Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (2011): "Permanent deacons who are married prior to ordination do not have the obligation of celibacy (and therefore of continence) during the marriage. They have the obligation of celibacy in case of widowhood (cf. c. 1087);" USCCB (2012): "The observations, which were formulated in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarify that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts."

 Memorandum 

To: All Bishops 

From: 

Most Reverend Robert J. Carlson Chairman, Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations

Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio Chairman, Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance 

Date: January 31, 2012 

Re: Married Permanent Deacons and the Canonical Obligation to Observe Perfect and Perpetual Continence

Your Eminence/Excellency,

In recent months, published opinions have appeared in scholarly journals and on Internet blogs that have raised questions about the observance of diaconal continence by married permanent deacons in the Latin Catholic Church. The opinions have suggested that the clerical obligation to observe “perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (c. 277, §1 CIC) remains binding upon married permanent deacons, despite the dispensation provided to them in canon law from the obligation to observe celibacy (c. 1042, 1° CIC).

In response to repeated requests for an authoritative clarification on this matter, the Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations and the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance requested the assistance of the USCCB President in seeking a clarification from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Earlier this week, we were informed that Cardinal-designate Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, with Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary, has forwarded to Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan the Pontifical Council’s observations on the matter (Prot. N. 13095/2011). The observations, which were formulated in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarify that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.

Should you have any questions about this response, please contact Reverend W. Shawn McKnight, Executive Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life, and Vocations. In addition, please feel free to share this response with those within your diocesan curia who will find it helpful.

_____________________________________

Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus Citta del Vaticano, 4 marzo 2011 N. 12959/2011

(Unofficial Translation) Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

Dear Sir,

We have received a fax of your kind letter of February 20th, 2011. In it you proposed a dubium with this reasoning: "However an issue has arisen where an aspirant to the Permanent Deaconate who is a married man has declared he will not practice 'perfect and perpetual continence' in accordance with Canon 277. He says he has been told that men in the diocese have been given a general dispensation from this requirement."

In regard to this matter I am happy to offer the following clarifications:

The obligation of celibacy applies to all clerics, including permanent deacons who are not married prior to ordination (cf. c. 1037).

Permanent deacons who are married prior to ordination do not have the obligation of celibacy (and therefore of continence) during the marriage. They have the obligation of celibacy in case of widowhood (cf. c. 1087).

This is why canon 277 is not included in the list in canon 288.

Finally, the dispensation from the impediment of canon 1087 does not apply to the diocesan bishop. He can, instead, given the case in question, transmit the request for a dispensation to the Holy See. The dispensation can be requested only of the Holy See by a permanent married deacon who has been widowed and will be eventually granted only if the petitioner admits one of three reasons: the great and proven usefulness of the deacon's ministry to the diocese to which he is attached; the presence of children of a tender age requiring maternal care; the presence of elderly parents or in-laws requiring assistance (cf. Congregation for Divine Worship & Discipline of the Sacraments, Circular Letter of June 6, 1997).

+Francesco Coccopalmerio 

President

Deacon David A. Lopez, Ph.D., Reply to Dr. Ed Peters, J.C.D.

https://siouxcitydeacon.blogspot.com/2011/01/diaconal-continence-and-canon-277.html

Dr. Peters's argument about Canon 277 hinges on whether "continence" and "celibacy" are two separate obligations on the clergy, or two aspects of one single obligation. If they are two separate obligations, then I can't refute his conclusion that only the obligation of celibacy is removed for married clergy. (Someone else more versed in canonical argumentation that I might still do so, but to my knowledge, no one has.) But if they are together one single obligation, then permitting a married man to receive Holy Orders as priest or deacon removes together both parts of the one obligation.

Dr. Peters is offering a theory about the meaning of Canon 277. He's a canonist, and a good one; it's part of his job to offer it. Because he's a good one, he's careful to offer a coherent, thorough, and well thought-out theory. But his argument, however good it is, is only a theory, unless the Magisterium affirms it as the proper interpretation of the law. That hasn't happened.

