Article on Celibacy & Married Clergy by Roman Cholij

[Byz_Guy]

A friend sent along this info today about an article written by Roman Cholij, a Ukrainian Greek Catholic theologian. With my friend’s permission, I am posting it here as I thought this information might be of interest to some here.

The article is entitled:

An Eastern Catholic Married Clergy in North America: Recent Changes in Legal Status and Ecclesiological Perspective

by Roman M.T. Cholij, published in Eastern Churches Journal, Summer 1997

In the article, Cholij breaks with his previous views and upholds the right of Eastern Churches to have a married clergy without papal interference. Previously, he had held to a view that Rome had the authority to approve or deny the Eastern tradition as it was considered to have been developed improperly while the Eastern Churches were in schism. Therefore, he had believed, Rome could either tolerate the Eastern tradition or legitimately forbid it. **Many who cite Cholij’s earlier writings on mandatory priestly celibacy are not aware of his change of views. **The reversal of his view can be seen here:

From pp. 49-50:

Thus the ecclesiological
suppositions of the times when the decrees prohibiting married
clergy were issued must be seen to have been defective. It should
also be stated that the constitutional rights of a Church sui iuris cannot
be removed by an administrative decree of a Congregation of the
Roman Curia. If a married clergy is such a right (which is what the
Eastern Churches do consider it to be, and which the Vatican Council
seems to implicitly affirm), as opposed to a privilege granted by Rome,
then there is serious objection to the lawfulness of any action which
restricts exercise of this right. 53

Footnote 53 below:

[53] This view represents a substantial development and change in my ecclesiological
thinking since the time of writing my J.C.D. dissertation, subsequently published
as Clerical Celibacy in East and West, esp. pp. 179-192. A similar view is
expressed in my article entitled “Celibacy, Married Clergy and the Oriental Code”
(see note 2). Since writing this early work I have also been fortunate to have had
the opportunity to do further studies: five years of research work in Eastern
Christian Studies at the University of Oxford under the tutorship and supervision
of Dr. Kallistos Ware of Pembroke College.

Cholij continues:

The issue of whether this right can only be exercised with
impunity in the traditional home territory of the Eastern Church, as
opposed to outside it in “Latin territory” such as America, is, in my
opinion, a question already put within a framework of a faulty ecclesiology.
Once again, if a married clergy were to be considered just a
“privilege” granted by Rome then this could be revoked if a greater
good, such as the avoidance of scandal, warranted it. But that is not the
case. It is hard, then, to justify the curtailment of a right (as opposed to
a favour or privilege) - a bishop’s right to ordain - on the sole basis of
the criterion of territoriality. 54 In recent times this has, of course, been
the case.55 It is still the official view. 56

Footnotes 54-56 below:

[54] Is not the universal territorial jurisdiction of the Latin Church the effect of the
fusing and confusing of two very distinct concepts - that of Roman Primacy and
that of Western patriarchal jurisdiction? On what theological grounds can the
jurisdiction of the Eastern Churches be restricted to the “historical territories”, the
same principle not being applied to the Roman Church? These are issues that
require further serious research and discussion, not least because of the desire for
Roman union with the present Orthodox Churches.

[55] For example, the public statement of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern
Churches, under its prefect Cardinal Paul Philippe, in June 1977: “For grave
pastoral reasons and in view of a situation that had no strict parallel in the past,
the Holy See has seen fit to suspend the exercise of the right of the Eastern Catholic
Churches to ordain married men to the priesthood in territories outside the
Patriarchal and other historical Oriental regions and, notably, in the U.S.A. and
Canada” (response to the first of four questions of a NC News Service newsman,
John Muthig, 30 May 1977, concerning the [illicit] ordination of a married Melkite
priest in Canada and that of two married priests in the Middle East, ordained for
service in the United States; italics mine).

