George Nedungatt Celibate and Married Clergy on a Par in the Eastern Code Clerical celibacy has long been presented as a marriage and the celibacy of the ministers of the showpiece of Western Catholicism, vis-à-vis Church. Protestants and the Orthodox. In his encyclical Ad catholici sacerdotii fastigium (1935) Pope Pius XI exalted clerical celibacy as the peak glory 1. From Life to Law of Catholic priesthood. The miniscule Eastern Catholic Churches, most of which preserve the The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches traditional institution of married clergy along (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, with clerical celibacy, were ignored in practice. CCEO) establishes a parity between the celibate Since they constitute only three percent of the and the married clerics, which is an innovation Catholic population, the law of clerical celibacy of doctrine and law. The novelty is due to letting of the majority Latin Church passes for the law life guide legislation rather than deducing law as of the Catholic Church. But in the post-Vatican a conclusion from doctrine. Let me explain what reformed canon law of the Eastern Catholic I mean. Churches there is legal parity between celibate I had never met any married priest. There are and married priesthood. In my paper I shall deal no married clerics in the Syro-Malabar Church, with this reform and its significance for the insti- to which I belong. It is the second largest East- tution of celibate and married clerics. ern Catholic Church with a membership of I shall start with a first person account of my about four million Christian faithful and is the own canonical conversion from prejudice against most numerous among the group of the married priesthood to positive appreciation dur- Churches of the Thomaschristians in India. Till ing the postconciliar revision of Eastern canon the sixteenth century the Church of the Thom- law. This change has left its mark particularly aschristians had the institution of married clerics, on the formulation of canon 373 of the Eastern but it was changed under Portuguese pressure code, the analysis of which will show the canon- in the Synod of Angamaly in 1583 and definitely ical parity between clerical celibacy and the state suppressed in the Synod of Diamper in 1599. of married clerics. Thirdly, on a closer look we Having known only celibate priests in my life, shall see that this parity is relative, not absolute. I also shared the prevailing prejudice against In the fourth place the two canonical institutions married clergy. This prejudice was reinforced by of clerical marriage of the East and clerical celi- the discipline of canon law I learnt and taught bacy of the West will be shown to be comple- at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. On mentary rather than contrary. Fifthly and lastly, the Eastern clerics the law in force (ius vigens) we shall consider how the meeting of the East was Pope Pius XII’s Motu proprio Cleri sancti- and the West can be fecund and fruitful if tati (CS) promulgated in 1957. It was marred enriched with interdisciplinary study on the with the common Catholic prejudice against 24 INTAMS review 21, 24-42. doi: 10.2143/INT.21.1.3087664 © 2015 by INTAMS review. All rights reserved 998263.indb8263.indb 2244 111/08/151/08/15 115:085:08 G. Nedungatt married clergy. I shared this prejudice but did diocesan bishop. As pope he met Eastern Catho- not realise it till its reform. lic bishops during their ad limina visit, but they During the postconciliar codification of the would not report specifically about the pastoral Eastern code my prejudice vanished suddenly efficacy of the married priests vis-à-vis celibate and unexpectedly. The story is as follows. I was priests in their diocese or eparchy. Would any the relator of the fourth study group on Clerics such report have been welcome? On the subject and Ecclesiastical Magisterium (Coetus IV De of the pastoral service of married priests I felt clericis et de magisterio ecclesiastico). I had to pre- I could safely follow Bishop Herbut whatever be pare and present a revised draft on De clericis to the authority of Pius XII’s Motu proprio. the study group for discussion. But I had no idea I knew no sociological or pastoral survey on whether the canons on the married clergy in Cleri the institution of married clergy vis-à-vis celibate sanctitati needed revision or were to be left as clergy. In the circumstances then I let myself be they were. During the preliminary session I put convinced by the testimony of Bishop Herbut. a question as relator of the study group to one There was something in his voice that rang true of the consultors of the Coetus De clericis, Bishop like the voice of your mother whom you trust Joakim Herbut of Skopje, Yugoslavia: “Bishop without hesitation or cross examination. He was