In April of 1998 a letter was sent from a curial office to the Apostolic Delegate to Poland, I believe, which requested that all married Ukrainian Catholic priests in Poland leave, presumably to go to Ukraine. There was some discussion among eastern Catholics on whether this letter should be taken at face value and whether a curial office could legitimately say anything about the affairs of a sui juris Church. Does anyone know what has happened with those priests in the 16 months or so since the letter was published?

At the diaconal program, I was told from a reliable source that the Cardinal-Secretary of State was quietly reprimanded by the Pope and the married priests remain in Poland. A quiet but decisive victory for the Ukrainian Church. I do not believe any official comment was given by anyone.

Lance Weakland

They never left. If you really think about how stupid this was, it must have been a real embarrasment for the Latin Church. One *sui juris* church has no jurisdiction over another *sui juris* church. That would be like the equivelent of the Byzantine Catholic Church telling the Latin Church that you must start communicating infants because that was the way it was for the first 1500 years. And also that diocese that is presently in Poland was not in Poland 50 years(?) ago. The political geographical boundry of Poland has changed numerous times since World War One. This same diocese was and still is ecclisiasticaly in Ukraine. So depending on what century it is that's where this diocese is located. Some years it is in Ukraine. Some years in Poland.

Joe Prokopchak
the archsinner

Joe -

Yes, the Letter was very stupid. "Strange" I think is the word the Ukrainian Synod gave it.

However, on a minor point, is it clear that the Polish Metropolia is a sui iuris church? We sometimes forget not all Byzantine churches are sui iuris. The Hungarian, Yugoslav, Bulgarian, Hellenic, and Russian are not. I think the sui iuris status of many of the diaspora churches is unclear.

Kurt,

I believe there is some confusion on the meaning of sui iuris. The Ukrainian Catholic Church has a province in Poland consisting of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Peremysl and the Diocese of Gdansk-Warsaw. This province is a member of the sui iuris Ukrainian Catholic Church, headed by the Archbishop Major of Lviv. The province in Poland is not a seperate sui iuris Church, at least no more than any other province or diocese. (Every diocese is sui iuris to an extent)
Also the Hungarian Catholic Church and the Byzantine Diocese of Krizhevci in Croatia are sui iuris churches. They are so listed in the Pontifical Annual. I believe the confusion arises from the differing amount of autonomy exercised by different sui iuris churches. Patriarchial Churches, obviously enjoy the most autonomy. Erecting their own exarchates and dioceses, electing their own bishops and patriarch, etc. Archbishop Major Churches are next. They enjoy basically the same rights of the Patriarchal Churches minus the title and some other rights. They can only erect exarchates, the Pope must erect their dioceses. Following these are Metropolitan Churches. Again these have less rights. The Pope erects exarchates and dioceses. Finally are those Churches consisting of dioceses only: Hungarian, Croatian, Italo-Greek/Albanian.\
I am not clear on those churches that are only exarchates:Greek, Russian, Albanian, Bulgarian. They are listed as sui iuris in the Pontifical Annual, but since they are exarchates they are directly dependent on the Pontiff. So, how sui iuris can they be? I hope this clears it up a little.

Lance Weakland

Just to clarify...

The order for the explusion came from the Secretary of State of the Vatican. He ordered the explusion "by the authority of the Holy Father." Whether or not this was known to the Holy Father beforehand is not certain.

It is most interesting (if true) that the Secretary of State was given a private rebuke and the order has been withdrawn. Why is it necessary for the rebuke to be private? Imagine if Janet Reno (US Attorney General) issued an edict ordering segregation in public schools? One can only imagine the uproar! And then to hear through the grapevine that she was privately rebuked and the order was rescinded! Seems to me a very public statement would be needed (at the very least).

Has anyone heard if the order from the Eastern Congregation for the delay in implementation of the "married priest's" statute in the Ruthenian particular law has been quietly rescinded? Were the Cardinals involved privately rebuked?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

>>>>It is most interesting (if true) that the Secretary of State was given a

private rebuke and the order has been withdrawn. Why is it necessary for

the rebuke to be private?<<<<



You obviously don't know the unofficial motto of the Catholic Church:



"We may not always be right, but we are NEVER wrong".



