1892 Statement Re: Ruthenian Married Priests in US

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byz_Guy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Byz_Guy

Guest
I found this reference with a decree from the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith from 1892 that forbid the importation of married Ruthenian priests to the US:

books.google.com/books?id=cHwoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

or

archive.org/stream/americanecclesia07cathuoft#page/66/mode/2up

It’s from the American Ecclesiastical Review, July 1892, pp. 66-67:

I think I get the sense of the document by using some online translators. I was wondering if someone here knows Latin and could give a better translation that can be obtained through machine translation? I would be most grateful.

I’m pasting here the text. Some of it might not have copied correctly so please refer to the above links for scanned copies of the text.

**DECRETUM DE SACERDOTIBUS RUTHENIS.

S. Congregat. De Propaganda Fide

Romae, DIE 10 Maii, 1892.
Eme ac Rme Domine Mi Obssne.

Aliquibus abhinc annis mos invaluit ut in istas provincias ecclesiasticas
sub specie suscipiendi curam fidelium ruthenorum ibidem commorantium
concesserint nonnulli sacerdotes ejusdem ritus, qui uxores et liberos secum
duxerunt gravissimum scandalum praebentes incolis non solum catholicis,
sed etiam dissidentibus. Cum itaque innotuerit istarum dioecesium Episco-
pos legitime veritos fuisse quominus ex ministero cleri uxorati Religioni ac
Disciplinae ecclesiasticae grave detrimentum foret obventurumj- haec S.
Congregatio quasdam dedit normas opportune servandas. Scilicet litteris
diei I * Octobris, 1890, datis ad Episcopos rutheni ritus prsecepti :

{a) ut presbyteri uxorati quantocius in proprias dioeceses reverti adi-
gerentur :

{b) ut in posterum nonnisi ccelibes mittantur, qui sistere debent coram
Ordinario illius Dicecesis ad quam pergere exoptant, a quo facultates op-
portunas implorent, cui sint omnino subjecti et obedientes.

Nuper vero eidem S. Congregationi allatae sunt litterse quorumdam ex
memoratis presbyteris, petentium veniam isthic manendi et erectionem
Vicariaius Apostolici proprii ritus.

Precor itaque, Te Erne Domine, ut gratum habeas ceteros Prsesules
istarum regionum per litteras certiores reddere, banc S. Congregationem
nedum recessisse a superius decisis, verum etiam in mandatis dare, ut
eadem fideliter observentur, atque ad alios quoscumque ritus orientalis
presbyteros applicentur.

Interim Eminentiae Tuae manus humillime deosculor.

Eminentiae Tuae

Devotissimus addictissimus Servus,
M. Card. Ledochowski, Proef.
  • Andreas, Archiep. Amidan.
    Secretarius
Emo Domino,

Jacobo Gibbons,

Archiepiscopo Baltiniorensi. **
 
Well, basically, it was a scandal for married priests to come to the USA with their wives and children, some not even Catholic, with the intention to remain and to establish their own Ruthenian apostolic vicariate. The jurisdiction was not Ruthenian so they must obey the Latin bishops in their jurisdictions regarding the continued presence of the married clergy.

This protocol from 1934 may be of more interest:

Sacred Oriental Congregation.
Prot. No. 572-30

Rome, July 23, 1934
(Borgo, Nuovo, 76.)

Your Excellency:

It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the United States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and deplorable rebellions are being intensified and expanded on the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and privileges of the Ruthenian Church.

But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, “that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates.” This regulation indeed was not and is not a “lex de coelibatu apud clerum graecoruthenum,” as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian ecclesiastical discipline, to which, in so far as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose not now, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.

And, moreover, when the Holy See recognized the peculiarities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596, during the Pontificate of Clement VII, and of the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians.

As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at all times and in all places without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy, permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly be advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and mentality altogether different.
 
