Is it true that all of this "hysteria" about the laws was precipitated by a Ruthenian priest "leaking" the information to the press rather than waiting for an official press release from Metropolitan Judson? What is that saying about "delivery" being "everything"?

The information first appeared in the official newspaper of the Eparchy of Parma, _Horizons_. It was their lead story. So, it would appear that it would have had the permission of Bishop Basil.

It was covering the fact that a month earlier (in July) Metropolitan Judson had promulgated the laws. So, the news was already a month old and the laws were just two weeks away from taking effect. Considering those details it doesn't make sense to me to say that the Eparchy of Parma "jumped the gun" on this one.

Dave Brown Medford, Oregon

DT thank you for the feedback and clarification. I've just heard bits and pieces here and there and am trying to piece it all together.

I agree with DTBrown, was anything mentioned at the Otpust regarding all these issues that no one is commenting on? Would be interested to see when an "offical" annoucment will be made on way or the other.

In Canada the Ukrainian Catholic church has the same prohibition of maried priests for much the same reasons as the Byzantine Catholic Church of America. In my parent's parish, however, they have a priest who is maried with children. Due to the extreme shortage of priests, the bishop requested priests to immigrate from Europe but could not find too many that were unmaried. I don't think that the Greek Catholic priests in Europe have ever been prohibited from mariage but I could be wrong on that.

So all the Ukrainian Catholic priests ordained in Canada are unmarried but the bishop has allowed a maried priest to serve in his eparchy who was ordained in Europe. Now this may sound naive but I have to ask why the North American bishops simply don't take matters into their own hands? If the church hierarchy invoked the Treaty of Brest what would happen? Excommunication of the entire hierarchy? Could it be that Rome does not want to move on this for fear that the Latin rite priests will want to be maried next?

[This message has been edited by Sterling Demchinsky (edited 09-16-98).]

Sterling: You are one heck of a smart fella! I have been saying they should read the Treaty of Brest for years.

Dear handmaid of the Lord, Joy

Just for clarification the Treaty of Brest does not apply to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Church. The Treay of Brest only applies to the Ukrainians. The Ruthenian Church entered into communion with Rome under the Treaty of Uzshorod.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

That may be the fact, Joe, but in terms of canonicity, the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches are considered "Kievan", with a unified liturgical recension, and set of laws. While the folks over in Eastern Europe made the distinctions, I'm not sure that the Romans do. For them, it's "the northern Slavs", as opposed to the Bulgarian and Balkan groups. I think someone needs to send Luigi Cardinal Spaghetti a letter outlining who the Kievan and Slavic peoples are and why they are capable of being a Church unto themselves. And why isn't one of OUR people in charge of this Roman Congregation for the Eastern Churches? If it's meant to be 'advisory' to the Roman Church, then we ought to just acclaim Metropolitan Judson our Patriarch, set up our own "Congregation for the Western Churches" and have them deal with it with each other. It would certainly take a load off the Holy Father's mind; he's been good to us because he understands where our peoples are coming from. May God grant him many years.

A lot of frustration, anger, and confusion would be spared all of us if we remember that God's will is always done. If Jesus wants married clergy, it will happen. And if He does not want married clergy, it will not be sanctioned. Just continue to pray and fast, and trust in the power of God's will. God Bless you all.

To Joe Prochopchak, I would like to remind you that the Cum Ferit decree applied equaly to the Byzantine Rusins as it did to the Ukrainian Catholics. Also if one looks at the history of the Eastern Catholic Church in the USA in the beginning,there was just one Bishop who ruled over both the Ukrainian and the Rusyn Catholic, so when the Vatican wants to they can treat them as one group. Also one must remember that the Union of Brest was only using principles from the Council of Florence which were used time and again with other groups

To Joe Prochopchak, I would like to remind you that the Cum Ferit decree applied equaly to the Byzantine Rusins as it did to the Ukrainian Catholics. Also if one looks at the history of the Eastern Catholic Church in the USA in the beginning,there was just one Bishop who ruled over both the Ukrainian and the Rusyn Catholic, so when the Vatican wants to they can treat them as one group. Also one must remember that the Union of Brest was only using principles from the Council of Florence which were used time and again with other groups

Of Course, Rome is insisting that the Particular Law be posponed indefinitely. Yet another example of Roman triumphalism and insistence on conformity. Doesn't sound catholic to me - just Roman.

Further news on the postponement...

I've been told the current issue of _Byzantine Catholic World_ (the official newspaper of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh) states that all the statues of the new particular law will take effect soon *except* for the one that states that marriage is not an impediment to holy orders.

Dave Brown DTBrown@aol.com
Central Point, Oregon

Why do you need to go the route of the Particular law? Why can't you do what the Melkite Bishop do and just "do it". Or since the Iorn Curtain is now down just have priests ordained in either Slovakia or Yugoslavia and have them "transferred to North America??

I hope that the information about "the married priest exception" is incorrect. What a shame if we are "granted" everything but this.

However, on a historical note: I was told by a priest that unfortunately in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the married Eastern clergy became almost like a caste unto itself. To-be priests only married daughters of priests, or at the very least daughters of cantors. And children of cantors married children of other cantors. A number of years ago, when this priest was involved in the funeral of a member of one of these "priest" families, he was snubbed because his parents were Mr. and Mrs. Average American. He said it almost reminded him of a royalty/commoner division. One could argue that for sure, the unmarried priesthood "requirement" put an end to this (in this country). However, with the plurialism and mass education found in the United States, I think this caste system would have ended on its own... without the "help" of the Roman Church.