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles & brethren of the Lord & Cephas" (1 Cor. 9:5)?" "This is why I left you in Crete...& appoint elders in every town...if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife,& his children..." (Titus 1:5-6).RSVCE

  

Whenever defenders of mandated celibacy cite St. Paul, they actually theologically shoot themselves in the foot.  Don't let them get away with that.

St. Paul on more than one occasion acknowledges the role of married clergy in the Church. 

And, actually, if one carefully reads St. Paul, he does not DIRECTLY link celibacy with clergy in 1 Cor. 7.  No where does St. Paul's beautiful teaching on virginity in 1 Cor. 7 refer directly to priests.  

He merely recommends virginity to the community but does not mandate it for the community or for priests.

The answer to "But, but, but St. Paul said on celibacy...." is "But, but, but St. Paul said on married clergy..."

________________________

This fits on an X (formerly Twitter) post.  Feel free to cut and paste / copy & post on social media and other forums:

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles & brethren of the Lord & Cephas" (1 Cor. 9:5)?"

"This is why I left you in Crete...& appoint elders in every town...if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife,& his children..." (Titus 1:5-6).RSVCE

 

_______________________________________________________________

This shorter version also fits on a X (formerly Twitter) post:

Whenever people cite St. Paul on celibacy, they actually theologically shoot themselves in the foot. More than once, he acknowledges married clergy. The answer to "But, but, but St. Paul said on celibacy" is "But, but, but St. Paul said on married clergy."

_______________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

St. Paul

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas" (1 Cor. 9:5)? [Translation: RSV,Ignatius Bible Edition,2006 ("The original Catholic ed of RSV transl was prepared by Catholic Biblical Assoc.of Great Britain."]

 

"This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective,& appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife,& his children are believers &not open to the charge of debauchery &not being insubordinate" (Titus 1:5-6).

 

Conversion on the Way to Damascus, a 1601 portrait by Caravaggio

Shift in 20th Century Church's More Positive View of Sex Contributed to Return of Married Latin Priests in 20th & 21st Centuries (Sex in Christian Marriage Not Viewed as Ritually Impure in Catholic Thinking)

 

Posted on X.

Father is asking the right question. Bravo!

Some early Fathers argued for celibacy b/c they viewed sex as ritual impurity - even in marriage(!). Church today does not view sex in Christian marriage as impure. This shift paved the return of married Latin priests in the 20th Century.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker

@dlongenecker1

·

Oct 29, 2023

Replying to @matthewpao1

Do you think it likely that the call for married people to live in perfect continence may have been influenced by Manicheanism--that the flesh is impure and that sex is therefore objectively "dirty" and sinful?

"I think we’ve exhausted the [continence] topic, and people are now resorting to petty personal squabbling. Enough." - Deacon Greg Kandra from "The Deacon's Bench" (2012)

 

Source (The Deacon's Bench): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/05/married-deacons-its-okay-you-can-have-sex-with-your-wives/

"I think we’ve exhausted the topic, and people are now resorting to petty personal squabbling.  Enough." - Deacon Greg Kandra

Matter addressed ad infinitum in the early 2000s by an earlier generation of national deacon leaders.  Thank you!  Saltpepper still not needed.

Also, see Deacon David A. Lopez, Ph.D., for basic summary of old conversation (Sioux City Deacon Formation): https://siouxcitydeacon.blogspot.com/2011/01/diaconal-continence-and-canon-277.html

What's new since then (2012) is that theological and historical foundations which served as Dr. Peters's theological sources (+Stickler et al) have been rebutted, thanks to the East with a history of noncontinent married priesthood going to the Apostolic era.

The discipline of celibacy-continence, mandated beginning in the 4th Century, is no longer being expected for Latin Rite married clerics since Pius XII in the 20th Century. 

