|
0 members (),
652
guests, and
115
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,613
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
Pax vobiscum! My name is Eric Giunta. I've posted here before, but only a couple of times, and without proper introduction. I am 19 years old, and a former postulant with the Society of Saint John Cantius [ societucantius.org] (I was with the order for five months). I was baptized Catholic, but not raised so. My parents, soon after graudating from the Jesuit Loyola University (of Chicago), abandoned their Catholicism. They don't really label themselves as anything, but my father can be best described as an Agnostic, and my mother a Liberal Protestant. At an early age (11/12) I began to ask myself philosophical questions, and began to practice the Catholicism of my ancestors. I even went to Catholic school for two years (6th and 7th grade), and had my mother enroll me in CCD, so I could receive all my sacraments of initiation. My 8th grade year, I went to a public schoool, and rebelled against all organized religion; I became a theological and moral relativist, and even got involved in the practice of white witchcraft! To make a long story short, I saw how foolish these practices were, gave them up, and went on a pursuit for the true religion. I eventually narowed it down to Christianity, and then specifically to Catholicism. Although I continued to be a worldly hellraiser, I had a "conversion/reversion" experience late in high school, and decided to pursue religious life. I entered the Society of Saint John Cantius on Jult 1, 2002, and was sent to Magdalen College [ magdalen.edu] for formation. I left the Society in early December, but finished off the school year at Magdalen. I still feel called to monastic life, but I feel I need to grow up and mature a bit first. I write from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. ****************************************** Anyways, I have a question and hope I can receive some assistance from soem of you guys. I'm currently a full-time student at Broward Community College [ broward.edu] (majoring in Biology); I'm taking a World Religions class, and my instructor is a Modernist. He's an ordained religious Catholic priest (Passionist), has been exclaustrated, but has not been laicized, and invalidly married with children! Not that this bothers me in itself (except that I fear for his soul's salvation), but he's made some radical claims in class that I feel I have to document in order to refute, namely: 1) He claims that his marriage is illicit, but still valid. He claims this is the case because, although he is not laicized, he was married in a Lutheran church with a Modernist Catholic priest present. He claims he can still, as a good Catholic, receive Holy Communion. Is there documentation, from Church documents, canon law, etc. that show otherwise? 2) He claimed that clerical celibacy was not church law until the thirteenth century A.D.! I know this is not true, but need to find documentation to back it up. I understand that, for Western Christianity, clerical celibacy has been the law of the Church since the fourth century. However, while I've seen many references to early papal pronouncements, I've yet to actually see the documentation and to read the actual words for the texts themselves. For example, I read this quotation from The Question Box on a forum on this Message Board: The earliest law enforcing celibacy was passed by the Council of Elvira (Canon 33) in Spain about the year 300. Bishops priests and deacons were to be deposed, if they lived with their wives and begot children after their ordination. A similar decree was enacted by a Roman Council under Pope Siricius (384-399), who wrote letters to Spain and Africa insisting upon its observance. A few years later Pope Innocent I (402-417) wrote similar letters to Bishops Victricius of Rouen and Exuperius of Toulouse. By the time of Leo the Great (440-461) the law of clerical celibacy was obligatory throughout the West.{ Clerical Celibacy [ pub1.ezboard.com] ; emphasis mine} Does anyone know where I can find; a) the exact words to these decrees, and b) secular sources (preferrably online) that I can reference in support of the fact that clerical celibacy has been law for the Western Church since the 4th century? Thank you very much, and God bless! Plase pray for this man's soul, and mine own as well! Eric Giunta P.S. Does anyone have any advice as to how I address this situation. I have his e-mail, and I intend on mailing him a short, concise, and charitable reply to these two things he has publicly announced to the class. I feel I must do it out of both Christian charity and academic integrity. Your prayers especially are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Sounds like you need a good Roman canon lawyer. We don't know much about such things around here.  You might also consider a chat with the judicial vicar of the local Roman diocese. There are no definitive sources that claim a uniform clerical celibacy in the Roman Church in the 4-5th centuries. Many of the great Church Father bishops of that time were even married.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 271
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 271 |
Clerical celibacy is not a law in the Latin Church. It is a discipline. The current Code of Canons for the Latin Church states that candidates for the priesthood are "normally" chosen from the celibate ranks. The Roman Catholic Church has ordained married men in the past and still does so in the United States, specifically convert Anglican priests.
Joe Prokopchak
archsinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 443
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 443 |
If I'm reading the post correctly then no ordained Priest in the Roman,Byzantine or Orthodox Church can get married after the fact.
