ELVIRA, COUNCIL OF. – The first council of Spain and perhaps the first of the national councils in general, held toward the end of the 3rd or at the beginning of the 4th century. Although not ecumenical, it was of considerable importance for ecclesiastical discipline because of the subject matter of its decisions, some of which opened the way to a particular disciplinary orientation in the West; it also possesses historical interest as documentation of the spread of Christianity in Spain. The reason for its convocation is unknown; but from an internal examination of the canons it may be deduced that the reasons were disciplinary rather than dogmatic. Two cities named E. existed in the imperial period: Cauco-Illiberia in the province of Narbonensis, and Illiberia in Baetica (Andalusia), not far from present-day Granada. It was probably in the latter that the Council took place, on 15 May of the years 300–303 according to L. Duchesne and E. Göller; 306–12 according to H. Koch. Ten bishops were present (only one manuscript gives the number as 43), along with 26 priests and the deacons.
The acts have been handed down in numerous manuscripts whose authenticity is beyond question; they provide a kind of collection of 81 penitential canons of the Church of Spain, some of which severely condemn certain sins. Against those guilty of qualified idolatry (cann. 1–2), of sorcery (can. 6), against divorced women and concubines without any mitigating circumstance (can. 8), against recidivists in sins of the flesh, pimps (can. 12), parents who marry their daughters to idolatrous priests (can. 17), the woman who destroys a life in the womb (can. 63), and various other kinds of offenders, the Council pronounces the sentence: «placuit eos nec in finem accipere Communionem», words indicating, according to the now common view, the denial of absolution.
This rather rigid disciplinary orientation, which moreover is connected with the early history of the administration of the Sacrament of Penance and of the so-called unforgivable sins, has led some historians to accuse the Fathers of E. of excessive rigorism (B. Gams), and indeed even of Novatianism (J. J. Herzog). The accusation, however, appears undeserved if one refers back to the conceptions of the primitive discipline of the Church. As for Novatianism, it is enough to observe that, instead of denying the Church, in certain cases, the right to forgive—which is characteristic of the Novatianists—the fathers of E. grant it after a suitable penance. A certain difficulty is, however, genuinely presented by the words of can. 36: «placuit picturus in ecclesia esse non debere». And if one does not accept the explanation of G. B. De Rossi, according to which the Council had the sole purpose of preventing profanations or mockery by pagans, it must be acknowledged that the canon reflects a local rigorism, which feared even the distant danger of idolatry.
The conciliar canons mention the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation (cann. 38, 77) and the indissolubility of Marriage (can. 6). But the Council is especially innovative in its legislation concerning the way of life of clerics, who must not be chosen from among people little known in the Church for which they are ordained (can. 24), must not demand payment for administering Baptism (can. 48), or practice usury (can. 20); they must exercise moderation in conducting commerce (can. 19), and above all must not keep unrelated women in their homes (can. 27), and they are obliged, from the simple cleric upward, to celibacy (can. 33). This last canon is celibacy (v.) for the clergy in ecclesiastical legislation.
