If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[Abu]

No reputable refutation of the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy can be substantiated after the illustrious scholarly works cited and quoted, including the following detail from Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network by the scholarly Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.”

For the record, Father Echert is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, ordained in 1987. He is a member of the faculty of The Saint Paul Seminary in Minnesota and teaches Sacred Scripture. He is also an adjunct faculty member of the University of St. Thomas. Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Clement of Alexandria (†215) after commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, he adds:

All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be presbyter, deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children.

Council of Ancyra (314):

They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop. But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.

Council of Gangra (c. 325-c. 381) had to reaffirm the dignity of the married presbyterate, obviously because some among the people felt that the Eucharistic offering might be defiled by the bonds of marriage:

Canon 4: If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that it is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.
The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 390) represent the same spirit:
6. Let not a bishop, a priest, or a deacon cast off his own wife under pretence of piety; but if he does cast her off, let him be suspended. If he go on in it, let him be deprived.
51. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, abstains from marriage, flesh, and wine, not for his own exercise, but because he abominates these things, forgetting that “all things were very good,” Genesis 1:31 and that “God made man male and female,” Genesis 1:26 and blasphemously abuses the creation, either let him reform, or let him be deprived, and be cast out of the Church; and the same for one of the laity.

Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910:
[Whether] through imperial influence or not the Council of Trullo, in 692, finally adopted a somewhat stricter view. Celibacy in a bishop became a matter of precept. If he were previously married, he had at once to separate from his wife upon his consecration. On the other hand, this council, while forbidding priests, deacons, and subdeacons to take a wife after ordination, asserts in emphatic terms their right and duty to continue in conjugal relations with the wife to whom they had been wedded previously.

St. John Chrysostom commenting on the text of Titus 2:

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly. Why does he bring forward such a one? To stop the mouths of those heretics, who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne…

Pope St. Zachary of Rome (747) leaves each locality to maintain its own traditions regarding whether the members clergy could have conjugal intercourse with their wives.

Dr. Anthony T. Dragani (east2west.org/Celibacy.htm):
Assessing the evidence from the Western Church, in my estimation Cardinal Stickler has successfully demonstrated that in the West the seeds of clerical celibacy date back to the fourth century. However, he has not satisfactorily demonstrated that it dates back to the apostles. In fact, such a bold assertion is nearly impossible to prove. As the Cardinal"s own book illustrates, for nearly the first four hundred years of Christianity there is absolute silence on this issue. If clerical celibacy was taught by the apostles, and presumably came from Christ Himself, why would it first surface in the written record only four centuries later".

The fact that there is no documentation of celibacy until the late fourth seriously calls into question Stickler"s premise.[35] Prior to this period plenty of legislation was written on the conduct of the clergy. For example, both the Apostolic Canons (ca. 217) and the Didascalia (ca. 250) lay out requirements for clerics, but neither places any restrictions on their marital relations.[36] The claim that there was some sort of unwritten ordinance that no one bothered to write down until later is impossible to prove.

Most historians assert that the Eastern Churches, which allow married priests, have preserved the original discipline of the primitive Church. Needless to say, Cardinal Stickler adamantly disagrees with this assertion. In this section he argues that clerical continence was also the apostolic tradition of the Eastern Churches, which they eventually abandoned. In making this argument he calls into question the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline.

Throughout this section he draws upon the research of Roman Cholij. In fact Cardinal Stickler wrote the introduction to Cholij"s book, Clerical Celibacy in East and West. As an Eastern Catholic priest who argued against the antiquity of the Eastern discipline, Father Cholij earned the positive attention of some Roman prelates.[38] It should be noted that in recent years Cholij"s thinking on this issue has developed significantly, and he now defends the legitimacy of the Eastern practice of a married priesthood.

continued…

 

[SyroMalankara]

Moreover, the Cardinal says that the Council in Trullo “was the basis for the new and definitive obligation concerning celibacy in the Oriental Churches.”[55] However, the Council in Trullo only affected the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Numerous other Eastern Churches had nothing to do with the Council in Trullo, and were in no way bound by its canons.[56] To illustrate this point, the following Eastern Churches were not involved in the council, yet have a tradition of a married clergy who maintain normal marital relations with their wives: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church. The witness of the Maronite Catholic Church is especially significant because it never broke communion with Rome, yet has maintained a married priesthood to this very day.