[continued…]

Let it not be said that the regulation of Cum Data Fuerit was new legislation, since the preceding Decree Cum Episcopo (August 17, 1914) - issued as a modification of the Constitution Ea Semper (June 14, 1907) - did not make any mention of it.

The fact that no mention was made of it in the Decree *Cum Episcopo *was not due in any way to a revocation of the regulation, adopted since 1890 and solemnly called to mind on several occasions; on the contrary, it was due to an indulgent attitude of the Holy See taken in view of the statements of the Ruthenian Bishops in Europe to the effect that the number of unmarried priests in their dioceses was still too few and that they could not very well reduce that number by aligning some of them to the spiritual assistance of the Ruthenian faithful in America. And that this was so is proven clearly by the fact that in the years from 1914 to 1929 - that is during the period in which the regulation in question did not appear - the Holy See upheld in practice the same regulation, which continued to be known to the entire Ruthenian hierarchy and clergy so much so that when the Ordinary of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenians in the United States of America deemed it necessary in 1925 to ordain some married clerics, he asked the Holy See to permit him, by way of exception to do so. The Holy See in acceding to the request, took care to emphasize the exceptional nature of the permission and to add “exclausa quavis spe futurarum ordinationum.”

As the situtation changed for the better, it seemed well that the decree of March 1, 1929, should state again, explicitly, that which in fact had never been abrogated. And so much the more so, because the regulation in question does not concern exclusively the Ruthenian clergy, but applies without exception to priests of all Rites.

But the Decree was accompanied on the part of the Holy See by an attitude of the greatest discretion and indulgence; so that even after it, no action was taken to send away from the United States those married Ruthenian priests who had already immigrated there in opposition to the regulation which would have forbidden them to do so; and these priests were not disturbed even when some of them showed themselves to be partisans of an altogether deplorable movement of hostility against their bishop and against the Holy See itself.

In the face of the simplicity and the logic of what article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit disposes, it seemed immediately evident that some sought to bemuddle the situation, deceiving the ingenuous minds of the faithful by a misleading and a malign interpretation of every act emanating from the Holy See and put into effect by the Ordinary, Bishop Takach. And if there would have been any doubt about this, it would have been dissipated at lengths by what happened in the Convention, promoted by the KOVO and held in Pittsburgh from July 26 to 28, 1933 a meeting of intents and manifestations clearly schismatic, even to the extent of threatening the Holy See that unless it had - within sixty days - granted what was requested in the resolutions of the convention, the delegates at Pittsburgh and the people whom they represented would declare themselves “independent of Rome.” A tremendous statement, which, however, was not surprising because it revealed without possiblity of further doubt, the true motives of a complete campaign of the press, of meetings, of protestations, of rebellions, of schisms, which under the cloak of the defense of the privileges of the Ruthenian Church had already grievously offended against the spirit of reverence and obedience to the Ordinary - even to the extent of depriving him of almost every means of substinence - and weakened the very attachment to the Catholic Faith . . .

Therefore, let every dissension and - every suspicion by banished, so that there may be reestablished, in the pride of the common Catholic faith and in fraternal sentiments inspired by a common origin and membership in the same Rite, that mutual charity which should bind closely together all the Ruthenian people in America with their Bishop and clergy, and make of them, even in that land far distant from their native county, a magnificent appeal to dissidents to return to the unity of the Catholic faith.

Your Excellency, who by reason of long practice of office and of affection, has closely at heart the spiritual welfare of the Ruthenian people in the United States, will convey to all the good people, and first of all to Bishop Takach - so sorely and unjustly tried - the trustful word of the Holy Father, who, the guardian of ecclesiastical discipline by reasons of his apostolic ministry, desires that the exact observance of whatever regulations this Sacred Congregation has issued be, on the part of the Ruthenian Church in the United States of America, the most worthy proof of its Catholic faith and of its willingness to live, increase and flourish in works of holiness.

