When the average person hears about “married priests” and the “Catholic Church” they usually understand these two concepts as being opposed to each other. Priests in the Catholic Church are supposed to be celibate. That is, unless the priest is a member of the Anglican Ordinariate established by Pope Benedict XVI to allow married Protestant clergy to enter into the Catholic Church and seek ordination as a Catholic priest, while at the same time being married. This way of thinking is why Adam A.J. DeVille has done a great service for the Catholic Church by editing the collection of essays that make up Married Priests in the Catholic Church. This book shows that the Catholic Church is more than just the Latin rite of the Church. While the Latin rite of the Church has celibacy as the normative discipline for priests, the same cannot be said for the other side of the Catholic Church—the six Eastern rites comprised of twenty-three sui iuris or self-governing churches. At first glance, one might think that the title is provocative. If the book is about married priests in the Eastern Catholic Church, why not call it that? Yet, upon further consideration, one is able to see that the title is quite adequate. Eastern Catholics are no less Catholic than their Latin counterparts. Thus, it is proper to say that there are married priests in the Catholic Church—full stop. This book explains why.
The book is divided into five sections with various articles in each section written by theologians, canonists, children of married priests, wives of married priests, and married priests themselves. The first section, “History Ancient and Modern,” provides a biblical and historical defense against the arguments of Robert Sarah, Alfons Maria Stickler, Stefan Heid, and Christian Cochini, who argue for sexual continence as a requirement for the priesthood, even among married priests. David Hunter, in his contribution, not only shows convincingly that this is a misreading of history, but it also goes against the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. James Dutko’s essay shows how this false view of history led to divisions in the Catholic Church, most infamously in the case of Fr. Alexis Toth and Archbishop John Ireland. Ireland’s intolerance of the ancient Eastern Catholic practice of a married presbyterate was the impetus for Toth’s leaving the Catholic faith, taking with him 20,000 souls, to join the Russian Orthodox Church.
The next section of the book, “Canon Law East and West,” argues that the Magisterium’s restriction on married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches to only traditional Eastern territories is a violation of the Union of Brest (1595-1596) and the Union of Uzhorod (1646), by which Greek Catholics came into union with Rome and were promised that their ancient practices would be retained. Alexander Laschuk’s article raises an interesting point that has wide-ranging ecumenical implications. He notes that although Pope Francis allowed married men to be ordained to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic churches outside of their traditional territories, the legislation only grants the ability of Eastern Catholic hierarchs to do so as a faculty, meaning that their ability to do so does not come from their own rights as bishops, but is delegated to them by the Pope. This, understandably, is not favorable to the Eastern Orthodox, who are watching to see how Rome interacts with the Eastern Catholic churches.
Peter Galadza’s article in the third section, “Ecumenical Considerations,” is of special importance, for it shows that those who argue for an ontological connection between the priesthood and celibacy fail to consider the Magisterial teaching on priestly celibacy found in the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Code of Canon Law. All these documents affirm the value and historical legitimacy of the Eastern churches’ married priesthood. Unfortunately, proponents of the ontological connection between priesthood and celibacy have fallen into the error of letting discipline determine theology, rather than the other way around. That is, they see the Latin rite discipline of a celibate priesthood and then argue that because of this there must be an ontological connection between priesthood and celibacy. Galadza also highlights Pope Francis’ positive view of celibacy in the priesthood, which does not denigrate a married priesthood. This approach is fruitful for dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox.
In the fourth section on “Pastoral-Familial Life,” Irene Galadza, wife of Fr. Peter Galadza, provides a beautiful reflection on the role of the Theotokos as a model for the presbytera (priest’s wife). Just as Mary accepts her role in salvation history to become the Mother of God, the presbytera must give her own fiat (let it be) to her role and ministry as a priest’s wife. The presbytera must consent to her husband’s ordination and be open to whatever God calls her to in her new role. Moreover, the presbytera can serve as an icon of the Theotokos, acting as a “maternal presence in her community, complementing the paternal and apostolic ministry of her husband” (157). Not only does the presbytera play an invaluable role in the pastoral life of the community, usually as the mediator between the congregation and her husband the priest, but she also plays an invaluable role in supporting her husband in his ministry. Galadza likens the presbytera in this regard to Mary’s role at the wedding of Cana. In any discussion of married priests in the Catholic Church, the supporting role of the presbytera should always be taken into account. Presbytera Galadza’s article provides great wisdom in this regard.
In the final chapter of the fifth section, “Theology,” as well as of the book, Adam DeVille ties together the previous articles and, with the assistance of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia (Vatican Press, 2016), and Paul Evdokimov’s The Sacrament of Love (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), presents a theology of the married priesthood as one that is a sign of Christ’s nuptial union with his Church, made present by the priest and his wife. DeVille concludes that marriage is not an inferior state to celibacy, nor is it an impediment to holiness. Neither, also, is it an impediment to holy orders. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the book’s second appendix, which presents a previously published review of literature dealing with the origins of clerical celibacy from 1980 to 1991. In it, J. Kevin Coyle provides devastating critiques of both Cochini and Cholij, and is one of the real treats of this book, if only for apologetical purposes.
This book is a welcomed response to certain ideologies that view the Eastern Catholic churches and their married priesthood as a concession to be tolerated, at best, or a denigration of the priesthood of Christ, at worst. I heartily recommend it to all interested in this topic.
Daniel M. Garland Jr. earned his doctorate in systematic theology from Ave Maria University.
Daniel M. Garland Jr.
Date Of Review:
April 22, 2022
