www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Books on Clerical Celibacy

Dear friends,

Yesterday I was in a discussion with an important chancery official in a prominant Roman Catholic Archdiocese. We got into a somewhat heated discussion on whether or not the Byzantine Catholic Church should be "allowed" to ordain married men to the priesthood. He was of the opinion that clerical celibacy is an "apostolic tradition," from which the Eastern Churches have deviated. He also seemed to think that the Byzantine Church should be forbidden from ordaining married men, in case a large rush of Latin guys would switch over just to be married priests (yeah, right).

He based his argument on two books:

The Case for Clerical Celibacy : Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations by Cardinal Alphonso M. Stickler

and

The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
by Christian Cochini, S.J.

The back of Cochini's book makes the following claim:

"He 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. What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index."

The chancery official with whom I had the discussion seemed to think that the Latin Church has done us a FAVOR in returning us to the Apostolic Tradition of celibacy. Likewise, he doesn't seem to think that we have any right to a married clergy unless we are capable of refuting Cochini's claims.

To make matters more complicated, this individual teaches at a booming "conservative" RC seminary where he is undoubtedly teaching his seminarians this material. My fear is that we will be facing a whole new generation of Roman clerics - and eventually bishops - bent on denying us of a married priesthood.

So, here is my question to each of you:

1) Have you read either of these books?

2) Can you point me to any authoritative articles refuting them?

I have already collected a binder full of articles on this subject. My documentation seems pretty conclusive - these two books are dead wrong. But I am interested in articles that specifically debunk these two books.

It should be noted that both of these books are hot sellers at the Franciscan University of Steubenville bookstore, and many of the students have become convinced of the "wrongness" of married priests after reading them. I met a young Melkite guy who was confronted with arguments from Cochini's book, and decided that becoming a married priest would be wrong. At the time, I didn't have much to refute Cochini with.

Your assistance is much appreciated.

Anthony

Dear Servant of God, Anthony

Slava Isusu Christu !

Ask those people why the Vatican didn't consider the info in those two books when they were writeing the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Forget about quoteing from Eastern sources when dealing with Latins. The only way they will listen is if you quote from the Vatican or Magesterium(sp) of the Catholic Church. And don't quote from past history. Quote from present day teachings. In other words the current teachings of the Catholic Church.

You can start from quoteing from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
--------------------------------------------
1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
--------------------------------------------
After you quote them this paragraph from the CCC, ask them if they accept this teaching or are they in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

I would give that official the new booklet _Eastern Catholics in the United States of America_ and suggest he read the section on pp. 18-19. Pope Paul VI and Vatican II are quoted to show that our tradition is quite lawful and "providentially and supernaturally influenced" by the Holy Spirit.

The Ban was imposed because it supposedly caused offense to Roman Catholics here in America. I think most Roman Catholics today think differently about a married clergy (look how well the clergy converts from Anglicanism have been received).

To suggest that Eastern Catholics need to get rid of their married clergy would be, as Joe says, against everything the Magisterium has said about our Churches.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Those would definately be the best way to convince people on this subject. For too long the Eastern Catholics have suffered from the "tunnel vision" of the Romans.

Another way to combat this is through prayer that each Church in the Catholic Church maintain their traditions respective to each Church.

John Stroud
Your Brother In Christ

Anthony:

yes, married priests who have sex are a deviation from apostolic practice. But the Latins seem to forget that so is the practice of nonmarried priests being mandatory. Both are adaptions to life that occurred simealtaneously (sp?). One is not older than the other. Such books do show that early married priests were often celibate--but that's not the point, because they were married.

St. Gregory of Nyssa's father was a married bishop though. And mama was at the funeral as the wife. I don't think she was off in a convent somewhere.

anastasios

>>>The Case for Clerical Celibacy : Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations by Cardinal Alphonso M. Stickler

and

The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy
by Christian Cochini, S.J.<<<

How utterly tautological, since Stickler's book draws heavily on Cochini, and Cochini's work has been strongly criticized by a number of reputable Catholic and Orthodox scholars, including Fr. Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, and His Beatitude, Maximos V Hakim, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch.

