Cardinal Stickler draws his arguments from the Councils of Elvira and Carthage. But the Councils (not Ecumenical) argue for celibacy for all the people at the altar: Bishops, Priests… wait for it… DEACONS AND SUBDEACONS!!!I don’t know the scholarship on the issue, but from the current debate going on about diaconal continence I gather that the eminent Cdl. Stickler argued for the antiquity of clerical continence and the novelty of the Levitical situation, first - he avers - brought about by the Quinisext council, whereby clerics withdrew (and still withdraw) from their wives while “serving in the Temple.” Did it take a while for this to be enshrined as a universal papal command? Sure. Does this detract from the legitimacy of the Eastern tradition? No one’s questioning the holiness of their men. But the idea that married clerical continence was a minority report that slowly took over seems suspiciously like a Whig history written once people felt we’d “moved beyond” it. I think at best the jury is out on just how strong the tradition was from the very beginning, and I hope to read Stickler’s work on the subject.
Cdl. Stickler does not claim those councils to have imposed continence upon every cleric of any rank whatsoever (thus filtering down to your exaggeration of altar boys), rather, just as you said, those early councils imposed continence upon all major orders, with the subdiaconate as of then still being inconsistently classified as major or minor. In imposing that continence (that is, in forbidding both the contracting and/or the use of marriage), the early councils of the fourth century believed themselves to be reinforcing the previous discipline of the Church - i.e. not creating a new regulation - and enforcing an Apostolic discipline. While Cdl. Stickler seems willing to place solid trust in the Apostolic origins based on this witness, I would more cautiously say that while North Africa in particular was an incredibly traditional area, we cannot absolutely prove from this assertion any more than that the churches knew clerical continence to be of immemorial custom (apostolic being what they tended to call practices they couldn’t remember doing any differently).Cardinal Stickler draws his arguments from the Councils of Elvira and Carthage. But the Councils (not Ecumenical) argue for celibacy for all the people at the altar: Bishops, Priests… wait for it… DEACONS AND SUBDEACONS!!!
We just instituted the Permanent Deaconate for married men. And do we really want to make sure all of the altar boys and girls remain celibate for the rest of their lives?
Cdl. Stickler’s argument is that it is outright foolish to conclude, based on what we know of historical legal practice, that laws only came into effect upon being codified in written form. He is absolutely correct that ancient (and even medieval) civilization was governed by oral laws and traditions that could go centuries before ever being written down. To shift the focus later, to where I know a bit more, the role of a medieval legislator like a Carolingian king was not to make new laws - that was an absurd idea in a traditional society - but to determine and regularize practice based on traditional, often oral, law and enforce that. To put the cardinal’s point in an analogous, though qualitatively different way, let’s look at some of the ecumenical councils held in the fourth century. Before 325 we have no ecumenical councils that say Jesus Christ is God. How many Catholics or Orthodox would argue that, since this is the first statement of worldwide Catholic belief on the matter, that Catholics were not bound to believe in the divinity of Christ until 325? Wouldn’t we rather say that the Church had always believed in Christ’s divinity and was only now forced to clarify its thoughts based on novel, popular, and persistent denials of that belief? Now, Cdl. Stickler is not trying to claim that clerical continence is like fiath in Christ’s divinity, but he is saying that what we see in the early local council’s legislation on celibacy is the reassertion of a longstanding position (in this case a discipline) in the face of a challenge perhaps not completely novel and yet now popular and persistent. The bishops of those councils affirm their desire to reinforce (or re-enforce) a discipline that as far as they know had always been “on the books,” if we take those books to be oral law.My recollection is that historically the rule was introduced at various times in various places. One would think that if the law were introduced once and followed, then it would not have to be re-introduced.
The Altar boy/girl quip was not an exaggeration. What do you think the Subdeacon did before Vatican II?I just got a chance to read the cardinal’s book yesterday, so can comment somewhat more informedly upon the issue, at least from his perspective.
Cdl. Stickler does not claim those councils to have imposed continence upon every cleric of any rank whatsoever (thus filtering down to your exaggeration of altar boys), rather, just as you said, those early councils imposed continence upon all major orders, with the subdiaconate as of then still being inconsistently classified as major or minor. In imposing that continence (that is, in forbidding both the contracting and/or the use of marriage), the early councils of the fourth century believed themselves to be reinforcing the previous discipline of the Church - i.e. not creating a new regulation - and enforcing an Apostolic discipline. While Cdl. Stickler seems willing to place solid trust in the Apostolic origins based on this witness, I would more cautiously say that while North Africa in particular was an incredibly traditional area, we cannot absolutely prove from this assertion any more than that the churches knew clerical continence to be of immemorial custom (apostolic being what they tended to call practices they couldn’t remember doing any differently).