______________________________________

Memorandum 

To: All Bishops 

From: 

Most Reverend Robert J. Carlson Chairman, Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations

Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio Chairman, Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance 

Date: January 31, 2012 

Re: Married Permanent Deacons and the Canonical Obligation to Observe Perfect and Perpetual Continence

Your Eminence/Excellency,

In recent months, published opinions have appeared in scholarly journals and on Internet blogs that have raised questions about the observance of diaconal continence by married permanent deacons in the Latin Catholic Church. The opinions have suggested that the clerical obligation to observe “perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (c. 277, §1 CIC) remains binding upon married permanent deacons, despite the dispensation provided to them in canon law from the obligation to observe celibacy (c. 1042, 1° CIC).

In response to repeated requests for an authoritative clarification on this matter, the Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations and the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance requested the assistance of the USCCB President in seeking a clarification from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

Earlier this week, we were informed that Cardinal-designate Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, with Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, Secretary, has forwarded to Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan the Pontifical Council’s observations on the matter (Prot. N. 13095/2011). The observations, which were formulated in consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarify that married permanent deacons are not bound to observe perfect and perpetual continence, as long as their marriage lasts.

Should you have any questions about this response, please contact Reverend W. Shawn McKnight, Executive Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life, and Vocations. In addition, please feel free to share this response with those within your diocesan curia who will find it helpful.

_____________________________________

Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus Citta del Vaticano, 4 marzo 2011 N. 12959/2011

(Unofficial Translation) Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

Dear Sir,

We have received a fax of your kind letter of February 20th, 2011. In it you proposed a dubium with this reasoning: "However an issue has arisen where an aspirant to the Permanent Deaconate who is a married man has declared he will not practice 'perfect and perpetual continence' in accordance with Canon 277. He says he has been told that men in the diocese have been given a general dispensation from this requirement."

In regard to this matter I am happy to offer the following clarifications:

The obligation of celibacy applies to all clerics, including permanent deacons who are not married prior to ordination (cf. c. 1037).

Permanent deacons who are married prior to ordination do not have the obli- gation of celibacy (and therefore of continence) during the marriage. They have the obligation of celibacy in case of widowhood (cf. c. 1087).

This is why canon 277 is not included in the list in canon 288.

Finally, the dispensation from the impediment of canon 1087 does not apply to the diocesan bishop. He can, instead, given the case in question, transmit the request for a dispensation to the Holy See. The dispensation can be requested only of the Holy See by a permanent married deacon who has been widowed and will be eventually granted only if the petitioner admits one of three reasons: the great and proven usefulness of the deacon's ministry to the diocese to which he is attached; the presence of children of a tender age requiring maternal care; the presence of elderly parents or in-laws requiring assistance (cf. Congregation for Divine Worship & Discipline of the Sacraments, Circular Letter of June 6, 1997).

+Francesco Coccopalmerio 

President

 

@peterdavids (2020): "If [celibacy-continence] were essential to Holy Orders, then both the Pastoral Provision of Pope St John Paul II and the Personal Ordinariates of Pope Benedict XVI would have been problematic...Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause." w/my Commentary

Here is an excellent commentary on Henry Karlson's article on Paphnutius below from @peterdavids.  Sounds like he is an Ordinariate priest with Eastern Rite faculties. Wow!  Talk about catholicity.

I highlighted the part that caught my eye the most.  As usual, like most Ordinariate priests, of course, he will not disparage the Latin celibacy norm.  He will not bite the hand that feeds him, so to speak, which is different when a baptized and confirmed Latin Rite Catholic reflects on mandated celibacy as the modern norm. 

