www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ruthenian latinizations

********

According to the special provision in the Eastern Canon Law and our Particular Law, ordination of married men to the priesthood is still exceptional. IMHO until the BCA Particular Law is changed and approved by Rome on a permanent basis our Ruthenian BC Church is treated as inferior to the Latin Church and the credibility of Rome's statements that we return to our true traditions are nice, but lack credibility.
I would love to rescind this statement of mine if someone can show ACTION to the contrary.

I look forward to union of East and West as the "One True Church" but I can understand the Orthodox Churches reticence until this policy is publicly redressed.

It has been claimed the the "uniate" churches are an "obstacle" to union. Rome has the power to utilize its Eastern Catholic brothers to promote union by rescinding the celibate priesthood standard. Surely this could be pointed out as a goodwill gesture that Rome will truly the Eastern Churches as equals.

Fr. Lawrence Barriger made a similar comment on the 80th anniversary of Cum Data Fuerit in the ACROD Church Messenger [acrod.org] -- see page 4 of that PDF. I have argued [orthocath.wordpress.com] that having such a tradition regulated by Rome also has an impact on possibilities for reunion in the future.

This may have got buried. I hope no one minds if I ask:

So, is one of the basic principles of Cum Data Fuerit -- that the Pope has the right to regulate the tradition of married clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches outside their "home territories" -- still in force?

As a practical matter, no.

Stuart,

Isn't it in the Eastern Code of Canons?

Doesn't the Ruthenian Church still need to get dispensations from Rome before ordaining married men to the priesthood?

I don't see why, except that they wrote it into their own particular law--which, of course, is binding only if they want it to be. The Ukrainians and Melkites have been ordaining married men here for more than two decades now. The Ukrainians began doing it in Canada even sooner.

But all that is beside the point. Rome could direct the Ruthenians to ordain married men, indeed, instruct them only to ordain married men, and the bishops still would not do it because (a) they obviously think married priests are somehow inferior to celibate ones; and (b) celibate priests are so much cheaper and easier to manage than married ones.

The response of Rome to other Churches ordaining married men in North America is instructive: dead silence. No permission asked, none granted, because it is none of Rome's business. I recall that, some years back, the Congregation for the Clergy sent a letter to a married Ukrainian priest up in Canada, informing him that his ordination, while valid, was "illicit" (!), and that he should cease to exercise his faculties immediately. The man went with the letter to his bishop, asking what he should do. And the bishop replied, "Frame it and hang it on your wall. Now get back to your parish and do your job".

Moral: Any Eastern Catholic bishop can ordain a married man to the presbyterate, anywhere and at any time. He just needs to ... do it.

Stuart,

First, the Ruthenian Church was forced to put the part about getting dispensations into their Particular Law. From a news report from 1999 [post-gazette.com]:


Second, what evidence is there that other Eastern Catholic Churches do not get dispensations? As far as I know, no Eastern Catholic Bishop has ever said they do not get dispensations.

I would be very glad if that were the case, but as it stands we have no evidence that these ordinations are being done without approval from Rome.

That's their story, and they are sticking with it. Had the Council of Hierarchs put their feet down, Rome would not have inserted this restriction--it would not surprise me that one of the bishops played a double game and put the bug in Rome's ear. As it was, the sign of relief on the part of the Ruthenian bishops was tangible.

As for other bishops not getting dispensations, they just don't (see my story about the priest whose ordination was ruled "valid but illicit"). In fact, a lot of them never really observed the spirit of Cum data fuerit, since both the Ukrainians and the Melkites continually sent American born married deacons to Europe or the Middle East for ordination to the presbyterate, and then brought them back home. Only the Ruthenians stuck to the letter and the spirit of the constitution, and that mainly because the Johnstown Schism made it a matter of pride.

Everything else aside, there are lots of canons on the Orthodox books that have fallen into desuetude. Nobody suggests that the Orthodox rationalize the Nomocanons and remove the ones (e.g., prohibition on seeing a Jewish physician or on priests going to the theater) that simply are anachronistic. If Rome silently acquiesces to the ordination of married men in this country, well, what's the big deal? Go for the substance, not the form.

P.S.: Never believe news reports, especially not Church news reports.

Stuart,

I knew one of the people on the Commission. The news reports are accurate. You should not be spreading false statements about the Bishops. This Forum is not the place to start such false rumors.

I am not saying there has never been ordinations that did not have approval from Rome. But, I see no reason to believe that the Eastern Catholic Bishops in the US do not work in concert with Rome on this.

I'm glad Rome has so much time on its hands that it can vet our presbyteral candidates. But I have seen no evidence that the Ukrainians, Romanians or Melkites bother to disturb the important work of the Congregation for the Clergy with such a trivial matter.