May there descend upon Bishop Takach, his clergy, his faithful - and among them, upon also those who are sorry for their transgressions and return to the proper disposition, the comforting and vivifying blessing of Almighty God, which the Holy Father, through the intercession of the most glorious Virgin Mother, invokes generously and with a fervent prayer that it may be abundant in heavenly graces.

With sentiments of esteem and best wishes, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Luigi Cardinal Sincero
Bishop of Palestrina, Sicily
G. Cesarini, Assessor
 
Thanks, Vico. I’m familiar with the 1934 letter. I’m just researching the history of this and would be very interested in understanding the earliest statements on this from Rome.

Anyone here understand and able to give a translation of the Latin?
 
From the first post, the significant statement of 1890 is:

“Of course the letter of October 1, 1890, given to the Bishops of the Ruthenian precept:
a) that married priests are obliged to return to their proper diocese as soon as possible
b) that in the future only celibates can be sent, who must stand before the ordinary of the diocese to which they long to go, implore the appropriate resources, to which they are subject and obedient.”
 
Thanks! And in the first paragraph I can tell it refers to the situation giving scandal. How is that phrased?
 
Here is a translation for you:
Several years ago a custom took hold in those ecclesiastical provinces that, under the semblance of taking care of the Ruthenian faithful living there, a number priests of that rite would come (retire?) there, bringing wives and children with them, giving most serious scandal to not only the Catholic, but even the dissident, inhabitants. Thus, when it became known that the bishops of those dioceses rightly feared that grave detriment would come from the ministry of married clergy, this Sacred Congregation gave certain norms to be fittingly kept. Namely, by a letter of October 1, 1890, given to the bishops of the Ruthenian precept:

(a) that married priests should be driven back to their own dioceses as soon as possible:

(b) that none but celibates should be sent in the future, who should present themselves before the Ordinary of the diocese to which they wished to go, from whom they should request faculties, to whom they should be altogether subject and obedient.

But lately letters have come to the same Sacred Congregation from certain of the aforesaid priests, seeking permission to remain there and the erection of an Apostolic Vicariate of their own rite.

And so I ask, Most Eminent Sir, that you be pleased to inform the other bishops of those regions by letters certain, that this Sacred Congregation has by no means retreated from the decisions above, and indeed enjoins that they be faithfully observed and that they should be applied to priests of any other Eastern rite.

Meanwhile I most humbly kiss Your Eminence’s hand.
 
:highprayer:
**"… to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal … "

" …married priests should be driven back to their own dioceses as soon as possible"**

Ouch :blackeye:
 
Byz_Guy said:
Thanks! And in the first paragraph I can tell it refers to the situation giving scandal. How is that phrased?
Click to expand...
*“concesserint nonnulli sacerdotes ejusdem ritus qui uxores et liberos secum duxerunt gravissimum scandalum praebentes incolis non solum catholicis, sed etiam dissidentibus”

Literally:

granted a few priests of the rite, who their wives and children with brought the grave scandal to offer the natives, not only to Catholics, but also to the separated.
*
 
Vico said:
*“concesserint nonnulli sacerdotes ejusdem ritus qui uxores et liberos secum duxerunt gravissimum scandalum praebentes incolis non solum catholicis, sed etiam dissidentibus”

Literally:

granted a few priests of the rite, who their wives and children with brought the grave scandal to offer the natives, not only to Catholics, but also to the separated.
*
Click to expand...
The object of duxerunt is uxores et liberos. As to concesserint, it took me quite a while to figure out how it was being used, since, like you, I wanted to translate it with the obvious meaning “granted” or “conceded.” But nonnulli sacerdotes is a nominative, not a dative, so it must stand as the subject of the verb. Therefore the sense of the concedo must be the definition my dictionary gives as “to go, go away, withdraw; to pass; to go over, transfer” – a rare usage, in my experience, but I think undeniable here.
 
Again, I appreciate the translation work!

I’m assuming that “dissidents” or “separated” who were scandalized in this case refers to Protestants.

Just wondering:
(a) that married priests should be driven back to their own dioceses as soon as possible:
Click to expand...
Would “recalled” work instead of “driven back”?
 