I hate to phrase it like this, but if those who insist on celibacy-continence for married deacons and married priests where they "have to" refrain from conjugal rights with their wives, then Father's analysis applies: "Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause" and attracting Anglican/Episcopalian priests would also be "problematic" and thus not draw Anglicans, Episcopalians et al. to the Ordinariate and home to the Catholic Church.  The Ontologicalists are those who say, "Well, married priests, okay, but they *have to* be continent."  To insist on celibacy-continence as essential or ontological to the priesthood and diaconate is like another embarrassing Ed Peters debacle after 2005 that married Latin rite permanent deacons had to endure.  Well, that was short-lived, from 2005 to at least the 2009 Ordinariate creation where celibacy-continence was not expected of converts to the Catholic priesthood.  No one, no one among the married Anglican/Episcopalian clergy, among the married Orthodox clergy, among the married Latin Rite clergy (i.e., permanent deacons) would in their right mind want to embrace continence of their own choosing which is just another disingenuous, backdoor sneaking in of celibacy for married clergy as ontological and then calling it apostolic tradition after making a "bit of a stretch" argument which only goes back to Pope Siricius in 385 A.D.

If God does will Viri Probati married priests to return to the Latin Rite, then it was necessary for these debates to emerge so that the truth of the priesthood may shine all the more brightly for a Church united according to the mind of Christ.   Thank goodness that Henry Karlson and Fr. Davids see through the Ontologicalists.

That SOME married priests had to be continent in the first centuries does not mean ALL married priests had to be continent in the first centuries.

That SOME local bishops legislated continence for married priests does not mean ALL bishops universally required continence for married priests.

That SOME Jewish priests were continent in the Old Law does not mean that ALL Christian priests need to be continent in the New Law.  The celibacy-continence debates in the Church today are similar to the heated circumcision debates of the early Church. 

The very fact that celibacy-continence is debatable and not a closed theological issue shows that it is not universally held Apostolic Tradition for all time and for all places.

A non-continent married priesthood is immemorial tradition.

Married priests are the ancient Latin norm.  Mandated celibacy-continence is the modern Latin norm. 

As Henry Karlson wrote, the disciplines of celibacy-continence "were not universal" (2020).

Mike Lewis wrote, "+Sarah's writing might tap into some venerable ideas, but from a practical/disciplinary standpoint, they're of little relevance to the current situation" (2020).

As Sandro Magister stated, the continence is "no longer being asked" (2019) in West and East.

It makes those who insist on celibacy-continence among married clergy "look foolish."  

As Dr. David Howard observes, they "fight for a discipline like it's Dogma" (2021).

Discipline does not determine theology.  Theology determines discipline.

So forward.  Forward to a fuller expression of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ understood as Celibate and Married.

Just as the Church is both Virgin & Mother, so too Christ is both Celibate & Married.

As Fr. Davids wrote, "If [celibacy-continence] were essential to Holy Orders, then both the Pastoral Provision of Pope St John Paul II and the Personal Ordinariates of Pope Benedict XVI would have been problematic...Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause."

Source: Peter Davids's (@peterdavids) commentary on https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2020/01/clerical-celibacy-not-essential-to-orders/ (citation cut and downloaded on 04/01/2023)

Interesting, and true. If it were essential to Holy Orders, then both the Pastoral Provision of Pope St John Paul II and the Personal Ordinariates of Pope Benedict XVI would have been problematic, for both allowed married non-Catholic clergy to come into the Catholic Church and be ordained as priests. Likewise the various Orthodox communities who have unified with Rome (I have faculties in the Byzantine Catholic Church, for instance, although ordained in the Latin Rite) who have an unbroken tradition of ordaining men who were married previous to their ordination (although bishops must be celibates) would be illegitimate. Unification with the Orthodox as a whole would be a lost cause. Finally, not only do we have the historical discussion above, but the fact (at least according to St Paul) that Peter and "the other apostles" were married and their wives traveled with them. Thus it was not essential for them. But, given that, I and many, perhaps all, other married Ordinariate clergy I have talked with, am/are strong supporters of the discipline that normally priests should be celibate. While thankful for the provision made for us who came late to this vocation, we realize (and in my case and others with whom I have talked, our wives as well) that to be a married Catholic priest means being married to two "women," the Church and one's wife. Paul wisely points to the stresses that that would create in 1 Cor 7. We had to count the cost and then live with the cost afterwards. When Cardinal DiNardo, in the recessional after he ordained me, stopped by my wife's pew, kissed her on both cheeks, and said, "Thank you for giving your husband to the Church." He expressed what we would later live. I live in thankfulness for the unusual privilege that I have and I would not change my response to God's call to ordination in the Catholic Church even if I could. But I also advise those who might qualify under the pastoral provision or the Personal Ordinariates to look seriously and soberly at what ordination in the Catholic Church would mean and, together with their wives, to count the cost. And, when the conversation comes up with my celibate brother priests, I encourage them to be thankful for the blessing of their celibacy, that they heard the call as Catholics and early enough that they could respond within the discipline of celibacy, despite its admitted hardships. I am glad that with disciplines (versus with something that is the essence of a sacrament) there can be exceptions, relatively rare though they are, but I am thankful that the normal discipline arose, both because of the historical problems it addressed when it became the norm in the Latin West, and because of the practical blessings that it brings.