In both cases, what we have is an attempt to theologize an ecclesiastical discipline. Praestantia ritus latini, indeed.

If the early married priests were "celibate," why did many of them have large families? Will Rome dream up another dogma about "conception" in order to hide the fact that married priests have sex (eeek!) and "bring forth" children like the rest of sinful mortals? There are some very sick-minded Latins who never tire of insulting Orthodox priests, and the vast majority of them are married. The insults from Rome never end!

>>>If the early married priests were "celibate," why did many of them have large families? Will Rome dream up another
dogma about "conception" in order to hide the fact that married priests have sex (eeek!) and "bring forth" children like the
rest of sinful mortals? There are some very sick-minded Latins who never tire of insulting Orthodox priests, and the vast
majority of them are married. The insults from Rome never end!
<<<

I really think you are getting worked up over nothing. It is quite clear that Stickler and Colchini's works do not represent the official Catholic position any more than the works of one particular Orthodox theologian might be called the official Orthodox position. In fact, their work is generally discredited outside of the rabidly traditionalist wing of the Roman Church, and in certain corners of the Curia Romana which see the Eastern married presbyterate as a threat to Latin Church--or at least, the entrenched interests of its celibate priesthood. But the Latin Church has in this country alone more than 100 former Anglican and Lutherna clergy who have been ordained to the priesthood despite being married--and, as far as I know, none of them are living with their wives as brother and sister. In fact, the pressure in the Latin Church is rather the other way--to repeal clerical celibacy. The work of Stickler and Colchini can be seen as a reaction against that pressure. So, as is so often the case, it has nothing at all to do with the Eastern Churches in themselves, but only with the Latin Church and its own internal conflicts.

I agree with the other responses to Anthony's post, so I only have a little to add.
If clerical celibacy were ever to be made a dogma of the Catholic Church, Eastern Catholicism would be dead and buried and droves of Eastern Catholics would join the Orthodox Churches. It would also destroy any hopes of re-union. So, I wouldn't worry about this every happening, unless Rome is suicidal. Married priests are integral to Eastern Christianity and this could never be anathematize on a wholescale level. In addition the only evidence needed is history. The early church had married bishops and unless there were spies in their bedrooms, I don't know how anyone can prove they didn't have conjugal relations with their wives. Just my 2 cents.

In Christ,

Joseph

If the Byzantine Church and other Eastern Catholic Churches are true sui juris, than it isn't up to Rome or misguided Roman Catholic priests what pracitce they follow in keeping their traditions. Both traditions find support and neither is superior to the other. I believe this is why Rome has quietly dropped this.


I seriously doubt that. The findings of the author in question are no doubt one of a possibility of interpretations of the available historical evidence, nothing more. For them to call it more than this is revisionism for I have never come across anything that would indisputably prove that celibacy is a tradition from the Apostles.


I suppose this happens in some rare cases, but I doubt that it is such a big concern. It sounds more like an excuse he gave you for why you should behave like the Romans. Well the whole world ain't Rome. Btw, I myself am a faithful Roman Catholic who has been considering the priesthood. The biggest stumbling block for me is celibacy (difficult for a family man like myself). I have no problems with the discipline in the Roman Church, but it does make one stop to think about ordination. I would never go running to an Eastern Church just so I could have a family, for that is truly despicable in my opinion. One should "go East" because of real reasons of faith, not convenience. Fear not though, most RCs are unaware the East even exists so this "option" probably never occurs to them. ;o)


I seriously question the conclusions the author draws from what you have posted, but I must say that this here would be interesting at least.


The nixing of married Eastern Catholic priests by Rome was just plain stupid -- period. This chancery official is flat wrong.

Pax Christi,
John

This may be true with some "Latins", Joe, but not for all. I for one have no problem with Eastern sources. This does not mean I automatically will accept everything contained in it, but I won't summarily dismiss it either. Depends upon what one presents. I hope the same is true for an Eastern Christians viewing Western sources.

Pax Christi,
John