Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code

Roman Cholij
Canon 373 of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, which falls under the heading of "The Rights and Obligations of Clerics" (cc. 367-393), runs as follows: Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and so suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise the state of clerics joined in matrimony, as sanctioned by the praxis of the primitive Church and for centuries in the Eastern Churches, is to b held in honour.' In this paper 1 intend to give an extensive comrnentary on the background to and significance of this canon. The paper is divided into the following sections:
1) Present Law;

2) Attitudes towards an Eastern Catholic married clergy .A case study: the Ruthenian Church;
3) Vatican II and Eastern married clergy;
[ l ] Caelibatus clericorum propter regnum coelonun delectus et sacerdotio tam congruus ubique permagni faciendur est, prout fert universae Ecclesiae traditio; item status clericorum matrimonio iunctorum praxi Ecclesiae primaevae et Ecclesiarum orientalium per saecula sancitus in honore habendus est. 1 have not followed the English translation of the Canon Law Society of America which has, for the second part of the canon: "likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor" (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Latin-English Edition, 1992, p. 195). Apart from the fact that sancitus refers to status, not praxis, the Code Commission had intentionally eliminated the word "tradition" from the original formulation of this part of the canon, as found in the 1986 Schema (c. 371, Nuntia, 24-25; cf. Nuntia 28, p. 63).

u;m*., ~ ~ 5 ~ m ~ ? ? ~ ~ s > m ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ , Y * ~ m w m ~ ~ ? ? t ? ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ; ~ * ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * > ~ ? t ~ ? ~ > ~ > ~ ~ * < < .

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 3 No. 3

4) Canon 373 and the Magisterium;

5 ) Conclusion: Future directions.

In this last section 1 will base my reflections on the most recent pronouncements of the Magisterium, namely the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis, issued by His Holiness John Paul II on 25 March 1992: and the more recent Directory on the ministry and li e O priests issued by the Congregation for Clergy on 3 1 January 1994.

Present law
The shortage of vocations to the priesthood, especially in countries of the diaspora where the Eastern Catholic faithful are in danger of being absorbed into the Latin Church, places the question of a married clergy in those countries in the highest relief. Canon 373 of the Oriental Code establishes unequivocally that married clergy are a legitimate feature of the Eastern Churches and are to be held in honour. In the Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones of 18 October 1990, by which Pope John Paul II promulgated the Oriental code: we read that "the constant and firm intent of the supreme legislator in the Church is clear concerning the faithful preservation and accurate observance of al1the Eastern rites ...," and again, "The faithful guardianship of the rites ought clearly to be in conforrnity with the supreme end of al1 law of the Church," namely the "salvation of s ~ u l s . " ~ v e that the Church must ~i n do al1 that it can to provide the Eucharist and everything else that leads to the salvation of souls, and given the general norm of canon 6,1: "al1 common or particular laws are abrogated which are contrary to the
[2] AAS 84 (1992), pp. 657-804.
[3] Congregatio pro clericis, Directorium pro presbyterorum ministerio et vita, Libreria editrice Vaticana. 1994.
[4] AAS 82 (1990), pp. 1033-1044.

[5] Ibid., 1037; 1038.

* .:<* ;

ode

canons of the Code or which pertain to a matter ex integro regulated in this Code," it might appear that the previous decrees of the Apostolic See, restricting the ordination or ministry of married clergy in countries of the diaspora, have been abrogated. Although this interpretation can be found in the literature: the Code itself clears up any doubts as to current law. In the section on the subject of sacred ordination, canon 758 - 53 states: "The particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed in admitting married men to sacred or der^."^ This was added to the Code as a result of the observations by some members of the Commission that the discipline of a celibate clergy in some regions, or its continued observance, had not been alluded to or safeguarded in canon 373 (c. 371 of the 1986 chern na).^

Attitudes towards an Eastern Catholic married clergy A case study: the Ruthenian Church As is well known, the main legal charter for an Eastern married clergy is the Trullan Synod of 691, and more specifically canon 13 of d . ~ this ~ ~ n oIn Orthodox tradition this Synod with al1 its canons is

[6] E.g. Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Marriage Law according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Saint Maron Publications, 1991, p. 303.
[7] Circa coniugatos ad ordines sacros admittendos servetur ius particulare propriae Ecclesiae sui iuris vel normae speciales a Sede Apostolica statutae.

[8] Cf. Nuntia 28, p. 62.

[9] P.P. Joannou, Fonti per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale, fasc. I X , Discipline GnraleAntique, I,1,1962,140-143.The canon reads: "Since we know it to have been handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should no longer cohabit with their wives we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marnages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward made firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual relations at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon or deacon or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful relations with

~ ~ ~ \ : > ~ ~ : < ~ h ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ % ~ ? > > < : : > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . w ~ . . > ~ . ~ ~ % \ ~ ~ ~ < m a &

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 3 No. 3

accepted as part of the ecumenical heritage of the first seven councils. Rome, however, persistently refused to accept the legality of this canon since it was directly opposed to and contradicted Roman and Western laws.1O
his wife lest we should insult marriage constituted by God and blessed by His presence, as the Gospel says: 'What God has joined together let no man put asunder [Mt 19,6]', and the Apostle says: 'Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled [Heb 13,4],' and again, 'Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed [I Cor 7, 271.' "But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage said, caring for the honest life of the clergy, 'that subdeacons who wait upon the Holy Mysteries, and deacons and presbyters, should abstain from their spouses during the periods particularly (assigned) to them, so that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for al1 things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is proper that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent during the time when they are handling holy things, in order to obtain in al1 simplicity what they ask for from God.' If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter or deacon or subdeacon, of cohabitation and relations with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner, also if any presbyter or deacon, on pretence of piety, has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persists in this, let him be deposed." For a full study of this canon, see R. Cholij, Clerical celibacy in East and West, Leominster, U K : Gracewing-Fowler Wright Bks, 1989 (= "Married clergy and ecclesiastical continence in light of the Council in Trullo (691)," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 19 (1987), 7 1-230; 241-299); see, especially, chapter four. [IO] Rome did eventually acknowledge and approve the decrees of the Trullan Synod, but only after much hesitation and with restrictive clauses. Pope John VI11 (872-882) established a principle which has been adhered to in the Roman Church up to this century: "Therefore, the regulations which the Greeks use as issued by the Sixth Synod the main See admits in this Synod [probably the Synod of Troyes, 8781 in such wise that those regulations are in no way received which are opposed to the previous canons or decrees of the holy pontiffs of this See or, certainly, to good morals." 1. D. Mansi, ConciliorumAmplissima Collectio, t. XII, col. 982; cf. . also Hadrian 1 (772-795), ibid., col 1077. H. 1 Cicognani, secretary of the Pontifical Commission for the Codification of Oriental Canon Law, could assert: "The 102 Trullan canons had juridical value for the Oriental community" but within the limits set by John VIII. Codij?cazioneCanonica Orientale, Fonti, fasc. I X , Disciplina Generale Antica Rome, 1933, pp. VIII-IX.