History of married Catholic priests: Commenter "Joseph"

Source: https://catholicexchange.com/10-reasons-for-priestly-celibacy (24 June 2020) 

Comment by "Joseph":

The truth is a married priesthood is Scriptural and in the Apostolic Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church until the 10th century when celibacy was made compulsory. Please read and learn some of the history of clerical marriage which was optional from Apostolic times. There were several married popes who fathered children and grandchildren who later became priests, bishops and popes!

This history taken from Wikipedia is only partial.

Marriage and Celibacy in the Catholic Church
From the exhaustive research of
Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America
Peter Fink SJ
Protestant historian Philip Schaff

Celibacy was voluntary, not imposed, in the early apostolic church:
Mt 19,12 Jesus….”some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Some of the apostles were married as St. Peter, Simeon:
Mk 1, 30 and Lk 4,38 Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law of fever

Phillip, one of the first seven deacons ordained in Jerusalem, had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy. Acts 21, 8-9.

St. Paul’s letters indicate bishops, presbyters, deacons were married with children:

St. Paul implies the apostles and brothers of the Lord were married and he was free to marry and have a wife (gunaika) with him on his journeys just as they did.
1 Cor 9.5 Do we not have the right to take along a sister (adelphe), a wife (gunaika), as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (St. Peter)?

I Tim 3.1-2-4 Presiding elder (episcopos, ordained by imposition of hands, power from God) “must not be married more than once…having children….manage his own family. The literal Koine Greek of the New Testament reads, “the bishop (episkopon )….to be a husband of one wife (gunaikos)…”

Ti 1, 5-6 “….appoint presbyters (elders=priests=episcopoi) in every town on condition that a man be blameless, married only once….with believing children…” The literal Koine Greek of the New Testament is “ …the elders…(presbuterous) to be a husband of one wife (gunaikos)…”

In the third century, there is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the third century. There is no clear evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins. During the first three or four centuries no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests and deacons. As Paul’s letters indicate, there was no obligation to celibacy after marriage, since they had children.

Third century records a number of third century married bishops in good standing and c414, clerical marriage was in vogue. Only after the third century bishops, priests, deacons were not to have intercourse ONLY before partaking of the Eucharist.

St. Hilary of Poitiers 315-68, Doctor of the Church, was a married bishop and had a daughter named Apra.

Popes of the fourth, fifth, sixth centuries:
--Father of Pope Damasus I 366-84 was a bishop.
--Pope Felix III 483-92 whose father was almost certainly a priest, was the great-great grandfather of Pope Gregory I the Great 590-604.
--Pope Hormisdas 514-23 was the father of Pope Silverius 536-37

Except for periods before celebrating the Divine Liturgy, conjugal relations, by priests and deacons married before ordination, were allowed. Celibacy and perpetual continence was mandated only for bishops.

In the tenth century, most priests were married, lived with their wives and raised families and ordination was not an impediment to marriage. Therefore, some priests did marry after ordination and most rural priests were married and many priests and bishops had wives and children.

