Copyright 1942 V. REV. JOSEPH MIHALY All Rights Reserved sye , in Vol. 2, page 80, supra, says; “‘During the life of this Bishop, (Sergius 6th, from 1601-1616, he being an Orthodox bishop) this is to be commented upon, that George of Homonna, the Hungarian Lord, in 1614 attempted to make of the Carpatho Russian peoples, Uniates, and to bring this about, called Athanasius Krupecky of Premysl, who was summoned in spite of the fact that the Bishop and people did not submit to his intention. Neverthelss he brought it about that some of the priests and monks living in the canton of Homonna, having gathered were willing to accept Uhion UN- DER THE CONDITION THAT THE GREEK RITE BE SAFEGUARDED IN EVERY RESPECT. THIS AFFAIR ENDED IN TRAGEDY. THE PEOPLE, ARMED WITH PITCHFORKS AND CLUBS REVOLTING, DROVE OUT FROM AMONGST THEMSELVES, BY FORCE, BOTH KRUPECKY AND HIS ADHERENTS, AND REMAINED AGAIN, ORTHODOX.” Beskid ut supra, on page 281, remarks “Klara Baikoczy, the sis- ter of the then living Hungarian Primate (1713), was especially an exponent of latinization along with Stephen Bornemissa, the Vice-Canton Head of Sa- ris. They, ACCOMPANIED BY POLICE, SURROUNDED THE CHURCHES (Russian Orthodox) BROKE DOWN THE DOORS, AND AS SOON AS A RO- MAN CATH. PRIEST, WHO LEAD THEM, (sic) PLACED AN UNLEAVANED BREAD ON THE ALTAR, WITH THIS ACT THE CHURCH WAS TO BE CON- SIDERED AS ROMAN CATHOLIC. And wherever the people protested against such terrorism, THEY WERE BEATEN UP, THOSE WHO REVOLTED WERE THROWN INTO JAIL, FROM WHENCE THEY WERE NOT RELEASED UN- TIL THEY BECAME ROMAN CATHOLICS. If one was captured in the win- ter, or if one raised his voice against these affairs. HE WAS PUT IN THE RIVER, AND WAS NOT LET COME UP UNTIL HE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD BE A DISSEMINATOR OF LATINIZATION. And so, many Rus- sian churches were lost.” (page 282) “At the s'ame time, there came a mass of Jesuits who came to serve the same purpose. As a result of this work, the number of Russian churches, which in the time of Lippay were 45 in the canton of Spis, dwindled to 13 Bishops, although elected, were subject to the Egger (latin) Bishop. The Uniate Bishop had to even swear a special oath of sub- mission to the Egger Bishop.” Among other abuses listed by Beskid are that the Uniate Bishop was not able to call his own synod without the permission of the latin Bishop of Egger; that in the Munkacs Uniate Consistory, the lat- in priest of the city presided; that churches were placed under the juris- diction of the various latin Bishops in whose territory they were situated; that Uniate filial churches were put under Roman Catholic priests; that the lat- in deans supervised the spiritual life of the Uniate clergy; that the Ruthenian people had to Support the Roman Catholic priests under penalty of the law; by revolutionary means! In this same manner, forcible celibacy has been introduced in the Lwow Diocese, 3 ) as well as Premysl, 3 ) whereas in America, this same has occurred in Canada and in the United States. 4 ) Even that mixed marriages were were invariably performed by the Roman Catho- lic priests; and that the Huthenians had to observe the latin holidays. Beskid continues on page 283, in commenting on the year of 1771, as follows “When it was evident to latinizors that it could not accomplish its desired aims by the help of methods! used, it turned to Bishop Andrew Bacinsky via the government with the proposition to conduct the affairs of his church for the destruction of the Oriental Rite and her complete amalgamation with the Lat- in Church, by flattering his ego and seducing him by the offer of this change —namely, to become, from a Uniate Bishop, the Latin Primate of Hungary.” The answer was a definite “no” from Bacinsky. (page 285) “ After the death of Bishop Andrew Bacinsky in 1809, preparations were made for elections Nevertheless, Francis 1 immediately forbade this action on the ground of the danger of revolutionary war times, although his true reason was to take away the right of election from the Carpatho Russians and to center it in his own hands in order to name such as were not pleasing to the people, but to the government, and who would be just tools in his! hands. Such was the revenge for the answer of Bacinsky This was done by a decree dated April 20th, 1810 under number 895. What is more, in the canton of Spis, where the revolt and sense of injury was the greatest, Prince Joseph the Highest, soon appeared in or-« der to give greater authority to the comand of the Emperor.” And Beskid quite frankly gives the reason for the wholesale migration of the Carpatho Russians to America. On page 286 he states, “In the 1880’s our people began to go to America for the reason that in America NOTHING WOULD HINDER THEM TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIFE, America, from the point of view of material well-being as well as national life, soon BECAME THE SOURCE OF THEIR REBIRTH AND REGENERATION.” It is all the more astounding to read such authors as! the above in view of the fact that both Duliskovics and Beskid were “Uniate” priests, the lat- ter still living in Legnava, canton of Saris. Both were outspoken in their con- demnation of the “Union”, and refused to be stifled in their open revolt a- gainst the Church of Rome, to which they, at least nominally, belonged! 