The Catholic Church often changes its mind or its position, but it seldom does so in a blatant way: too many centuries of proclaimed infallibility. So, when somebody screws up, it is fixed from behind the scenes, with a mimimum of fuss and bother, and above all, no public admission of fault.

Dave and Stuart :

You really got to get out of the house more often if you find any of this unique to the Catholic Church. In government, business, associations, labor unions and churches, more statements go out under the "top guy's" signature without his/her review that those that are.

And yes, private rebukes are the norm rather than the exception for Janet Reno and everyone other subordinate in any major organization, secular or religious.

Does your workplace put out a memo to entire staff and the public everytime an employee's action is overruled?

Kurt,

That may work in a secular corporation. It won't work in political and I would also add ecclesiastical situations. This incident has tremendous ecumenical implications and for that reason needs a public resolution.

I hasten to add that the ruling against the "married priest's statute" needs to be reversed ASAP. That also has tremendous ecumenical implications and a public handling of that gaffe would give assurance to Orthodox that union with Rome does not mean loss of tradition or autonomy.

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Was the Vatican Secretary of State's letter a public document, or was it a private communication which was "leaked"?

***Vatican Secretary of State***

Now here is another example of why us Byzantines have a hard time understanding the ways of the Vatican. I thought the Secretary of State was a political office. This sounds like someone who represents the Vatican State and goes around meeting Presidents and Prime Ministers and establishes diplomatic relations between the Vatican and foreign countries. What's he doing acting as a member of the church heirarchy in matters regarding another church heirarchy? Now can you see why we are confused at times?

Joe Prokopchak
the archsinner

Joe,

You are half right. The Secretariat of State does indeed have competency in the area of the Vatican's diplomacy with other nations. Assigning nuncios and receiving ambassadors and such. However, this office of the Curia also has oversight over many areas, relations between bishops being one of them. From the Polish Latin bishops point of view the Ukrainian bishops were in violation of the agreement to confine married priests to their traditional homeland. (I know this agreement was forced upon Eastern Catholic Churches and is in the process of being rescinded) The Polish Latin bishops appealed to the Secretary of State directly, who then issued the directive without the Pope's knowledge. (Considering his health, I wonder how often this is done) Anyways, the Cardinal-Secretary of State did not act outside his authority in handling the matter. He was out of order not bringing this matter before the Pope. He could have probably, however, acted on his own in telling the Latin Bishops to mind their own business and respect the rights of the Ukrainian Church. However, by acting in the manner he did, (in opposition to what the Pope, various documents and councils have said about safeguarding Eastern heritage) he was asking for a censure.

So, is there still a ban on ordaining married men to the priesthood in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Poland?

I just have to disagree that this has "tremendous ecumenical implications". Several matters need to be recalled that Catholics and Western converts to Orthodoxy often don't factor in:

1. This is primarily not an eccesliascial dispute, it is an ethnic one. Poles and Ukrainians have had difficult relations for centuries (though are definately improving). I could go on for pages on this, but will restrain myself.

2. Again, while Catholics and Orthodox converts seem to have concerns about the governance of the Catholic Eastern Churches, the issue rarely if ever is raised by the Orthodox in official dialogues. The Orthodox leadership seem to understand that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not a model for future unity. When pressed, they often conclude that since they have no philosophy (though sometimes the practice) of multiple jurisdictions in the same locale, they have little advice to offer Catholics as to the relationship among multiple normative churches living together. I remember one Canadian Greek bishop writing that it seemed odd to him that North American Byzantine Catholics would have married priests while Latins would not.

3. For Westerners to get a better idea as to how "off the radar screen" this is to world Orthodox leaders, ask yourself how much time you spend concerned about the ecumencial implications of the way the Moscow Patriarchate relates to (dominates?) the Polish Orthodox Church.

When I referred to "ecumenical implications" I was not just referring to Orthodox/Catholic relations. I was also referring to the relations between Eastern Catholics and Rome. The reaction among Eastern Catholics to the expulsion order was quite strong. (I remember a strongly-worded editorial in _Eastern Catholic Life_.) That alone should justify a public handling of the resolution.

Yes, there are Orthodox who could care less about what happens between Eastern Catholics and Rome (as Kurt noted). Even among them when union with Rome becomes a topic of discussion there is usually a "Look what union with Rome has done for the Uniates" type of comment.

