Is Mandatory Clerical Celibacy An Apostolic Tradition?

[Era Might]

An interesting article from [url="http://www.east2west.org/"][u]Anthony Dragani[/u][/url]. Here's part of it; do read the whole thing:

[quote]Although the general populace is unaware of it, during the past decade a new effort has been underway to defend the Roman Catholic practice of mandatory priestly celibacy. Putting aside the traditional sociological arguments that we are all familiar with, these new defenders argue for the discipline based primarily on historical grounds. Although their writings have not reached a broad audience, they have found a committed following in some Catholic circles.

Normally I would not concern myself with a defense of the Roman Catholic discipline of mandatory celibacy. After all, it is their tradition and they certainly have a right to defend it. However, this new literature goes a step further and seriously questions the legitimacy of the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood. Representative of the position is The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler. This book is essentially a popularization of the claims of two other authors, distilled into a very readable format. Cardinal Stickler aims to get the word out that mandatory celibacy is the genuine discipline, and that the tradition practiced in the East is an unfortunate "innovation."

As an Eastern Catholic I am especially troubled by this claim. The history of Eastern Catholicism in North America has been marred by repeated attempts to impose mandatory celibacy upon us, always with tragic results. We have fought long and hard to affirm the legitimacy of our tradition of a married priesthood, and even now this issue is a subject of major concern and sensitivity. Therefore, the fact that an influential Cardinal has written a book that argues against the legitimacy of our tradition causes me some apprehension.

...

The Council in Trullo was convoked by the Emperor Justinian II to create disciplinary canons for the Byzantine Church. It was intended to be a completion to the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. In regards to the sexual conduct of clergy it agreed with the Latin Church that "there must be only a single marriage contracted before ordination, and it cannot be with a widow or with other women excluded by the law. After ordination, a first or further marriage is not licit. Bishops can no longer live in marriage with their spouse but must live in complete continence, and therefore their wives can no longer live with them. On the other hand, these wives must be maintained or supported by the Church."

Yet there is one substantial difference between the praxis of the Byzantine Church and that of the Latin Church, and it is found in canon 13 of Trullo:

[b]"Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the deaconate or presbyterate should promise to no longer cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time."[/b]

This canon clearly allows married deacons and priests to continue normal sexual relations with their wives. Moreover, it claims that this is the authentic teaching of the apostles. Nonetheless, Cardinal Stickler believes this canon to be an "innovation." In his view it established a new discipline, which became normative for the East.

Before continuing we would do well to pause for a moment and consider the authority and legitimacy of the Council in Trullo. The Cardinal portrays it as some sort of rogue assembly that deviated from the teachings of the holy apostles. Yet beginning with Pope John VIII the Papacy has considered the canons of Trullo to be binding on Byzantine Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. In fact, up until 1949, when Pope Pius XII promulgated a partial Code of Eastern Canons, the Council in Trullo was considered to be the definitive source of marriage law for Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine Tradition.

Even today the Papacy continues to show respect for the Council's enduring legacy. In the second paragraph of the apostolic constitution Sacri Canones, Pope John Paul II explicitly recognizes the value of Trullo's accomplishments. Such papal recognition would never be given to a council that abolished genuine apostolic traditions. In truth, the council's legislation was quite conservative. According to the noted Roman Catholic canonist Frederick McManus, the Fathers of the Council in Trullo "hardly thought they were innovating. Rather 'they were affirming past disciplinary traditions.'"

...

After examining the evidence from the Christian East, Cardinal Stickler concludes that "the tradition of the Catholic Church of the West remains the genuine one. The fact is that it can be traced back to the apostles and is founded on the living consciousness of the entire early Church." It seems to me that this statement is far from proven. As one of Cochini's critics observed, "when clerical celibacy is at issue, historical objectivity turns out to be an elusive commodity."

If one is looking to uncover a tradition taught by the apostles, the witness of the Eastern Churches should be of tantamount importance. According to tradition only one of the original twelve apostles traveled to the West, Peter. The other eleven apostles established Christian communities throughout the East, as did both Peter and Paul prior to journeying westward. Numerous synods and councils were held in the East prior to the Council in Trullo, many of which detailed the obligations of clerics. In all of these assemblies not a single mention was ever made of perpetual continence being required of priests or deacons. In fact, the silence in the East regarding this supposed apostolic tradition is almost deafening.

Moreover, the Cardinal says that the Council in Trullo "was the basis for the new and definitive obligation concerning celibacy in the Oriental Churches." However, the Council in Trullo only affected the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Numerous other Eastern Churches had nothing to do with the Council in Trullo, and were in no way bound by its canons. To illustrate this point, the following Eastern Churches were not involved in the council, yet have a tradition of a married clergy who maintain normal marital relations with their wives: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church. The witness of the Maronite Catholic Church is especially significant because it never broke communion with Rome, yet has maintained a married priesthood to this very day.