[56] On 10 January 1997, the Catholic News Service in Washington DC, put out a story
on the Internet, compiled by Jerry Filteau (and Cindy Wooden in Rome), where
an unnamed official from the Vatican (from the Oriental Congregation?) was
asked to comment on the recent ordination of a married man performed by the
Melkite Bishop John A. Elya of the diocese of Newton, MA. The report reads,
“The official said the new Code does not introduce priestly ordination of married
men outside the traditional home territory of the Eastern rites. He said it would be
up to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches to determine the practical
application of the rule: it could intervene to suspend someone ordained contrary
to the rule, or it could decide not to intervene.” This same official also called the
1929 norm an extra-canonical rule that is complementary to the new Code, not
contradictory, and therefore not abrogated. The thesis of the present article is to
negate such a view. [Emphasis added]

Continued next post

 

[Byz_Guy]

Continued from previous post:

Cholij believes that the promulgation of the Eastern Code of Canons abolished all previous restrictions mandating clerical celibacy and that there were no longer any canonical norms that required mandatory celibacy for Eastern Catholics. He admits above that the official position of Rome was still to the contrary. The reality, however, is that fifteen years later the official position has remained unchanged. I don’t know if the 2008 reconfirmation of the “Ban” can now be considered new canonical legislation or not. (This was referenced in a November 2011 Catholic News Service article: “Archbishop Cyril Vasil, secretary of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, told CNS [Catholic News Service] in Rome that the Vatican reconfirmed the general ban in 2008, ‘but in individual cases, in consultation with the national bishops’ conference, a dispensation can be given’ allowing the ordination.”)

Still, Cholij makes a compelling case. Later on, in the conclusion Cholij states (pp. 56-7):

I have further argued that in virtue of c.393 of the CCEO, which, in reordering the prior norms on distribution of clergy from Europe, has abrogated Qua sollerti and Curn data fuerit, the derived, implicit or “interpreted” special norms of the
Apostolic See prohibiting ordination of married men have likewise
been abolished. There are therefore no laws in force from the Holy See
which prevent a bishop of any Eastern Church from ordaining a married
man to the presbyterate outside the historical territory of origin of that
Church.

It should be restated that this article does not argue for a married
clergy as such, and still less does it argue against celibacy. Clerical
celibacy is much favoured by many Eastern Catholic bishops, and I do
believe that, for good reason, it will continue to be promoted and
encouraged. Having said this, the rights of Eastern Catholic bishops to
ordain married men and the rights of married clergy themselves have
to be protected. Furthermore, the dual discipline of the past, resulting
from Rome’s intervention, of compulsory celibacy for some territories,
on the one hand, and optional celibacy in other territories, on the other
hand, was based on an ecclesiology that poses serious difficulties. Even
more, to have in the same territory the products of both disciplines,
namely a married clergy and a non-optional celibate clergy (as is
increasingly the case in North America) is, for the Eastern Churches,
theologically and canonically quite untenable. Neither has the discipline
of mandatory celibacy ever been fully implemented in practice.

If Cum data fuerit and other similar decrees have now been
relegated, juridically, to the annals of history, they should also be
forgotten by all. For in the circumstances of today, even for reasons not
noted in this article, the lingering presence of these decrees undermines
the self-confidence and dignity of the Eastern Churches sui iuris in
North America and elsewhere. Besides, the decrees, it has to be stated,
constitute a true ecumenical embarrassment and an obstacle to union
with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Background on Roman Cholij:

Roman Cholij is well known for his writings supporting priestly celibacy as an apostolic tradition:

Clerical Celibacy in East and West

books.google.com/books?id=i8BL3jgDYYcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and in the History of the Church:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

 

[mardukm]

I confess surprise that an Eastern would admit that this is within the Pope’s prerogative.

The issue here is between the local Churches, not between the Eastern Church and the papacy.

It is a matter of the local Churches working out their differences, not of the Pope singularly imposing a discipline on the Eastern/ Oriental Churches.

Just take the Pope out of the picture for the moment. You will find the problem will STILL exist. So it’s not about the Pope vs. the non-Latin Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Personally, I think the whole problem is because for far too long celibate clergy was considered to be doctrine and not merely a discipline. Indeed, many still aren’t aware that this distinction exists concerning the issue.