I l * ' " l m ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ , w > ~ ? ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ l l : > > ! ~ ? 2 ~~~w~~~~~~~~<~~,w~~~~~,~~<~~.~-~it.tt:*trSirSirSi~~~:iaPi.i*,,~~~*~Y9*+~

Celibay, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code

A consequence of this was that canonists in the later centuries of Union would regard the tradition of an Eastern married clergy as a factual, but not legal, custom, to be "permitted" or "tolerated for the sake of Union but otherwise remaining unapproved by legitimate (i.e. Roman) authority.ll Presupposed in this attitude towards the clerical discipline of the East was the ecclesiology which held as defective the legislative authority of the Heads of "schismatic" or "dissident" Churches, and the supposition that this custom, contrary to that of the Western Church, was not fully reasonable or truly a good for the church.12 Such a view was modified in the twentieth century, about which 1 shall comment later in this paper. But, it is also important to point out another reason for Rome's negative attitude towards a married clergy: the firmly held conviction that the primitive discipline of the Church, Eastern as well as Western, required total continence of its clergy. Married candidates to the priesthood were under the obligation to live absolute marital continence once higher orders had been received. The discipline of Trullo thus departed from apostolic practice. This was the traditional view of the Magisterium. To this point, also, 1 shall later return.
For these reasons it should not be surprising to find in the various pontifical documents and curial instructions to the Eastern Catholic Churches constant allusions to celibacy as the preferential and ideal discipline, and clerical marriage as a second best and authorised by Rome as a concession or indulgence. Thus, to take one example, Pope Benedict XIV, in his Constitution Etsi Pastoralis of 26 May 1742, writes:

[ I l ] For details, see R. Cholij, Clerical celibacy in East and West, pp. 179-192 (="Married clergy and ecclesiastical continence," pp. 258-272). [12] For a custorn to be legal it must be, inter alia, "reasonable" and accepted by legitimate authority: cf. CIC (1917), cc. 25-27 where references to the early sources of the Corpus iuris canonici are to be found. For the negative opinions of pre-Vatican II canonists on the ability of "dissident" Orientals to create legal customs, see the sources cited in C. Pujol, "La consuetudine degli orientali separati," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 27 (1971),p. 136 and footnote.

>\r>~~~~,>>:>~*~*~~,~~.>~;~;~;~~PWU-PWU-PWU-:PWU-~~111111.:1111111,,1111,:11111:::111111::*1111~~~11111::1~<x:>>>~~,,~~~'~~~~~.~~.~...~li*~~~~~~>~,\~~.~...~~::~,~~

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3

Even though it is very greatly to be desired that Greeks in Sacred Orders should observe chastity in a manner no different from Latins, nevertheless, the Roman Church does not prohibit Clerics, Subdeacons, Deacons and Presbyters from retaining their wives in their ministry, as long as they marry before [reception of] Sacred Orders a virgin, and not a widow or a loose woman. 13 In the nineteenth century, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith directed the Synods of the Oriental Catholic Churches by suggesting or approving the synodal agenda, which always included the promotion, but not obligation, of clerical celibacy. One scriptural passage that would invariably be included in the synodal acts was 1 Corinthians 7:32-34: "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided."14 At the L'viv Provincial Synod of 1891, convened by the Hierarchy of the Ruthenian (or Ukrainian) Church, the instructions of Propaganda led to unexpected opposition, and to heated debates that were protracted even decades after the end of the synod. l 5
[13] Apostolic Constitution, Etsi Pastorali, 7, xxv. Collectio Lucensis II, pp. 5 16-5 17: Etsi expetendum quam maxime esset, ut Graeci qui sunt in Sacris Ordinibus constituti castitatem non secus ac Latini servarent: nihilominus ut eomm Clerici, Subdiaconi, Diaconi et Presbyteri uxores in eomm ministerio retineant, dummodo ante Sacros Ordines virgines non viduas neque,cormptas duxerint, Romana non prohibet Ecclesia ...
[14] The Romanian Synod of Alba-Julia and Fogaras, 1872, included these words (Titulus VII, c.iii): Quoniam apostolus dicit: "Qui sine uxore est sollicitus est quae Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo, " idcirco qui in se magnum isthoc Deo qua coelibes ac proinde a curis familae immunes serviendi donum sentirest, meminerint, ipsum eorundem maioris perjktionis statum, vitam omni sub respectu magis exemplarem, atque ab omni vel minima suspicionis umbra remotam exigere. Mansi, 4 2 , 5 8 2 ~ . 1151 Propaganda had written: Equidem optandum esset, ut sacerdotes coniugii et familiae curis, occupationibus et negotiis non detinerentur. Ut enim monet Apostolus ( I Cor VII) "qui sine uxore est sollicitus est q u e Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo; qui autem cum uxore est sollicitus est, quae sunt mundi, quomodo

and the Orientai Code

>%>...h~..~.~.,.~.~,~~r~~\.%.7,.~~7<<2:<:~A~?%*,~,u-.

Most of the Synod Fathers were married priests, and the majority were against the inclusion of the text of 1Corinthians 7:32-34, although they were not against the moderate promotion of celibacy as such. The text voted upon, to be forwarded to Rome for approval, began as follows: The present Provincial Synod firrnly confesses the teaching of the holy universal Catholic Church that the unmarried state is more perfect than the married state, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, 1 Cor 7:38: "He who marries his betrothed does well, and he who does not marry does better." But because, furthermore, the Saviour in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 19:12, said: "Whoever is able to accept it, let him accept it," the celibate state as a more perfect state is only an evangelical counsel and can be imposed on no one from above...16 The text that was approved by the Propaganda, however, and which was officially inserted into the Acta and Decreta of the Synod, was altogether a different text from the one the Synodal Fathers had wanted. It was similar to an earlier draft that had actually been rejected for fear that this would introduce obligatory celibacy. This earlier version was slightly reworked by the Congregation itself, with the words of 1 Cor. 7:32-34 appearing prominently. The final text, inserted into the Acta, runs: This Synod firmly recognizes that the unmarried state is more perfect than the married state, according to the words of the Apostle: "The unmarried man is solicitous about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is solicitous about the things of the world, how to please his wife,
placeat uxori et divisus est." Archivium S. congregationis Orientalis, Lettere, vol. 22, p. 302. On this wholeissue, see theunpublished doctoral dissertation of Myron Stasiv, Synodus Leopolitana, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1959, esp. pp. 217-239 and John-Paul Himka, The Issue of Clerical Celibacy at the L'viv Provincial Synod of 1891, pro manuscriptu, 1993 (?), pp. 1-52.