I know that when the media first reported the "married priest's statute" in the new Ruthenian Metropolia's _sui juris_ legislation (before Rome squashed it) my Orthodox friends were stunned. It contradicted everything they had assumed about Eastern Catholics. Of course, the fiasco that followed only confirmed their prejudices.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 09-01-1999).]

I still fail to understand how Christianity is advanced by joining up in a lynch mob to go after someone who issued a letter that was never implemented and then withdrawn.

I do agree that those who are Eastern Catholics can rightly take offense at this whole matter, even if it was resolved favorablely in the end. It can also be viewed as a positive development. The Polish Greek Catholic people were even more cruelly oppressed by the Communists and their colaborators than the Church in the Ukrainian SSR. In just emerging from that period, they have recieved much assistance from the Catholic world but still have great needs. Despite this position dependency imposed upon them by Communist oppression, when a dispute arose between the larger Church and them, they were behind in the first quarter and won the game. They can now turn their full attention to the much greater injustice they suffer, the return of their rightful property stolen from them by orders of the previous government.

As for the Orthodox, my understanding that the situation here in North America with multiple jurisdiction is consider an unfortunate historical development and not normative. What is the Orthodox theology for the relations between normative and permanent Orthodox jurisdictions in the same territory?

Dear Servant of God, Lance

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a cradle Byzantine/Ruthenian and not to fluent in Latin Church heirarchy. I'm an advid student of my own Metropolia since that is where God has placed the responsability of the spriritual care of my soul. Latin theology and spirituality is a little foreign to me and sometimes hard for me to understand.

Joe Prokopchak
St. Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church
McKeesport, PA.

[This message has been edited by Joe Prokopchak (edited 09-01-1999).]

Dave Brown wrote:

>>>>I hasten to add that the ruling against the "married priest's statute" needs to be reversed ASAP.<<<<
----------------------------------------
Dear Servant of God, Dave

Be patient my brother, be patient. There are only 25 more days until Oct. 1, 1999.

Joe Prokopchak
the archsinner

Glory Be to Jesus Christ!

As an Ukrainian Greek-Catholic from Poland I wish to make some remarks & clarifications:

TO ALL:
You may find the English translation of Card. Sodano's letter with a great comment by Archimandrite Serge (Keleher) just going to the following webpage: http://members.aol.com/CCFSYakiw/ECChat/Poland.html/
Married priests from Ukraine have remained in Poland (maybe, somebody left, but was replaced by another married priest from there).
TO JOE PROKOPCHAK: 60 years ago the whole Peremyshl Eparchy was under Polish rule. From 1944 only the minor part has remained in Poland. However, the married priests from Ukraine work not only on historical territories of mentioned Eparchy. Someone works on former German lands incorporated after WWII.
TO LANCE WEAKLAND: I have not heard about "the agreement to confine married priests to their traditional homeland". BTW, some of them are Polish citizens, born in Poland, ordained and incardinated in Ukraine because of their marriage status. Such ordination & incardination in Ukraine for working in Poland has become normal (?).
There is no canon in he CCEO limiting the right to creation of eparchies to the patriarchal Churches only. In fact, the only difference between patriarchates and major archbishoprics in CCEO is that candidate becomes major archbishop after papal confirmation of election and patriarch is a patriarch just after election.
TO KURT: I deeply appreciate your knowledge about the "Old Country". However, I would not call the conflict primarily ethnic, because from my historian's point of view the church conflict was the first (see, for example, works of Polish historian Jan KOZIK about Ukrainian national movement in the first half of XIX century in Galicia).
Polish Orthodox Church is an autocephalous one and I do not see any connection between PAOC's relationships with Moscow Patriarchate and ecumenical dialogue.
From the other hand, I have to emphasize that Rome's policy towards Eastern Catholics may have a deep influence upon Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. Orthodox wouldn't tell it frankly, but... Just think: Holy Father publishes "Orientale Lumen", emphasizes Rome's love towards Eastern traditions and so on - just in a while Cardinal Sodano writes his letter "by the authority of the Holy Father", making the Pope and the Holy See liars. Do you think the Orthodox (who don't trust Rome even without Sodano's letter) may be indifferent in such situation?
Autonomous Churches haven't to be patriarchal or even metropolitan ones. They can be "others" (aliae Ecclesiae sui iuris), and all of the Churches you mention are "sui iuris". Of course, you're right in your opinion about them - their "autonomy" is ridiculous.
TO DAVE IGNATIUS: Your question about "a ban of ordaining married men to the priesthood" is a very difficult one. I simply don't know how should I answer it. The situation is very unclear. The shortest answer might be such: a kind of the ban exists, but it is not impossible to become married priest here (by ordination in Ukraine or pretending bachelor till ordination in Poland).
CONCLUSION: Sodano's letter may be considered an attempt (not first, however) to weak - or even cut - our ties with Mother Church in Ukraine and to subordinate us to the Latin Church authorities in Poland.
I hope this helps a bit...
Peter

[This message has been edited by Piotr Siwicki (edited 09-07-1999).]

