Fr. Thomas Loya's Letter to Met. William

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No disrespect intended to his Eminence, but he owes his appointment to Rome. It is because of a decision in Rome and from Rome that he is, in fact, the Metropolitan. He can also be removed through a similar process.

I honestly don’t think our Holy Father in Rome, nor those under him in the Curia, could get away with removing him in this context. By ordaining married men, he is exercising his authority in full obedience to the wishes of the Second Vatican Council for the eastern churches to be faithful to their tradition. I honestly don’t believe the pope or his assistants in the Curia can unilaterally impede another bishop’s proper authority.

I’m young, so maybe I’m naive, but what I just said is how it should work in theory, so I applaud those who say that we should all act in accordance with how things should be. If things get ugly, well, the good that will come out of that is that things will be immensely clarified - especially for naive, enthusiastic Catholics like me.

It might be noted that this line of bishops does not derive from Orthodox bishops, Bishop Skurla’s own Episcopal lineage is traceable through Bishop Elko to Cardinal Tisserant himself.

That’s of no relevance for us Catholics, though, since we consider valid both episcopal lineages from the Latin Church and those from the Orthodox churches.

Father Loya comes from a long line of married priests. His own grandfather (and those before him) was a married priest and his father could not be a priest because of Cum Data Fuerit.

Father Loya has a celibate priest cousin in the Augustinian religious order and another cousin who married a man who became an Orthodox priest. Priestly families give and give to the church. They keep giving generation after generation, they sacrifice their personal selves and (to some major extent) their own opportunity to thrive in commerce, all for the good of God’s holy little community, the church. Then they inspire other’s, including their own children, to do the same by setting an example worth believing in.

I cannot speak for him but I can tell you from personal conversations with him in the past that father Loya knows the rich contribution priestly families (with children, if God wills it) have made and can continue to make to the life of God’s holy church. He is fighting the good fight.

Agreed!

I am wondering: If the Ruthenian Catholic Church “lives its own life and traditions” and begins ordaining married men to the priesthood…what would be the reaction from Rome?

It would force Rome to respond in some way. And because the traditions of Byzantine Christianity unimpeachably and verifiably include a married priesthood, I don’t believe Rome could discipline them for something that self-evidently constitutes obedience to an ecumenical council (Vatican II) that overtly instructed eastern Catholic churches to be true to their heritage.

As I said above, maybe I’m young and naive.

They should try it.

Yeah, I agree!

Just keep doing it as often as they feel necessary, or do like the Ukrainians used to do and train the married or engaged men at Ss Cyril and Methodios seminary and then send the to Europe for ordination. Just keep doing it and ignore complaints from any direction. Ultimately they will win because Rome would not risk the scandal of removing a Ruthenian bishop for that reason, it would be too newsworthy and ‘cause scandal’ among the Latin faithful.

I think so too. The Curia wouldn’t dare attempt to censure a bishop for doing what an ecumenical council tells him to do: be faithful to his church’s traditions.

Unfortunately, I must say that in reality the Supreme Pontiff can do whatever he wants in this matter with the diaspora church.

Maybe… It does seem less clear to me in the case of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, since their status is without precedent: governed by a synod whose metropolitan is appointed by the pope. I think we can all agree that this type of arrangement is designed to be temporary. It’s not the way synods and metropolitan churches used to function.

The fact is, the Supreme Pontiff actually has the right to dissolve the entire apparatus, it is reserved to him to erect new dioceses and to suppress them, it is reserved to him to elevate and transfer bishops within the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. He can literally set the terms (and if he feels it necessary, shut the whole thing down).

Not sure if that’s true. Suppressing a diocese simply isn’t on the same level as shutting down what is (at least on paper) a whole self-governing church and folding its faithful into the majority church of the region.

Of course, I could be wrong. As I said, it’s not lost on me that they have four bishops only, and that their metropolitan is appointed by the pope.

Things are clearer with the patriarchal eastern Catholic churches. I am supremely confident that the pope could not shut down, for instance, the Coptic Catholic Church or suppress the Coptic Catholic patriarchate of Alexandria.