3) In Poland 4) Numerous decrees emanating from Rome commanded this. In 1890, an Encyclical letter from the Propogation of Faith, dated October 1st of that year, deplores the “scandal” of a married priesthood: ” Quidam ex his sacerdotibus secum uxores et liberos duxerunt, GRAVISSIMUM SCANDA- LUM PRAEBENTES CATHOLICIS AC DISSIDENTIBUS IBiDEN DEGEN- TIBUS 1) Sacerdotes ritus Graeco-Rutheni qui in Status Foederatos Americae Septentrionalis proficisci et commorari cupiunt, DEBENT ESSE CO - ELIBES.” (Trans.) “Certain of these priests have brought with themselves wives and children, PRESENTING THE MOST GRIEVOUS SCANDAL (sic!) TO CATHOLICS AND DISSIDENTS RESIDING THERE 1) Priests of the Greek-Ruthenian Rite who wish to go and remain in the United States of North America, MUST BE CELIBATES.” -4 io 4- South America has not escaped the “paternal sollicitude” of Rome! And what sophistory has been used, the follow- In 1897, May 1st, a decree of the Congregation of the Propogation of Faith again issued certain rules tending to liquidate the Greek Catholic Uniate and referred to the same regulations as that of 1890 .... (firmis ceteroquin manentibus praescriptionibus’ contentis in litteris circularibus editis die 1 Oct. 1890 (VIDE NOTAM 1-AM) et 12 Aprilis 1892 (VIDE NOTAM 2-AM) The note referred to in the 1890 Encyclical letters, had to do with the insist- ence that only a celibate clergy be placed because of the “SCANDAL” that an honest, moral, married Greek Catholic priest brought to Catholics and mind you, Protestants! The Encyclical letter of the same Propogation of April 12, 1894, made sure to insert the “celibacy” requirements .... “ne absque praevia licentia Oidinarii loci ad quern, sacerdotes dictum in fin^m desig- nentur (QUI CAELIBES AUT VIDUI ESSE DEBENT)”—(WHO MUST BE WIDOWERS OR CELIBATES) In 1907, July 18th, the infamous Bulla “Ea Semper” was bom, which seemingly went out of its way in entirely legislating a proposed hari-kari for those who ostensibly were to accept it. The nomination of the Bishop was reserved to the Holy See, contrary to the articles of the Union of 1646; he was to be under the jurisdiction of the various latin ordinaries in whose territory the Ruthenian churches were situated; could ordain clerics only with the dim- misorial letters of the latin bishops’; could not even visit his churches with- out permission of the proper latin bishops; had to submit to a report of such visitation to the latin bishops; in article 10 of the Bulla, the instructions were that “but none EXCEPT CELIBATES WHETHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE CAN BE PROMOTED TO HOLY ORDERS;” it was made easy for the latin ordinaries to place a Roman Catholic priesft in charge of RuthJenian parishes, and if a Ruthenian priest was to be placed (art. 12) such “should be a CELI- BATE, OR AT LEAST A WIDOWER WITHOUT CHILDREN” (evidently, having legitimate children was imputed as a stain on the character of the priest) and as a dogmatic faux pas it was even stated that Confirmation could not be administered VALIDLY, mind you, as stated in article 15, “It is wholly pro- hibited to Ruthenian priests living in America to anoint the baptised with Sacred Chrism; and if they should do otherwise MAY THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ACTED INVALIDLY”; all candidates for the priesthood were incardinated into the various latin dioceses; the latin bishops even set up the stole fees for services: it was instructed that Ruthenians attend latin churches; transfer from the Greek Rite into the Latin was allowed; in places where there was a Ruthenian priest, the faithful were able to approach the Sacra- ment of Penance before a latin priest; observence of latin feast days was urged in case of mixed marriage, the latin party HAD to retain his or her rite, but the Ruthenian party, COULD BECOME LATIN; (a sort of “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition) the stame was true as far as mixed marriages be- ing performed before a latin priest, and baptism of children by latin priests etc., etc. This created a cyclone of rebellion, and Soter Ortynski, the Ruthenian Bish- op was hard pressed to pacify his people, and it caused, as is the consensus of opinion, his quite sudden death. In 1913, August 18 the Propogation of Faith issued a decree “Fidelibus Ruthenis”, for Canada, along the same line of latinization and forcible celiba- cy as is seen in article 10 and 11, “but only those who shall have promised ing excerpt from a rescript from the “Sacred” Oriental Congregation, clearly demonstrates. 5 ) Sacred Oriental Congregation Rome, July 23, 1934 (Borgo Nuovo, 76.) Prot. N. 572-30. Your Excellency : It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the Uni- ted States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and de- plorable rebellions are being intensified and ex- panded, motivated by the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and priv- ileges of the Ruthenian Church. But Your Excellency well knows how, under the appearance of vast auestions, there lies prev- alently that much more restricted Question, which has its origin in the regulation of article 12 of the Decree, “Cum Data Fuerit of March 1, 1929, and by which was again decreed that which had already been decreed what had already before the bishop that THEY SHALL REMAIN CELIBATES, SHALL BE AD- MITTED INTO THE SEMINARY EITHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE .... priests will Pot be admitted .... unless they BE CELIBATES OR. AT LEAST WIDOWERS WITHOUT CHILDREN.” The decree of August 17, 1914, “Cum Episcopo Graeco” for the Rutheni-' ans in the United States surprisingly made no mention of Celibacy, but it cropped up anew in the “Cum Data” of February 9. 1929 (recently renewed! in article 12, “in the meantime as has already several times been provided, priests of the Greek-Ruthenian rite who wish to go to th^ United States of North America and stay there, MUST BE CELBATES.” 