But let's suppose you are right. I see Ukrainian bishops ordaining married men on a regular basis. I see the Melkite Archbishop ordaining married men on a regular basis. I see married men in the presbyteral programs at their seminaries. I see none of this in the Ruthenian Church, so we can draw only three conclusions:

1. No married men in the Ruthenian Church are either qualified or willing to put themselves forward as presbyteral candidates.

2. Rome has rejected each and every potential candidate put forward.

3. The bishops just aren't that into ordaining married men, period.

...

By the way, did it ever occur to you that your source simply repeated the party line? The Ruthenian clergy seem to operate under the code of omerta.

I can't speak as to why no married candidates have been put forth. There may not be a desire to have married clergy by the Bishops of the Ruthenian Church, as you imply.

Still, I see no reason for you expressing such disrespect publicly for the Bishops of the Ruthenian Church on this Forum.

The reason I brought this back up was because it had been claimed the Eastern Code of Canons had basically repealed any restrictions on the ordination of married men. The Code specifically states that the "special norms established by the Apostolic See" on this remained in place. That being the case, then, from Rome's POV it retains the right of regulating the tradition of married clergy among the Eastern Catholic Churches outside of their canonical territories. It re-affirmed that in 1999 with the Ruthenian Particular Law.

Perhaps someone who works with the various eparchial offices of other Eastern Catholic Churches here in the US and Canada can speak to whether dispensations are sought for ordinations of married men in their Churches.

I'm not expressing my disrespect for their Graces, just my utter disappointment in the quality of the stewardship of the Church. As we say in my business, you can't argue with actuals.

And there have been any number of articles on the CCEO with relation to Cum data fuerit, which have appeared in Eastern Churches Journal and elsewhere, which were pretty much unanimous in stating that the Code abrogates all the special norms.

Whether Rome thinks it has the right to restrict or regulate the ordination of married men in the United States is utterly irrelevant in the absence of any capability of Rome to enforce its will (not that Rome has demonstrated any). Pope John Paul on several occasions openly encouraged the Greek Catholic bishops here to restore the institution of married presbyters. This was also reiterated by the Praefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in Boston in 1999, as reflected in Father Taft's lecture given at that meeting, "Liturgy in the Life of the Church".

My opinion of the reasoning behind the Particular Law remains unchanged: there were numerous elements within it indicating not only that the bishops had no desire to ordain married men, but were not particularly anxious to bring Ruthenian praxis into line with the fullness of the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition. The bishops themselves are the only obstacle to the reinstitution of married priests, with or without Rome's permission. The Ruthenian bishops have no qualms about defying Rome when it suits their purposes, so "loyalty" to Rome is just the merest figleaf of an excuse, which the particular law lends a degree of plausibility.

But, even assuming Rome would object, just what is it that Rome can do? Place the Ruthenian Church under the interdict? Suspend or depose the bishops (O, please, Brer Fox, don' throw me in dat dere briar patch!)? That would certainly do wonders for the Ecumenical Dialogue--how are the Orthodox supposed to take Rome's assurances of non-interference at face value if Rome interferes with those Eastern Churches already in communion with it?

So, in essence, even if the restriction still exists, it's a dead letter, like so many other pieces of canonical legislation that have outlived their usefulness. If the Ruthenian bishops cared about the Tradition at all, if they cared about Christian unity at all (and their actions in that arena speak for themselves), then they would get on with it, because only such independence in an area of legitimate episcopal authority will ever convince the Orthodox that we are not mere spiritual helots of Rome.

I am not as cynical as Stuart is, but factually he is correct. The question of ordaining married men is in their hands. I have met all of the bishops and have known some of them fairly well. It all boils down to the fact that there are few among the clergy (including bishops) who live as true Byzantines / Orthodox. After so many years of trying to imitate the Roman Catholics most Ruthenians just have no idea what our own tradition is all about. And being an Eastern Catholic bishop in the USCCB come with a lot of pressure to simply keep modeling the Latins.

PS: The deep, dark secret is that the Ruthenian bishops are really afraid of the wives of the priests. They would not put up with half of the things our long-suffering priests put up with!

Under which circumstances, NOT being an American sui juris Church has its advantages: men like Patriarchs Lyubomir and Gregorios have the authority and confidence to stand up to the Curia and provide encouragement and support for their diocesan bishops here.

And yet the Eastern Code specifically says the special norms are still in place!

I would not be surprised if Rome would approve most ordinands. I think the only problem would arise if the unlucky fellow happened to have been once in the Latin Church. That would be interesting to see.