To the extent that the Congregation of the Eastern Churches has any authority at all, it is entirely delegated to them from the Petrine ministry of the Pope at Rome. In other words, when Cardinal Sandri speaks officially as prefect of the Congregation, he speaks with the authority of Peter. Archbishop William does not, Archbishop Nicholas does not, neither does any other Eastern Catholic bishop in north America. That’s just the hard reality of the church as constituted.

True.

Archbishop Judson wanted ‘permission’ to ordain married men written into the by-laws/canons of the particular church. Rome refused this. Instead they are to ask permission to ordain any married man on a case-by-case basis. They have only ever allowed one since the total prohibition ended, and now there is this speech from Cardinal Sandri, which seems to say that the the bishops should not even want to ordain married men, if they know what’s good for them. That makes the whole thing so alarming.

Yes, I find it troubling. That’s why I think the approach suggested earlier in this thread - stop flattering Rome by listening with such rapt attention to everything that comes out of her - would be a good start. Let the Church of Rome know where they stand.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Not sure if that’s true. Suppressing a diocese simply isn’t on the same level as shutting down what is (at least on paper) a whole self-governing church and folding its faithful into the majority church of the region.

Canon law seems to suggest that it indeed is possible.

CCEO - TITLE 6

Metropolitan Churches and Other Churches Sui Iuris

Canon 155

1. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the norm of law.

1. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

Yet, if the “condition” (under Communism) of the related Ruthenian Churches (in particular, the Eparchy of Mukachevo) necessitated this “temporary” and “unique” structure, and that is now behind us, why is there not some effort to formally reunite the Churches of Ruthenian origin? If one looks at the history, the Vatican seems to be going in the opposite direction in Europe, now with the appearance of “national churches”. In the case of the “Slovak Church”, the uninitiated would not readily know that it is an offshoot of the Ruthenian Church.

I say this not to be critical, but I do believe that a sense of more formal unity (other than the fraternity that is evident between the current bishops) would serve this Church well.

My :twocents: (if worth that …)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Canon law seems to suggest that it indeed is possible.

Thanks for the citation! Obviously the pope can exercise “the supreme authority of the Church,” so he can therefore “suppress … the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.”

Still, I feel our brother Hesychios was kind of implying (maybe I’m wrong!) that he could do so unilaterally, on a whim, in any context, for any reason, without warning.

That is what I’m unsure of. It obviously couldn’t happen de facto, and I’m unsure if it could happen even de jure.

Yet, if the “condition” (under Communism) of the related Ruthenian Churches (in particular, the Eparchy of Mukachevo) necessitated this “temporary” and “unique” structure, and that is now behind us, why is there not some effort to formally reunite the Churches of Ruthenian origin?

I read - from a wholly unreliable source, though - that some Ruthenian Catholics in these eparchies wish to be incorporated into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Is that true? I have no idea.

If one looks at the history, the Vatican seems to be going in the opposite direction in Europe, now with the appearance of “national churches”. In the case of the “Slovak Church”, the uninitiated would not readily know that it is an offshoot of the Ruthenian Church.

I say this not to be critical, but I do believe that a sense of more formal unity (other than the fraternity that it evident between the bishops) would serve this Church well.

My :twocents: (if worth that …)

Yeah, I think you make great points here.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I read - from a wholly unreliable source, though - that some Ruthenian Catholics in these eparchies wish to be incorporated into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Is that true? I have no idea.

There are always rumors, particularly as regards the Eparchy of Mukachevo.

I recently purchased a copy of the UGCC’s The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology of Worship, and have been brushing up on Samoilka. just in case …

 

[Byz_Guy]

Of possible interest: an older discussion between Fr. Thomas Loya (Byzantine Catholic) and Fr. John Schroedel (OCA) on Ancient Faith Radio can be heard here: web.archive.org/web/20060212025032/http://ancientfaithradio.com/archives/2005/East_meets_East-Archive.mp3 In it, he discusses some of the history of the conflict over celibacy and married clergy. I believe this program dates from 2005.

