Italian news sources are reporting that the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) has vetoed the idea of allowing married priests of the Romanian Catholic Church (one of the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with the pope of Rome) to exercise their priestly ministry in Italy.Read the rest here.
In an article entitled “Priests of a Lesser God: CEI — New Veto to the Presence of Married Catholic Clergy in Italy,” Italian news service Adista reported obtaining a copy of a confidential letter written last September 13 by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the Italian Episcopal Conference to Lucian Muresan, Major Archbishop of the Romanian Catholic Church. In it, Cardinal Bugnasco explained the position of the Italian Episcopal Conference regarding not allowing the presence of married Romanian Catholic priests in Italy. (The Romanian Catholic Church follows the Byzantine liturgical rite and retains many customs — such as a married priesthood — similar to Eastern Orthodoxy, from which it broke away in 1698 when it entered union with Rome. It is estimated there are 800,000 Romanian Catholics in Italy.) Cardinal Bagnasco, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 to be President of the CEI, said that the Bishops’ Conference
“after having carefully examined the issue in light of the figures relating to the consistency of the ethnic communities from Eastern European countries and the situation of clergy in the Italian dioceses, believes that, at present and in general, there is not ‘just and reasonable cause’ to justify the granting of the dispensation.”
HT: Dave Brown
18 comments:
There's nothing to say that uniates cannot come home en masse as a result of being made bluntly aware of their status as viewed from Roman circles. It has happened before, will probably again.
I regret the fact that the Catholic Church is using language from the Russian Orthodox Church to justify their decision. But the Italian Church is justified in their position, based on Russian Logic, this is their canonical territory. It would be different if they said no more married clerics in Romania.
The various Rites of the Roman Catholic Church are not properly defined or limited by "territory," anymore than is the Roman Rite (which is not limited to Rome or even Italy).
This is an unfortunate instance of prejudice and -- more importantly -- fear: fear that the legitimate tradition of an Eastern Church will upset those priests of the Latin tradition who are not happy with their own discipline.
Sadly, it is a recurring example of how the Eastern Churches are not truly "in union" with their Latin brethren, but "in subjection" to them. If it were really a union, the Latin bishops would have no authority to issue such arrogant and insulting statements about a sister church having no "just or reasonable cause" to live according to its own traditions.
I could not formulate a better response to this article than Fr. Theodore just articulated, so I will simply second what he said. I am somewhat disgusted as a Roman Catholic that our bishops even think that this is a matter over which they ought to be entitled to exercise control.
Difference between Romanian Catholic Eastern Rite priests and Italian Roman Catholic priests? One has married their girlfriend.
Father Theodore has nailed it. Chalk this up to fear - fear of loss of control, of an undermining of order. I sincerely doubt that this pronouncement results from deep pastoral love and understanding of the Romanian faithful in Italy. Sad.
In America, it was Pope Pius X's 1907 apostolic letter "Ea Semper" which detonated a similar bomb. Which is confusing - would an apostolic letter by a pope not be considered an infallible ruling, an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals? Yet on the surface it appears not to be enforced in America today, though the underlying rationale clearly still obtains in Italy.
Anglicans considering the "Ordinariate" take notice for what lies in store for you in the future. To think otherwisw would be very naive.
Speaking as a devout Roman Catholic who is utterly supportive of the discipline of clerical celibacy, I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Fr. Theodore.
And to the Anonymous at 8:58, I am sure the Anglicans have considered that a little light bullying from Rome is preferable to the torture they're going to be subjected to under the rising tide of marxist lesbian "bishops" in communion with Canterbury.
What did the document actually say? Does anyone have a link to a translation or are we merely going on hearsay?
I disagree with Father Theodore. My bishop can't just go into the neighboring diocese and start ordaining priests. There is such a thing as canonical territory.
I had posted a comment on here and it was removed. So much for an "Orthodox" Forum. Hiding truths on here will not make them go away.
You posted an anonymous comment calling the Pope a Nazi. Yes, that gets deleted. Read my guidelines for comments and grow up before posting here again.
Why is it this issue that gets the Orthodox stirring and not the RC belief in the Treasury of Merit? If we are ever to unite Rome would have to declare such dogma ended or just hope the Orthodox don't ask questions.
Update: for those interested, in the combox of my original blog post on this is a comment from the author of the Italian news article in confirmation of this story.
I'm a "uniate" priest, to use the term, and I find Fr. Theodore's comments accurate.
When my particular church resumed union with Rome in 1596 we were assured that our particular apostolic traditions would be respected. At times, we have been our worst advocates and Rome has been our staunchest defender of our traditions. Sadly, there have been more than a few cases of Latin bishops violating the principles of the union their forefathers agreed to with us. This latest incident is a case in point.
From my perspective, they are not acting as one sister would to another, but as a master does to a slave: based on the world's categories of fear and reprisal.
The last time something akin to this happened was when the Cardinal Secretary of State, Angelo Sodano, decreed that all married Ukrainain Greek Catholic clergy were not to serve on Poland's sacred soil. That was quietly reversed later on.
Perhaps, the Uniates in Romania should forbid celibate Roman Catholic clergy from ministrying on their soil? But, no, that is not how we respond. The fact is that Latins can only take from us those rights which our leaders freely give up. So, this situation requires a public, charitable and frank rebuttal from the Greek Catholic Metropolitan: "My priests are to violate your edict with utmost impunity as it violates the princples of love and fraternity upon which our union and the Gospels themselves are built upon."
To sum up, "Anonymous" is right about Anglo-Catholics and so, too, all Orthodox open to union with Rome: take notice of what is in store in the future.
You are wrong. In Italy are over 800.000 Christian Orthodox Romanians, not Catholics. Most Romanians belong to the Orthodox Church, not the Greek Catholic Church (they are a few, no more than 100.000)
You are wrong. In Italy are over 800.000 Romanian Orthodox, not Catholics. Most Romanians belong to the Orthodox Church.
Post a Comment