude toward oneself. Nevertheless, the Christian must bear in mind that none of this dispenses one from the laws of propriety and modesty; and that concupiscence, given original sin, can spring unpleasant surprises. All the more so because the step to deplorable excesses in theory and practice is an easy one (v. NUDISMO); and the danger to souls, given the promiscuity and excessive freedom of modern beaches, becomes considerable. The Church cannot therefore refrain from intervening to warn the faithful and to require certain standards of conduct that safeguard modesty and decorum. The civil authorities too, as rightly concerned with public morality, are obliged to cooperate in this for the good and moral restraint of the citizens.