 

[dvdjs]

Dvdjs, The deacon on the Byzantine Forum that posted the comment … deacon was not denying the import of Cardinal Sandri’s comments about celibacy. … As Fr. Deacon Paul says, it was a rather “unfortunate and insensitive comment.”

Yes, I did read the post. I thought that the report of the Metropolitan, who was at the visit with the Cardinal, was noteworthy. I will refrain from discussing the intentions or the merits of comments of people not in conversation here.

I never took the Cardinal’s statement to mean that things were being rolled back to pre-1999. Nor did many of my friends. There was no ‘yanking out of context.’ What I got from the Cardinal’s comments was that the head of the Eastern Congregation encourages celibacy. .

Fine. Others reacted far more strongly. Some felt that a major policy change was underway with a return to the 30’s. That stronger response appears to be incorrect. And there was a yanking out of context. The reported remark, was made in the context of secularization and a devaluation of chastity and celibacy. That link was overlooked consistently. And of course some bloggers changed the headline of the CNS article to miss the gist of the cardinals talk.

As to encouraging celibacy… who doesn’t? Have we really bent so far backwards in our reactionary posture that we no longer hold celibacy in high esteem?

The main issue as I see it is this: Is it proper to leave the decision whether or not to allow Eastern Catholic Churches the right to ordain married men outside of their “traditional territories” to a vote of the Latin hierarchy? (So far, my understanding is that Australia, Canada and the USA are the only countries which have authorized this.) And, then, is it proper to require Eastern Catholic bishops in those few countries which have so authorized this to be required to get dispensations from Rome to ordain married men?

I am not sure that this is the issue, actually. As I said before, my hunch is that Eastern Catholic bishops in the US are ordaining all of the married men that they want to. Can you document some cases denied by Rome? I like the Metropolitan’s note of caution.

However the question of who should be involved in the decision is still very important.
My opinion is this: we are self-governing , but that doesn’t mean self-absorbed. We live and work with other jurisdictions in the same territory - and we were not the first here.

I think it was an amazing step to erect independent eparchies for the Greek Catholic jurisdictions here. However, that cannot mean action without any respect of the existence of others. For situations in which there are conflicts of interests, we have the primacy of Rome to help. This is really something that a primate is good for. I think the oversight of Rome on this matter is a good thing; I expect that it will not be done in an overly restrictive manner (and am open to reconsideration if the evidence demands it). And this adjudication is from Rome, not local Latin ordinaries.

Otherwise, it seems people are walking on egg shells on this so as not to enflame the Latin Church (remember how EWTN misreported the original Ruthenian Particular Law which restored a married clergy as a revolt against Rome?).

Actually, I think the eggshells are under the other foot. An encouragement of celibacy leads to a reaction that is way out of proportion - what have the bishops said? I liked the simple comments of the Ukrainian metropolitan: We hold celibacy in great esteem. And one-third of our priests are married. (And sorry I don’t follow EWTN reporting.)

I see Cardinal Sandri’s comments as a continuation of the second class status given to the Eastern tradition of a married clergy in many Catholic circles. True, this is not Archbishop Ireland/Alexis Toth revisited. But, in many ways, the essential conflict is still with us.

True, it is not Archbishop Ireland, who would have never given a homily whose headline (from the article, not the bloggers who altered it) was:

Eastern Catholics have much to offer US church, cardinal tells bishops

I don’t know much about class structure. However, as I said before, I think that sexual morality is the most pressing moral issue that we face. I agree with the Cardinal that celibate vocations are a great example to all. I don’t see why this would be taken as somehow demeaning married priests.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

With regards to Fr. Tom’s letter, he sent me the following comments via email. He wanted to make sure that in any discussion of his letter these things were held clearly in mind, so that his intentions in writing the letter wouldn’t be misunderstood. I’ve bolded the text just to make it easier to read.