Byz_Guy said:
Again, I appreciate the translation work!

I’m assuming that “dissidents” or “separated” who were scandalized in this case refers to Protestants.
Click to expand...
I would presume so, but I don’t know enough to say whether or not it was intended to include non-Christians also.
Would “recalled” work instead of “driven back”?
Click to expand...
You can read the dictionary entry here and see what you think. “Recalled” would not carry the right sense, but “compelled to go” might. The word carries a connotation of some forcefulness or compulsion in the action.
 
MarkThompson said:
The object of duxerunt is uxores et liberos. As to concesserint, it took me quite a while to figure out how it was being used, since, like you, I wanted to translate it with the obvious meaning “granted” or “conceded.” But nonnulli sacerdotes is a nominative, not a dative, so it must stand as the subject of the verb. Therefore the sense of the concedo must be the definition my dictionary gives as “to go, go away, withdraw; to pass; to go over, transfer” – a rare usage, in my experience, but I think undeniable here.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t sacradotes be accusative* and thereby be a direct object for “they will have granted”?
 
Vico said:
Couldn’t sacradotes be accusative* and thereby be a direct object for “they will have granted”?
Click to expand...
No, because then the adjective would have been nonnullos instead of nonnulli. And in any event, the recipient of a grant of permission would be in the dative (you see this often, “Licet cuicumque sacerdoti …”, etc.). I suppose a sentence like “The bishop granted five priests to the new mission” would take an accusative sacerdotes, but obviously that’s not what we’re dealing with here.

Also, FWIW, concesserint is not a future perfect indicative, it is a perfect subjunctive, constituting the principal verb of the ut clause.
 
MarkThompson said:
No, because then the adjective would have been nonnullos
Click to expand...
instead of nonnulli. And in any event, the recipient of a grant of permission would be in the dative (you see this often, “Licet cuicumque sacerdoti …”, etc.). I suppose a sentence like “The bishop granted five priests to the new mission” would take an accusative sacerdotes, but obviously that’s not what we’re dealing with here.

Also, FWIW,
MarkThompson said:
concesserint is not a future perfect indicative, it is a perfect subjunctive, constituting the principal verb of the ut clause.
Click to expand...
Brilliant, that’s it, concedo: to go away, pass, give way, depart, retire, withdraw, remove
in the future perfect subjunctive (not a fact, a conditional) active:

“a number priests of that rite would have gone there”

nonnulli: adj pl masc voc
nonnulli: adj pl masc nom
sacerdotes: noun pl masc voc
sacerdotes: noun pl masc nom
sacerdotes: noun pl masc acc
concesserint: verb 3rd pl perf subj act
concesserint: verb 3rd pl futperf ind act

Thank you teacher.
 
Vico said:
Brilliant, that’s it, concedo: to go away, pass, give way, depart, retire, withdraw, remove
in the future perfect subjunctive (not a fact, a conditional) active:

“a number priests of that rite would have gone there”
Click to expand...
A correction here: there is no future perfect subjunctive in Latin. The concesserint here is the perfect subjunctive (which just happens to look like the future perfect indicative), and thus refers to a completed action in the past. Also, the use of the subjunctive here should not be taken as implying some sort of conditional, possible, or contrary-to-fact scenario (as seems to be implied by “would have gone”). It just naturally follows from such a construction with ut.
 
MarkThompson said:
A correction here: there is no future perfect subjunctive in Latin. The concesserint here is the perfect subjunctive (which just happens to look like the future perfect indicative), and thus refers to a completed action in the past. Also, the use of the subjunctive here should not be taken as implying some sort of conditional, possible, or contrary-to-fact scenario (as seems to be implied by “would have gone”). It just naturally follows from such a construction with ut.
Click to expand...
Well how do you like that, the Latin Word Study Tool has wrong information. Now I will know that I can’t rely on it.

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=concesserint&la=la&prior=veniam#lexicon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top