5) Full text of this rescript contained in the “Amerikanskv Russkv Viest- r.ik”, Homestead, Pa,, of Nov. 15, 1934, page 7. -4 12 4- been prescribed since 1890; that is to say; that "Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates.” This regula- tion indeed was not and is not a “Lex de coelibatu apud clerum graeco-ruthenum ” as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modi- fied or changed in that particular Ruthenian ec- clesiastical discipline, to which, insofar as it con- cerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose, not new, but anew, from the pe- culiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. THERE IT REP- RESENTS AN IMMIGRANT ELEMENT AND MINORITY, AND IT COULD NOT, THERE- FORE, PRETEND TO MAINTAIN THERE ITS OWN CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS WHICH ARE IN CONTRAST WITH THOSE WHICH ARE THE LEGITIMATE CUSTOMS AND TRADI- TIONS OF CATHOLICISM IN THE UNITED STATES, AND MUCH LESS TO HAVE THERE A CLERGY WHICH COULD BE A SOURCE OF PAINFUL PERPLEXITY OR SCANDAL TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CATHOLICS. And, moreover, when the Holy See, etc. . . . (signed) Luigi Card. Sincero, Bishop of Palestrina, Secfy G. Cecarini, Assessor To His Excellency, The Most Rev. Amleto Giovanni Cicognani Apostolic Delegate, Washington, D. C. One does not know whether to smile at the “tongue in cheek” solicitude expressed to the Ruthenians by such choice expressions as “profound pain” and “grave agi- tations and deplorable rebellions.” For, indeed, the “pro- found pain” was caused by Rome, and the “rebellions,” if such be the choice of words, was nothing else but the holy war of liberation of the Carpatho Russians against those who formerly had the “Apostolic Kings” of Aus- tria Hungary with the help of bloody executioners as their “proselyting” agents. 6 ) The insult of Rome, so gratuitously offered, in the matter of a married clergy evidently being an “illegiti- mate” custom of the Church was not, and is not swal- lowed by any Carpatho Russian despite the fact that Rome certainly should, by now, know quite thoroughly the entire perplexity of “illegitimacy.” In other words, from this rescript, it is entirely the stand of the “Sacred” Congregation, that a MARRIED clergy is NOT the LEGITIMATE custom of the Church, but is a PAINFUL PERPLEXITY AND A SOURCE OF SCANDAL to Catholics. We need not even mention the sophistry of the statement that: “By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian discipline to which insofar as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, THE HOLY SEE HAS CONSENT- ED AND STILL DOES CONSENT.” On the one hand, Rome recognizes that a married clergy is the proper one as recognized by itself among the Carpatho Russians, 6) In Presov, Slovakia, in the corner of the former Lutheran school ad- joining the Roman Catholic Church, also formerly a Lutheran Church, near the town square, a statue of masked executioner is set up. Tradition has it that it represents Karaffa, a good “Catholic” general who in the time of the thirty years' rebellion of Czech Lutheran Reformers, was sent by the Hun- garian King to purge the land from “dissenters”. On that spot it is alleged that 32 Slovak Lutherans were beheaded by Karaffa when they refused to ac- cept the gospel of “Catholicism”, spread so persuasively by the sword, then as even since then ! ~4 14 4- and on the other hand, wants to abrogate it in America. On the one hand it, Rome, claims not to infringe on the universality of the law of marriage among the Rutheni- an clergy, and on the other hand, after abrogating mar- riage in Europe and in North and South America, where the vast majority of Carpatho Russians are found, it will have come to the marvelous deduction that the Carpatho Russians themselves had changed their ecclesiastical discipline to a universal law of celibacy, and thus a mar- ried clergy would be universally abolished! What an ingenious line of reasoning and sophistry and tactics! But surely it would be ingenious only to morons! ! ! ! But, since in this rescript, Rome would have it ap- pear that celibacy, and not marriage, is the “legitimate” custom of the Church as regards the clergy, we shall at- tempt, in this present brochure, to demonstrate just the opposite, namely, THAT A MARRIED, AND ONLY A MARRIED CLERGY, IS THE LEGITIMATE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST! TOO LONG HAS THE MARRIED PRIEST BEEN REVILED! EVEN RE- CENTLY ON JULY 13, 1941 OUR LATIN BRETHREN, USING EVEN THE RADIO, HAVE, BY A PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE GRAYMOOR MONASTERY, IN- SULTED THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE GREEK CATHOLIC MARRIED PRIESTHOOD AND THE PRO- TESTANT MARRIED MINISTER! IT IS TIME TO ANSWER TO SUCH ARROGANCE ! In the proofs that we shall advance, it will be shown that a CELIBATE PRIESTHOOD IS NOT FOUNDED IN ACTUALITY, EITHER ON HOLY SCRIPTURE, OR THE LEGITIMATE CUSTOMS OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST! -4 15 4- £ THE TEACHING OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY. What are the teachings of Christian Philosophy? The question concerning celibacy, in its essence, deals with the morals of the priesthood. In other words, who is higher and better as regards a moral standing? Is it the married or celibate priest? Who is more useful for the Church and people? It is the married or the celibate priest? What answer does moral philosophy give to the above questions? Man is an intellectual creature, cognizant o f the aims of his activity. Questions arise before everyone of us, constantly, as to the evaluation of some aims as high- er than others. We cannot satisfy all our aims. Conse- quently, we choose some in preference to others. This choice appears in our lives as a natural problem, the so- lution of which, is attendant with internal struggle and doubt. The choice of aims is the eventual question of life and death. Isn’t it also true that we are convinced, in every step of our everyday life, that questions of con- duct and moral life appear to us to be vital and most im- portant? The choice of a clerical or lay