And upon another personal note: While I definitely think that celibate clergy are a venerable tradition and have their place, a lot angst would probably be dispelled if the discipline was altered to allow more married men to be ordained. It was the tradition in the West before, and there seems to be no reason not to allow it once again. Indeed, whereas married clergy was once a scandal and stumbling block within the Latin Church, the reverse now seems to be the case- that is to say, many laity wonder why married clergy are not allowed.

And now I leave the soap box

My poor :twocents:, in any case.

 

[Byz_Guy]

I confess surprise that an Eastern would admit that this is within the Pope’s prerogative.

The issue here is between the local Churches, not between the Eastern Church and the papacy.

It is a matter of the local Churches working out their differences, not of the Pope singularly imposing a discipline on the Eastern/ Oriental Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, Roman Cholij would disagree that the Pope was merely confirming the decisions of the local Bishops. Before Vatican II it was held that the Eastern Church tradition of a married clergy was subject to review by Rome. My friend sent me a PDF of the article. A couple of points:

[Rome] was fully aware of the right of the Eastern Churches,
with their distinctive traditions, to exist in immigrant lands, and did
what it felt was opportune to protect them. This eventually included -
some years after the above-quoted letters were written - the establishment
of a Ruthenian hierarchy in both the United States and Canada.
But with regard to the issue of a married clergy, this discipline was not
considered to be an inalienable right of the Eastern Churches, part of
its special canonical patrimony and something to be protected against
Latin-Rite prejudice. For since at least the 16th century the most
authoritative Roman canonists understood the Orthodox tradition of a
married clergy to be only a factual and not a legal custom which had
developed in opposition to Roman discipline. A married clergy remained
an illegitimate custom unless given at least tacit approval by
Rome.

Right up to the Second Vatican Council it was held that “dissident”
Easterners did not have the juridical capacity to create legal
custom. But for the sake of union Rome either “tolerated” the custom
of married clergy, or approved it in the manner of granting a favour or
privilege…

If the legitimacy of an Eastern married clergy depended on
Rome’s placet, it is easy to see how, in the circumstances of the United
States and Canada in the late 19th/early 20th century, the decrees
forbidding a married clergy could so easily come about. It was purely
an administrative decision to withhold this placet, to revoke this privilege.

 

[mardukm]

Actually, Roman Cholij would disagree that the Pope was merely confirming the decisions of the local Bishops. Before Vatican II it was held that the Eastern Church tradition of a married clergy was subject to review by Rome. My friend sent me a PDF of the article. A couple of points:

Well, I guess that changes the landscape. This is not a matter of the Pope reneging on the promise of preserving the rightful Traditions of the Eastern/Oriental Churches. I guess that is one way to look at it.

Still, I wonder what source evidence the author uses to support his position that the preservation of a married priesthood was never considered a RIGHT of the non-Latin Churches.

Nevertheless. The author does not seem to distinguish the simple fact that the matter is really in the hands of the LOCAL authorities. The unjust tension and policies will exist even if the Pope is not involved. The primatial authority is there to mitigate matters for us non-Latins in the traditionally Latin territories and that’s what he has been doing (as noted in the other thread). Non-Latins view the involvement of the Pope in the matter as an interference into our rights. But I think it’s the other way around. If the Pope was not involved at all, we non-Latins would have had a MUCH harder time of it in the traditionally Latin territories. Eastern/Oriental rights in the traditionally Latin territories would be set back at least 50 years if the bishop of Rome was not involved in the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

Well, I guess that changes the landscape. This is not a matter of the Pope reneging on the promise of preserving the rightful Traditions of the Eastern/Oriental Churches. I guess that is one way to look at it.

Still, I wonder what source evidence the author uses to support his position that the preservation of a married priesthood was never considered a RIGHT of the non-Latin Churches.

Primarily, it was because Rome never fully accepted the Council in Trullo which the Eastern Church relies upon for the canonical basis of a married clergy.

