Folia Canonica 4. (2001)
STUDIES - Pablo Gefaell: Clerical Celibacy
CLERICAL CELIBACY 87 The deep change introduced by can. 13 of Trullo caused the progressive loss of the ancient discipline on continence, so that continence was retained only as a “munditia corporis” for the ministerial exercise, something that would also mean a negative evaluation of marriage, considering the relationship between consorts as something neither holy nor susceptible of being sanctified. Nevertheless, today some orthodox theologians explain continence prior to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the perspective of an ascetic practice with a meaning similar to the fast practiced also in the West. Under this point of view, prior continence is more justifiable, despite all the practical drawbacks that it brings (wife’s consent, frequent celebration, etc.). Therefore, as we have said, the law of celibacy for bishops and for some presbyters remained as a mere extrinsic norm, without a deep theological justification. Besides, the relationship between the impediment of sacred Orders and continence was lost, also emptying this matrimonial impediment of necessary theological base. Celibacy remains as a demand and a privilege for monk-priests and for bishops (coming from the monachal class). In the medieval Byzantine Church the discipline arrived even to the point of making marriage obligatory as requisite for the ordination of secular priests, because it was held impossible to live celibacy in the secular environment. Even today, among many orthodox this view still remains (although there are, in certain places, some cases of celibate secular priests), and the dilemma is this: “are you a single priest?, then you are a monk”. In conclusion, the hypothesis that the pre-trullan praxis and discipline concerned total and perpetual continence of married clergymen is very plausible. This point of view gives a coherence to the relationship between celibacy-continence and sacred Orders. But let us now present this theological relationship. IV. Theological Basis of Priestly Celibacy Although some authors say that neither history nor theology has ever proven an essential connection between ministry and celibacy,33 even the most confirmed opponents to the apostolic origin of priestly celibacy accept that today 32This interpretation was possible due to a previous mistranslation of the Carthage’s canon. When the Fathers of Carthage were saying that “subdeacons who wait upon the Holy Mysteries and deacons and presbyters as well as bishops according to the ordinances which concern them [‘secundum propria statuta’] should abstain from their wives so that they should be as though they had them not...”; the Fathers of Trullo translated Carthage’s canon as follows: “that subdeacons who wait upon the Holy Mysteries and deacons and presbyters, should abstain from their spouses during the periods (particularly) assigned to them [Katà toùs idious brous]”, cf. C. COCHINI, Il celibato sacerdotale nella tradizione primitiva della Chiesa, in Aa.Vv. Identità e Missione del Sacerdote, Roma 1994, 184. 33 J.P. MacIntyre, Optional Celibacy, in Studia Canonica 29 (1995) 103-153.