"**1. The full and total context of Cardinal Sandri’s address to the Eastern Catholic Bishops apparantly is overall more postive that the summations we have received. My sense is that the Eastern Catholic bishops came away from their Ad Limina with a basically encouraging sentiment. Also, My bishop mentioned to me that my letter could, or is, being taken as having a tone of “Rome better listen to us or else” and that the “or else” was my taunting the union of Eastern Catholics with Rome. This is what my bishop was simply reporting to me and and asking me to consider in all of this. He was very kind and gracious to me but his point was clear to me.

First and foremost, Phillip, I would want it to be understood by anyone reading or discussing my letter that I and my entire family heritage have been and are fiercely loyal to the union with Rome. The ways in which my letter could be interpreted, as my bishop informed me, would be the furthest things from my mind and the intent of my letter. I actually find it hard to believe how anyone could have actually saw any of that type of threatening message in my letter. I think they were presuming too much or reading too much into it.

I studied in Rome and loved every minute of it and I work with on a constant basis and I love very much our Latin Rite brothers and sisters. My point, and it has become clear that my point is shared and felt so deeply by so many, is that the best thing, even for the our beloved Latin Rite brothers and sisters, indeed for the whole Church, is for the Eastern Catholic Churches to be as strong as possible, to become the best versions of themselves. We must be very vigiliant and must call attention to anything, whether from within ourselves or from outside of ourselves, that in any way sends a message that reinforces an attitude that we are inferior, not the ‘real’ part of the Catholic Church or dependenent or co-dependent.

1. Married priesthood and celibacy, although an issue in itself for continued intelligent, fraternal and honest discernment and discussion, is only a hingpin issue to a greater issue. That greater issue is the self-image of the Eastern Catholic Churches and how in fact in practice we are actually seen and treated by Rome. Much of this depends on (is the fault of) ourselves as Eastern Catholics. There are fundamental questions that have been burning in the hearts of Eastern Catholics, especially us pastors, for a long time and I believe the time has come for all–Rome and us to be totally honest about these issues and where we all stand. This issues include the question, “Does Rome really want the Eastern Catholic Churches to exist, or are we in fact just in the way of union between Rome and the Orthodox Churches?” The Eastern Catholic Churches must take a long, loving but uncompromisingly honest look at ourselves, at our “original sin”–our inferiority complex and all the ways in which we are not being the best version of our most honest selves. Vision, courage (Faith) and strategic planning are in order for the Eastern Catholic Churches in America.**"

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The following article by Fr. Maximos Davies of Holy Resurrection Romanian Catholic Monastery is also well worth the read and very pertinent to this discussion. This article is on the blog “First Things,” so it’s rather public domain. Incidentally, Fr. Tom wrote a brief essay that mirrors this article quite nicely.

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/celibacy-in-context-48

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

As Fr. Maximos and Fr. Tom (in another unposted essay) make clear, the issue of priestly celibacy for Eastern Catholic parish priests needs to be understood from an Eastern Catholic mindset. Thus far, in my opinion, no such attempt has been made. The call for a mandatory priestly celibacy among Eastern Catholics in the U.S. has been nothing but an imposition of a Latin mindset onto Eastern Catholics. Again, it would be a different matter if our own bishops had decided that it was in the best interest of their particular Churches to adopt mandatory priestly celibacy. But I’ve seen no such decisions from any of the bishops. In fact, my own bishop has said quite the contrary, the Ukrainian bishops have acted to the contrary, and another bishop/friend-of-mine has also acted to the contrary.

But I digress. Fr. Maximos mentions the two different perspectives on celibacy, one legalistic, the other ascetical. From the Eastern perspective, according to Fr. Maximos, all Christians are called to “celibacy” in the sense that all are called to develop the virtue of chastity according to one’s condition in life. It has been our custom to look to monastic communities as the shining examples of the ascetical life, including the life of celibacy/chastity. It is after looking at the monastics that we then take the principles of their lives and teachings and apply them to our own unique conditions in life. In this sense, the Eastern hierarchs ought not to be encouraging mandatory priestly celibacy so much as vocations to the monastic life.