All of these Churches had absolutely nothing to do with the Council in Trullo. Nonetheless, they all practice the same discipline as the Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Furthermore, they all claim that this was the tradition handed on to them by the apostles. What is even more remarkable is that throughout much of the first millennium many of these Churches were embroiled in disputes with one another, and were not on speaking terms. If one of these Churches were to have abandoned an apostolic tradition, the other Churches would have readily denounced it.[57] Clearly the unanimous witness of the Christian East testifies against mandatory celibacy having been taught by the apostles.

In this final section of the book Cardinal Stickler moves beyond the historical arguments that he has utilized thus far. Now he attempts to explain the theological rationale behind clerical celibacy. He quotes a key passage of scripture upon which he builds a portion of his case. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes, “Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer”"[58] According to the Cardinal, “If continence was imposed on the laity in order that their prayers might be granted, how much greater the obligation on priests, who in a state of purity had to be ready at any moment to offer the sacrifice and administer baptism.”[59]

Amazingly, when quoting this passage of sacred scripture the Cardinal omits the second half of the verse. In the latter half of the verse St. Paul warns married couples to “return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”[60] Thus, St. Paul is actually cautioning against perpetual continence within marriage. In light of this statement it is nearly impossible to believe that the Apostle would demand such perfect continence from any married couple, even if the man was an ordained presbyter.

Cardinal Stickler believes that a prime reason for clerical celibacy is “the efficacy of mediatory prayer by the sacred minister.” This is “centered on a total dedication to God, on the real possibility of praying constantly as well as being completely free for pastoral ministry and for the service of the Church.”[61] But this begs an important question: why exactly is mediatory prayer rendered less effective by marital sex"[62] He does not provide an answer to this question.

He also argues for celibacy based on the example of Christ. The priest is configured to the person of Christ, and becomes another Christ. “Christ wants the soul, heart and body of his priests,” writes the Cardinal. Christ “wants that purity and continence that are a sign that he lives no longer according to the flesh but according to the spirit.”[63] While this is harmonious with the Latin theological tradition, in the Eastern tradition the persons most perfectly configured to the person of Christ are not the priests, but the monks. In the East the mutually exclusive dichotomy is not between marriage and priesthood, but between marriage and monasticism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

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

 

[babochka]

SyroMalankara, thank you for your very thorough treatment of this subject. It is helpful for everyone to see some balance in the examination of the evidence and facts, from equally scholarly sources.

 

[Abu]

**THE LOGIC OF PRIESTLY CELIBACY
Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, S.T.D.
Published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, April 1995 **
‘”Sixteen hundred years ago, in the year 390, a group of Bishops was gathered at Carthage to discuss celibacy. Presumably, they had much the same problems with it as the clergy will always have. At the end of the session these Bishops renewed their resolution with memorable words: ‘What the apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also continue.’ ”
ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CELIBACY.HTM

Review of Priestly Celibacy Today by Fr Thomas McGovern, a priest of Opus Dei
“A comprehensive defence of celibacy”: Review by Fr Tom Norris
“The atmosphere today is thick with the dust of the great celibacy debate. Unfortunately, that debate is often more conspicuous for its fire than for its light. Sometimes the facts of Church history and the truth of things seem to matter but little to some of the debaters.

“Who has not heard ad nauseam the claim that the celibacy of priests is merely a matter of Church law, without any apostolic traditions or Gospel foundations, and imposed on the priestly ministry only in this millennium?