[16] Himka, p. 24; P. Martyniuk, Nepodil'ne sertse sviashchenyka v sluzhbi Boha i tserkvy, Zhovka: Drukarnia 00. Vasyliian, 1935, pp. 189-190.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3

m ~ W U i > > ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ h \ w ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

<

<

<

>

>

and he is divided." Because, however, the Catholic Church for grave reasons has permitted and permits seminarians of our rite before ordination, or in the lower orders, to have the freedom, according to the grace given to them by Cod, either to remain always in celibacy, which would be best, or to marry a virgin, the Synod, recognizing this freedom and leaving it undisturbed, nonetheless, in consideration of the benefit and need of Our Church, urges the seminary authorities to support and confirm in their intention, by benevolent and prudent counsel, those seminarians well disposed to accept celibacy. 17 It was perhaps nave to think that the Ruthenian Church, whose tradition of married clergy was so tied up with national history and national interests, would graciously accept that theirs was a tradition perrnitted only for "grave reasons" and that the majority of their clergy were considered to be, if even only by implication, more solicitous for the things of this world and for their wives. The Propaganda, although conscious of the hostile opposition to this way of promoting celibacy, was still determined to press ahead as far as it dared. Celibacy was becoming an urgent issue for another reason, not explained to the Synod Fathers: the situation developing across the Atlantic Ocean. Ruthenian emigrants to North America, coming both from Transcarpathia and from Galicia, were increasing in numbers and needed an increased number of their own priests for spiritual assistance. The American Latin
1171 Acta et Decreta Synodi Provincialis Ruthenorum Galiciae, habitue Leopoli 1891, statum coelibum Rome, 1986,pp. 138-9:HaecSynodusfirmiterquidernprofitetur, pe$ectiorem esse statu coniugali, dicente Apostolo: "quisine uxore est, sollicitus est quae Domini sunt, quomodo placeat Deo. Qui autem cum uxore est, sollicitus est quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus est" (1 Cor. VII, 32-33). Cum tamen Ecclesia Catholica ex gravibus rationibus sivent et sinat ut clerici nostri ritus ante manuum impositionem seu in minoribus consituti libertatem habeant secundum gratiam sibi a Deo datam, vel in coelibatu perpetuo manere, quod optimum esset, vel uxorem virginem ducere, Synodus dum libertatem hanc agnoscit et integram relinquit, respectu tamen habito ad Ecclesiae nostrae utilitatem et necessitatem, Seminariorum moderatores hortatur ut alumnos bene dispositos ad coelibatum amplectendum, benevolo ac prudenti consilio in hos proposito foveant atque confirment.

'3&mrn--x*<

\ , T h ? ,

Celibag, Married C m a n d the Oriental Code m*

,Y ,

U"Y

"

A4

Hierarchy, however, had taken immediate exception to the first Ruthenian clergy. There were two reasons for this. Firstly, these priests claimed to be free of their jurisdiction, receiving it directly from their own bishops in Europe. But secondly, and equally as important, they objected to the married status of the clergy. They claimed that their Roman Catholic faithful could not distinguish between a Ruthenian married priest and a Protestant minister, and this was a cause of confusion and of scandal. The presence of married priests was also held to be a danger to the chastity of the celibate Roman Catholic clergy.18 Propagandarespondedto the situationby decreeing,on 1 October 1890, among other things, that al1 priests of the "Greek-Ruthenian Rite" who wished to immigrate to and remain in the United States had to be celibate.19 The European bishops were requested to withdraw the married clergy, sending celibates or widowers without children in their place. The scarcity of celibate clergy in Europe, however, meant that some flexibility in applying this regulation had to be made. It is within this wider context that the promotion of celibacy at the L'viv Provincial Synod should also be placed. In the ensuing years the prohibition of a married clergy in North America was several times reaffirmed in the context of other instructions and decrees that sought to regulate the life and juridical status of the immigrant Oriental Church, culminating in the decree Cum data fuerit of 1929.20 Article 12 of this decree repeats verbatim the instruc[18] Constantin Simon, "The first years of Ruthenian Church life in America," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 60 (1994), pp. 187-232. For more general information on the background of the American Ruthenian Church, see Bohdan P. Procko, Ukrainian Catholics in America: A History, University Press of America: Washington, D.C., 1982; Walter Paska, Sources of Particular Law for the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States, Washington D.C., 1975.

[19] Sacerdotes ritus graeco-rutheni, qui in Status Foederatos Americae Septentrionalis projcisci et commorari cupiunt, debent esse coelibes. Simon, ibid., p. 208; American Ecclesiastical Review 7 (1892), 66-67.
[20] E.g. the decree of 1 May 1897, Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, vol I I , n. 1966; Ea Semper, 14 June 1907, art. 12: Acta Sanctae Sedis 41 (1908), p. 6.

tion of 1 October 1890: "Again, as it has now been decreed several times, priests of the Greek-Ruthenian Rite who desire to emmigrate to the United States of North America and to remain there must be celibate.'"' The Ruthenians in Canada were also subject to the same discipline,22 which was reaffrmed the following year in the decree Graeci-rutheni rit^.^^ By the end of 1929, in fact, the Sacra Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali (as it was now known) had extended this prohibition to al1 ernigr Oriental clergy, of whatever Rite, in North, .~~ Central and South America, and in ~ u s t r a l i a1 shall return to these decrees later, but it should be noted in passing that the restriction of legitimate rights, when othenvise they are a cause of harm through scandal, has always been part of accepted hierarchical stewardship over the Church (cf. 1Cor 10:23-33). The Trullan Synod itself restricted the rights of married bishops to cohabit with their spouses, requiring the latter to live in a convent, so as not to give scandal and offence to the people.25
[21] ...Interim, sicut iam pluries statutum est, sacerdotes ritus graeco-rutheni, qui in
Status Foederatos Americae septentrionalis projcisci et commorari cupiunt, debent esse coelibes: AAS 21 (1929), p. 155.

[22] Cf. the decree, Fidelibus ruthenis, 18 August 1913,AAS 5 (1913), pp. 393-400, art. 11 (p. 395):Ad sacrum ministerium exercendum apudjdeles rutheni ritus non admittantur sacerdotes nisi sint caelibes vel saltem vidui et absque liberis, integri vita, zelo ac pietate praediti, sufficienter eruditi, lueri non cupidi et a politicis factionibus alieni. See also nn. 10, 12, ibid.
[23] 24 May 1930, AAS 22 (1930), pp. 346-354. Article 15 reads: Quoad autem sacerdotes ex Europae regionibus provenientes, ad sacrum ministerium exercendum apud jdeles rutheni ritus non admittantur nisi sint coelibes (vel saltem vidui sine liberis) integra vita, zelo ac pietate praediti, suficienter eruditi, et a politicis factionibus alieni. Ibid., p. 349.

[24] Decree, Qua sollerti, 23 December 1929,AAS 22 (1930), PP. 99-105, art. 6 (pp. 102-103): Ad sacrum ministerium exercendum in praefatis regionibus non admittantur sacerdotes saeculares m r e m habentes, sed solum sacerdotes caelibes, aut vidui. Vidui tamen iustis de causis ab hac Sacra Congregatione excludipoteruntab iis dioecesibus et locis, in quibus eorum proles forte degat aut quocumque modo inveniatur, pariterque si in viciniis eorundem locorum.

