Much to my surprise I found this:
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:45:16 EDT
Subject: Whose to blame? Not CINEAST'ers!
Several months ago someone on this list hinted that some CINEAST'ers might be to blame for the ruckus and delay of the implementation of the Ruthenian Particular Law. A recent news story in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette suggests another culprit.
I include some background here:
In August 1998, after receiving confirmation from Rome, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh published the statutes of its Particular Law. Due to take effect on September 1st of that year Statute 44 of the new law caused much excitement among Byzantine Catholics:
Statute 44 - 1. The Council of Hierarchs of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh notes the very clear direction of the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Eastern Churches, canons 373, 28, 39, and 40 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, paragraph 1 of Orientale Lumen, which direct a return to the original patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Council of Hierarchs also notes that there is currently a married clergy in the Latin Church in the United States, and that it has been implemented without scandal to the faithful of the Latin Church.
2. This same Council of Hierarchs ascertains that the imposition of clerical celibacy introduced by the decree Cum data fuerit and reaffirmed by the decree Qua sollerti are currently in effect for the Ruthenians in the United States.
3. The Council of Hierarchs declares that these special restrictive norms imposed by the Apostolic See are no longer in force and, thus, in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, marriage is not an impediment to presbyteral orders.
In just a few days, however, Metropolitan Judson Procyk announced that Rome had asked that the implementation of the new statutes be put on hold until further study could be done.
Released just prior to October 1, 1999 the final draft of the Particular Law for the Ruthenian Metropolia (which took effect October 1st) has a completely rewritten section on married ordinands:
Canon 758 §3
§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon.
§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.
Full text of the new Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Particular Law can be found at:http://www.byzcath.org/news/1999/AEP19990928-1.html
What had happened? Why the complete change? According to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (published October 2, 1999) some lobbying by conservative Roman Catholics is seen as the reason:
Last year, Procyk was set to announce that Rome had approved 50 new canons governing everything from seminary education to sacraments. One would have allowed Byzantine bishops in the United States to ordain married men without special permission.
But a conservative Catholic news organization misinterpreted the change as a revolt against Rome. The Vatican then placed all 50 laws on hold while talks continued between officials of the Vatican's Congregation for Oriental Churches and Byzantine canon lawyers from the United States. The Vatican approved the final text this year. Procyk said that the new law on ordination is not a compromise.
Full text of the article with an interview of Metropolitan Judson Procyk can be found at:http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991002byzantine4.asp
Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com