“Or the claim that in the first millennium there were married bishops, priests and deacons, so that ordination did not affect their conjugal life if already married, nor prevent them from marrying if not yet married? ln the debate these claims are in control of the public square in spite of the fact that in each case the opposite happens to be the truth!

“Interestingly, following the splendid historical research already provided by Cochini, Stickler and others, Fr McGovern shows that from the most ancient times those ordained were not allowed to marry subsequently, while those already married had to live as brother and sister upon the reception of Holy Orders.”
Fr Tom Norris lectures at St Patricks College, Maynooth.
This review first appeared in the 15 April 1999 issue of Irish Catholic.
christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/reviews.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

“The common opinion today may be summed up as follows: clerical celibacy is considered most proper to the sacerdotal ministry; it is in no sense a depreciation of marriage, but is the condition for greater freedom in the service of God. The law of celibacy is of ecclesiastical origin and may therefore be abrogated by the Church. In the early Church and in the East the marriage of bishops, priests, and deacons was permitted for good reason. Recent popes have found similarly good reason to dispense from celibacy in the case of married Protestant pastors who converted and desired ordination. Vatican Council II, at the request of the bishops from many countries, permitted a married diaconate, admitting married men of mature years.”

– “Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” by J. Abbas in New Catholic Encyclopedia 2nd ed. Vol. 3: 817-820. Detroit: Gale, 2003 for information on the origins and background, the scope, contents and relationship of the Eastern Code to the Latin Corpus Iuris Canonici.

Eastern Code, Canon 373: “the state of married clerics, sanctioned in the practice of the primitive Church and in the Eastern Churches through the ages, is to be held in honor.”

– Eastern Churches Journal 8.1 (2001): p. 328

Canon 375: “Married clerics are to offer an outstanding example to other Christian faithful in conducting family life and in educating children.”

– CCEO

Paragraph V “In reference to the discipline of the clergy, we declare that our tradition allows the ordination of both celibate and married men to the priesthood and is the same in the United States as it is throughout the Melkite Church. We affirm the declaration of our Patriarchal Synod that the charisma of celibacy and the celibate priesthood continue to be held in the highest esteem. We look forward, in the near future, to the uninhibited practice of our proper discipline in this country in accordance with Vatican II’s Decree on the Eastern Churches, which states that the Eastern Catholic Churches are 'to take pains to return to their ancestral ways, if they have improperly fallen away from them because of time or personage.”

– “Official Teaching of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church Concerning the Priesthood, Celibacy and Marriage,” August 23, 1971, signed by Maximos V Hakim, Patriarch of Antioch and of All the East, of Alexandria and Jerusalem. English text in Diakonia 6.4 (1971): pp. 382-384.

“As regards the question concerning the connection between celibacy and the priesthood, the experience of our Church confirms, as we have already stated, that there is no intrinsic connection between celibacy and the priesthood; the two are distinct charisms. Celibacy, together with the priesthood, is a special way of bearing witness in the Church.”

– Holy Synod of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church (Ain-Traz, Lebanon), point 9, “Official Teaching”

See more: newbyzantines.net/byzcathculture/ordination.html

 

[Abu]

No one has held that the Church does not now allow married priests among married clergy converting from other sects, but the historical record shows that the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy is the reality in both East and West up to the unilateral break at Trullo.

From Hugh Ballantyne, The Origin of Priestly Celibacy, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 53 (7), April 2003, 52:
“The bishops of the Council in Trullo depend upon a misinterpretation of earlier documentation, some of which was falsified or even forged. Baronius (c. 1600) frankly accuses the bishops at Trullo of lying, in their alteration of earlier Latin canons.”

'Did not Jesus Christ, after he had presented the Disciples with the question of the renunciation of marriage “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”, add these significant words: “Let anyone accept this who can”? (Mt 19:12). The Latin Church has wished, and continues to wish, referring to the example of Christ the Lord himself, to the apostolic teaching and to the whole Tradition that is proper to her, that all those who receive the sacrament of Orders should embrace this renunciation “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

“Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Easter and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favour of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ’s invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him (cf. Mt 19:29).”