[25] Synod of Trullo (691), cc. 12 and 48. Joannou, ibid., pp. 138-139; 186. Canon 12

Let us now return, briefly, to the Ruthenian Church. It must not be thought that the prelates themselves were against the promotion of celibacy within their own Church. We know that from the very first years of the Union of Brest (1596) there were movements afoot, althou h without much success, to increase the number of celibate clergy? In the years following the Provincial Synod of L'viv the bishops made a concerted effort to reverse the tradition of an almost exclusive rnarried diocesan clergy. By 1926 two of the three seminaries in Galicia had introduced the policy of only ordaining unmarried candidates to the priesthood. Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky), the Archbishop of L'viv, however, did not follow the policy of his confrere ~ . attitude to rnarried clergy and his bishops for his own ~ e r n i n a rHis ~ ~ reasons for not decreeing mandatory celibacy are worth noting.

reads: "Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved prelates in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after their consecration, thereby giving scanda1 and offense to the people. Since, therefore, it is Our particular concern that al1 things are to be done for the edification of the people comrnitted to our care, it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of this kind should ever occur again. And we Say this not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by apostolic authority, but as caring for the spiritual health of the people and their progress in virtue, and lest ecclesiastical discipline suffer any reproach. For the blessed Apostle says: 'Do al1 to the glory of God, give offense to no one, neither to the Jews nor to the Greeks, not to the Church of God, even as 1 please al1 men in al1 things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, even as 1 also am of Christ' [l Cor 10, 31-1 1, 11. But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed."

[26] Cholij, p. 173; Martyniuk, passim.

[27] Details are to be found in Martyniuk, and in R. Cholij, The Question o Celibacy f in Galicia, 1891-1946,Licentiate Thesis for the Faculty of Canon Law, Gregorian University, 1984 (unpublished). Although al1the bishops agreed, at a meeting that took place in 1919, to introduce compulsory celibacy, the Metropolitan soon changed his rnind and decided, instead, to implement an earlier decision to reserve a certain number of places at his L'viv Seminary for those to be ordained as celibates.

Eastern Churches Journal . .

i* ii r A ~ . ~

Aware of the need to send celibate missionary priests to North America, the Metropolitan issued a pastoral letter in 1918 On the formation of students and the evangelical counsels.28 In this letter, while recognizing the virtues and merits of good married priests, the author urges his seminarians to have a greater sense of self-sacrifice and to embrace the more noble state of celibacy. Al1 the bishops, during this period, were concerned with the renewal of the spiritual life of the nation, but also - on a more practical note - with easing the econornic burdens imposed on the Church by priests who had wives and families to support.29 Whereas the other bishops introduced celibacy by decree, Metropolitan Andrew would not close the doors altogether on married priests. His conviction was that celibacy was a necessity for his Church, but that it could only come about through proper education and training, requiring time and patien~e.~' Writing to Pope Pius XI in 1929, the Metropolitan says:
1am profoundly convinced that it is Jesus Christ himself who has inspired the Catholic Church to have the law of ecclesiastical celibacy for secular clergy. 1 am very well aware of the very great and very happy effects of this law in al1 the Church ... 1 believe that for it to be fruitful, celibacy in the Oriental Churches must be the result of a great religious current, a great religious movement, and it is in trying to provoke this that 1 have been workin since the very beginnings of my priestly 1 and episcopal life.

[28] L'vivski-Archieparchialni Vidomosti, n. 5, 31 August, 1918. Text also in Martyniuk, pp. 204-209.

[29]Martyniuk, p. 210-211 (1929 edition).

[30] Cf. Letter to Pope Pius XI, 10 December 1925: "De mon ct, Lopol, je tche
d'avoir le plus grand nombre possible de bons clibataires par l'influence de l'ducation et par la persuasion, mais je leur laisse tous la libert de choix." ". ..i'introduction du clibat m'apparait comme une ncessit, condition toutefois qu'elle soit progressive et (...) prudente, bass surtout sur la bonne ducation dans les seminaires."

[31] Letter, 2 December 1929: "Je suis trs profondement persuad que c'est Jsus

< * a s * a s ~ l i l i l i l i l i l i l i - . I s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < . ~ ~ : ~ ,~ ~ ~~ '~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .

Celibacy Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code< m ~ w < ? <

'

He then goes on to Say that he hopes the hour will come when there is general practice of celibacy among the clergy. However, the Metropolitan continues,
1 eamestly desire the introduction of ecclesiastical celibacy in Our Church, but 1 do not believe in the possibility of introducing it by a decree, not only because 1 would not dare take upon myself the responsibility of such a decree; not only because such a decree would be the Latin and Western way, which would greatly shock Orientals; but above al1because a celibacy introduced by decree and not based on a sufficiently profound understanding, would produce bad celibates, who could cause great harm to souls...

... I do not believe that one can change by decree and in an instant a practice that has lasted for centuries, and which, however regrettable it may be, has always been tolerated by the Roman Church. Certainly, it is necessary to change this practice, but without great struggles and shocks which do so much damage to souls, and without allowing the dissidents to Say that the fundamental principles of the Act of Union of the Ruthenian Church have been ~ h a n ~ e d . ~ ~
Christ lui-mme qui a inspir 1'Eglise catholique la loi du clibat ecclsiastique pour le clrg sculier. Je me rends trs bien compte de trs grands et trs heureux effets de cette loi dans toute 1'Eglise... Je crois que pour tre fructueux, le clibat doit tre - dans les Eglises orientales - la consquence d'un grand courant, d'un profond mouvement religieux et c'est le provoquer que je travaillais depuis les dbuts mmes de ma vie sacerdotale et piscopale."

[32] "Je dsire instamment l'introduction du clibat ecclsiastique dans notre Eglise, mais je ne crois pas la possibilit de l'introduire par un dcret, non seulement parce que je n'ose pas prendre la rsponsabilit d'un pareil dcret sur moi; non seulement parce qu'un dcret pareil serait le moyen latin et occidental, qui choquerait beaucoup les orientaux: mais, avant tout, parce qu'un clibat introduit par dcret et non bas sur une comprhension suffisamment profonde, produira de mauvais clibataires, qui pourront beaucoup nuire aux mes. ... Je ne crois pas qu'on puisse changer par un dcret et en un moment une pratique qui dure depuis des sicles, et, tout malheureuse qu'elle est, a t toujours tolre par 1'Eglise Romaine. Il faut, certes, changer cette pratique, mais sans

