COABITAZIONE. — From the earliest centuries, the Church prohibited the cohabitation of ecclesiastics with women, unless they were close relatives or otherwise gave no grounds for suspicion.
Many of the texts cited under the entry AGAPÈTE, in addition to prohibiting subintroductae, establish more general norms on this matter, both regarding the prohibition and regarding the exceptions. The most important is canon 3 of Nicaea, which permits ecclesiastics to cohabit only with their mother, sister, aunt, or with those persons who give no grounds for suspicion; this canon was always considered to be in force and was also included in the Decree of Gratian (c. 16, D. XXXII). Canon 17 of the Third Council of Carthage (397) relaxed the discipline in its region, also permitting cohabitation with a grandmother (evidently included, though not mentioned, in the canon of Nicaea), nieces, daughters-in-law, the wives of slaves, and finally members of the household who had cohabited with the cleric before he was ordained (this text too appears in Gratian, c. 27, D. LXXXI).
More rigorous was s. Gregorio Magno, who, appealing to s. Agostino, admitted only the mother, sister, and wife (c. 24, D. LXXXI; and cf. also cc. 23 and 39, D. LXXXI). In general, while canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea is cited or reproduced, more or less verbatim, in very many later canonical texts, numerous other texts, from the sixth century onward, lay down more rigorous rules, and quite a few absolutely prohibited clerics from cohabiting with any woman (sometimes, in the case of married clerics, even with their own wife). Among the latter, the most celebrated was the decree of the Council of Nantes (of 658 or 895), which is reproduced in the collection of decretals of Gregorio IX (c. 1, X, III, 2).
The insertion of this text into the collection of Gregorio IX is a rather strange fact, given that less than a century earlier (in 1123) canon 3 of the First Council of the Lateran expressly recalled the canon of Nicaea; and in the same collection there is (c. 9, X, III, 2) a decretal of Innocenzo III (of 1199) in which, with more flexible wording, cohabitation is permitted with those women who, because of their kinship, give rise to no suspicion of wrongdoing.
The Council of Trent (sess. XXV, de ref., c. 14) generically prohibited cohabitation with any woman concerning whom some suspicion might arise.
But on 9 June 1587 and 18 June 1597 the S. Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, in two replies, prohibited
More detailed regulations were established by Benedict XIV in § 25 of the constitution Ad militantis (30 March 1742), but still with reference to the canon of Nicaea; both before and after Benedict XIV, various particular councils and diocesan synods (in the West as well as in the East) further specified this matter and many of them, among other things, established the minimum age at which an unrelated woman was to be considered beyond suspicion (generally forty years, sometimes less or more, between thirty and fifty), generally leaving the judgment in individual cases to the bishop.
The CIC (canons 133, 2176–81, 2359) forbids clerics to cohabit with or associate with women who may give rise to suspicion, admitting cohabitation only with those whose relationship excludes such suspicion (and, by way of example, it mentions the mother, sister, and aunt), and with those for whom such suspicion is excluded by conspicuous moral uprightness combined with advanced age; in doubtful cases it belongs to the Ordinary to judge whether there is a danger of scandal or incontinence. The transgressor is subjected successively to warnings and various penalties; and, in the event of persistence, is considered a concubinarius and subject concubinage (v.).
Mixed monasteries. – From the very origins of monasticism, double or mixed monasteries were common in the East (especially in Egypt) (though sometimes in distinct but adjoining buildings), chiefly so that the nuns might receive spiritual assistance and be protected from attacks, and the monks might be helped with domestic services. But, because of the not infrequent abuses that followed, Justinian in 529 and 546 (C. 1, 3, 43; Nov. 123, 36) absolutely prohibited them throughout every part of the Empire. The prohibition, evidently not always observed, was reaffirmed in canon 20 of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which nevertheless tolerated double monasteries already in existence, provided that the monks and nuns did not live in the same building. Likewise forbidden was the practice, introduced at an early date, of having female servants residing permanently in male monasteries; St. Plato, hegumen of the monastery of Saccudion, toward the end of the eighth century, went so far in curbing this abuse as even to forbid the entrance of female animals into the monastery (other similar regulations are cited or reproduced in L. Ferraris, Promptia bibliotheca, s. V. Canis; and in G. Crispino, Trattato della visita pastorale, part 2ᵃ, § 42, no. 155).
In the West as well (where between the fifth and eighth centuries they spread in England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and especially Ireland), double monasteries were soon prohibited (Council of Agde of 506; Council of Seville of 619), and in fact disappeared almost everywhere (though not in Spain) in the ninth century, only to reappear in the eleventh. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ecclesiastical authority tolerated them, provided, however, that the separation between monks and nuns was securely ensured; and Callistus II, in 1119, even approved the establishment of the double monastery of Fontevrault, placed under an abbess. Opposition to such monasteries came above all from monks of outstanding virtue (especially Benedictines); and around 1300 the Benedictines no longer had any double monasteries, which subsequently became increasingly rare among the other Orders as well. In the East, however, texts prohibiting mixed monasteries can still be found up to the last century.