Nicky's Baba
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 780 |
Nicky's Baba: That is correct, once a man is ordained he may no longer marry. In the Latin Church this is explained by saying that "orders is an impediment to marriage." Pax Tecvm: 1) He claims that his marriage is illicit, but still valid. He claims this is the case because, although he is not laicized, he was married in a Lutheran church with a Modernist Catholic priest present. He claims he can still, as a good Catholic, receive Holy Communion. Is there documentation, from Church documents, canon law, etc. that show otherwise? He's about as wrong as he can be. Canon 1087 (Latin Church) says "Persona who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage." For the Eastern Catholic Churches this is foudn in canon 804. Note that it is "invalid" and not illicit. In fact, the marriage would be invalid anyway because of "lack of form" (a requirement for Latin Catholics to be married in the "form" prescribed by the Church). Edward, deacon and sinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
So far as I am aware, the only substantial Church whose Holy Orders are recognized by Rome and which permits priests to marry after ordination is the Old Catholic Church (meaning those Churches, such as the Polish National Catholic Church in the USA). It has happened that such Old Catholic priests, married after ordination in accordance with the Old Catholic rules on the subject, have been received into the (ageless) Catholic Church in their Orders and blessed to continue functioning as priests. However, the lapsed Passionist mentioned in the posting is clearly not such a case. Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Eric,
I'll do some looking for you.
You are a courageous young man. May God bless your vocation.
LatinTrad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 838
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 838 |
I'm so confused... this is a Byzantine Forum, WHY do we CONSTANTLY get asked questions that have to do with the Latin Rite??? Isn't there a Latin Forum for all these questions???? mark 
the ikon writer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700 |
Perhaps they ask us, because this is such a friendly and courteous forum, and we try to be gracious and accomodating.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964 |
We do try sometimes.  Other times we are very trying. :rolleyes: Sometimes we are helpful. Other times we are beyond help.  Sometimes we are as confused as anyone else. But we do try. Originally posted by Hieromonk Elias:
Perhaps they ask us, because this is such a friendly and courteous forum, and we try to be gracious and accomodating.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 |
Shlomo Mark, Would you like for those of us who are Easterner Christians, but from the non Byzantine Traditions to go too  ? Poosh BaShlomo, Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595 Likes: 1 |
Being utterly serious about this I think most of us Latins appreciate the wealth of learning that folk here have . Somehow you Easterners always have the answer and references that we need and can't find ,or don't know how to find. You are just so wonderful and helpful and supportive
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
Alright. Granted, I didn't exactly receive much "help" here, but I thank you for the . . . um . . . warm welcomes. I've already written and sent my response, at least as regards clerical celibacy. I tried to find a really lame excuse to write him, and thaen I went into obligatory celibacy. Here's the e-mail I sent: Dominus tecum. Eric Giunta again. I wasn't sure wether or not we had homework in your Tuesday evening World Religions class. Were we supposed to read something? Pardon my absent-mindedness. Then again, what else can be expected when class is held so late in the evening? Add to that the fact that I gave blood right after our disucssion, and it's easy to see where I might have forgotton. Ah, who am I kiddin . . . I've done a little digging through my library of reference materials, religious and historical, and found a couple of interesting tidbits regarding the history of clerical celibacy. If you recall, I told you in class that, to the best of my knowledge, the Western Catholic Church had mandated celibacy since at least the fourth century, not the thriteenth. I think I've found that my documentation is sound, and comes from a variety of sources. While it is known that celibacy was high esteemed in the early Church (as it was by Jesus and Saint Paul), it is also known that, with the Church's blessing, there were married clerics in the East and the West in the first few centuries. To what extent clergy were married is up to much debate; some say married clergy were the norm, other the exception. Others say that while clergy were married, generally they were expected to remain continent. In any event, we do know that the Western Church, beginning in the fourth century, had introduced written legislation forbidding clerics to marry, and married clerics from having sexual relations with their wives. Here, I will quote two sources. The first is the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9648446-3609712?v=glance&s=books ): In the West, a legal position was gradually reached by which all the higher clergy must be celibate. The earliest canonical enactment is canon 33 of the Council of Elvira (c. 306). In 386 a decretal of Pope Siricius ordered celibacy for "priests and levites"; this was repeated by Innocent I (402-17). Similar legislation was introduced in Africa, which even extended to subdeacons. Leo the Great (440-61) forbade men to put away their wives on receiving Holy Orders; they were to go on living with them as brother and sister. This course was open to obvious objections, and it was not long before Gallican councils refused to ordain married men before mutual vows of continence had been exchanged between them and their wives. The wives then retired to a monastery, or were enrolled in the orders of widows or daconesses.