The Church Is Committed to Priestly Celibacy
St John Paul II General Audience July 14, 1993
“As the Council says, the commitment of celibacy, stemming from a tradition linked to Christ, “is held by the Church to be of great value in a special manner for the priestly life. It is at the same time a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world” (PO 16).”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930714en.html

 

[SyroMalankara]

Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm):

A strenuous attempt has indeed been made by some writers, of whom the late Professor Bickell was the most distinguished, to prove that even at this early date the Church exacted celibacy of all her ministers of the higher grades. But the contrary view, represented by such scholars as Funk and Kraus, seems much better founded and has won general acceptance of recent years. It is not, of course, disputed that all times virginity was held in honour, and that in particular large numbers of the clergy practised it or separated from their wives if they were already married. Tertullian comments with admiration upon the number of those in sacred orders who have embraced continence (De exhortatione castitatis, cap. xiii), while Origen seems to contrast the spiritual offspring of the priests of the New Law with the natural offspring begotten in wedlock by the priests of the Old (In Levit. Hom. vi, no. 6). Clearly, however, there is nothing in this or similar language which could be considered decisive, and Bickell, in support of his thesis, found it needful to appeal mainly to the testimony of writers of the fourth and fifth century. Thus Eusebius declares that it is befitting that priests and those occupied in the ministry should observe continence (Demonst. Evangel., I, C. ix), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem urges that the minister of the altar who serves God properly holds himself aloof from women (Cat. xii, 25). St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, “even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands”.
But the passage most confidently appealed to is one of St. Epiphanius where the holy doctor first of all speaks of the accepted ecclesiastical rule of the priesthood (kanona tes ierosynes) as something established by the Apostles (Haer., xlviii, 9), and then in a later passage seems to describe this rule or canon in some detail. “Holy Church”, he says, “respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical cannons are strictly attended to” (Haer., lix, 4). Epiphanius goes on, however, to explain that there are localities in which priests and deacons continue to have children, but he argues against the practice as most unbecoming and urges that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost has always in the past shown her disapproval of such procedure. But we need hardly insist that all this is very inadequate evidence (even when supplemented by some few citations from St. Ephraem and other Orientals) to support the contention that a general rule of celibacy existed from Apostolic times. Writers in the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (e.g. the Lenten fast of forty days) as of Apostolic institution which certainly had no claim to be so regarded. On the other hand, there are facts which tell the other way. The statement of Clement of Alexandria at an earlier date is open to no ambiguity. After commenting on the texts of St. Paul noted above, and expressing his veneration for a life of chastity, Clement adds: “All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children” (Stromateiae, III, xiii).

Not less explicit is the testimony given by the church historian, Socrates. He declares that in the Eastern Churches neither priests nor even bishops were bound to separate from their wives, though he recognized that a different custom obtained in Thessaly and in Greece (H.E., Bk. I, cap. xi) Socrates tells the story of Paphnutius rising in the assembly and objecting to an enactment which he considered to rigorous in behalf of celibacy. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony according to the ancient tradition of the Church, but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united. And these sentiments he expressed although himself without experience of marriage. Some attempt has been made to discredit this story, but nearly all modern scholars (notably Bishop von Hefele, with his most recent editor, Dom H. Leclercq) accept it without reserve. The fact that the attitude of Bishop Paphnutius differs but little from the existing practice of the Eastern Churches is alone a strong point in its favour. These testimonies, it will be observed, are from Eastern sources and indicate, no doubt, the prevailing Oriental discipline. Wernz expressed the opinion that from the earliest days of the Church the custom, if not the law, was for bishops, priests, and all in major orders, to observe celibacy.