Another issue that I’ve heard mentioned is that there is nothing suggested for the celibate parish priest to replace the community he would’ve lived in had he been married. There is no talk of forming a kind of “order of priests,” nor is there any talk of a celibate priest being somehow tied to a monastic community. The priest is just sort of left floating around on his own. This is not a healthy situation. We all need some sort of community from which to draw strength, guidance, motivation, etc., etc., etc.

But those are just a couple of consideration. Please read the article from Fr. Maximos and let’s throw that into this discussion as well.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, it would be a different matter if our own bishops had decided that it was in the best interest of their particular Churches to adopt mandatory priestly celibacy. But I’ve seen no such decisions from any of the bishops. In fact, my own bishop has said quite the contrary, the Ukrainian bishops have acted to the contrary, and another bishop/friend-of-mine has also acted to the contrary.

I am not sure I understand your point. Your list of bishops could be extended to include bishops of all Byzantine Eastern Churches in the US. Apparently, there is no policy of mandatory celibacy or of restricting priestly ordination to celibates.

The call to mandatory priestly celibacy is history here, is history - unfortunate but understandable at the time - not current reality.

Some other Eastern Catholic Churches int eh US have adopted mandatory celibacy. That is up to them. Does that mean they have adopted a Latinization of hte mind? I would suggest that such a conclusion would require strict substantiation.

 

[Matt_V]

I am not sure that this is the issue, actually. As I said before, my hunch is that Eastern Catholic bishops in the US are ordaining all of the married men that they want to. Can you document some cases denied by Rome? I like the Metropolitan’s note of caution.

Please excuse me, I’m very ignorant of the state of affairs in the Eastern Catholic churches. The only Eastern Catholic parish priests in the U.S. I have ever come across have been unmarried or married then ordained outside the U.S. This thread, and the implication of your question, have got me wondering… are there many married Eastern Catholic priests ordained in the U.S.? I wonder, what are the actual statistics, and do they vary by Church sui iuris?

 

[dvdjs]

Please excuse me, I’m very ignorant of the state of affairs in the Eastern Catholic churches. The only Eastern Catholic parish priests in the U.S. I have ever come across have been unmarried or married then ordained outside the U.S. This thread, and the implication of your question, have got me wondering… are there many married Eastern Catholic priests ordained in the U.S.? I wonder, what are the actual statistics, and do they vary by Church sui iuris?

HI Matt. I was googling around to try to find some answers - but there is not a great deal of information handy on the marital status of priests. What I have found is that while there was period in which candidates were ordained outside the US since the later 1990’s there have been numerous ordinations in the US and Canada. As far as the BCC goes, only about 5% of the priests are married, and are mostly from Slovakia. But Fr Marquis - at the time a married Deacon - was ordained in 2006 in Parma OH. The UGCC has, I believe, had many more priestly ordinations of married men in the US and Canada of late.

 

[5Loaves]

Fr. Loya talked this week, June 10, on his Light of the East Radio about Cardinal Sandri’s celibacy comment at the ad limina. He did an excellent job of framing the issues, or course. The podcast isn’t not uploaded yet to the archives page. Check back later in the week.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

The main issue as I see it is this: Is it proper to leave the decision whether or not to allow Eastern Catholic Churches the right to ordain married men outside of their “traditional territories” to a vote of the Latin hierarchy? (So far, my understanding is that Australia, Canada and the USA are the only countries which have authorized this.)

Thank you for making note of the fact that the issue is not between the Pope and the Eastern Churches, but rather the local Latin hierarchies and the Eastern Churches. Some here are making this out to be a “papal authority” issue - misplaced to be sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thank you for making note of the fact that the issue is not between the Pope and the Eastern Churches, but rather the local Latin hierarchies and the Eastern Churches. Some here are making this out to be a “papal authority” issue - misplaced to be sure.

My dear, respected brother, while there would likely be few knowledgeable Ruthenians here in the U.S. who would deny Archbishop Ireland the title “Father of Orthodoxy in America”, it remains that the prohibitions here were perfected, as it were, with the issuance of the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius X, (1907)Ea Semper and the later decree of the Sacred Oriental Congregation, (1927)Cum Data Feurit. I don’t know how historically we could argue that this is just a “local squabble”, with no involvement of Rome. That may be how it started, and how it remains to a degree, but Rome did indeed speak. Yet, Rome has been silent on this specific point (married priesthood) thus far, despite the progress made and support received from Rome in recent times (and at times, direct pushing and prodding) as regards restoration of “authentic traditions and disciplines”.