profession, the choice of a political program, the establishment of our relationships with our fellowmen, with other nations; — these are the questions, the decisions of which, establish the destinies of all life! Not only we, but all contemporary cultural status’ of our world, are living through a crisis of moral con- sciousness. Activity has arisen in all domains of social life. The old has declared war on the new! Old dogmas have been shaken, and new dogmas have not, as yet, suf- ficiently been formed or strengthened. All the founda- tions of science, of personal conduct and social struc- ture, are being subjected to investigation, and evaluation. In the domain of abstract thought, there has flared up, with new strength, the old struggle between exact sci- ence and religion. In the realm of governmental struc- ture, there is litigation between the origins of govern- mental unity based on compulsion, and the doctrine based on the natural rights of man, as man and citizen. In the realm of economics, the flourishing of capitalis- tic systems, based on the beginnings of free competition, meets with a frightful opponent in socialistic and com- munistic doctrine, preaching the destruction of private capital and the joinder of the means of production and the equal sharing of wealth. In morals, we meet with the struggle of the doctrine establishing morals on an external authority, with a free and autonomous moral. In Europe and among us, there has flared up anew, the old strife between the adherents of forcible celibacy for the clergy and adherents of a married clergy. All these problems seem unusually difficult and troublesome especially for young people. The psychol- ogy of old people is prone to be more conservative than liberal. But it is essential to decide problems one way or another. At the same time, there is no ready decision, as in mathematics, because there is nothing more diffi- cult in life than life itself. At this point, moral philoso- phy comes to our aid, because it teaches us the princi- ples of the choice of aims. Every person must know these principles when it is necessary for him to choose. If a young person is ignorant of these principles, it is necessary for him to become acquainted with them before they force him to action. -4 17 4- THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA. Christianity introduced into the world, a philoso- phy of an entirely new spirit. In opposition to Greek na- tionalism and intellectualism, Christian philosophy, in its origin, is based on the supernatural. 7 ) Greek philoso- phy proceeded from the idea of the self-preservation of man, and placed as the basis of its ethical doctrines, the ambition of man for happiness within the limits of mortal life. Christianity is founded in faith, in the life to come, and in the preaching of beatitude not in this life, but in the next. The Kingdom of God, preached by Christ, is not of this world. Not the perfection of mortal man, but his self-abnegation is Christian virtue. The chief ob- stacle to a virtuous life appears, not in marriage, but in riches. 8 ) Good-will is placed above all, which can be perfect- ly and equally manifested in the learned man and the ig- norant, in the clergy or the laity, in the married or the celibate, in the poor or the excessively rich. These char- acteristics conclusively give Christianity a democratic character. By them is explained why Christianity so soon became the religion of the unfortunate masses. To 7) It took about 300 years for Christianity to wrest recognition from the Roman State, and this was accomplished largely because of its long list of illustrious martyrs. The founding of Constantinople as a capitol accentuated the difference between Western and Eastern Christendom. 8) “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” Mark, 10; 25. -4 18 - these traits, Christ added the idea of love toward God and the idealism of a universal brotherhood based on a love toward God. 9 ) In opposition to the pagan virtues of w i s d o m, virility, justice, rhetoric and social service, Christ ianity elevates to the first plane, the obligation of forgiving trespasses, humility before the will of God, and adds an absolutely new virtue,—that of mercy. Of course, Christian moral philosophy could not forever preserve, in all its purity, its rigorous character. The situation changed in the same proportion as the be- lief in the close advent of the Kingdom of God began to dwindle, and in the same proportion as Christianity sup- planted the then reigning state religion. The Western Church, by degrees, began to turn into a strong social force which assumed the guidance of civil activities. It gradually struggled to that aim, so that it began to vin- dicate the supremacy of the Pope above the Emperors. From that time on, this Church could no longer stand in opposition to the world to such a degree as in the begin- ning. In addition, in opposition to the Christian philos- ophy of morals, and especially against the supernatur- alistic morals of Christianity based on the distrust in the natural abilities of man, there emerged the worldly philosophy of morals, admitting the possibility of sal- vation outside of the Christian Church and faith. It was then that the Christian philosophy of moral conduct be- gan to make greater concessions to everyday life and its needs. In this way, the new Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages is established. 