{From "Celibacy of the Clergy"; emphasis mine} A more detailed presentation of the historical facts is given by the New Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9648446-3609712?v=glance&s=books ): Celibacy became a canonical obligation for the clergy in the West through the combines efforts of popes and regional councils. It is the earliest example of general legislation based on the papal authority of decretals and the collaboration between Rome and the bishops acting collectively. About 300, a Spanish council at Elvira (near Granada) required absolute continence for all its clergy under pain of deposition (c.33): "We decree that all bishops, priests, deacons, and all clerics engaged in the ministry are forbidden entirely to live with their wives and to beget children: whoever shall do so will be deposed from the clerical dignity" (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 2:11). One of the Spanish bishops, Hosius of Cordoba, who had been present at Elvira, tried in vain for the same decision at the First Council of Nicea. This legislation, however, did not enter the Western Church until the second half of the 4th century and was effected through the decretals of various popes: Damasus I (Ad Gallos episcopus, 366-84); Siricius (Ad Himierum Tarraconensem, 385; Ad episcopus Africae, 386); Innocent I (Ad Vitricium Rothomagensem, 404; Ad Exuperium Tolosanum, 405; Ad Maximum et Severum, 401-417); Leo I (Ad Anastasium Thessalonicum, 446?; Ad Rusticum Narbonensem, 458). Councils issued the same decrees for Africa (Carthage, 390, 401-19; cf. cc.3-4 of 419), France (Orange, 441; Tours, 461), and Italy (Turin, 398). No longer could priests, deacons, and (after Leo I) subdeacons be married.
{From "History of Clerical Celibacy"; emphasis mine} So, according to these sources, beginning in the 4th century, and continuing through the mid-5th, we have at least four popes, in at least eight decretals, obliging clerical celibacy on the Western Church. I wasn't able to find the text Saint Damsus I's decretal online. However, I did find Saint Siricius's first decretal on the subject, albeit in Latin: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/Decretals/PapalDecretals.html Likewise, Saint Innocent I's decretals are not available online. Saint Leo the Great's are, however. In his letter to Athanasius of Thessalonica, he writes: Continence is required even in sub deacons. For although they who are not within the ranks of the clergy are free to take pleasure in the companionship of wedlock and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of the purity of complete continence, even sub-deacons are not allowed carnal marriage: that "both those that have, may be as though they had not," and those who have not, may remain single. But if in this order, which is the fourth from the Head, this is worthy to be observed, how much more is it to be kept in the first, or second, or third, lest any one be reckoned fit for either the deacon's duties or the presbyter's honourable position, or the bishop's pre-eminence, who is discovered not yet to have bridled his uxorious desires.
{Letters 14:5} The full text can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-19.htm#P684_131816 To Rusticus of Narbonensis he writes: QUESTION III. Concerning those who minister at the altar and have wives, whether they may lawfully cohabit with them?
REPLY. The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar as for bishops and priests, who when they were laymen or readers, could lawfully marry and have offspring. But when they reached to the said ranks, what was before lawful ceased to be so. And hence, in order that their wedlock may become spiritual instead of carnal, it behaves them not to put away their wives but to "have them as though they had them not," whereby both the affection of their wives may be retained and the marriage functions cease.