If there has been some Papal approval given to the contrary, or some formal delegation of the issue to local (national) conferences of bishops, it would be helpful to learn of some of the specifics. Yet to the understanding of many (myself included), the prohibition against married priesthood in predominately Latin Catholic territories still exists, with Ea Semper as the decision precident. In fact, we Ruthenians are required to petition Rome (not the USCCB) for approval of a candidate for the married priesthood. Since this requirement was last formalized (1999), this approval was sought and granted only once - in the case of a married deacon of some maturity.

If you do have some insight and/or understanding to the contrary, please do share.

 

[Peter_J]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

Thank you for making note of the fact that the issue is not between the Pope and the Eastern Churches, but rather the local Latin hierarchies and the Eastern Churches. Some here are making this out to be a “papal authority” issue - misplaced to be sure.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk. I take it here that you’re talking about the current situation, not history (if the latter, then see ByzCathCantor’s comments on that subject).

I myself was under the impression that the US Latin bishops have some kind of say in the matter – until I said so in a conversation some weeks ago, and was told by a pretty good authority that the US Latin bishops do *not *have a say in the matter. I wish I could say more, but that’s all I know.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk. I take it here that you’re talking about the current situation, not history (if the latter, then see ByzCathCantor’s comments on that subject).

I myself was under the impression that the US Latin bishops have some kind of say in the matter – until I said so in a conversation some weeks ago, and was told by a pretty good authority that the US Latin bishops do *not *have a say in the matter. I wish I could say more, but that’s all I know.

The Papacy attampts to balance the needs (and wishes) of all the church in arriving at a decision. Thus there are times when people petition the Pope for what they want, and other times when the Pope let’s it known that he will leave the decision in the hands of some other body.

In the case of mandatory celibacy in the USA, there were no eastern catholic bishops at the time of Ea Semper and the synods of Baltimore strictly banned other liturgical rites. They came anyway, which was an affront to the established hierarchy.

The eastern Catholic bishops which were put in place later were answerable directly to the Pope, and their jurisdiction had limits according to what the Pope considered proper at the time. The Popes issued Ea Semper and Cum Data Feurit because they thought it was best for the church as a whole, and they took the opinions and advice of the Latin bishops in the USA seriously.

We see that this kind of thing happened in Italy recently. The Pope could step in and say “the Romanian Catholic church has a right to have married clergy in Italy” but he did not do so, he let the Italian bishops conference do it’s knifework. I think a few years ago they tried to do the same to the UGCC in Italy, I don’t remember how that turned out, but in Poland when they tried it the Latin bishops got Cardinal Soldano to order the married priests out but Pope John Paul II had the decision reversed (probably after complaints from the Major Metropolitan Cardinal of the UGCC in L’viv).

 

[Peter_J]

I myself was under the impression that the US Latin bishops have some kind of say in the matter – until I said so in a conversation some weeks ago, and was told by a pretty good authority that the US Latin bishops do *not *have a say in the matter. I wish I could say more, but that’s all I know.

P.S. After posting this ^^, I remembered another detail: he said that the US Latin bishops don’t have a say in the matter, but they may have influence.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCathCantor,

My dear, respected brother, while there would likely be few knowledgeable Ruthenians here in the U.S. who would deny Archbishop Ireland the title “Father of Orthodoxy in America”, it remains that the prohibitions here were perfected, as it were, with the issuance of the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius X, Ea Semper (1907) and the later decree of the Sacred Oriental Congregation, Cum Data Feurit (1927). I don’t know how historically we could argue that this is just a “local squabble”, with no involvement of Rome. That may be how it started, and how it remains to a degree, but Rome did indeed speak. Yet, Rome has been silent on this specific point (married priesthood) thus far, despite the progress made and support received from Rome in recent times (and at times, direct pushing and prodding) as regards restoration of “authentic traditions and disciplines”.