9) The first commandment of love toward God, and the second, love to wards your neighbor. Mark, 12; 30-31. -4 19 4- THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE AGES. In this philosophy, there emerge various aspects of a new religion, propounded by the exponents of this same new philosophy. The Oriental theologians pay greater attention to the internal disposition of religious consciousness, our good-will, and on the mystic union of the human soul with a Divine Word, which appeared as the result of active love. This mysticism is preserved, even to this day, in the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church. The Western theologians, stress the importance of dogmatic faith more. In their teachings, especially, the importance of that salutory sacrifice, which was brought for a sinful world by the crucifixion of our Saviour, is accentuated. One of the greatest theologians of the Western Church is the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Ac- quinas. 10 ) His “Summa Theologiae” enjoys a very great authority in the Western Church. His moral system is a monastic system. The higher beatitude of the soul con- 10) St. Thomas Aquinas, (1227—1274) famous theologian, Italian by na- tionality, descend rt of a noble family, was horn in Calabria. Italy. He re- ceived his rducation from Benedictine monks at Monte Cassino, and entered tHe Dominican order at Naples. He also studied under Albertus' Magnus, at Cologne and Paris. His princioal work is, “Summa Theologiae”, reconciling Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. His followers are known as “Thom- ists”. The first complete edition of his works* were issued under the auspices of Pope Leo XIII, and he was canonized as a saint by Pope John XXII in 1313 He died while on his way to the Council of Lyons, at Fossa Nuova, near Ter- racina, Italy, March 7, 1274. -4 20 - sists in the imitation of God. The virtues of faith, hope, and charity, prepare one to this imitation. The monas- tic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, make easy the flourishing of these virtues. Nevertheless, this “Doc- tor Angelicus” does not consider them absolutely es- sential for this purpose. In addition, the Western thelologian and philoso- pher teaches that the chief sources of Christian ethics are divine law and natural law, which fulfill each other mutually, and are not in opposition, the one to the other. Natural law is perfection as recognized by the intellect which God instilled in all. How, then, can marriage, the natural law, the perfection of nature established by God, oppose divine law? In addition to this, in the Western Church, both Priesthood and Matrimony are Sacra- ments, which, because of the fact that they are Sacra- ments, cannot be in opposition to each other in one and the same person. And for this reason, the semi-official “Roman Catechism,” (2,7) in its teaching concerning the Sacrament of Priesthood, does not speak one word con- cerning celibacy! ! And in the prayers of ordination to the priesthood, there is no mention of celibacy ! ! ! It is true that the subsequent practical official mor- als of the Roman Church established voluntarism on a second plane. Moral prescriptions, to an important de- gree, gained an internal juridical character. It is nec- essary to make feasible these difficult religious moral demands, especially for a celibate clergy. Therefore, the real truth of the matter lay not in the internal dis- position of a good-will, which does not submit to exter- nal proof, but to a satisfactory fulfillment of prescrib- ed external acts, which attested to the piety of a person. But at the same time, with this official philosophy of morality, in the course of the entire Middle Ages and later on, mystic tendencies are also upheld, the expo- nents of which set up disposition, good-will, and consci- ence, above the intellectual, which, in the capacity of greater good for man, demonstrate the union of his soul with God. The works of Bonaventure, u ) Eckhardt, Thomas A. Kempis, 12 ) Nicholas Kuzansky, etc., imbued with ideal- ism, nonetheless, set up the disposition of the soul, good will and conscience, namely, the true moral law, as high- er than forcible juridical law. Marcilius of Padua 13 ) speaks definitely that the Church, as the Protectress of morals, should be so, by means of exhortation and not by force! 14 ) 11) His better known works being, “Itirerary of the Mind to God”; “Reduction of the Arts to Theology”. 12) Thomas a Kempis, (1438-1471) was! born of a peasant family and German by nationality. His real name was Thomas Hamerken, and birthplace near Dusseldorf, Prussia. He entered Augustinian orders, and was the author of the famous “De Imitations Christi”, a rule of life in seclusion and renun- ciation. Died at Zwolle, Netherlands!. 13) Padua is famed for its great university of midieval times, founded in 1222 by teachers and students from the University of Bologna, a theological faculty being added in 1363 by Pope Urban V. 14) So also, Duns Scotus, John; (1265-1308), Franciscan monk, professor of Theology at Oxford and Paris who even founded the school of Scotists. St. Anselm, (1033-1109) Italian by birth, born in Aosta, Piedmonte, en- tered the monastery at Bee, Normandy, becoming its abbot, and in 1093 Arch- bishop of Canterbury. He wrote, among other works), “Cur Deus Homo”. The Venerable Bede, English monk, is one of the greatest in ancient English literature. At the age of seven, he entered the monastery of Ss. P**ter and Paul at Jarrow, spending the r^st of his life there. He also wrote an ec- clesiastical history of England. (Etc., etc. As a matter of fact, the earliest Christian monks were of the Eastern Church, being hermits or “athletes of Christ”, in that they practised asceti- cism to an unbelievable degree. The cenobitic form was fixed by St. Basil the Great. Western monachism was fixed by St. Benedict who borrowed from St. Basil’s form, but stressed more the side of spiritual asceticism and not so much the physical. Monasticism flourished greatly in the middle ages, and seats of learning were staffed by monks-professors'. Thus even lay edu- cation and the liberal arts were interpreted