{Letters 167:3:3} The full text can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-165.htm#P2586_600135 It's actually rather funny that this topic's been brought up at all, since I'm currently reading the new book by Phillip Jenkins (Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University), titled The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...11/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-9648446-3609712 ). In the chapter titled "Black Legends: Rewriting Catholic History" he writes: Another modern myth that has been much in the news recently concerns the origins of celibacy. Especially during the clergy abuse crisis of 2002, the media regularly reported the idea, found in many popular histories, that mandatory priestly celibacy was imposed only in the Middle Ages, in the eleventh or twelfth centuries. If this is true, modern Catholics are in effect insisting on a relatively modern innovation that has been around for less than half of the history of Christianity: Anna Quindlen writes of "the enforced celibacy of the male priesthood, an invention only of the faith's second millenium." In this view, the practice dates to the Middle Ages, the age of witch burning, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. When does anyone use the word medieval as a term of approval? Probably the best-known use of the word in recent popular cultureoccurs in the film Pulp Fiction, when a gangster refers to bllod-curdling toture as "getting medieval on his ass." A "medieval" origin seems of itself to offer potent arguments against any practice, and critiques of celibacynormally stress the link to the despised Middle Ages. To quote journalist Chris Colbert: "The Vatican's insistence on imposing the medieval discipline of celibacy as a way of life on all homosexual people today rankles faithful gay Catholics like me." Worst of all, the reasons cited for the invention of celibacy are not even spiritual, but rather involve land rights and social power. According to a scholarly myth widely reflected in the mass media, the Church was just trying to ensure that the children of priests could not become legitimate heirs to Church land. Literally, according to this story, the modern Catholic Church is keeping alive a survival of feudal times. [Anna Quindlen, "Patent Leather, Impure Thoughts," Newsweek, Apr. 1, 2002, 74; Chuck Coldbert, "For Gay Catholics, Conscience Is the Key," National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 16, 1998, 17] We do know that compulsory celibacy was not a practice of the ealiest Church. St. Peter had a mother-in-law, the apostles traveled in the company of their wives, and some early Popes were, without causing scandal, the sons of other Popes. Yet beyond these facts, the commonly accepted idea of the roots of celibacy is just wrong. Mandatory celibacy goes much further back than medieval times, if not quite to the days od the apostles. Priestly celibacy was the usual expectation in western Europe by late Roman times, about the fourth century, and remained firmly in force for several centuries, from around 300 to 700. At that point, at least, fears of priest's families inheriting land played no part whatever in the decision to demand celibacy. Medieval statements on the subject were just reasserting discipline that had collapsed in times of war and social chaos. It is simply wrong to assert, as the contemporary media do regularly, that "[p]riests were married for Christianity's first thousand years." Of course we can find married priests throughout the Middle Ages, just as we find priests commiting molestation today, but that does not mean that, in either case, they were acting with Church approval. ["Celibacy of the Clergy," Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm ; Peter Brown, The Body and Society (New York: Colombia University Press, 1988); H. C. Lea, The History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church (originally published 1867) (New York: Russel and Russel, 1957). The reference to "Priests were married" is from Jon Meacham, "Celibacy and Marriage," Newsweek, May 6, 2002, 29] Priestly celibacy is a product of the very early Church. Indeed, celibate priests and monks helped make the final decisions about which books were going to make up the New Testament and which would be excluded. If, as most Christians believe, the ideas and practices of the early Church carry special authority, then we certainly should rank priestly celibacy among these truly ancient traditions. {pp. 182-183; emphases mine} Jenkins, a former Catholic, is an Anglican. There are some interesting books out there on the market concerning this topic, and the latest historical findings on it. One that I've read is Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler's The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898705339/qid%3D1062174723/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-9648446-3609712 ). I'm also aware of Stephan Heid's Celibacy in the Early Church: The Biginnings of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9648446-3609712?v=glance&s=books ) and, most especially, Christian Cochini's Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9648446-3609712?v=glance&s=books ). I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions reached by these authors, but they and others definitely show that, at least as far as Western Catholicism goes, obligatory clerical celibacy dates to at least the 4th century, certainly not the thirteenth. I'm sorry if I went a bit overboard with this e-mail. I just felt that, since I'm the student, the "burden of proof," if you would, is on me if I have a disagreement with you on a particular issue. I know I have much to learn about world religions in general, and look forward to the rest of the semester. See you on Tuesday. Sincerely Eric Giunta So what do you guys think? Have I proved my case?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
Dear Eric,
Wrong in the first. His marriage is invalid because he was already ordained.
But he is right in the second point.
The discipline of celibacy is a human prescript which can be changed, and it did not come into universal usage in the Latin Church until 1215 AD.
Prior to that it was local and not everyone in the west aggreed to it.
Stephaons I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 78 |
Stephanos, I disagree; and I've amply documented that clerical celibacy has been law in the Western Church since at least the 4th century. To re-quote Phillip Jenkins: We do know that compulsory celibacy was not a practice of the ealiest Church. St. Peter had a mother-in-law, the apostles traveled in the company of their wives, and some early Popes were, without causing scandal, the sons of other Popes. Yet beyond these facts, the commonly accepted idea of the roots of celibacy is just wrong. Mandatory celibacy goes much further back than medieval times, if not quite to the days od the apostles. Priestly celibacy was the usual expectation in western Europe by late Roman times, about the fourth century, and remained firmly in force for several centuries, from around 300 to 700. At that point, at least, fears of priest's families inheriting land played no part whatever in the decision to demand celibacy. Medieval statements on the subject were just reasserting discipline that had collapsed in times of war and social chaos. It is simply wrong to assert, as the contemporary media do regularly, that "[p]riests were married for Christianity's first thousand years." Of course we can find married priests throughout the Middle Ages, just as we find priests commiting molestation today, but that does not mean that, in either case, they were acting with Church approval.
|
|
|
|
|