 

[SyroMalankara]

continues…

Law of celibacy in Oriental Churches

Upon this head something has already been said above, and the general principle has been stated that in the Oriental Churches deacons and priests are free to retain the wives to whom they have been wedded before ordination, but are not allowed to contract any new marriage when once they are ordained. A few details may here be added about the practice of the different Churches, taking first the schismatical communions and then those united to the Holy See.

In the Greek Churches acknowledging the jurisdiction of the schismatic Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., lectors and cantors, who are clerics in minor orders, are still free to marry, but if they contract a second marriage they can be promoted to no higher grade, and if they are guilty of continence with any other person or marry a third time, they are no longer allowed to exercise their functions. Subdeacons seem to be able to marry a second time without being deposed, but in that case they cannot be promoted to the priesthood. Again, a priest who before his ordination has contracted an unlawful marriage, even unwittingly, is no longer permitted to exercise his priestly functions when the fact is discovered. Priests and deacons are bidden to practise continence during the time of their service of the altar. In 1897 there seem to have been 4025 parish churches in Greece, and these were served by 5423 married and 242 unmarried priests.

In the Russian Church, though a previous marriage seems to be, practically speaking, a conditio sine quâ non for ordination in the case of the secular clergy, still their canonists deny that this is a strict obligation. The candidate for orders must either be already married or must formally declare his intention of remaining celibate. Any marriage attempted after the reception of the subdiaconate is invalid and the ecclesiastic so offending renders himself liable to severe penalties. Further, to have been already married, or to have married a widow, or to have contracted any other marriage which offends against the canons — e.g. with a near relative, an unbeliever, or person or notoriously loose character, e.g. an actress — constitutes a disqualification for ordination. Formerly the priest who lost his wife was required to retire into a monastery. He is still free to do so and in this way may qualify for higher functions, e.g. for the episcopate, etc., the bishops in the Greek and Russian Church being selected exclusively from the monastic clergy. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, widower priests are no longer compelled to retire into monasteries, but they need the permission of the Synod to continue to discharge their parochial functions.

In the Armenian Church, again, clerics in minor orders are still free to contract marriage, and such marriage is required as a condition for ordination to the simple secular priesthood. Besides monks and the ordinary clergy, the Armenian Church recognizes a class of Vartapeds, or preachers, who are celibate priests of higher education. From their ranks the bishops and higher clergy are as a rule selected. It is only by exception that a monk is chosen to the episcopate.

Amongst the Nestorians celibacy is not so much honoured as amongst most of the Oriental Churches. Priests and deacons may marry even after ordination, and if their wife should die they marry a second or even a third time. Still, bishops are required to live as celibates, though formerly this does not seem to have been the case.

The Copts and also the Abyssinian Monophysites resemble the Greek Church in their laws regarding clerical marriage. A marriage contracted after the reception of Holy orders, or any second marriage, involves deposition. All the Coptic bishops are chosen from the monastic clergy. Among the Syrian Jacobites similar rules prevail. Bishops, as a rule, are chosen from the monks and a second marriage is forbidden to a priest who is left a widower. If, however, he marries, the marriage is regarded as valid although he is deprived of his clerical functions.

Turning now to the Oriental Churches in communion with the Holy See, we may note that as a general principle married clerics are not ineligible for the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood. As in the Russian Church they must either be married in accordance with the canons (i.e. not to a widow, etc.), or else as a preliminary to ordination they are asked whether they will promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of the Oriental clergy to retain their wives will be found in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, “Etsi pastoralis”, 26 May, 1742.

 

[chefmomster2]

No, celibate clergy is not dogma.
Yes, it can be changed.
But, that does not mean it will!

Many have posted the text of Pope St. John Paul II on priestly celibacy so I won’t include it here yet again. What I would like to offer here is Pope Benedict XVI’s statement from a discussion of euthanasia where he commemts on the doctrine of priestly celibacy:

Then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict XVI) mentions in his Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei about the case of euthanasia:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. **The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.**33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

This tells me that any change toward allowing marriage will have a high hurdle to top. This is only right since the teaching is strongly held doctrine. This leaves us somewhere in the midfle. While priestly celibacy is not dogmatically defined, neither is it impossible that the evolution of the doctrine may one day allow for priestly marriage.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, celibate clergy is not dogma.
Yes, it can be changed.
But, that does not mean it will!