Eastern Churches Journal Vol. 3 No. 3

Vatican II and Eastern married clergy Earlier in this paper 1 had intimated that, in my opinion, Rome, in its promotion of celibacy for the Eastern Churches, had never given legal sanction to what was considered to be a a defective clerical discipline. Until this century the juridical personality of the dissident or schismatic Churches was at best dubious and the supreme legislative authority for dissident cornmunities was still considered to be the
grandes luttes, et secousses qui nuisent tellement aux mes, et sans laisser dire aux dissidents qu'on change les principes fondamentaux de l'Acte de l'Union de 1'Eglise Ruthne." The letters I have quoted from are as yet unpublished. For the sake of documentation 1 will also quote here extracts from a report made by Metropolitan Andrew for Rome on the occasion of an Apostolic visitation by a certain Padre Gennochi, 12 February 1923: "... Le grand problme, dans l'oeuvre de cette ducation [au sminaire], est d'amener peu peu notre clerg au clibat. Dans cette cause plus encore dans toute autre, l'excs de rigeur m'a toujours sembl dangereux. Cette question a toujours t considre comme une question dlicate par l'opinion du clerg et mme des sculiers, c'tait aussi un peu un problme social et national. La famille du prtre avait eu durant des gnrations entires une position un peu analogue celle des grands propritaires, et les filles de prtres taient souvent destines se marier avec les jeunes gens qui avaient fini leur sminaire. Nous avons donc pour cette question lutter avec des prjugs, des traditions, des coutumes sculaires, et nous ne pouvons avancer que lentement: il fallait traiter cette jeunesse avec beaucoup de patience et beaucoup d'gards pours leurs traditions de famille. Il n'y a pas plus d'une trentaine d'annes la majorit des sminaristes taient des fils de prtres; maintenant, cette proportion a beaucoup chang en faveur des fils de paysans et d'intellectuels sculiers; je considre cela pour un grand progrs. Dans le cas d'une vocation de fils de sculier, la vocation peut tre plus sincre, car elle n'est pas influence par la tradition du pre. L'ide de la vocation aux conseils de l'Evangile, au clibat, se dveloppe ordinairement lentement dans l'me d'un jeune Ukrainien de Galicie et est souvent gte par l'influence de la famille et de la socit... Nous tous, les vques de la province, sommes dcids pousser de toutes nos forces au clibat, car nous voyons bien que le manque de prtres clibataires est la cause d'une grande faiblesse pour notre Eglise; pour moi personnellement, je crois que cette lacune fait tarir la source des vocations religieuses, car une socit qui est accoutume un systme dans lequel on donne ce qui est plus lev, le sacerdoce, sans exiger d'efforts, perd la tendance faire l'effort du sacrifice pour obtenir ce qui est moins lev, l'tat religieux ..."

\%*'<a~-h*&\%w..<<~~<:>>>*%Y&%<*%*.%

ried Clergy, and the Oriental Code

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~ : ~ ~ ~ ? < : > ~ ~ . . * : ; ~ ; :

Roman ~ o n t i f f .Thus, any laws or customs from the Oriental ~~ Churches that altered the canonical patrimony of the Church when it was still undivided, were considered to be without effect for the schismatic Oriental faithful unless given at least tacit approval by Rome. An Eastern married clergy was not considered to be a legitimate discipline of the undivided Church, but a custom that had developed in defiance of Rome in the post-Trullan time of Schism. Its legitimacy could only come from an act of approbation by the Roman Pontiff. Permission for, or toleration of, a married clergy, for both dissident Orthodox and united Oriental Catholic Churches, was the prerogative of Rome alone. This is evidenced in the decrees for Oriental Catholics in the Americas. The issue, as far as Rome was concerned, was whether it should grant its permission for, or extend its favour to, a married Oriental clergy ministering outside the historical territories of the Eastern Churches. It was not a question of restricting the inalienable canonical rights of the Eastern Churches or interfering in their legitimate canonical patrimony.34

[33] Cf. canon 87 (CIC 1917) : Baptismate homo constituitur in Ecclesia Christi persona cum omnibus christianorum iuribus et oficiis, nisi, ad iura quod attinet, obstet obex, ecclesiasticae communionis vinculum impediens, vel lata ab Ecclesia censura; canon 1325 $2: Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquum ex veritatibusfide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schisrnaticus est; canon 25: Consuetudo in Ecclesia vim legis a consensu competentis Superioris ecclesiastici unice obtinet.

[34] This is seen in a letter from the Congregation for the Eastern Church to Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate in Washington, 23 June 1934: "And moreover, when the Holy See recognized the particularities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596 during the Pontificate of Clement VIII, and from the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual tradition of the Ruthenians. As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at al1 times and in al1 places, without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > > ~ ~ ~ > > > > x , % ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ < ~ ~ > m > > % ~ ~ ? ~ ~ x ~ > ~ ~ , > > > ~

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3

Two developments occurred in the twentieth century, however, which changed Catholic thinking towards Eastern married clergy. The first was a shift in historical scholarship. From the turn of the century, and then with gathering momentum, Catholic historians began to accept that the Trullan Synod, with its legislation on married clergy, was but another stage in a continuous tradition of a married clergy that dates from apostolic tir ne^.^^ As a consequence of this the discipline of a married clergy could no longer be thought of as a tolerated detraction from Catholic discipline, or theoretically in need of approval by the .~~ Roman ~ o n t i f fSecondly, in the documents of Vatican II there was no reference to the separated Oriental Churches as "schismatics" or "dissidents"; on the contrary, the Council says they cannot "be accused of the sin of separation," but rather are "in a kind of communion with the Catholic Church." Furthermore, to dispel al1 doubt, the Council declared that "the Churches of the East, while rnindful of the necessary unity of the Church as a whole, have the right to govern themselves
originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly seem advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and a mentality altogether different." Diabnia 2 (1976), p. 144.

[35] See the historiographical study of Christian Cochini, (transl. N. Marans),Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1990, pp. 18-46 (= Origines apostoliques du clibat sacerdotal, Lethielleux: Paris, 1981, pp. 39-68).
[36] An unequivocal allusion to the legitimacy of Oriental clerical discipline is found in the encyclical letter, Ad catholici sacerdotii, of Pope Pius XI, 20 December 1935,AAS 28 (1936), pp. 5-53, p. 28: "... We do not wish that what We said in commendation of clerical celibacy should be interpreted as though it were Our mind to blame, or, as it were, disapprove the'different discipline legitimately prevailing in the Oriental Church (non idcirco intellegi volumus, ac si Nobis in mente esset absimilem illam disciplinam quodammodo improbare ac redarguere, q u e in Orientalem Ecclesiam legitime invecta est). What we have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something We consider one of the glories of the Catholic priesthood; something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to His purposes in regard to priestly souls." In this same document, however, the apostolic origin of celibacy is still maintained (pp. 24-27). The Pope's declaration must therefore be seen either as an implicit act of approbation or as a recognition of the juridical capacity of separated Orientals to form legal customs.

* %- --& * m x s- m , %a ,

Celibacy w s > A *>mxmm Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code d mm&-=&
Y % .

<%

%"W,

< - <, < \ ar

according to the disciplines proper to themselves, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful and more for the good of their ~ o u l s . "Translated into legal terms, this means that the Council ~~ recognises in the separated Oriental communities true, even though imperfect,juridical personality and their ca acity to form legal custom without the approval of the Roman Church? This would also seem to apply to the custom of married clergy. In the section de consuetudine, the present Oriental Code, unlike the 1917 Code and the 1983 Latin Code, does not in fact affirm the need for the approval of any competent legislator. Canon 1506 5 1, states: "The custom of the Christian cornrnunity, insofar as it responds to the action of the Holy Spirit in the ecclesial body, can have the force ~~~ of l a w . The argument for the legality of Oriental married clergy without Rome's approval is thus further strengthened. And to further the case, one has but to refer to Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter, Sacerdotalis caelibatus, 24 June 1967, in which the Roman Pontiff states: "If the legislation of the Eastern Church is different in the matter of discipline with regard to clerical celibacy ...this is due to the different historical background of that most noble part of the Church, a situation which the Holy Spirit has providentially and supernaturally influenced (Sanctum Spiritum provido supernoque auxilio suo praejisse).'aO The Second Vatican Council, in its decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, had also affirmed the full legitimacy of the Oriental discipline.41In doing this
[37] Unitatis Redintegratio, chap 1, n. 3; n. 16.
[38] The capacity for self-governance presupposes legitimate legislative power. Canon 25 (CIC, 1917) read: Consuetudo in Ecclesia vim legis a consensu competentis Superioris ecclesiastici unice obtinet. The competent Superior therefore (according to my understanding of the terms of the Council), can refer to a Hierarch of a separated Oriental Church when approving a custom. Cf. Nuntia 10, p. 104.