It was at the Lateran Council (1123), Canon 3 forbid the clergy to live with women other than family relations. Canon 21 absolutely forbid marriage after ordination.

Celibacy & continence do NOT appear in these early Church documents on church disciplines: Didache (c. AD 80 - AD 150), Apostolic Canons (c. AD 217), Didascalia (c. AD 250), Council of Nicea (AD 325); Conclusion: Mandated celibacy & mandated continence were NEW universal INNOVATIONS

(copy of Didache)

Celibacy & continence do NOT appear in these early Church documents on church disciplines:

Didache (c. AD 80) - did NOT mandate continence

Apostolic Canons (c. AD 217) - did NOT mandate continence

Didascalia (c. AD 250) - did NOT mandate continence

Council of Nicea (AD 325) a UNIVERSAL Council - did NOT mandate continence; decreed that priest cannot (re)marry after ordination

Conclusion: Mandated celibacy & mandated continence were local INNOVATIONS lacking universal and catholic discipline from the Twelve Apostles.

Pope Siricius in AD 385 first mandates continence.

The First Lateran Council in AD 1123 first mandates celibacy (no more married men ordained as priests in Latin rite).  The East continues a 2,000+ year married priesthood where clergy have kids even after ordination.

If "mandated continence" was such an Apostolic Tradition, then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger would have included in it the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992.  But he did not.  Thus, "continence" is neither part of the Deposit of Faith nor essential to the priesthood.  It is mere ecclesial discipline which can change.

In fact, one may make a valid case that there most likely is some heretical neo-Manicheanism tendencies in those who push for mandated continence among the clergy.  See HERE.

See also HERE for more links on the 4th Century local (not universal Tradition) of *mandated* continence.

Timeline for INNOVATION of MANDATED priestly continence & MANDATED priestly celibacy (no papal evidence of MANDATED continence for 352 years from Peter in AD 33 to Pope Siricius in AD 385; Pope Siricius said having kids after ordination is "giving heed to impure desires") (Also, MANDATED celibacy is only 829 years old; from AD 1123 to AD 1952 when Pope Pius XII allowed married priests BEFORE Vatican II)

AD 305 - Elvira Synod (19 SPANISH bishops)- 1st time #mandatedcontinence EVER appears in LOCAL council but NOT universal.  Thus, MANDATED continence not apostolic.  Popes & pre-Elvira councils did NOT require continence before AD 305.  The key word is "mandate" or "require" or "obligatory."

AD 325 - UNIVERSAL Council of Nicea REJECTS continence (proposed to bishops of ecumenical Council of Nicea BUT continence is REJECTED); only decreed that once ordained cannot get married after ordination

AD 385 -  1st time EVER a Bishop of Rome, Pope Siricius, requires discipline of continence for married priests and deacons that were already having kids after ordination; BUT does NOT make any claim to apostolic tradition; rejects argument that Levites in OT were having kids; writes that having kids after ordination is giving "heed to impure desires"

AD 390 - LOCAL (not universal) Synod of Carthage affirmed continence

AD 1123 - #First Lateran Council #mandatorycelibacy begins; 1st time EVER a UNIVERSAL Council decrees celibacy (no more ordaining married men as priests in Latin rite)

AD 1952 - #PopePiusXII allows 5 marriedmen as #LatinPriests, #PaulVI, JP2, B16 also allowed.  Dispensations/exceptions to mandated celibacy rule and therefore continence granted

---

Mandated celibacy decreed from 1123 to 1952 in Roman rite.  That is ONLY 829 years of MANDATED celibacy compared to 2,000 years of UNIVERSAL Catholic Church history.  

From AD 33 to 385, NO evidence exists of MANDATED continence.  That is 352 years of no Popes or UNIVERSAL Councils requiring MANDATED continence.  