All of these Churches had absolutely nothing to do with the Council in Trullo. Nonetheless, they all practice the same discipline as the Churches of the Byzantine tradition. Furthermore, they all claim that this was the tradition handed on to them by the apostles. What is even more remarkable is that throughout much of the first millennium many of these Churches were embroiled in disputes with one another, and were not on speaking terms. If one of these Churches were to have abandoned an apostolic tradition, the other Churches would have readily denounced it. Clearly the unanimous witness of the Christian East testifies against mandatory celibacy having been taught by the apostles.

...

He also argues for celibacy based on the example of Christ. The priest is configured to the person of Christ, and becomes another Christ. "Christ wants the soul, heart and body of his priests," writes the Cardinal. Christ "wants that purity and continence that are a sign that he lives no longer according to the flesh but according to the spirit." While this is harmonious with the Latin theological tradition, in the Eastern tradition the persons most perfectly configured to the person of Christ are not the priests, but the monks. In the East the mutually exclusive dichotomy is not between marriage and priesthood, but between marriage and monasticism.

As he concludes the book, Cardinal Stickler raises a fundamental question: "we must ask ourselves if the basis of celibacy is to be actually found in its 'suitability.' Rather, is it not in fact really necessary and indispensable to the priesthood?" He undoubtedly desires for us to answer in the affirmative. But in light of the present teaching of the Catholic Church, is it even possible to do so?

Cardinal Stickler attempts to prove far too much. If he were to successfully demonstrate that mandatory clerical celibacy is indeed an apostolic tradition, would this mean that it is beyond the authority of the Church to change the discipline? The reality is that the Catholic Church has already modified this discipline significantly. Today the Roman Catholic Church routinely ordains married men to diaconate. These men are in no way required to abstain from marital relations, yet all of the fourth century texts that the Cardinal sights call for absolute marital continence by deacons and their wives. Moreover, these same texts claim that this is part of the apostolic tradition. Also, in recent decades the Roman Catholic Church has ordained hundreds of former Episcopal clerics as Catholic priests. And again, these men are not required to cease sexual relations with their wives.

Likewise, the Catholic Church has officially recognized the full legitimacy of the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood. For evidence of this one needs to look no further than the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1990. Canon 373 authoritatively states that "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." The legitimacy of the Eastern discipline is also affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph no. 1580.

Thus, clerical celibacy is clearly a discipline that the Church has the authority to regulate and govern. This fact bears witness against it being a tradition "demanded by the apostles." So is clerical celibacy "really necessary and indispensable to the priesthood?" The answer is a resounding no.

[url="http://www.east2west.org/Celibacy.htm"]-[u]Full Article[/u][/url]-[/quote]

[HS_Dad]

Great Article!! Thanks for posting it.

[shortnun]

Well written article. Not to mention thought provoking. Thanks!

[prose]

I've been thinking it, but I ain't been saying it.

I like that article thanks.

[bonoducchi]

Can. 1042 The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate.

Which is then granted the ability to be abrogated by:

Can. 1047 §1. Dispensation from all irregularities is reserved to the Apostolic See alone if the fact on which they are based has been brought to the judicial forum.

§2. Dispensation from the following irregularities and impediments to receive orders is also reserved to the Apostolic See:

1/ irregularities from the public delicts mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, nn. 2 and 3;

2/ the irregularity from the delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 4, whether public or occult;

3/ the impediment mentioned in ⇒ can. 1042, n. 1.

It is regulated - not given through Apostolic Succession.

[zeyeon]

Finally

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='zeyeon' post='1129268' date='Nov 27 2006, 09:30 PM']
Finally
[/quote]

[Era Might]

Just to clarify, I do not mean to suggest by this article that married men should be ordained to the Priesthood in the West. This is why we have two lungs of the Church, so that a diversity of tradition may flourish. But rather, this sheds some light on the history of clerical celibacy, and on the discipline of the Eastern Churches. The practice of the West, although it was not the norm in the Apostolic age, is the fruit of a venerable theological and spiritual tradition, and has a sure place in the Western Priesthood. It would be wrong to conclude from this article that clerical celibacy is somehow abnormal or wrong. St. Paul himself was a celibate, as is every Bishop in the East. But, it's important that we recognize the diversity that does exist in Catholic history, and in each particular Church today, and not overstate the role of Western tradition to the detriment of objective analysis of universal Catholic history and tradition.