with a theological stress. St. Basil the Great, himself a mork, Bishop of Caesarea, (370-379) was the first to encourage the community life of monks!, although in the Eastern Church, even today, the eremitical or solitary life, is still found. -4 22 4- In general, all Christian philosophies consider that Priesthood and Matrimony, as Holy Sacraments, can- not be in conflict from the moral point of view. Not celibacy or marriage decide the individual morals of the priest, but his internal disposition! ! -4 23 4- IS CELIBACY A DOGMA OF THE CHURCH? Forcible celibacy of the clergy is NOT found as a DOGMA in any Christian Church, NOT EVEN IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC, that is, in that teaching in which every faithful Christian Roman Catholic MUST BE- LIEVE. The sources of dogmatic doctrine are the Holy Scriptures, (the word of Christ and His Apostles) and the exhortation of the Church. Neither did the Divine Saviour nor the Holy Fathers of the Church, in any pas- sage, DEMAND obligatory celibacy for the priesthood! Not ONE ecumenical council, not merely the first Ori- ental ones, but later on even in the Occidental Church, not even excepting the Council of Trent, 15 ) considers ob- ligatory celibacy for the priesthood as a DOGMA! ! We begin with the words of Our Saviour. 16 ) "All men take not this word, (celibacy) but they do whom it is given, for there are eunuchs who were born so from their mothers womb: and there 15) The Western Church considers the Council of Trent as ecumenical in character*, but it is rejected by the Eastern Church which recognizes only the first seven councils as truly ecumenical. The first session of the Council of Trent was at Trent, the Tirol, Dec. 13, 1545, and the last in Dec. 1563. Its membership was predominantly Italian and under the influence of the Je- suits Lainez and Salmeron. Its? canons have much to do with Papal supremacy, and indeed the council was called as a contra-Reformation movement and to uphold the dwindling authority of the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church claims that 20 councils are ecumenical, the last being that of the Vatican In 1869. 16) Matth. 19^; 11. ~«e( 24 )•- are eunuchs who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs (remain celibate) for the Kingdom of Heaven. He that can, let him take it.” St. John Chrysostom 17 ) interprets this passage in the following manner, that, “The Divine Saviour in His goodness did not wish to make celibacy an obligatory law for the sake of the Kingdom of God.” In addition, the Saviour nowhere, and at no time, ex- pressed himself that he esteems the celibate Apostle greater than the married ! On the contrary, Christ chooses married Apostles, and lives in the home of the mother-in-law of the Apostle Peter, and restores to her, 18 ) her breath! ! ! In addition to St. Peter, even the Apostle Judas Thaddeus, the relative of the Lord, and many other A- postles and disciples were married ! ! On the basis of the Holy Scriptures, one CANNOT prove that the desire of Christ was that the married Apostles should leave their wives home when they ac- companied Christ! ! ! 19 ) On the contrary, the WIFE OF THE APOSTLE PE- TER, accompanied him on his great Apostolic mission 17) Chrysostom, St. John, (347-407) was bom at Antioch, Syria and died at Cappadocia. He was a great orator and Greek scholar, being taught by Li- banius. His title is "Golden Mouth" because of his gift of eloquence. He was a prelate at Antioch, and then became Patriarch of Constantinople. He is one of the Doctors of the Oriental Church being commemorated by it on January 27th, November 13th, and January 30th. CJasoslov, Zovkva, 1910, page 432 under November 13th, (Julian Calendar) "Ize vo Svjatych Otca naseho Ioanna, Archiepiskopa Konstantina Hiada, Zla- toustaho: Ize byst' vo vremja carstvo Arkadia i Onoria, blazennuju ze kon- dinu v Kukusach Armenskich prijat v Pito 402. Poiive vsich Pit 62. Pasyj te dobri Ckrkov Christovu, prebyst’ na Prestoli Pit 6. 18) Mark, 1; 30-31. 19) Luke. 18; 28-29. --«§( 25 as a sister!” This is well known concerning the wives 20 ) of the relatives of the Lord ! ! The adherents of obligatory celibacy base their opin- ions on the words of the Apostle Paul, who was a celi- bate and who, as it seems, demanded celibacy. This opin- ion must be considered ERRONEOUS, because the words of St. Paul in which he praises and places celi- bacy higher than the married state, refers NOT TO THE PRIESTHOOD, but to ALL CHRISTIANS EXPECT- ING THE END OF THE WORLD, AND NOT KNOW- ING HOW TO BE WITH THEIR WIVES WHEN THE END OF THE WORLD SHOULD COME! ! ! When these question were presented to him, here is how St. Paul answered: 21 ) “Now concerning the things WHEREOF YOU WROTE TO ME: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband For I would that all men were even as myself : but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. (celibate) But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord COMMANDETH, that the wife DEPART NOT from the husband.” 20) 1 Corinthians, 9; 5. 21) 1 Corinthians, 7; 1-3, 7-10. -4 26 4- Exegetists interpret this section in this manner, that matrimony is a moral necessity for all who cannot con- tain themselves. It is better to marry so as not to be burned with passion. Then follow the words of the Holy Apostle Paul which appear to be the basis NOT OF OBLIGATORY, BUT VOLUNTARY CELIBACY, and NOT ONLY FOR THE PRIESTHOOD, BUT THE LAITY AS WELL!! 22) "Now concerning virgins, / have no command- ment of $he Lord; hut 1 give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful . I think therefore that this is good for THE PRESENT NECESSITY, (the end of the world!) that it is good for a man so to be. (celibate) Art thou hound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nev- ertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you.” These words are easily understood. If the end of the world was to occur in the not far distant future as the Christians then believed, why then, advise marriage? The Holy Apostle continues. 