Why is celibacy required of Eastern Catholic priests?

[sidbrown]

Documentation, please?
!

Canon 758 §3

§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon

§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.

It says that special norms are to be observed unless you have a dispensation. And what are the special norms? I thought that the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, [44] which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, [45] stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Ruthenian Greek Catholics by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939.

 

[sidbrown]

Correction: it allows married men who previously served as Anglican priests to be ordained in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow men already ordained to marry.

Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Older rules allowing only celibate men to be ordained in Eastern Catholic Churches in the United States have been abolished and married Eastern Catholic men have been ordained to the priesthood in the United States.

Yes, American Melkites and Ukrainians do. Even among the Ruthenians, married men can be ordained.

Doesn’t it say that you have to get a dispensation from the norms?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Those are the norms. The Canon you stated earlier is for Latins, e.g. convert ministers from protestant ministries, any other limits that the Ruthenian bishops place are ones they (unnecessarily) place on themselves.

 

[Ghosty]

Canon 758 §3

§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon

§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.

It says that special norms are to be observed unless you have a dispensation. And what are the special norms? I thought that the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, [44] which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, [45] stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Ruthenian Greek Catholics by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939.

That is almost a century old. We’re talking about today, and you claimed that the Vatican currently forbids married Ruthenian priests. Since there are currently married priests in the Ruthenian Church, we need to see some documentation that the Vatican said (as of two years ago, per your claim) that married men can’t be ordained in the Ruthenian Church. We don’t even know that these rules from 1929 are the “special norms” referred to in the Ruthenian Code of Canon Law.

Peace and God bless!

 

[johnnykins]

I rather think that the salient question here should be why the Roman catholic Church should insist on celibacy for all clergy, when the ancient Church did not?

I do appreciate that there is some advantage in this rule - but it is abundantly clear that the disadvantages of it are harming the Church, and turning many away from the Church in modern times… Surely, celibacy should be the decision of the individual - and should not preclude anyone from Priestly office.

The Catholic Church - allow married Priests within many Rites. Why not for all?

An even better question, is why does the Orthodox Church insist on celibacy for it’s Bishops when the ancient Church did not? Surely celibacy should be the decision of the individual - and should not preclude anyone from episcopal office.

The ancient Church - allowed married Bishops. Why not now?

An even better question, is why do the Orthodox always make this point but always forget that they require celibate Bishops - for which all the arguments and answers are the same?

 

[Madaglan]

This is false. Married men are indeed ordained as priests today in the U.S. in the Ukrainian and Melkite Churches. You’re talking about an outdated issue that, while it did cause many problems in its day, is no longer in effect. This thread would have been pertinant a hundred years ago, but it’s a little behind the times.

It should be noted that the prohibition was made at the request of American Latin bishops; it wasn’t a unilateral action by the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

Do you know any information about the papal decree *Cum data fuerit *issued in 1929? I can’t seem to find the text online, and the only information I can find is that it was a re-affirmation of earlier enforcements of clerical celibacy. What led the Pope of Rome to issue this decree?

 

[aspirant]

Doesn’t it say that you have to get a dispensation from the norms?

The canon law of the Ruthenian Church requires dispensation. At least three married Ruthenian men have been ordained in the United States since its promulgation.

Melkites, Ukrainians, and Romanians do it more frequently.

 

[aspirant]

We don’t even know that these rules from 1929 are the “special norms” referred to in the Ruthenian Code of Canon Law.

They’re not.

 

[SenorTheo]

I believe there is at least one married male (a physician) who is preparing for the priesthood at SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary in the USA.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Greek Catholic married men are ordain priests today, the Vatican has not made an issue of it one way or the other. The only ones who prevent Byzantine Rite bishops from ordaining married men TODAY are themselves - the Melkites and Ukrainians do so openly, I think it’s mainly the Ruthenians that are still hesitant.

The Ruthenians have done it, they just are not too vocal about it.

 

[bkovacs]

We have seen recently that married Anglican priests will be accepted into the Roman Catholic Church. According to the following article, Pope Pius X required celibacy for Eastern Catholic priests, but according to an agreement of 1646, the Greek Catholic clergy had been granted the right to marry:
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758558,00.html
Why would not the Orthodox Chruch see this as a serious obstacle to any thought of reunion with the Roman Catholic Church. On the one hand, the Vatican allows the Anglican priests to be married, but it will not allow it for the Eastern rite priests in the USA?