Herbut”, I said, “you have in your diocese both indeed a single witness (testis unicus), canonically celibate and married priests. Do you notice any speaking, but a witness above all suspicion. He difference between them in their pastoral minis- was not being apologetic or trying to change leg- try?” Bishop Herbut answered, “No, there is no islation. He simply stated that in his pastoral difference. For me they are both equal. Both experience celibate priests and married priests celibate and married priests render excellent pas- were equal. Surely there would be details to tick toral service.” That was an oracle for me, an eye- in the debit column and in the credit column of opener. What I heard was an authoritative voice each. But substantially they were both equal. from the pastoral field different from the one What then is one to think about the much touted I had heard from the professor’s cathedra. I sud- superiority of celibacy over marriage? That could dently realised that I had all along been preju- be left to theology. They had to be treated as diced against the institution of married clergy. equal in law. From free exchanges of opinions and remarks In the following session of the study group during the coffee break I learnt that in certain I tabled a motion: “De clericis orientalibus sive Churches married people would want to confess sint caelibes sive uxorati simul agendum est” (East- their sins preferably to married priests in the sac- ern clerics, whether celibate or married, are to be rament of reconciliation or penance rather than dealt with together). That was said positively, to celibate priests. They feel the former under- implying that the married clerics should not be stand them better. On a closer look it emerged discriminated against in the new code. The that the canons of the Motu proprio Cleri sanc- motion was discussed and it was approved unan- titati of Pope Pius XII reflected the common imously in the study group. And the text became Latin prejudice against married clerics and dis- a subsidiary guideline for Coetus IV in addition criminated against them. to the ten Guidelines for the Pontificia Commis- But was not that conclusion all too hasty and sio Codicis Iuris Canonici Orientalis Recognoscendo premature? Was I not pitting Herbut against (PCCICOR: Pontifical Commission for the Pius XII and siding with a bishop against a pope? Revision of the Eastern Code of Canon Law). Surely there was reason for caution. But had I reported later in Nuntia, the official organ of Pope Pacelli ever met a married priest? I won- PCCICOR, as follows: “With this unanimous dered. He was born in a Roman aristocratic fam- resolution the Group…intended to ensure that ily, had no pastoral experience as parish priest or future canons would not discriminate against the 25 998263.indb8263.indb 2255 111/08/151/08/15 115:085:08 INTAMS review 21 (2015) married clergy.”1 This was the practical scope of praxis of the early Church (1 Tim 3: 2-5; Tit 1: 6) the guideline, which has been fully applied in and the tradition of the Eastern Churches, in which the canons of CCEO dealing with the married besides those who through the grace of vocation clergy. These canons are unique to CCEO and choose to observe the celibate life along with all have obviously no counterpart in the Latin code, the bishops, there are also well merited married the new Codex Iuris Canonici (CIC), since the priests (optime meriti presbyteri coniugati). (PO 16) Latin Church does not admit the institution of The council did not compare clerical celibacy the married clergy. In the light of this guideline and clerical marriage but while commending the law in force (ius vigens) was revised, chiefly clerical celibacy the council “lovingly exhorted can. 68 of Pope Pius XII’s Motu proprio Cleri all who received the priesthood after marriage to sanctitati (CS). This canon was worded as fol- persevere in their holy vocation and to devote lows: their life fully and generously in the service of The celibacy of clerics inasmuch as it suites more the flock entrusted to them.” The council showed worthily and more aptly the clerical state and the its preference for priestly celibacy but declared exercise of divine ministries, according to the that it had no intention to change the different unanimous tradition of the Church both Eastern Eastern disciple. Significantly the council avoided and Latin, is to be held in honour by all. any express assertion of the superiority of priestly [In the original Latin] Caelibatus clericorum eorun- celibacy over the state of married clerics. dem statui ac divinorum ministeriorum exercitio Pope Paul VI forbade discussion of clerical dignius aptiusque respondens, prout fert unanimis celibacy by the Second Vatican Council judging Ecclesiae cum Orientalis tum Latinae traditio, ab the subject “inopportune for public discussion”.