23 ) “This therefore / say, brethren; the time is short But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 22) 1 Corinthians, 7; 25-28. 23) 1 Corinthians*, 7;29, 32-40. -4 27 4- And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in the spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this / speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. But if any man think that he seemeth dishon- ored, with regard to his virgin, for that she is a- bove the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry. For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in mar- riage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain (unmarried) according to my counsel; and / think that l also have the spirit of God.” The above words of the Holy Apostle can be deemed the ONLY ones on the basis of which it may be advisa- ble for the priest to assume the state of VOLUNTARY celibacy. But to all intent it is ONLY ADVISABLE, and NOT MANDATORY OR COMPULSORY! ! The Holy Apostle gives ONLY his ADVICE, but NO COMMAND! ~- 6 ( 28 The Holy Apostle advises BUT NOT CHRIST! The ad- vice refers to ALL PEOPLE, NOT ONLY TO THE PRIESTHOOD! The great Apostle well knew human nature. He el- evates and advises virginity, nevertheless, knowing our feeble nature, he, at the same time, herewith warns that virginity is not amenable to everybody, and that mar- riage is better than virginity for those who are unable to be continent and have no vocation for it. Everybody, not only a priest, but a lay person who loves God out of pure love, and who desires a wife and family and follows the three evangelical virtues, is con- sidered a perfect and an ideal Christian . . . but such per- fection is considered a rarity even in monasteries ! ! If St. Paul would know that marriage would be harmful to the Church, he would never have allowed a married person to become a priest. Nevertheless, St. Paul gives definite and prescribed rules. 24 ) According to his words, a deacon or a bishop, should be the, " husband of one wife, having faithful chil- dren not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine given to hospitality, gentle , sober, just, holy, continent And St. Paul likewise says that these same should know how to, . .rule well his own house. ... if a man know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?” 24) 1 Timothy, 3; 1-12. Titus, 1; 5-8. THE STAND OF THE CHURCH AND THE HOLY FATHERS. St. Paul did not err. In the first era of Christiani- ty, when it was subject to the most cruel persecutions at the hands of pagans, martyrdom flourished not only among the monastic orders, but also among THE MAR- RIED PRIESTHOOD! There is ample testimony in the inscriptions found in the catacombs, in the writings of Church historians, and the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church. 25 ) Polycarp, 26 ) the disciple of the Apostles and Martyrs, writes about a priest by the name of Valencius and his wife Tertulliana. He, Poly- carp, knows the existence of only a married priesthood, and makes no excuses for the fact of the priesthood being married. 25) It is interesting to note from Roman Catholic sources that up to the 10th century, almost ALL the Fathers of the Christian Church were, with few exceptions, exclusively of the Eastern Oriental Church, the CRADLE OF ALL CHRISTIANITY. The same is true as regards ecclesiastical writers. (Scriptores Ecclesiastdci) See: Franciscus Egger, “Enchiridion Dogmaticae Generalis”, Brixinae, 1913, page 8-12. 26) St. Polycarp, (143) was a dislciple of St. John the Evangelist himself and is called the light of the Church of Smyrna, whose Bishop he was. Clasoslov, JZovkva, 1910, pagte 521 under Feb. 23: “Svjataho SvjaSscennomu- cennika Polikarpa, Jepiskopa Smirnskaho, ize Christa radi ohnem soz2en byst* v l’ito 143 v carstvo Antonina. Nicholas Nilles, S. J., “Kalendarium Manuale” Oeniponte, 1879, page 110; “S. Policarpus, beati Ioannis) Apostoli discipulus et ab eo Smymae, in Ionia, Episcopus ordinatus, viri sanctissimi et martyris fortissimi elogio in iure sacro decoratus . . . As a disciple of St. John, and even ordained by him as Bis- hop, the Eastern Church considers him as one of its greatest of scholars and saints. -<{ 30 St. Cyprian 27 ) writes concerning ONLY a married priesthood. In Hippolytus 28 ) we read the following: “A priest, whose wife bore a child, is not to be sep- erated from her.” Also: “A celibate should not be ordained as a priest un- til he shall have attained an older and more ma- ture age.” Clement of Alexandria 29 ) advises: “If the Apostle (St. Paul) says it is better to marry than to burn with passion do not cast your soul into fire, fearing night and day that scandals and temptation will conquer. If your soul is subject to constant conflict, it loses its confidence. It is better to marry so as not to lose the grace of God." And so was it written in those times when the Church was glorified in its marytrs as never afterward! Nevertheless, under the influence of PAGANISM, from the very first era of Christianity, woman became 27) St. Cyprian, 6asPslov, ut supra, page 392 under Otc. 2, “Svjataho Svja§cennomucennika Kipriana, i svjatyja mucennicy Iustiny, ize b’ista pri cari Dekii v Tito 255. Nilles, “Kalendarium Manuale”, ut supra, page 294: S. Cyprianus ex mago primum diaconus, mox presbyter per annos 16, denique Episcopus An- tiochiae Pisidiae, eius patriae . . . .” 28) St. Hippolitus, Casoslov, ut supra, page 503 under Jan. 30: “I svjata- ho stvjascennomucennika Hippolita, Jepiskopa Porfuenskaho. Hippolit b’i v carstvo Klavdievo, v Tito 261 po mnohich mukach v hlubinu morskuju wer- zen byst’, i tako skoncasja.” Nilles, “Kalendarium Manuale”, ut supra, page 86. 