If there has been some Papal approval given to the contrary, or some formal delegation of the issue to local (national) conferences of bishops, it would be helpful to learn of some of the specifics. Yet to the understanding of many (myself included), the prohibition against married priesthood in predominately Latin Catholic territories still exists, with Ea Semper as the decision precident.

It should be noted that Ea Semper was not well-received by the Latin bishops for two reasons:

1. It gave the Easterns their own ordinary. According to ancient Tradition, these Easterns should be under the direct jurisdiction of the local Latin hierarch with territorial jurisdiction. This was a totally new animal in the Catholic Church - a bishop without territorial jurisdiction but only personal jurisdiction (though it was a well-estalbished species for centuries in the Oriental Orthodox Church; I think it is unknown in the EOC).
2. The language of Ea Semper made the prohibition of married priests dependent on the circumstances of the times. The Latin bishops expected a flat-out denial of married priests in their territory, but Ea Semper did not do that.

It should also be noted that changes in Eastern praxis on matters other than celibacy (i.e., confirmation, ownership of Church property, etc.) were not newly established by any papal decree, but were simply affirming laws enacted by prior Synods of Baltimore for the local American Church.

Latin bishops have been fond of invoking the authority of Ea semper. This is natural since this was an issue that was presented to the Pope for a resolution. But the truth is, as noted, Ea Semper is couched in language that makes the restrictions on Easterns dependent on the circumstances of the times, Ea Semper was first promulgated because of the concerns/complaints of the local Latin bishops. It can be lifted through the same agency. Despite what brother Peter J has stated in his previous posts, the prohibition remains because of the Latin bishops, not because of the Pope.

As brother Michael had pointed out, the Pope was trying to balance the needs/desires of more than one Tradition. Ea Semper, contrary to what many Easterns may think, was not a one=way street in the direction of the West.

In fact, we Ruthenians are required to petition Rome (not the USCCB) for approval of a candidate for the married priesthood. Since this requirement was last formalized (1999), this approval was sought and granted only once - in the case of a married deacon of some maturity.

Two points to consider:

1. I wonder why it was asked only once? Perhaps the bishops of your Church are more in touch with the sensibilities of the local Latin hierarchs who are opposed to a married clergy?
2. Do you feel it is problematic for yoru Church to ask for indults from Rome? If it is general knowledge that the body of Latin bishops would refuse to lift the prohibition on a married priesthood, perhaps this should be viewed is a good thing to petition Rome directly?

Interesting aside: In the early fifties, American Cardinals were refusing to petition Rome for indults to allow married Lutheran clergy to enter the priesthood. These clergy would go to Germany, as such indults were commonplace in Germany, and then return to the U.S. as married Catholic clergy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

You provided a very gracious, and (IMO) very truthful, explanation of the matter. I would like to add just a few comments

but in Poland when they tried it the Latin bishops got Cardinal Soldano to order the married priests out but Pope John Paul II had the decision reversed (probably after complaints from the Major Metropolitan Cardinal of the UGCC in L’viv).

The exception with Poland was that the Eastern Tradition had a well-established history in Poland, and there was no justification for the claim that it was a purely Latin territory. You couldn’t pull the wool over that Polish Pope’s eyes - he knew his Polish history.

The situation of Poland highlights two things:

1. The matter really does rest in the hands of the majority of the local hierarchy, and this is not a matter of “the Pope versus the Eastern Churches.”
2. Though the Curia represents papal authority, it does not always represent the Pope. A lot of these decisions inimical to the non-Latin Churches come from the Curia, not the Pope himself. When the Pope is well apprised of the situation, I sincerely believe that God will give him the Grace to do what is right not only for the Church as a whole, but for the particular Churches as well. I am reminded of the time when the Curial interests wanted to impose Latin Traditions on Copts in Egypt, and Pope Leo XIII (IIRC the name of the Pope) explictly forbade such a move by the Propaganda.

Blessings,
Marduk