In another article, Cholij documents how pressures were brought to bear upon various Eastern Catholic Churches from Rome with regards to priestly celibacy:

In the nineteenth century, the Sacred Congregation for the
Propagation of the Faith directed the Synods of the Oriental Catholic
Churches by suggesting or approving the synodal agenda, which always
included the promotion, but not obligation, of clerical celibacy. One
scriptural passage that would invariably be included in the synodal acts
was 1 Corinthians 7:32-34: “The unmarried man is anxious about the
affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is
anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his
interests are divided.” At the L’viv Provincial Synod of 1891, convened
by the Hierarchy of the Ruthenian (or Ukrainian) Church, the
instructions of Propaganda led to unexpected opposition, and to heated
debates that were protracted even decades after the end of the synod.

Most of the Synod Fathers were married priests, and the majority were
against the inclusion of the text of 1 Corinthians 7:32-34, although they
were not against the moderate promotion of celibacy as such. The text
voted upon, to be forwarded to Rome for approval, began as follows:

“The present Provincial Synod firmly confesses the teaching of
the holy universal Catholic Church that the unmarried state is
more perfect than the married state, according to the words of
the holy Apostle Paul, 1 Cor 7:38: “He who marries his betrothed
does well, and he who does not marry does better.” But
because, furthermore, the Saviour in the Gospel of St. Matthew,
19:12, said: “Whoever is able to accept it, let him accept it,”
the celibate state as a more perfect state is only an evangelical
counsel and can be imposed on no one from above …”

The text that was approved by the Propaganda, however, and
which was officially inserted into the Acta and Decreta of the Synod,
was altogether a different text from the one the Synodal Fathers had
wanted. It was similar to an earlier draft that had actually been rejected
for fear that this would introduce obligatory celibacy. This earlier
version was slightly reworked by the Congregation itself, with the
words of 1 Cor. 7:32-34 appearing prominently. The final text, inserted
into the Acta, runs:

“This Synod firmly recognizes that the unmarried state is more
perfect than the married state, according to the words of the
Apostle: “The unmarried man is solicitous about the things of
the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is
solicitous about the things of the world, how to please his wife,
and he is divided.” Because, however, the Catholic Church for
grave reasons has permitted and permits seminarians of our rite
before ordination, or in the lower orders, to have the freedom,
according to the grace given to them by God, either to remain
always in celibacy, which would be best, or to marry a virgin,
the Synod, recognizing this freedom and leaving it undisturbed,
nonetheless, in consideration of the benefit and need of Our
Church, urges the seminary authorities to support and confirm
in their intention, by benevolent and prudent counsel, those
seminarians well disposed to accept celibacy.”

“Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code” by Roman Cholij from
the August 1996 issue of Eastern Churches Journal, pp. 96-8

 

[Byz_Guy]

This pressure almost succeeded in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (as it did in some other Eastern Catholic Churches). Cholij documents how in the early 20th century mandatory celibacy in Ukraine was almost imposed:

In the years following the Provincial Synod of L’viv the
bishops made a concerted effort to reverse the tradition of an almost
exclusive married diocesan clergy. By 1926 two of the three seminaries
in Galicia had introduced the policy of only ordaining unmarried
candidates to the priesthood. Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky), the
Archbishop of L’viv, however, did not follow the policy of his confrere
bishops for his own seminary.

Details are to be found in Martyniuk, and in R. Cholij, The Question of Celibacy
in Galicia, 1891-1946, Licentiate Thesis for the Faculty of Canon Law, Gregorian
University, 1984 (unpublished). Although all the bishops agreed, at a meeting that
took place in 1919, to introduce compulsory celibacy, the Metropolitan soon
changed his rnind and decided, instead, to implement an earlier decision to reserve
a certain number of places at his L’viv Seminary for those to be ordained as
celibates.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Interestingly, even though Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky decided not to impose celibacy by decree like the other Bishops, he still felt the Ukrainian Catholic Church should change their tradition to match the Latin Church’s ideal of priestly celibacy.

