Folia Canonica 4. (2001)
STUDIES - Pablo Gefaell: Clerical Celibacy
CLERICAL CELIBACY 83 But, it is also well known that canon 6 of Trullo imposed upon subdeacons, deacons and priests the impediment to getting married after ordination.21 This too shows the cause-effect relationship existing between this impediment and the obligation of total continence after the reception of Holy Orders (both for married and celibate clergy): Why can clergymen not get married after ordination? It seems that in the primitive Church, the reason why a clergyman who had become widower after the ordination was not able to marry again, was the same as the reason why a celibate clergyman, after ordination, could not get married at all: if he did so it would mean a will to engage in marital relations, contrary to the assumed commitment to live continence.22 Can. 12 of Trullo establishes that bishops should live total continence, and can. 48 goes on saying that - if the candidate to episcopate was married - the bishop’s wife is to enter a monastery.23 It can be noted that the reasons which justify the celibacy of a bishop - that is, the special sacramental conformation with Christ and therefore the spousal relationship with the Church24 - should be valid also to explain the celibacy of priests. his wife on the pretext of piety, he shall be excomunicated; and if he persist, he shall be deposed” (Trullo can. 3, in The Council [nt. 19], 84—87). 21 “Whereas it is stated in the Apostolic canons that ‘From amongst the celibate men promoted to the clergy, only the readers and cantors may marry,’ so do we, observing this, decree that henceforth no subdeacon, nor deacon, nor presbyter, should in any wise be at liberty to arrange for himself a matrimonial union after his ordination; if he dares to do this, he shall be deposed” (Trullo can. 6, in Ibid., 75-76). Even though the Theology of the time didn’t distinguish accurately between simple prohibition and invalidating impediment, Canon 3 of Trullo had already indirectly indicated the invalidating nature of the matrimonial impediment of sacred orders: “(...) Thus we decree that those [clerics] who unlawfully married after their ordination, that is, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, (...) their unlawful marriage having been manifestly dissolved. (...)” (Trullo can. 3, in Ibid., 72-73) 22 Nevertheless, in Trullo the impediment seems to lose its sense, because right after the quoted text of can. 6, it is added in the same canon: “If anyone entering the clergy desires to be joined in law to a woman, he shall do this before his ordination as subdeacon or deacon or presbyter” (Trullo, can. 6). This let suppose that clergymen were allowed to get married right before the ordination, obviously with the intention of engaging in marital relations. As we will see, this is explained inside the general context of the discipline established by can. 13 of the same Council. 23 Trullo can. 12: “Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Lybia, and in other places the most God-beloved pastors (bishops) in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after their consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since therefore it is our particular concern that all things are to be done for the edification of the people committed to our care, it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of this kind should ever occur again (...)”. Trullo can. 48: “The wife of him who is advanced to the episcopal dignity shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision (...)”.