They can be married!. At a local UGCC I go to once in a while. The priest is married. I have no problem whatsoever with that.

 

[KyivAndrew]

No. Celibacy is not required in our Church, and I am speaking as a member of the largest Eastern Catholic Church - the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. In my eparchy of Toronto, one of the largest in the diaspora, roughly 60% of the priests are married. Throughout my life, every parish I have attended has had a married parish priest, bar one, and each priest I have met has been outstanding, whether celibate or married. There were problems and misunderstandings in the past with some ordinations, but Ukraine is an independent country now as well leading to a reunion with millions of brothers and sisters who lived the church of the catacombs in the homeland. The latest code of Eastern canon law does not include any edict against married priests in English-speaking nations. Only bishops cannot be married.

Have a look at the homepage of the Archeparchy of Winnipeg next door to me on Vocations:
How do I become a celibate or married priest?

Generally, whether celibate or married, to qualify as a candidate to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Church, and, more specifically, in the Ukrainian Catholic Church:

archeparchy.ca/vocations.htm

 

[sidbrown]

The canon law of the Ruthenian Church requires dispensation. .

Yes. That is what I was referring to.
There is no requirement for dispensation in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would this requirement of a dispensation then be a form of latinisation or a violation of the agreement reached several hundred years ago between the Vatican and the Ruthenian Church?

 

[sidbrown]

That is almost a century old. We’re talking about today, and you claimed that the Vatican currently forbids married Ruthenian priests. Since there are currently married priests in the Ruthenian Church, we need to see some documentation that the Vatican said (as of two years ago, per your claim) that married men can’t be ordained in the Ruthenian Church. We don’t even know that these rules from 1929 are the “special norms” referred to in the Ruthenian Code of Canon Law.

Peace and God bless!

I think it is a question of requiring a dispensation.

 

[aspirant]

There is no requirement for dispensation in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Nor, as has been pointed out, for most Eastern Catholic Churches. The Ruthenian Church, for whatever reason, has opted for a different practice in the particular law of their own Church.

Would this requirement of a dispensation then be a form of latinisation or a violation of the agreement reached several hundred years ago between the Vatican and the Ruthenian Church?

It is their own canon law, neither the law of the Latin Church nor of the other Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Aramis]

One may not be married after ordination.

at least not without dispensation from one’s patriarch or the pope. I do know a Roman Deacon who was granted dispensation to remarry after his wife died. He did still have children at home, too. He was incardinated into the Archdiocese of Anchorage at the time. Don’t remember which one of my dad’s classmates it was.

 

[Hesychios]

An even better question … Surely celibacy should be the decision of the individual - and should not preclude anyone from episcopal office.

The ancient Church - allowed married Bishops. Why not now?

Yes, why not?

Are you an advocate of married bishops for all churches?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Ghosty,

Documentation, please?

We know of several married Ruthenian priests in this forum; some of the Ruthenian posters here have married pastors.

Would you care to name them?

I am curious.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\ We have seen recently that married Anglican priests will be accepted into the Roman Catholic Church.\

**There is no guarantee that they will be ordained to the Catholic prieshood, however.

Many of them, including some bishops, will be found to have marital impediments to even their reception as laymen, unless certain conditions are met.**

 

[Hesychios]

The Ruthenians have done it, they just are not too vocal about it.

It was my understanding that the only maried candidate to study at Ss Cyril and Methodius seminary has not yet been ordained. The rest have come from outside the Metropolia of Pittsburg. Of course, I have not kept current on these matters lately so I will yield to better sources.

I also remember something about Metropolitan Judson Procyk being in favor of the “married candidate option” but the other bishops did not. In any case it was (supposedly) the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and not the Vatican, that wanted the “special dispensation” clause in the particular norms. Metropolitan Judson’s untimely demise may have played a part in this, but I don’t know.

Bishop John Kudrick of Parma (consecrated 2002) was the most receptive to the idea of ordaining married men, last I remember.

It seems now that His Grace John may actually reinstitute the subdiaconate too (at least that is what I hear, he blessed some friends of mine to study with an Antiochian Village program too.) Of course the Ukrainians have not had this problem of missing subdeacons but the Ruthenians in North America certainly do (I don’t know about the Ruthenians in Slovakia and Hungary).

Part of the problem of instituting these changes now, and developing new training programs, is that the infrastructure and finances are lacking. A diocese that has to support a bishop and chancellor, plus 30 - 35 other priests with just 12,000 members is definitely challenged.