Peter,

Thank you so much for your clarifications. I think it cleared up a lot of misunderstanding.
The agreement I was refering to was never promulgated for Poland. It was issued to North America in 1929. However, it would seem that the Polish bishops and Cardinal Sodano were trying to piggyback the Polish situation onto this decree. What other standing did they have? Certainly none according to the CCEC.
It is reassuring to know that the married priests remained in Poland. While it would have been nice for the Polish bishops and Cardinal Sodano to get a nice chewing out by Pope John Paul and/or Cardinal Lubachivsky, I think the quiet diplomatic handling served everyone well.

To All,

To open up another can of worms... Is anyone here aware a Ukrainian bishop ordained four married men to the priesthood here in the United States this year. I'll try to get some more info on this one.

Lance Weakland

Lance,

Were they ordained in Ukraine or here in the US? I heard of one who went to Ukraine for six months and came back ordained. Were there some ordained here?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Follow-up to Joe:

What happens Oct. 1st?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave,

It is my understanding that these four men were ordained in Florida by a Ukrainian bishop stationed in Rome. They were all older men, who were retired and deacons. (I think) I don't know what the thought on this was or the possible implications are. I find it unusual nothing was reported about it. I'm still trying to find additional information on this.

Lance Weakland

Not wanting to seem like I'm encouraging a rumor but I asked a Ukrainian Catholic friend about this and he said he'd heard the same rumor from a very reliable source about a year ago.

Just wondering. If this can be verified...were these men ordained with some sort of special dispensation or permission from Rome?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

DTBrown,

Why would a married Ukrainian man have to receive a 'dispensation' from Rome? First, he is not Roman Catholic. Second, The Code of Eastern Canon Law does not mandate celibacy. Third, the preposterous assumption that Rome must approve every Greek-Catholic action is absolutely disingenous and only continues the idea that the Eastern Church is only appendage of Rome'e whims and will.

Elias

Lance,

Concerning the issue of four married men being ordained in the U.S. ......

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW?

Elias

Elias,

Yes, the _Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches_ does not mandate celibacy. It does have a clause (759 para 3) which refers to "special norms" established by the Apostolic See with regard to admitting married men to holy orders. This is what we here in America call "the Ban."

Because there is this "special norm" in place the Eastern Congregation could issue a dispensation. In fact, if I remember correctly (and it'd take awhile for me to dig this up...and perhaps I'm wrong on this but I don't think I am) it was Rome's position even before 1929 that she would give permission for such ordinations. (There were regulations about married clergy in this country way before 1929.)

As to who needs to know about this...if this is true and these men are serving the Church publicly, then this would not be a confidential matter.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

DTBrown: Yes, the _Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches_ does not mandate celibacy. It does have a clause (759 para 3) which refers to "special norms" established by the Apostolic See with regard to admitting married men to holy orders.

Elias: Whose “special norms?” Are these special norms inherently Eastern Christian tradition? Did the Eastern Catholic bishops write this code – including “special norms” on admitting married men to holy orders? Yet the Eastern Code does not mandate celibacy. Huh? So why the “special norms?” Why would the Eastern Church write no bans on married priests in the Code only to turn around and ask permission from another sui juris church to ordain married men to the priesthood? Did all of the Eastern Catholic bishops promulgate the Code in its entirety? Case in point: the Melkite bishop in the U.S. who ordained a married man without Rome having a cow.

DTBrown: This is what we here in America call "the Ban."

Elias: Who is “banning” it if the Eastern Code doesn’t mandate it?

DTBrown: Because there is this "special norm" in place the Eastern Congregation could issue a dispensation.