He expressed these views in a letter he wrote to Pope Pius XI on December 2, 1929:

I earnestly desire the introduction of ecclesiastical celibacy in
Our Church, but I do not believe in the possibility of introducing
it by a decree, not only because I would not dare take upon
myself the responsibility of such a decree; not only because
such a decree would be the Latin and Western way, which
would greatly shock Orientals; but above all because a celibacy
introduced by decree and not based on a sufficiently profound
understanding, would produce bad celibates, who could cause
great harm to souls …

… I do not believe that one can change by decree and in an
instant a practice that has lasted for centuries, and which,
however regrettable it may be, has always been tolerated by the
Roman Church. Certainly, it is necessary to change this practice,
but without great struggles and shocks which do so much
damage to souls, and without allowing the dissidents to say that
the fundamental principles of the Act of Union of the Ruthenian
Church have been changed.

(Emphasis added)

“Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code” by Roman Cholij from
the August 1996 issue of Eastern Churches Journal, pp. 101, 103

 

[Byz_Guy]

Personally, I think the whole problem is because for far too long celibate clergy was considered to be doctrine and not merely a discipline. Indeed, many still aren’t aware that this distinction exists concerning the issue.

Actually, there’s a very influential wing of the Latin Church that puts priestly celibacy up there on the level of doctrine.

Consider this article by Fr. Ray Ryland, who used to be on staff for Catholic Answers:

bisoncatholic.org/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=170724&From=Home

Despite this radical alteration of the Carthage council’s ruling, the Council of Trullo blithely assured all who would listen that by their decrees they were only “preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order.” The Catholic Church, of course, has never recognized the Council of Trullo.

**In her magisterial statements, the Catholic Church has often spoken of the Eastern practice regarding celibacy. The Church always uses guarded language, not wanting to widen the breach between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. But she has never said—never even implied—that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy. **Typical of her attitude is the language of Pope Pius XII in his 1935 encyclical on the Catholic priesthood quoted earlier. After extolling the glories of priestly celibacy, he said he was not criticizing the Oriental discipline. “What we have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something we consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood , something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and his purposes in regard to priestly souls” (Section 47, emphases added).

In his article, Fr. Ryland actually cites Roman Cholij as a source. Cholij, as I’ve mentioned no longer holds to the view that the Eastern tradition of a married clergy is subpar and rightfully regulated by the Pope.

Fr. Ryland’s article represents a sizeable group in the Latin Church. For example, consider this recent meeting held in Rome that claims that married priests in the first centuries practiced celibacy:

youtube.com/watch?v=hicRjQBefEE

Zenit, in covering this quoted Fr. Touze (who is shown in the video above) as saying:

zenit.org/article-28589?l=english

Father Touze: Historically because there has been a manipulation of texts and I believe a bad translation that the Eastern Church, which has separated from Rome and has recognized that what they had declared contrary to tradition, could be accepted. In this connection there truly are some exceptions. **The Church discovered that she had the possibility of admitting exceptions but that these should be understood as such. **Respectably, as the Second Vatican Council stressed, there are very holy married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches who have contributed much to the history of the Church and to the faith in times of persecution, but they are truly exceptions and must be understood as such.

To these folks, the Eastern tradition of a married clergy is an “exception” that is not on par to the Latin Church’s tradition. Fr. Touze even goes on to say:

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

Again, these folks have traditionally cited Roman Cholij’s earlier positions for support of these claims. The article which I quoted at the start of this thread shows it’s a position which he no longer espouses.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Actually, there’s a very influential wing of the Latin Church that puts priestly celibacy up there on the level of doctrine.

Consider this article by Fr. Ray Ryland, who used to be on staff for Catholic Answers:

bisoncatholic.org/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=170724&From=Home

In his article, Fr. Ryland actually cites Roman Cholij as a source. Cholij, as I’ve mentioned no longer holds to the view that the Eastern tradition of a married clergy is subpar and rightfully regulated by the Pope.

Fr. Ryland’s article represents a sizeable group in the Latin Church. For example, consider this recent meeting held in Rome that claims that married priests in the first centuries practiced celibacy:

youtube.com/watch?v=hicRjQBefEE

Zenit, in covering this quoted Fr. Touze (who is shown in the video above) as saying:

zenit.org/article-28589?l=english

To these folks, the Eastern tradition of a married clergy is an “exception” that is not on par to the Latin Church’s tradition. Fr. Touze even goes on to say:

Again, these folks have traditionally cited Roman Cholij’s earlier positions for support of these claims. The article which I quoted at the start of this thread shows it’s a position which he no longer espouses.