Many have posted the text of Pope St. John Paul II on priestly celibacy so I won’t include it here yet again. What I would like to offer here is Pope Benedict XVI’s statement from a discussion of euthanasia where he commemts on the doctrine of priestly celibacy:

This tells me that any change toward allowing marriage will have a high hurdle to top. This is only right since the teaching is strongly held doctrine. This leaves us somewhere in the midfle. While priestly celibacy is not dogmatically defined, neither is it impossible that the evolution of the doctrine may one day allow for priestly marriage.

Priestly celibacy is not “strongly held doctrine.” It’s not doctrine at all, it’s a matter of Church discipline. If the requirement of priestly celibacy were a matter of doctrine, it would be impossible to have married priests, and that is not the case.

 

[chefmomster2]

Priestly celibacy is not “strongly held doctrine.” It’s not doctrine at all, it’s a matter of Church discipline. If the requirement of priestly celibacy were a matter of doctrine, it would be impossible to have married priests, and that is not the case.

Please refer to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s statement which I included above in which he calls it doctrine:
"The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,…"

I think a reflection on some definitions would be helpful.

In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means [a] a divinely revealed truth, ** proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and hence binding on all the faithful without exception, now and forever. [The Survival of Dogma, 153].

CCC 88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Defining a doctrine as dogma obliges us to irrevocable adherence of faith.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly
evident.

Therefore there must be doctrine which is NOT defined infallibly.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a **religious submission of the intellect and will must be given **to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Doctrine (non-infallible) is not an assent of faith but it still has to be followed. The Church has not defined these( so they are not dogma), but we must still live in agreement with them. Doctrine can be raised to a level of dogma, but it is not automatically such.**

 

[RyanBlack]

Please refer to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s statement which I included above in which he calls it doctrine:
"The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,…".

The text is not referring to priestly celibacy but to the reservation of priestly ordination to men only.

Priestly celibacy is not a matter of dogma or doctrine, but of discipline. If it were a matter of doctrine, there could be no married priests.

 

[chefmomster2]

The text is not referring to priestly celibacy but to the reservation of priestly ordination to men only.

Priestly celibacy is not a matter of dogma or doctrine, but of discipline. If it were a matter of doctrine, there could be no married priests.

I misread your prior post.

How do you explain BXVI’s use of “this doctrine”?

 

[Abu]

chefmomster2 #188
How do you explain BXVI’s use of “this doctrine”?

That priestly ordination is reserved for men only is an infallible doctrine, and has nothing to do with the celibacy of the priesthood which is an Apostolic Norm not a doctrine, and in which the Magisterium permits the ordination to the priesthood of married former cleric converts to Catholicism.

Prayer and Celibacy
The apostolic origin of priestly celibacy. Father Wojciech Giertych, OP
The Priest 8/1/2011
'In 390, in Carthage in North Africa, there was a local synod that gave an explanation of this ancient discipline. The synod was attended by only a handful of bishops. Its decision however, was remembered and quoted by many following councils, although the Council of Trullo, which released eastern married priests from the obligation of marital continence, quoted Carthage erroneously and based itself on a claim that a certain Paphnutius, the bishop of Upper Thebes, had defended at the earlier council of Nicaea the marital rights of priests. This information had been given by the Byzantine historian Socrates, who wrote a century after the Council of Nicaea. It is now known, due to the historical research of an East-German Lutheran historian Friedhelm Winkelmann that the story of Paphnutius is apocryphal, and so the Trullo Council erred in its historical judgment.

