In October, Archbishop Jerome Listecki ordained Russell Arnett, a married former Episcopal priest, to the deaconate.
(One would think that Fr Capriolo, ex-Seminary gatekeeper, would know how to spell "diaconate.")
Next spring, Arnett will be ordained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I am confident he will be as effective in his ministry as a Catholic priest as he was as an Episcopal priest.Good to know you approve, Father. I'm sure that will make the Archbishop very happy.
Celibacy for clergy began in monasticism, as men and women took vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience in order to give themselves completely in a life of service to Christ and his Church, while forming religious orders (communities), like our beloved Capuchin brothers and priests, and Agnesian sisters. Celibacy was mandated for secular (diocesan) priests in the Middle Ages.
Not exactly. I will cite from http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/celhist1.html (Section contents copyright Fr. Thomas McGovern 1998-2000) In this work, Fr. McGovern relies on the extensive research of Cdl. Stickler.
“To understand the history of celibacy from today's perspective it is necessary to realise that in the West, during the first millennium of the Church, a large number of bishops and priests were married men, something which today is quite exceptional. However, a precondition for married men to receive orders as deacons, priests, or bishops was that after ordination they were required to live perpetual continence or the lex continentiae. They had, with the prior agreement of their spouses, to be prepared to forego conjugal life in the future.
Fr. Capriolo sashays about in his essay, explaining some of the theology of marriage, and winds up asking 'whether men can relate to being the "bride of Christ"', a question which is irrelevant, if not bizarre. But if nothing else, it demonstrates that literalism in the service of antinomianism can produce fatal logical errors.
And it holds the "championship bizarre statement" title only until the next paragraph:
If the body of Christ is both male and female, I wonder … if there were both male and female priests as head of the Church, then that spousal image of Christ and his Church would make better sense for both men and women.
Why, sure! That way, the gender confusion over with Father worries so much could be equal-opportunity confusion. Doh.
To study the Church is to realize that the one constant in her history has been change — from a married clergy to a celibate clergy, [see above] from Inquisition to ecumenism, [Fr. does not know the history of the Inquistion] from the way confession (Reconciliation) has been administered and the Mass celebrated, to the way the Church’s disciplines on fasting and abstinence and its moral stance on things such as usury and slavery have changed through time.
For that matter, we no longer practice Catholicism in catacombs, AND the Church allows water-closets!
The perceptive Catholic realizes that none of the above yappaflappa involves dogma--as would, for example, attempting Ordination of women, or reducing the Trinity to "Allah".
The link I provided above also completely debunks Fr Capriolo's contention that the Church 'changed its practice' by adopting monastic norms. In fact, Fr. Capriolo ignores "ius" to focus on "lex." "Ius" is the oral tradition-law; "lex" is the much narrower written law.
"Ius" was the typical mode of transmission of Church law in the early centuries for a number of reasons, not the least of which was those pesky persecutions. "Lex" showed up after Constantine.
Back to continence:
“The Council of Elvira (Spain) is of particular significance for the legislative history of celibacy. Held at the beginning of the fourth century (circa 305 AD), the purpose of its eighty-one canons was to renew the life of the Church in the western part of the Roman empire, to reaffirm ancient disciplines and to sanction new norms. Canon 33 contained the first known written law about celibacy, applicable to bishops, priests, and deacons, (that is 'for all clerics dedicated to the service of the altar'), which proclaimed that they ought to keep complete continence in relation to their wives, and that anyone who had broken this rule should be excluded from the clerical state.  Canon 27 of the same Council prohibited women living with ecclesiastics, except for a sister or a daughter who was a consecrated virgin. --McGovern
Doesn't mention "monasticism", does it?
That Canon was written as a re-inforcement of existing "ius", according to Cdl. Stickler's research--which also was confirmed by Pius XI in his letter on the priesthood.
"The legislation of Pope Siricius (385 and 386 AD) and the canons of the Council of Carthage (390) claim apostolic origin for the lex continentiae." (quoting Stickler) It is worth noting that these are not the claims of mere individuals but are the view of those who carried hierarchical responsibility in the Church.
There's plenty more at the link, if you're interested in reality. Maybe Fr. Capriolo will read it too.
And maybe not.
HT: Badger Catholic/Catholic Culture