[39] Consuetudo communitatis christianae, quatenus actuositati Spiritus Sancti in corpore ecclesiali respondet, vim iuris obtinere potest. For a discussion on this canon, see Nuntia 10, pp. 101-104.
[40] AAS 59 (1967), pp. 672-673.

[41] Paragraph 16: "While recommending ecclesiastical celibacy this sacred Council

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 3 No. 3

< * . s a > % . ~ ~ ~ ~ *

the Council was both consistent with its own ecclesiology and was following the recedents already set by the previous Pontiffs Pius XI and Pius XII. The Council's historical perception of the historical origin of a married clergy likewise favoured this positive approach (PO, n. 16):

The perfect and perpetual continence for the kingdom of heaven that was cornrnended by Christ Our Lord (Mt 19:22), has been willingly accepted and admirably observed by many of the faithful throughout the ages, as in Our own day. It has always been held of the greatest value in the church in a special way for the priestly life.... It is not of course required by the very nature of the priesthood, as is clear from the practice of the early Church (1 Tm 3:2-5; Tt 1:6) and the tradition of the Eastern Churches; in these there are admirable married priests side by side with those who, together with al1 the bishops, have the grace of choosing to observe celibacy.

does not by any means aim at changing that contrary discipline which is lawfully practised in the Eastern Churches (... nul10 modo absimilem illam disciplinam immutare intendit quae in Orientalibus Ecclesiis legitime viget). Rather, the Council affectionately exhorts al1 those who have received the priesthood in the married state to persevere in their holy vocation and continue to devote their lives fully and generously to the flock entrusted to them."
[42] For Pius XI, see fn. 36, above. Pius XII promulgated motu proprio the Apostolic Letter Cleri Sanctitati, 2 June 1957, AAS49 (1957), pp. 433-603. Canon 71 states (p. 457): Quod attinet ad coniugatos, ad subdiaconatum vel ad maiores ordines admittendos aut absolute aut cum dispensatione sive Patriarche sive loci Hierarchae, non autem Syncelli, vel etiam ad eosdem ab iisdem ordinibus arcendos, hae Litterae Apostolicae nihil innovant circa vigentem in unoquoque orientali ritu disciplinam. It is interesting to note that in the textus initialis of the Oriental Code Commission, De Sacramento Ordinis, which was ready for promulgation in 1958, the discipline of married clergy for the Oriental Churches was seen to be an exception. Canon 225, modelled on c. 987 of the CIC, 1917, in the section on impediments to ordination, read: Sunt simpliciter impediti tantum ii qui sequuntur: 2ofirmo canonum praescripto quod aliter statuat [c. 71, Cleri sanctitati], viri morem habentes; This paragraph was subsequently dropped. Nuntia 7, p. 74.

Given al1 this development in the second half of this century, the question of the legal status of the decrees for Orientals in the Americas once again surfaces. The inclusion into c. 758 of 5 3 establishes their on-going legal force. However, if the analysis given above is well founded, it would seem that these decrees are to be understood not as the not-granting of a privilege or permission for a discipline that otherwise does not have full legality, but as an act of direct papal intervention, the exercise of the Roman Pontiff's immediate jurisdiction over the Universal Church. Of its nature such an exercise of authority over the heads of the legitimate authorities of the Oriental Churches, and such an intervention in the legitimate canonical patrimony of the East, must be exceptional and extraordinary. The circumstance for this intervention at the time the decrees were issued was the need to avoid scanda1 and harm to the Roman Catholic faithful. How far this same circumstance still holds today, thereby still upholding the reasonableness of the prohibitive laws, is a very debatable matter.
Canon 373 and the Magisterium 1 have argued that Vatican II has, through its ecclesiology, placed an Eastern married clergy in a positive light, recognizing its full legitimacy. Yet some Oriental Churches have already introduced clerical celibacy as the general n o m , and it was the clear wish of the Fathers of the 1990 World Synod that this should continue to be the case.43 1 do believe that clerical celibacy will continue to be promoted in the Oriental Churches, not just for pragmatic reasons, but on the historical and theological grounds to which 1 shall in a moment refer. But any movement for reform and renewal must come from within the Oriental Churches themselves, and the decision to implement change must be the initiative of these Churches. Where there is a married clergy, these must be respected and supported. This was the wish of the Council, as it was of the Oriental Code commission. Canon 373 of the Code states
[43] Pastores dabo vobis, n. 29: "This Synod strongly reaffirms what the Latin Church and some Oriental Rites require, that is, that the priesthood be conferred only on those men who have received from God the gift of the vocation to celibate chastity ..."

2xx>>,~..~:&~?m,.,mas:>>% > > . : ~ ? s < < ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ < : ~ : ~ s ~ ~ ~ : < : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m : ~ %. ~ . > >.~~,,%%*<<m%-~~~<<7~h\~~*...mF..~22~w:m~~.%w<,~%2>~~~~,~.~??~~~+

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 3 No. 3 ..

"the state of clerics joined in matrimony, as sanctioned by the praxis of the primitive Church and for centuries in the Eastern Churches, is to be held in honour (in honore habendus est)." Far from being merely tolerated, therefore, married clergy are to be honoured. To my knowledge, this is the first Catholic legal text reflecting canon 13 of the Synod of Trullo, where there is allusion to Hebrews 13:4: "Marriage is honourable and the marriage bed undefiled" in defence of married clergy. Earlier this century religious and clerical celibacy had been defended with the use of these same words of the Code. Canon 437 of the 1917 Code had stated: Status religiosus ... ab omnibus in honore habendus est, and Cleri Sanctitati, c. 68, States: Caelibatus clericorum ... ab omnibus in honore habendus est. By applying these words to married clergy the Oriental Code has also reflected the renewed ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. The historical basis for a married clergy, however, is another issue. The Second Vatican Council had intimated - reflecting the then accepted understanding of the historical origins of celibacy - that Eastern Church discipline is based upon the practice of the primitive Church, citing the pastoral epistles of Paul, where bishops, presbyters and deacons are required to be men "of one wife" (1Tm 3: 2-5; Tt 1:6). In more recent years this exegesis of the pastoral epistles, and the subsequent evolution of the discipline of married clergy and celibacy, d.~~ has been c h a l ~ e n ~ eThis has now resulted in a new tendency in Magisterial teaching itself to base clerical continence, including abstention of marital relations of married clergy, on apostolic and early Church practice. This we find in the recent Directory on the ministry and life of priests of the Congregation of Clergy, issued in January of last year. The text reads (n. 59): For this reason the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate

[44] The work of Christian Cochini, cited above (fn 3 3 , is of particular importance.

