ROME, SEPT. 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Q: Why is it that married clergy are still allowed in the Eastern Catholic rites while forbidden in the West? I understand the impracticality of one’s obligation to the family, but also to the church-family. But other than that, I’m curious to know what Tradition/canon law/teachings have to say about this matter. — R.R., Brookfield, Wisconsin
A: I would be very foolhardy to attempt to resolve the extremely complex issue of the origin and development of priestly celibacy in a few lines, especially when there is still much controversy among expert historians and theologians.
The question, however, does afford an opportunity to clarify some aspects of the issue that may be of interest to our readers.
Thus, with no pretensions of being exhaustive, I would first point out that the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own legitimate traditions which deserve equal respect with the traditions of the Roman rite.
The fact that these Churches are in full communion with the Successor of Peter does not require that they abandon any legitimate customs so as to adopt Roman traditions.
These traditions, with their attendant canon law, go beyond the differences in liturgical practices and embrace such themes as Church structure and governance, the process for selecting bishops, sacramental practices, and the possibility of admitting married men to the priesthood.
Therefore it is not a question of priests of such Churches «being allowed» to marry as a kind of concession, but rather of the continuation of a tradition that can boast many centuries of continued practice.
That said, we can also consider that all Eastern Churches, Catholic and non-Catholic, hold clerical celibacy in high esteem. All of them choose bishops exclusively from the ranks of the celibate clergy, and while some of them admit married men to ordination, no priest or deacon marries or remarries once having received ordination.
Of course, having a married clergy will lead to pastoral approaches that differ from those of the Latin Church. This should not be seen in isolation but as being part of a wider context of living the Christian faith built up over many generations.
I would even go further and say that it is not strictly true that Roman-rite priests are «not allowed» to marry, if this is seen as some form of external prohibition. Rather, the Roman tradition sees the gift and charism of celibacy as accompanying the call to the priesthood, though it realizes it is not an intrinsic necessity for a valid ordination.
We could venture to say that just as the whole Eastern tradition has seen celibacy as a necessary quality for a bishop who, in a sense, is espoused to his particular Church, the Latin tradition has developed a vision in which this quality pertains to all priests in virtue of their calling to serve Christ in a total way. The pastoral approaches of the Latin tradition have developed as a consequence of this understanding.
All the same, I am loath to try to defend clerical celibacy from the standpoint of what could be called the «practical argument» of freeing priests from family responsibilities and even less from an economical standpoint by saying that the Latin Church does not have the financial and logistical structures necessary to support a married clergy.
While these factors are certainly real, the sacrifices required in living celibacy, as well as the joys that come from it, are such that they can only be understood theologically. Arguments based on merely human criteria often boomerang and make the Church seem to be an unfeeling institution that lays impossible burdens on its servants for base pecuniary motives.
Priestly celibacy can best be understood as a logical consequence of accepting Christ’s invitation to share his mission of saving souls through the priesthood. It is a response of total love to the invitation of him who gave all for us and has loved us even more than we can love ourselves.
* * *
Follow-up: «Ustedes» vs. «Vosotros»
As a response to our consideration of the use of «vosotros»/»ustedes» in Spanish-language Masses (see Aug. 30) a religious from Portland, Oregon, recommended that I insist more on the importance of retaining the less common «vosotros» form in the Institution narrative of the Consecration.
She is quite correct, as there is a real danger, especially for priests striving to learn Spanish, of changing the verb forms and thus using an illicit formula for the consecration that is unknown in any part of the Spanish-speaking world.
Such a consecration formula would be valid but certainly illicit and should never be used.
Regarding the possibility of changing the greetings formulas, a reader from Northcote, a suburb of Melbourne, Australia, pointed out an oversight on my part with respect to a change in the new Latin missal. He writes:
«Do the rubrics in the 2002 Roman Missal allow changes to be made to the greetings?
«The 1975 GIRM 11 (Documents on the Liturgy 1401) had: ‘It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions and words of introduction and conclusion that are provided in the rites themselves. By their very nature these introductions do not need to be expressed verbatim in the form in which they are given in the Missal; at least in certain cases it will be advisable to adapt them somewhat to the concrete situation of the community.’
«This has been replaced by 2002 GIRM 31: ‘It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions that are provided in the rites themselves. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt to some extent these remarks …’
«So the provision for the celebrant to change the words of introduction and conclusion has been removed.
«The Order of Mass in the 2002 Roman Missal gives no indication of permission to change the words of greeting, simply having ‘2. Deinde sacerdos, manus extendens, populam salutat, dicens: Gratia Domini nostri … vel …’ (Missale Romanum, 2002, page 503). [The Latin text roughly translates «Following this, the priest, with hands extended, greets the people saying: The Grace of our Lord … or …]»
Actually the same rubric is also found in the former Latin missal, so there is really no change with respect to the rubrics.
My oversight chiefly consisted in confusing the rubrics of the greeting formula with those of the introduction to the penitential rite. In the latter case the present English rubric states that the celebrant may introduce the penitential rite «using these or similar words,» an expression absent from both Latin and Spanish missals.
The present Spanish missal, however, does offer a wider choice of introductory formulas, some of them adapted to the liturgical seasons, than either the Latin or English missals.
All the same, I believe our attentive reader has caught a clear change in the norms manifesting the legislator’s desire to limit the use of free adaptations to those areas where the rubrics specifically foresee them.
I would observe that, for all practical purposes, this change will not come into force until the eventual publication of the new translations of the entire missal in English and other languages.
* * *
Readers may send questions to news@zenit.org. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country.
