www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Priest's Wife & comments

I thought I had written a non-controversial post about my day to day life here:
http://remnantofremnant.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-know-youre-priests-wife-when.html
but if you take the time to read the comments, you will see a well-educated Roman-rite Catholic who is very against married clergy- deacon or priest, East and West

Maybe you agree with him- but some readers here might have ideas for me...

Ignore him. He's not as well-educated as you think. The sources he cites, Cochini and Choliji, have long been discredited, and Choliji (an Eastern Catholic priest) has substantially modified his position over the past decade, now admitting that there is no divine mandate for clerical celibacy, and that the Eastern Churches have always ordained married men to the presbyterate.

His argument for the "perpetual continence" of the married clergy of the Western Church in the first millennium is so much hoo-ha--as anyone capable of doing math can figure out. There were priests who were the sons of priests, bishops who were the sons of bishops, and even Popes who were the sons of Pope--and a check of ordination dates and birth dates indicates that, unless parthenogensis was involved, the married clergy in the West were married in the fullest sense of the word.

Sacerdotalis Coelibatus is intended only for the Latin Church, and for no others. In fact, a number of magisterial documents, including Orientalium Ecclesiarum, the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches, the Liturgical Instruction, and Pope John Paul II's pastoral letter Orientale Lumen all state unequivocally that the Catholic Church recognizes and honors the Tradition of married priesthood. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the commentator apparently considers himself more Catholic than the Pope.

Such people will never be convinced by historical or theological arguments, or even an appeal to the authority of the Holy See. He's free to disagree with our Tradition, but we're equally free to think that he's being an ass.

ditto to StuartK. Don't listen to such nonsense.

You might, though, want to refer him to Professor Anthony Dragani's article [east2west.org] on the subject.

It's a review of Cardinal Stickler's recent book, The Case for Clerical Celibacy, but i the process, he addresses the arguments of Cochini and Choliji--since Strickler's book relies so heavily on both authors to the point of near-plagiarism (he even repeats their errors). Dragani writes:


Read the entire article, because it so effectively demolishes Strickler--and in the process both Chochini and Choliji, that it is impossible to take their arguments seriously in light of it.

Thanks Stuart! I'll read the article

Preoteasa,

If memory serves me correctly, Father Coliji has - since publication of his book - left the priesthood and married, make of that what one will.

Many years,

Neil

Preoteasa,

And, in addition to Stuart's recommendation of Anthony's review of Stickler's work (and I'd only disagree with Anthony on his characterization of Stickler as 'influential'), let me suggest an excellent article on the subject from a Ukrainian Greek Catholic academic in Australia. See Hallowed, Honoured, or Tolerated? T...d Priests by Members of the Latin Church [catholica.com.au]

Many years,

Neil

^ likewise from my side of the fence...a whole lot of blather...

Good article Neil. Thanks.

Of this article cited by Stuart, I would make two criticisms.

First, that the matter of Latins ordaining married men to the major orders is full of controversy.

For some time an argument has been made against it from tradition and of late, canonical arguments have been made by qualified parties since the plain meaning of canon law requires perpetual continence from clerics. A married diaconate in the Latin Church is not so settled a matter as some would prefer to think.

Also, if a serious argument can be made against something on the basis of the fact that Latins have lately abandoned some traditional practice or ignored their own law, what will stand?

Anyway appeals to the primitive church are futile archaeoligism and smack of protestantism. The answer is simple. Honour your tradition. It got you here.

So Roman Choliji left the priesthood and married? What a psychohistorian could make of that!

How does appealing to the early church smack of protestantism? For me as a Greek Catholic it is the source of Apostolic Tradition. So, could you clarify for me?


We wish to but how can we when we are constantly told by others that our Tradition is an "innovation" or that we have "second class priests?" And there is a long history of Latin married priests and deacons (and Bishops). This tradition is much older than the mandatory celibacy of Latin clergy, which from my understanding is only a discipline not a dogma. So a Pope could reinstitute married priests for the Latin church if he so choose and it wouldn't change the faith of the Roman Church.

Let us do what is our patrimony and not worry about what the Latin Church thinks. Why have we been such cowards?

My only reaction is to offer my sincerest prayers for my brother priest!

Although a bit dated now, Fr. Maximos (Davies) article "Celibacy in Context" in First Things is good:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/celibacy-in-context-48
And kudos to Neil for beating me in posting Dr. Kania's article.