Folia Canonica 4. (2001)

STUDIES - Pablo Gefaell: Clerical Celibacy

84

PABLO GEFAELL

The fact that Gratian’s Decretus had included canon 13 of Trullo as having ecumenical value and accepted the (spurious) episode of Paphnutius in the council of Nicea I,25 giving him equal value to the conciliars texts; this, joined to its uncritical acceptation by the decretists, brought about - as a resultthat in West the Greek discipline on celibacy was judged as more ancient than the Latin one, and this had repercussions on subsequent canonical theory when it tried to explain the reason for the matrimonial impediment of Orders. Under these circumstances, the relationship among Holy Orders, perfect continence, impediment of Orders and celibacy was lost.

The matrimonial impediment of Orders was explained in the West according to the theory of the vow of chastity required before receiving Holy Orders, or according to the theory of the obligation of continence as a legal requirement annexed ipso iure (but in an extrinsic way) to the fact of receiving the Holy Orders. In order to theologically justify the “imposition” of celibacy by the Latin Church, reasons of mere suitability or congruence were sought, as that of the munditia corporis necessary for the prayer, that - if daily done - would request total continence.

In this way, a theology of celibacy founded more immediately on the very nature of Holy Orders was made impossible, due to the fracture of the two mutually dependent aspects of celibacy: continence and prohibition of marriage.

Now, on the contrary, the impediment of Orders in the East seems to be only an onus: a mere ecclesiastical law that prevents future marriages for those people who are already constituted in sacred Orders, but lacking any relationship with continence. For this reason, if they are already married, it would be logical that they could engage in marital relations (as Trullo established). Nevertheless, the prohibition to marry after ordination remains an empty juridical formalism without any theological justification if it is disassociated from the obligation of total continence. “[T]he law of prohibition of marriage [for clergy] can only be regarded as a vestigial positive discipline expressing that simpler ancient discipline which harmonized the natural relation which exists between the

24Cf. J. GAUDEMET, Le symbolisme du mariage entre l’Evêque et son Eglise et ses conséquences juridiques, in Kanon VII (1985) 110-123.

25 According to the byzantine writers Socrates e Somozenos (who wrote a hundred years after the council of Nicea I) the bishop Paphnutius, anchorite in the dessert of Egypt, firmly objected to the claim of the Spaniard bishop Osio, who wanted to introduce celibacy also in the East. Cf. PG 67,100-102 and 925 and ff. But nowadays the authors are nearly unanimous in refuting as false this episode, in the form we know it. Cf., for example, F. WlNKELMANN, Paphnutios, der Bekenner und Bischof. Probleme der koptischen Literatur = Wissenschaft- tliche Beiträge der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 1968/1 (K2), 145-153; Stickler 11 celibato (nt. 14), 33-36; Ch. Cochini, La legge dei celibato sacerdotale nella Chiesa Latina. Compendio storico, in Aa.Vv., Celibato e Magistero. Interventi dei Padri nel Concilio Vaticano II e nei sinodi dei vescovi del 1971 e 1990, Cinisello Balsamo 1995, 44-47.