'The teaching of Vatican II and of the post-conciliar Magisterium does not bring back the discipline of the ancient Church on priestly continence for those Catholic priests who had been ordained while being married. The dignity and validity of such priests (Eastern and occasionally Western) and of their ministry is not questioned, even if they have fathered children after ordination. Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 16a, however, declares that continence in view of the kingdom of God is “a special source of spiritual fecundity in the world.” But this continence is “not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood.”

'Exegetical and historical arguments that were brought forward to show this are, as is seen today, of dubious validity, but these are linked only through an “as is apparent,” so they are presented as a manifestation and not as a direct proof.

'This suitability is seen primarily, not from a sociological and pastoral point of view, but from the perspective of the spiritual fecundity of the priests, who are “consecrated to Christ by a new and exceptional reason [and] adhere to him more easily with an undivided heart” (PO, No. 16b). Celibacy is defended therefore primarily with Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological and, only then, pastoral reasons.

'Pope Paul VI’s encyclical *Sacerdotalis Caelibatus *(1967) followed the Council’s teaching. He stressed however with greater force the various arguments in favor of celibacy’s suitability for the priesthood and its spiritual fecundity, developing the Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological and pastoral reasons. In No. 24, he recalled the words of Lumen Gentium, No. 42, that celibacy has always been considered “as a symbol of, and stimulus to, charity.” In No. 29, he perceived celibacy as strengthening the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist, in which the priest, acting in the person of Christ, “unites himself most intimately with the offering, and places on the altar his entire life, which bears the marks of the holocaust.” ’
osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Article/TabId/535/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/7943/Prayer-and-Celibacy.aspx

 

[HelenRose]

Countless Orthodox and Eastern Catholic priests have managed to be good pastors, good husbands, and good fathers.

That is true but they can not give themselves fully to the Church.
For instance. I very dear friend of mine is married to a Baptist minister. When they began their ministry, they went to the border of Texas and Mexico. However, when they realized that their four daughters were in danger if they walked to school, they moved. Their daughters were 2 years behind in school and needed a great deal of help to catch up.

Even though they believed that what they were doing was good, they decided what was best for their own children.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Anecdotal examples does not a good case make. I can sight one celibate priest in Chicago who’s been a headache for the last 2 Archbishops, since he had refused to leave his parish and even adopted some children without permission.

 

[babochka]

Anecdotal examples does not a good case make. I can sight one celibate priest in Chicago who’s been a headache for the last 2 Archbishops, since he had refused to leave his parish and even adopted some children without permission.

Certainly. I know of a celibate priest who has been on leave from diocesan duties for a year because he is caring for his elderly parents. History is full of stories of the martyrdom of priests in communist Eastern Europe who gave all for their faith. Yes, in general, a celibate priest is able to give more to the church, but that is the vocation of celibacy. The same is true of sisters and nuns who have unselfishly put themselves totally at the service of the Church. Thank God for those who have answered the undoubtedly high call to celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

 

[AndyP2010]

No one has held that the Church does not now allow married priests among married clergy converting from other sects, but the historical record shows that the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy is the reality in both East and West up to the unilateral break at Trullo.

We are talking about more than just converts now. According to the Apostlolic Consititution Anglicanorum coetibus that while the Ordinary may as a rule accept celibate men for ordination he may with petition the holy see for the ordination of married men(how received the sacrament of initiation through the ordinariate) on a case by case basis.
Anglicanorum coetibus:

1. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

From Hugh Ballantyne, The Origin of Priestly Celibacy, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 53 (7), April 2003, 52

“Recent scholarship on the history of celibacy in both the Easter and Western Church has shown that there is a considerable body of evidence in favour of the argument that priestly celibacy is of apostolic origin, based on Christ’s invitation to the Twelve to leave all things and follow him (cf. Mt 19:29).

I guess recent scholars haven’t read 1 Timothy or Titus where it clearly shows that married clergy where allowed from the beginning

* This saying is trustworthy:* whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.b
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment.
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.

* For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.