Slava Isusu Khrestu
Here in Ontario Canada, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic church near me where many of my relatives go have had a married clergy for more years than I can remember.
Why the difference here in Canada and th USA? Was it their Bishop, of blessed memory, Bishop Boretsky?
He was highly respected by our Ukrainian orthodox as well.
Really, why is your Rome doing that to you?????
ZBohom
Kolya
Actually, a good part of it was the Plenary Councils of Baltimore, which later were replaced with the USCCB.
The UGCC Eparch, later metropolitan, for North America was in Canada. The 1st Plenary Council of Baltimore prohibited use of ANY liturgy other than the current roman missal within the United States. The 2nd and 3rd PCoB's each reiterated that. Even the Dominican and Carmelite Missals were suppressed, and Rome had approved those acts.
Enter next the nascent EC Eparchies to the mix; the priests sent over were subject to Roman Bishops, who were barred by conciliar particular law for the Dioceses and Provinces of the United States from using any missal but the Roman Missal... the bishops would not grant them permission to function, because under the conciliar particular law, they could not. A few were incorporated into the Roman dioceses, but the vast majority were without faculties, and without sympathy, from the US bishops. They did, however, often arrive with their antimensia, and a few sympathetic bishops granted permission to use their rite anyway, or at least officially took no notice.
Rome reversed that ban, however, in 1908... not so much for the ECC's, but for the western Papal Right orders with separate missals: Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians...
Then the Council asked for a ban on married priests being sent to the US. Rome agreed. But Rome also did a few other things... creating the nascent Eparchies for the ECCs, and a later pope filling them, and a later pope still ordering the national councils to admit the ECC Bishops even where the Roman Rite was dominant...
It's complex, but the system resulted in encouraging Latinizations, whilst still allowing for separate jurisdictions and liturgical forms.
But the Canadian see for the Ukrainians wasn't part of the US, ignored the memo about married priests (said Roman order actually banned married priests from being incardinated into dioceses of the US, rather than barring the priests themselves from entry), and simply rotated priests as needed to avoid the whole issue, or at least minimize it.
So the UGCC played loose with the rules... but maintained its own integrity in the process.
The CCCB and its predecessor councils never banned the married priests, never sought such ban, never banned the other western missals... just seems Canadian politeness goes back a good way, and protected the UGCC archeparchy from the history of denigration and latinization so characteristic of the Councils of Baltimore and the USCCB.