The fact is, though, is that from the very beginning there have been both married and celibate priests within the Church. Indeed, it is only the Latin Church that has sought to impose upon her clergy celibacy, and this only in the 11th century. The other Churches have retained married clergy, leaving celibacy mostly to the monastics.

My mind just boggles as to how celibacy can be considered a doctrine, especially given the words of Our Lord concerning such. “To those who can accept it…”

On top of this, if I am correct, the Vatican has said again and again that priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.

Perhaps my perception is colored by my Lutheran background.

 

[Byz_Guy]

The fact is, though, is that from the very beginning there have been both married and celibate priests within the Church. Indeed, it is only the Latin Church that has sought to impose upon her clergy celibacy, and this only in the 11th century. The other Churches have retained married clergy, leaving celibacy mostly to the monastics.

My mind just boggles as to how celibacy can be considered a doctrine, especially given the words of Our Lord concerning such. “To those who can accept it…”

On top of this, if I am correct, the Vatican has said again and again that priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.

Perhaps my perception is colored by my Lutheran background.

Perhaps. Those who hold to the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy have powerful supporters, as noted above.

In 1998, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote:

communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger25-3.pdf

That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the
earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card.
A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and
Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf, also C.
Cochini, Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal (Paris-Namur, 1981); S
Heid, Zolibat in der fruhen Kirche (Paderborn, 1997).[page 483]

 

[mardukm]

I think it is incorrect to style the issue as “married priest vs. celibate priest.” The priesthood is the same, and the married or celibate state is not of the esse of the priesthood.

I think the issue is really about the state of marriage “versus” the state of celibacy/virginity. I think the earlier Fathers of the CC and EOC understood it this way, which is why some EO in the late Middle Ages accused the Latins of contemning the state of marriage altogether.

I think pundits from both sides are guilty of making either marriage or celibacy of the esse of the priesthood. I think we have enough examples from the RC on that point. On the Eastern side, IIRC, there is a Trullan canon that forbids the parting of a married priest and his wife EVEN IF BOTH agree to the decision. So much for freedom of conscience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

I will respond to particular points next week. I also have not forgotten about our discussion on Allatae Sunt.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byz_Guy]

I think it is incorrect to style the issue as “married priest vs. celibate priest.” The priesthood is the same, and the married or celibate state is not of the esse of the priesthood.

I would agree. Recently, Sandro Magister pointed out, however, that while the West has developed a “theology of priestly celibacy” it has failed to do the same for married priests.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350085?eng=y

Benedict XVI, in fact, attributes a radically theological and theocentric foundation to the “celibacy that applies to the bishops of the whole Church, Eastern and Western, and, according to a tradition that dates back to close to the time of the apostles, to priests in general in the Latin Church.”

There are, however, some who see an unresolved contradiction in this last description of the state of affairs.

It is true, in fact, that the bishops of both the Latin and Eastern rites, both Catholic and Orthodox, are all celibate, without exception, and the overwhelming majority of priests of the Latin rite are also celibate.

But it is also true that many Catholic priests of the Eastern tradition are married, and in some areas the ordination of married men is practically the norm…

If celibate priests have a theological foundation for their free choice, recalled so insistently by the pope, a theological foundation of equal power is nowhere in sight for the married priesthood, although its full validity and dignity have been recognized by Vatican Council II and by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated in 1990.

This is the unresolved contradiction.

I think the issue is really about the state of marriage “versus” the state of celibacy/virginity. I think the earlier Fathers of the CC and EOC understood it this way, which is why some EO in the late Middle Ages accused the Latins of contemning the state of marriage altogether.