Elias: Where does the bishop come into play in this? Who actually runs the eparchies – a Congregation in Rome? Reminds me of how Moscow ran all the Eastern bloc countries – nonindigenous centralized control from afar. Why a dispensation if there is no code against married priests? This reminds me of those taxpayers who can’t wait to get a ‘refund check’ from the IRS/gov’t thinking they are getting money FROM the gov’t when the money was theirs all along! Duh! This Congregation as a surrogate Patriarch is baffling. Who actually represents the Eastern Catholic people? Who is your Vladyko? I have no respect for puppets. If the Congregation is truly in charge, then why don’t Byzantne Catholics include it in the Great Litany like the Pope and bishops? Let me put it another way – why do Byzantine Catholics NOT pray for the Eastern Congregation?

DTBrown: In fact, if I remember correctly (and it'd take awhile for me to dig this up...and perhaps I'm wrong on this but I don't think I am) it was Rome's position even before 1929 that she would give permission for such ordinations. (There were regulations about married clergy in this country way before 1929.)

Elias: Rome or the American Roman Catholic bishops’ position? Let me ask you this – in an age of sui juris churches, does it fit right for a bishop to ask permission to do something that is traditional in his sui juris church? How about their married deacons? Let’s take this SUI JURIS church thing to the limit. Has any Roman Catholic bishop asked permission from Byz Cath bishops or their surrogate Patriarch-Congregation to ordain married men to the priesthood from the Protestant Churches? Now, doesn’t this permission-slip policy sound strange if not unfair?

DTBrown: As to who needs to know about this...if this is true and these men are serving the Church publicly, then this would not be a confidential matter.

Elias: There has been cases where ordinations of married men in the Byz Cath Church has produced “hissy-fits” on the Roman Catholic side of the fence – even though the Romans have many married deacons AND priests serving in this country. Politiks is strange, indeed.


Elias

This is the information I was able to gather on the married Ukrainian priets.

They were older men who had been deacons for some time prior. They were ordained by a Ukrainian bishop from Europe (Murysan?) with the knowledge of Bishop Robert of the Ukrainian Eparchy of Parma.

I was not able to find out if Rome granted a dispensation or simply does not care. Considering the various situations that have come out in favor of the Eastern Churches (the Ukrainians in Canada and Poland, the Melkites in the US) and the fact that about 100 Roman Catholic priests are married (former Episcopal and Lutheran priests) it would seem the Pope is slowly allowing our hope to become a reality.

I have no reason to think the new particular law won't include married priests. I do have reason to think it will take years to implement. The logistics have yet to be worked out. How do you train a married man with a family to support? How many parishes can afford to support a married priest and his family? I also don't think it is going to be the magic pill for the priest shortage. I believe their are now 14 seminarians at St. Cyril and Methodius. If 14 more were produced from announcing married men will now be accepted, I would be surprised.

As far as the on going arguement on why should Rome have say in this, I think it is a horse that has been beaten to death on this forum. The bottom line is that the Bishops of our Church have chosen to work within the Pope's time frame; and I believe we must respect that no matter how much we wish our Bishops would just start ordaining married men tomorrow.

Of one thing I am sure: it is a matter of when, not if.

Lance Weakland

Thanks, Lance, for the info.

I would agree that the Ban's end is near. I thought we almost saw it's end last year. Hopefully, that was just a temporary set-back and the Ruthenian particular law on this will be promulgated soon.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Now that the so-called "ban" is history, let me raise the ante. Among the latinizations we have fallen prey to is the western classical liberal concept of "rights" only in the negative (where the authority does not obstruct the individual). The Catholic Church has pointed out the weakness in this thinking which ignores positive rights.

The discussion on the restoration of married priests in North America has had this weakness as well. We only speak of allowing the ordination of married men. The Byzantine tradition is one of both a married and monastic clergy. Not only does the North American Church not have a native married clergy, it is very weak on a native monastic clergy. We have many priests in non-monastic religious orders (which some consider a latinization and others just a proper development with a valid pastoral purpose) but very few monks. We should have an equal clamoring for a renewed monastic presence to the calls for a married priesthood.

Married priests with no monks is equally alien to the Byzantine tradition as celibate priests with no married priests.

Dear Kurt,
Many thanks for reminding about the obvious, but "forgetable" (and often forgotten) thing: not only married priests, but also real monks are necessary for truly integral restoration of our Byzantine identity!
with prayers,
Peter