Cdl. Stickler’s argument is that it is outright foolish to conclude, based on what we know of historical legal practice, that laws only came into effect upon being codified in written form. He is absolutely correct that ancient (and even medieval) civilization was governed by oral laws and traditions that could go centuries before ever being written down. To shift the focus later, to where I know a bit more, the role of a medieval legislator like a Carolingian king was not to make new laws - that was an absurd idea in a traditional society - but to determine and regularize practice based on traditional, often oral, law and enforce that. To put the cardinal’s point in an analogous, though qualitatively different way, let’s look at some of the ecumenical councils held in the fourth century. Before 325 we have no ecumenical councils that say Jesus Christ is God. How many Catholics or Orthodox would argue that, since this is the first statement of worldwide Catholic belief on the matter, that Catholics were not bound to believe in the divinity of Christ until 325? Wouldn’t we rather say that the Church had always believed in Christ’s divinity and was only now forced to clarify its thoughts based on novel, popular, and persistent denials of that belief? Now, Cdl. Stickler is not trying to claim that clerical continence is like fiath in Christ’s divinity, but he is saying that what we see in the early local council’s legislation on celibacy is the reassertion of a longstanding position (in this case a discipline) in the face of a challenge perhaps not completely novel and yet now popular and persistent. The bishops of those councils affirm their desire to reinforce (or re-enforce) a discipline that as far as they know had always been “on the books,” if we take those books to be oral law.
You are right, however, to say that if the rule were being overwhelmingly obeyed, there would have been no need for its reassertion, but if we are going to disqualify any ecclesiastical discipline based on widespread disobedience, well, we might as well say the Church has never had any disciplines (she certainly wouldn’t have a 1983 Code of Canon Law)! The Church has been plagued by sexually active priests even since the incontrovertible establishment of clerical celibacy, and even today in places such as Latin America has to deal with a large amount of concubinage, and this after at least a millenium of discipline against that very thing. That doesn’t mean the Church has no requirement of clerical celibacy/continence, it simply means we have further proof that human beings sin.
So, we don’t need:They were allowed to be married but they could not have sexual relations with their wives.
We don’t need priests who only will become priests if they were allowed to be married.
We need deeply committed priests who are manly enough to courageously face sacrifice and abstinence, and who can give their undivided attention to the things of the Lord.
Subdeacons served at the altar, but more specifically they were ordained (not to be confused with Holy Orders) unto permanent service at the altar. Altar boys, on the other hand, fill in for those subdeacons (but more accurately for acolytes, who were also not covered in the legislation on clerical continence). They are not permanently established within the Church for the task but are, rather, occasionally employed therein. That is an important distinction within the theological argument that Levitical continence is no longer appropriate to a New Testament priesthood (also advanced in Cdl. Stickler’s book).The Altar boy/girl quip was not an exaggeration. What do you think the Subdeacon did before Vatican II?
I just thought I’d revisit this to say that no one wants to seriously contest the existence of married clergy even within the Latin West - we know that they must have been rather common even in the 11th century. Nor would I wish to dispute the Catholicity of those Eastern Catholic churches who maintain a discipline of married clergy distinct from that of the West. The dispute, instead, is over the heretofore received notion that the married clergy of the first millenium were supposed to be living on the current Eastern model of exercising marital rights, as opposed to what some would now argue as the more ancient practice of continence within marriage, sometimes even to the extent of separation of domicile because of the difficulty of remaining faithful to such a commitment. It is my contention that Cdl. Stickler has at the very least made a compelling case that the Western practice was always one of married continence and was also the more ancient discipline, though I would not consider his argument an absolute proof of the matter (shrouded as the early centuries are in mystery and his book lacking extensive treatment of Eastern sources - which may also not exist).It took centuries for celibacy to become absolute in the Western rite. Whether the discipline was imposed because of apostolic origin, or apostiolic origin was used in part to justify mandatory celibacy is open to discussion. And you seem to be ignoring 2000 years of married clergy in the Catholic Church - those Eastern rite Catholics are every bit as Catholic as a Roman rite one.
I guess they were ex-Anglicans, they are in a special category, and exceptions to the rule just confirms it.So, we don’t need:
Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Fr. Ray Ryland
Fr. Al Kimel
Fr. Allen Hawkins
Fr. Peter Geldard
Fr. Evans David Gliwitzki
Fr. Bill Edebohls
Fr. Ron Cosslett (his son Fr. Dominic is not married but did convert and was ordained.)
Fr. John Pardo
Fr. James Livingstone
Fr. Stephen Smith
Do we need these married priests who were not ordained on the condition that they practice celibacy?