I think this presentation of how Orthodox view priestly celibacy that is on the Vatican website is fair. It was written by Damaskinos Papandreou, Orthodox Metropolitan of Switzerland:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_ortodox_en.html

Putting the personal charism of celibacy into practice, the apostolic and patristic tradition regard as a personal gift from God. Those, therefore, who have chosen the celibate life have no right to pride themselves over the superiority of their spiritual combat: «If anyone can persevere in chastity in honour of the Lord’s flesh, let him do so without boasting about it. If he prides himself in this, he is lost; and if he tells anyone else about it except his own bishop, he is corrupt.» This personal charism is freely received and this spiritual combat is freely chosen. It cannot be imposed. It is not demanded by the nature of priesthood. The Church may require it for certain ministries. The Western Church requires it for those who are called to be priests and bishops. The Orthodox Church requires it, for pastoral reasons, for those who are called to be bishops.

Thus Orthodox tradition and practice honour and respect the celibacy of priests and praise their service in the body of the Church; at the same time, they honour and respect the married clergy since, they too, serve the same sacrament of the Church and salvation. The Orthodox Church thus accepts these two forms of service equally and leaves the choice of which it is to be to the individual member, in accordance with his own vocation and particular charisms. For pastoral reasons however, the Church has favoured the institution of celibacy for the order of bishops, and these are chosen exclusively from the celibate priesthood.

I think pundits from both sides are guilty of making either marriage or celibacy of the esse of the priesthood. I think we have enough examples from the RC on that point. On the Eastern side, IIRC, there is a Trullan canon that forbids the parting of a married priest and his wife EVEN IF BOTH agree to the decision. So much for freedom of conscience.

Personally, I think that Trullan canon a good one. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 comes to mind:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[Byz_Guy]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

I will respond to particular points next week. I also have not forgotten about our discussion on Allatae Sunt.

Blessings,
Marduk

I understand about time constraints and such. I happen to have some extra time lately and was spurred by this article my friend shared. If you want, I could share the pdf of the article. Just send me a private message and I’ll send it over.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

The discussion has left a lot of carbon ;prints about the topic As a point of information, HH BXV1 has dropped the title Patriarch of the West, for what that is worth.
I do not know the numbers, but with the recent establishment of the Anglican ordinariate we can see that there have been many maried former Anglican and some Lutheran married clergy accepted as members of the Roman, Latin rite Church and ordained as priests. I do not know of the statistics but anecdotally i know of lots of violations involving adultery, fornication and child abuse by Protestant clergy. Without knowing the actual statistics for violations of celibacy by Roman Catholic clergy in the same areas, we are in no position to make any practical judgments about the intrinsic value of celibate or married clergy… Perhaps Vatican 111 in 2070, two hunded years after Vat 1 and one hundred since Vat 11.? It takes the Holy Spirit a while to get His Truth across to our stubborn human minds and closed hearts. Breaking through the clerical culture of too many of the hierarchy and too many of the clergy will be a first dam to blast. /B]

 

[Byz_Guy]

I have discovered that the 2 articles I was referring to are online:

An Eastern Catholic Married Clergy in North America:

scribd.com/doc/89900141/An-Eastern-Catholic-Married-Clergy-in-NAmerica-Cholij

Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code

scribd.com/doc/89901197/Celibacy-Married-Clergy-Oriental-Code-Cholij

 

[Vico]

I have discovered that the 2 articles I was referring to are online:

An Eastern Catholic Married Clergy in North America:

scribd.com/doc/89900141/An-Eastern-Catholic-Married-Clergy-in-NAmerica-Cholij

Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code

scribd.com/doc/89901197/Celibacy-Married-Clergy-Oriental-Code-Cholij

Note that in the USA, there was initially an ordinariate rather than an exarchy or eparchy. Foederatarum Civitatum Americae Septemtrionalis: 28 May 1913
Bishop Soter Stephen Ortynsky de Labetz, O.S.B.M.

He died in 1916 but then in 1924 the Ukrainians and Ruthenians were split into two churches.

The author states that earlier restrictions on ordination of married eastern priest have been aborogated by the 1990 CCEO, but he draws that conclusion based upon canon CCEO 393 (clerics should be willing to relocate to serve) prior to mentioning CCEO 758.3 which positively specify use of norms established by the Apostolic See. He mentions that the Syro-Malabar have only married priests by their particular law.