Citing Elvira is "Theologically Shooting Oneself in the Foot" - Shows No Evidence for Mandating Celibacy/Continence Before Local 4th Century Synod; Refuting comment of "Let Latins Be Latins & East Be East"

My comment:

Dr. K., your article, while well written, relies too heavily on Fr. Selin's assumptions and data. This in turn leads you to at least one contested conclusion concerning 'mandated' continence. It would be stronger to hold to Brumley's position over Selin's in the final analysis. Let me explain.

S wrote: "In the fourth century the first conciliar legislation concerning a consistent practice of clerical continence and celibacy appears in the Latin Church."

Given this, the problem is three-fold: (1) There is no clear mandate for compulsory continence prior to the 4th Century. Celibacy and continence indeed go back to the time of the Twelve Apostles, as is noted, but 'mandatory' celibacy and 'mandatory' continence does not go to the Twelve. It is not sufficient furthermore to hold that the Church was coming out of persecution and as such could not regulate continence in eccleisial documents (or even the Fathers before the 4th C) b/c ecclesial documents do in fact exist and they do not regulate clerical conjugal relations before the 4th Century. (2) Selin, Stickler, Sarah, others, and now you cite the local Council of Elvira in AD 305 as the earliest evidence for mandated continence, but none of these revered scholars can point to any written universal evidence before this LOCAL council. Even the UNIVERSAL Council of Nicea in 325 did not teach on mandated continence but rather taught that (married) priests once ordained cannot marry. Elvira was a local council for that region, along with Carthage, but they were not councils of the universal holy Catholic Church. The Elvira Synod had the same magisterial authority as does the Amazon Synod. (3) By Fr. Selin's own admission, no evidence exists between the time of the Apostles and AD 305. Crickets. The silence on 'mandated' celibacy and 'mandated' continence is defeaning. Anytime someone cites Elvira it is shooting oneself in the foot bc it declares that no evidence for 'mandated' universal continence existed before the 4th C.

This leads your argument to conclude the ecclesial positivist position of "Let the East be the East, and "Latins be Latins." It-may-be-true-for-you-but-not-true-for-me-relativism concerning a matter that is <<<ahem>>> "more than mere discipline." The universal Church cannot be relativist on "more than mere discipline" or doctrine. East and West must be united on matters "more than mere discipline." We can change discipline, yadda, yadda, yadda... A forteriori, then, if we take this theogical relativism at face value, let's let the Latin West be the Latin West for the sake of conversation: If you want the Latins to be Latins, then Selin's statement is actually a case for the 'obligatory' character of continence appearing only in the 4th Century for the Latins to be Latins. That is the tradition of the Latins! Mandated celibacy started in the 4th Century and thus does not preclude legitimately regulating mandated continence discipline on clerics today.

Brumley's position is better to take than Selin's. B admits that celibacy is the 'norm' in the Latin rite but acknowledges that exceptions exist on a case by case basis. Dispensations of married men in the Latin rite priesthood is what Pius XII did BEFORE Vatican II, and Paul VI, JP2, and B16 after Pius. Pius's dispensation, JP2 Pastoral Provision and B16's Ordinariate priests were not expected to be continent. The Church has authority to dispense from celibacy and (thereby dispense from) continence as is the case of Latin permanent deacons. (Dr. Peter's need not be mentioned here at this time, since the Church has the authority to explicitly declare dispensation from continence.) Exceptions to the celibacy norm does not mean abolishing the norm.

The Code of 1983 says that the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church, so if having married Latin priests will save many souls from Hell, then do it, but if it will send souls to Hell then don't do it. But the final analysis is that the Church can regulate as needed. The Church taketh away, but the Church also giveth.

Otherwise, great article. All the best! I'm glad to see a Thomist writing about this issue. JMJ