THEREFORE, we can conclude: (1) MANDATED celibacy is an INNOVATION & (2) MANDATED continence is an INNOVATION.

ontologizing of mandated continence & mandated celibacy in priesthood is NOT apostolic Tradition

No where, absolutely NO WHERE, do we find "mandated" continence or "mandated" celibacy as essential to the priesthood in Apostolic Tradition.

Celibacy, yes, is in Apostolic Tradition.  But "mandated" celibacy, no, is not in Apostolic Tradition.

Celibacy v. mandated celibacy.  There is a difference.

We cannot be more traditional than Tradition.

Comment Contribution for 'Catholic World Report' Article on Married Priests, Celibacy & Amazon Synod by Eastern Catholic Priest

Source: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/08/21/married-priesthood-celibacy-and-the-amazon-synod-an-eastern-catholic-priests-perspective/ (14 May 2020)

Comment Contribution:

Here, Albrecht hit the heart of the matter and correctly stated, "There is no evidence for the alleged apostolic obligation of perpetual continence until the third century..."  That's right & even Cardinal Stickler (and Cardinal Sarah's book with B16's CONTRIBUTION to Sarah's book) cannot find any evidence before AD 305.  There is simply NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA evidence prior to AD 305 for 'mandated' continence.  Clement of Alexandria in AD 200 said the Church accepts married priests and deacons who are saved in begetting children.  The VERY FIRST evidence for mandated continence was the LOCAL Elvira Synod of AD 305 which had only 19 bishops from Spain.  A forteriori, Elvira Synod (which carries the same juridical weight as the Amazon Synod btw) was a LOCAL and NOT UNIVERSAL act of a very small section of the Catholic Church.  Thus, it is erroneous to hold that "married priests were expected to be continent" or that "obligatory continence comes from the apostles" bc of the Elvira Synod -- THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE AD 305. One can say that continence "came from an epoch close to the Apostles" (which B16 did say while Pope), but scholarship shows that 'mandatory continence' does not come from the Apostles.  We cannot be more traditional than Tradition.  As B16 as CONTRIBUTOR (not co-author) CONTRIBUTED to +Sarah's book, "love is essence of priesthood of Jesus Christ."  V2 said in PO16 that celibacy is "not of the essence of the priesthood" and Trent and theologians from Trent held that celibacy is NOT divine law.  Thus, agape is the heart of the priesthood of the New Law, and all the debates about continence and celibacy are like the circumcision issue.  The Church has the authority to declare and regulate celibacy and continence, to grant dispensations to the celibacy Latin norm and ordain married deacons to the priesthood as the Church see fits. The Church taketh away but the Church also giveth.

Fuller Context of St. Bridget Quote: Married Christian Priests who lived in 'Carnal Marriage' were 'still friends of God'

Source: https://onepeterfive.com/a-father-to-his-flock-in-defense-of-priestly-celibacy/ (6 Feb. 2020)

This comment was in response to the so-called St. Bridget quote by Peter James:

Peter James21 days ago edited

There are a couple of problems with the “prophecy”of St. Bridget:

First, personal prophecies and visions are just that Personal. We are not bound to believe them. And many times they are inaccurate.

Second, The entire prophecy is not included in your article. Before it gets into the incredible punishment due the pope there are several paragraphs. One of them read as such:

“…For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the Eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in CARNAL matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

And it goes on and on and on and on.

Basically, the vision is implying belief that in the ancient Church, priestly marriage was common and accepted, but then later was revoked under the inspiration of a particular pontiff, presumably Pope St. Gregory VII, under whom the Gregorian Reform struck out against clerical concubinage.

You can’t have it both ways:

1. The prophecy is true but Mary is historically inaccurate and counter to what most of the posts on this site state “that married priest lived in continence even in the early church” but she's right in wanting the priests not to have carnal marriage or perhaps 2. Mary is historically right and God just changed his mind several hundred years later as she states in the prophecy. Both are doubtful.

Finally, Mary is of few words. She may show children in Fatima hell but I don’t think she is big on giving every detail play by play.

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