-X,,,,,7-*4\\

\ \ %

Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental-Code > -- e m

Y I

+ ,

<

faithful (cf. 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7 5 ; 9 5 ; 1Tim. 3:2-12; 5:9; Tit. 1 : 6 - 8 ) . ~ ~ The very texts used in Presbyterorum Ordinis to support the early tradition of a married clergy have now been used to support the tradition of perpetual continence. In the footnote to this text of the Congregation we read: Ad hos textus interpretandos cJ, followed by a series of early councils, papal decrees of Popes Siricius, Innocent 1and Leo the Great, and references to Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis. In some of these texts the injunction of the pastoral epistles, to be "a man of one wife," is interpreted to mean that absolute monogamy is the minimum guarantee that a married man, not given to the incontinence represented in manying for a second time, might live in marital abstinence once he has received the laying on of hands. In the early Church second marriage was tolerated because it was "better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9). The incontinence involved in this second marriage, therefore, was regarded as a counter-indication of the ability of such a husband, if he were subsequently to be made a deacon or presbyter or bishop, to live the discipline of the Church, namely, future continence with his wife.46 It is not possible, at the end of this paper, to enter into any detailed discussion of this view of the early discipline of married clergy, although 1would indicate that the immdiate source of this paragraph
[45] Eam ob causam Ecclesia, inde a temporibus apostolicis donum continentiae perpetuae clericorum voluit servare et inclinavit ad eligendos ex caelibatus candidatos ad Ordinem...

[46] In the decretal Cum in unum, which presented the deliberations and decisions of the Council of Rome, AD 386, Pope Siricius first formulated the objection, made by some, that the expression unius uxoris vir of 1 Tim. 3:2 specifically guaranteed the bishop the right to use marriage after sacred ordination. Siricius answers: "He (Paul) was not speaking of a man who might persist in the desire to beget children (non permanentem in desiderio generandi dixit); he was speaking about continence which he had to observe in future (propter continentiamfuturam)." PL 13,1161A. This fundamental text was then repeated by subsequent Popes and councils.

is the study, published under the auspices of the Congregation for Clergy, of the biblical scholar Ignace de la Potterie, in the book Solo per amore. Rijlessioni su1 celibato sacerdotale, Edizioni Paolini, 1 9 9 3 . De la Potterie's study, in turn, has support in the careful research ~~ of Christian och hi ni^^ and of others, especially by Alfons (Cardinal) ~ t i c k l e rBut~nor should it be thought that this view of the apostolic .~ origin of priestly continence is wholly revisionist. The doctrine of the apostolic origin of priestly continence was in fact Magisterial teaching until at least the pontificate of Pius XI. In 1858, for example, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, issued an instruction to the Archbishop of Fagaras and Alba-Julia, in which it was affirmed: Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behaviour and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence. 50
[47] This book has also been translated into various other languages. The English version, For Love Alone, has been published by St. Pauls, UK. Ignace de la Potterie's study, "The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy" is on pp. 13-30.

[48] Cochini, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, op. cit (see fn. 35); ibid., "Il celibato sacerdotale nella tradizione primitiva della Chiesa" in G. Pittau - C. Sepe,
Identit e missione del Sacerdote, Edizioni Citt Nuova, 1994,pp. 166-189; ibid., "La legge del celibato sacerdotale nella chiesa latina. Compendio Storico," in AA.VV., Celibato e Magistero: Intewenti dei Padri ne1 Concilio Vaticano II e nei sinodi dei vescovi del 1971 e 1990, San Paolo, Milano, 1994, pp. 33-103.
[49] For example, Der Kleriker Zolibat. Seine Entwicklungsgeschichte und seine theologischen Grundlagen, Kra1 Verlag, Abensberg, 1993 (= Il celibato ecclesiastico. La sua storia e isuoi fondamenti teologici, Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1994).

[50] Collectanea, n. 1158,vol 1, pp. 627-630 (p. 628): "Qui germanam traditionem de
coelibatu ac continentia cleri sedulo expenderit, inveniet profecto vel a primis Ecclesiae catholicae saeculis, si non generali et explicita lege, moribus saltem ac consuetudine fuisse firmatum, ut nedurn Episcopi et presbyteri, sed ut clerici in

6 . 6 . 6 . ? 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . 6 . ~ a a *, ?m?>x.*:v>V,>*>%wM-"* ,a . ~

Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code

, "~.%,,w<>?*w*.~n,$.~~*2<m~,~~,%~~~..~' ,

Following this statement quotations from Jerome and, above all, Epiphanius, are used to establish that the discipline of the East was originally that of clerical continence, at least where the canons of the ~' Church were properly o b s e r ~ e d . Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical letter, Ad catholici sacerdotii, 20 December 1935, makes a similar point. He also quotes Epiphanius: In the Oriental Church, too, most illustrious Fathers bear witness to the excellence of Catholic celibacy. In this matter as in others there was harmony between the Latin and Oriental Churches where accurate discipline flourished. St. Epiphanius at the end of the fourth century tells us that celibacy applied even to the subdiaconate: "The Church does not on any account admit a man living in the wedded state and having children, even though he have only one wife, to the orders of deacon, priest, bishop or subdeacon; but only him whose wife be dead or who should abstain from the use of marriage; this is done in those places especiall where the ecclesiastical canons are accurately followed. ,,54(

sacris constituti virginitatem, vel perpetuam continentiam inviolate servarent." [51] Cf. Panarion, PG 41,868, 1024; Expositio3Fidei,PG 42,822-826. [52] Latin text in AAS 28 (1936), p. 26. The Pope then goes on to quote St. Ephraem, Carmina Nisibaena, carm. 18 and 19 (pp. 26-27): "The Deacon of Edessa and Doctor of the Universal Church, well called the "Harp of the Holy Spirit," St. Ephraem, the Syrian, is particularly eloquent on this matter. In one of his poems, addressed to his friend, the bishop Abraham, he says: 'Thou art true to thy name, Abraham, for thou hast no wife as Abraham had Sara, behold thy flock is thy spouse. Bring up its children in thy truth; may they become to thee children of the spirit and sons of the promise that makes them heirs to Eden. O sweet fruit of chastity, in which the prieshood finds its delights ... the horn of plenty flowed over and anointed thee out, the Church desired thee and held thee dear.' And in another place: 'It is not enough for the priest and the name of the priesthood, it is not enough 1 Say, for him who offers up the living body, to cleanse his sou1 and tongue and hand and make spotless his whole body; but he must at al1 times be absolutely and preminently pure, because he is established as a mediator between God and the human race..."'

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 3 No. 3

~ . ~ ~ : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . A % ~ ~ ? ? ~ <

>

<

This reference to the East follows what is said about the West: The law of ecclesiastical celibacy, whose first written traces pre-suppose a still earlier unwritten practice, dates back to a canon of Elvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, when persecution still raged. This law only makes obligatory what might in any case almost be termed a moral exigency that springs from the Gospel and the Apostolic preaching... Soon it came about that the practice, in the Latin Church, received the sanction of ecclesiastical law. The Second Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century declared: "What the Apostles taught, and the early Church preserved, let us too, observe (ut quod Apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamus).,953

Conclusion: Future Directions Any renewal of ecclesiasticaldiscipline must have an accurate understanding of its own history as its guide. But even more importantly, it must also have sound theology as its guide. This applies especially to the priesthood when it comes to plotting the future of clerical discipline.
In the Holy Father's Apostolic Letter of 25 March 1992, Pastores dabo vobis, on the formation of priests, there are a number of theological insights, both old and new, offered to the Church for reflection. These have subsequently been summarized in the Directory of the Congregation of Clergy. The theology of priesthood in these documents, and its practical application, was the result of the deliberations of the World Synod of Bishops held in 1990, which included . concluding this representatives of some of the Oriental ~ h u r c h e sIn~ ~ paper 1 can but refer to a few key ideas which 1believe, if allowed to bear fruit, will be the determining factor in guiding the future direction
[53] Ibid., pp. 25-26. 1541 Pastores dabo vobis, n.4.

~,,,~~x~??~?~-x~~~+>>>~,\~~~~,<\<,~~\.\~~,\~~'~.~~xl~'<~~~ <~W.~NShNShNShNSh~NShNShNShNShNShNShNShNShNSh~NSh~NShNShNSh~NSh \~%,~~.>,",%-,~".Mfl,m<?*%,~%,~w:?m:X?e<,:iiur

Celibacy, Married Clerqy, and the Oriental Code .. .

of clerical discipline in the Oriental Churches. At the same time, 1 will mention in passing the extent to which these ideas already find expression in the canons of the Oriental Code dealing with clerical formation (CC. 328-356). The sacrament of Orders renders a priest a "living and transconfiguring him to "Christ the Head and parent ima e of Shepherd,'j6 the "Servant and the Spouse of the ~ h u r c h . "This ~~ requires of the priest total self-giving, expressed in pastoral charity, making the Church and the faithful his first interest. Canon 346 $1 speaks of the need to fonn candidates "to seek God in al1 things, so that, impelled by the love of Christ, the Pastor, by the gift of their lives, they become solicitous to gain al1 people for the kingdom of God." The priest's ministry cannot be reduced to a few tasks or to a persona1 life project. This ministry is described as an arnoris oficium 58 which the Pope compares to the deep love of a husband for his wife. The ecclesial dimension of the priest's identity, the result of his participation in Christ's anointing by the Father and mission through the Spirit, places himat the "forefront" of the ~ h u r c h . 'His mission is of its nature ~ universal, at the service of the universal Church, because at the service of Christ. The missionary dimension of priesthood is thus ontologically present at the reception of Holy 0rders60 Canon 352 $3 requires that
[55] N. 12. Cf. Theodore the Studite, who refers topriests as "icons" of Christ: Adversus Iconornachos, PG 99,493D.
[56] Cf. can. 323 $1: "Clerics ... are deputed through a gift of the Holy Spirit received in sacred ordination to be ministers of the Church participating in the mission and power of Christ, the Pastor."; can. 743: "Through sacramental ordination ... sacred ministers ... share in the proclamation of the Gospel, shepherding and sanctifying the people of God."

[58] Cf. nn. 15,22,23, 36; Directory, nn. 16,44.

[60] Directory, n.7.

*Y. h<

Eastern Churches Journal Vol. 3 No. 3 **.

~~+.~~~~~,.<t>>,~,.~~>>>>~2>A,~w.

.~*~,~,-~~~>>?~k%~~~,>~?*~>~~..~~.~<~~~?.2~x%"<<~<.~~~,%.<~

students, at the time of their training, be formed in a "truly universal ~' spirit" and educated about the needs of the universal ~ h u r c h . Because the priest's concern is for the whole Church and for the whole of humanity, his formation and education must truly be that of "the mind of the Church and its service" (c. 346 $2, 7"). There is no room for a particularist, nationalist or restricted mentality. In his spirituality the priest must also be thoroughly eucharistic. The Code urges the "assiduous" participation in the Divine Liturgy for seminarians (c. 346 2,2"), and frequent, even daily, celebration is "eagerly encouraged" for priests (c. 378). This is in .conformity with ancient Oriental although, strictly, daily celebration, according to Trullan and post-Trullan liturgical norms, presupposes perpetual marital continence.63 The priest is, besides, "sacramentally inserted into the priesthood of exclusive love of Christ for the Church, his faithful Following on these premises, it has to be the reality of the priest's sacramental configuration to Christ as Head and Spouse of the Church

ouse se."^^

[61] "Although students are preparing themselves for the ministry in their own Church sui iuris, they are to be formed in a truly universal spirit by which they are prepared in spirit to respond in the service of souls everywhere in the world. Therefore, they are to be thoroughly instructed about the needs of the universal Church, and especially about the apostolate of ecumenism and evangelization." [62] Cf. St. Basil the Great, epist. xciii, PG 32,484. For a later period, cf. St. Theodore the Studite, Letter to Plato, ep. I,57, PG 99, 1116. [63] Canon 13 of Trullo: "Subdeacons ..., and deacons and presbyters, should abstain from their spouses during the periods (particularly) assigned to them ... For it is proper that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent during the time when they are handling holy things ..." For the full canon, see above, fn. 9. Cf. Cholij, Clerical celibacy, pp. 156-179 (= AHC 19 (1987), 225-230; 241-258). For an interesting attempt to argue the theological rationale for the liturgical incongruity between the exercise of the eucharistic ministry and the exercise of the rights of marriage, see J. F. Stafford, "Il fondamento eucaristico del celibato sacerdotale," in G. Pittau - C. Sepe, Zdentit e missione del Sacerdote, pp. 190-205 (= "Eucharistic foundation of sacerdotal celibacy," Origins [CNS Documentary Service], Sept 2, 1993, vol. 23, n. 12). [64] Directory, n. 58.

W.,. ~ ~ > h , , ~ > w ~ h ~ > ~ > ~ ~ . , * , ~, , , , 2 . 2 h . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 . ~ : ~ , w & - ~ ~ ~ $ ; C*~.X<??", ~ ~ > ~ % ,% ~ > ~ : ~ ~ > ~~ ~ > >~ > > ~ ~ >w ~ , ~~ ~ ,,Y L , , w ~ ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ ~ ~

Celibacy, Married Clergy, and th

which gives the ultimate theological foundation for clerical continence. The following are the words which are used by Pope John Paul II, and which will form the concluding reflection of this paper: It is especially important that the priest understand the theological motivation of the Church's law on celibacy. Inasmuch as it is a law, it expresses the Church S will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness. But the will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and the Spouse of the Church. The Church, as the Spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her. Priestly celibacy, then, is the gift of self in and with Christ to the Church in and with the ~ o r d . ~ ~

EditorS Note: Two of the documents referred to in this article, Ea semper and Cum dutafuerit, appear in English in a compilation produced by Eastern Christian Publications entitled The Vatican and the Eastern Churches, Fairfax, VA, 1996. Others among the 32 documents include Orientalium Dignitas of Leo XII1 (the only English translation known to have been published), Unitatis Redintegratio and Orientalium Ecclesiarium of Vatican II, and Slavorum Apostoli of John Paul II.

[65]N. 29 (italics in the original); cf. Directory, nn. 58,59.