29) St. Clement of Alexandria, Casoslov, ut supra, page 493 under Jan. 18: “Ize vo Svjatych Otec na§ich Archiepiskopov Alexandrijskich, Aftanaslja i Kirilla .... Svjatyj ze Kirill bja§e v l’ito 415 v carstvo Fteodosija Mala- ho: i na tretijem Sobori Nestorija jeretika derznovenno posrami, svjatuju ie Bohorodicu Divu Mariju istinno Bohorodicu narece.” Nilles, “Kalendarium Manuale”, ut supra, page 75, -4 31 despised on the assumption that the first devil dwelt in her. St. Paul was the first to oppose such heretics. 30 ) “Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giv- ing heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of dev- ils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, FORBIDDING TO MARRY, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.*’ Those forbidding marriage, were the Encretists, Marcionists 31 ) and the Manichaeans. 32 ) The Montan- ists, 33 ) to whom Tertullian 34) belonged, opposed a se- cond marriage. These heresies 35 ) influenced some of the 30) 1 Timothy, 4; 1-3. 31) Marcion was a heretic of the 2nd century, a wealthy convert. In fact, he was a shipbuilder in Sinope, in Pontus. He held to the idea of two Gods, One of Law, (Demiurge, or lesser God of the Old Testament) and the God of Love (New Testament, the Supreme God and true Father of Christ). He held that matter is evil and Christ had no material body, therefore did not suffer on the cross in actuality, but only apparently. By the 7th cen- tury, this sect died out. 32) The Manichaeans were founded by Mani, a Persian, born about 215. He travelled in many lands and his religion spread quite extensively in the 5th and 6th century. His conception is dualism, that is the principle of good and evil,, both eternal and equally independent. Man’s spirit comes from light, and is good, but his body from darkness, and is evil. 33) The Montanist heresy was started by Montanus, a Phrygian priest. This sect was condemned by the Church, but spread up to the 6th century, from Spain to Constantinople, and from Gaul to Africa. Egger, as above, on page 897: "Primis saeculis Montanistae, Tertullianus, .... negabant Eccle- siam omnibus omnia peccata dimittere posse”. 34) Tertullian was a convert, bom in 160 at Carthage. He later embraced the Montanist heresy and wrote in its defense. His best known work is, “Apologeticum' ’ . 35) The Marcionists and Manichaeans were condemned as a heretical sect. Dr. FranciscuS Eggar, “Enchiridion Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis”, Bri- xinae, 1928, page 344: “Heretici varie errarunt circa Christi humanitatem. Simon Magus, Cerdon, Marcion, et Priscillianistae docuerunt Christi corpus non fuisse verum corpus, sed apparens tantum”. -4 32 Fathers of the Church, as Tertullian, Ambrose 36 ) and especially Jerome. 37 ) Neverthless, marriage had its great defender in Clement of Alexandria, who writes among other things: "They (opponents of marriage) deem marriage a transgression even though they themselves are THE RESULT OF MARRIAGE. MAYBE THEY WOULD WANT TO BE ASHAMED OF THE APOSTLES? PETER AND PHILIP HAD CHIL- DREN; THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FOR PER- FECT PEOPLE. AND IN TRUTH, NOT THAT PERSON IS GREAT IN LIFE WHO CHOOS- ES MONASTIC LIFE, BUT HE, WHO IN MAR- RIAGE AND IN DOMESTIC AND FAMILY WORRIES, TEMPERS CHARACTER IN RE- JOICING AND SORROW, AND LIVES INDIS- SOLUBLY IN THE LOVE OF GOD, REGARD- LESS OF HIS FAMILY DIFFICULTIES." 36) St. Ambrose of Milan, (340) was bom in France of a noble family but pagan and was educated in Rome. Was' appointed consular governor at Milan. He was a great believer in universal celibacy, influenced greatly by the fact that his sister, Marcellina was a nun. As yet a catechumen, he was elected as Bishop of Milan after the death of Dionysius. He was much in- terested in Church chant. This' “Ambrosian” chant is really the forerunner of the Gregorian chant used in the Roman Catholic Church today. The Am- brosian Rite is so called because some of its characteristics date from his time. Strangely, it is somewhat similar to the Eastern Liturgy, s*uch as, ob- lations of bread and wine by the laity, Mass not being said on Fridays of Lent, the litany is chanted by the deacon, use of psaltyr extensively, etc. 37) St. Jerome is considered as one of the Doctors of the Western Chur .h, although his education was of the East, being taught by the Eastern Fathers. He was born at Stridon, near Dalmatia, in 373 settled at Antioch, and was an ascetic in its nearby desert. He was ordained as priest at Antioch. In 386 he reached Bethlehem where he died in 420. He is' especially noted for his translation of the Bible, commonly called the Vulgate. -4 33 ATTACKS AGAINST A MARRIED CLERGY. The first to inveigh against the marriage of the clergy was the Synod of Elvira in Spain (300 A. D.) where 19 bishops demanded enforced celibacy for the priesthood. Nevertheless, the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea, 38 ) (325 A. D.) thanks to the defense of marri- age on the part of St. Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, al- lowed the priesthood marriage before ordination, and forbade it after ordination. In the West, the law of El- vira was not observed for the first thousand years, that is, up to the time of Pope Gregory 7th. 39 ) To a Roman Catholic, it may or may not be surpris- ing that some Popes were the offspring of married priests, deacons, bishops, or even Popes. A partial list is given: 40 ) 38) Nicea, a city in Asia Minor, on Lake Ascania, in Bithynia, the resi- dence of Kings. The Council of Nicea, (325) was called by Emperor Constan- tine against Arianism, and the 318 bishops present formulated the Nicene Creed, used in the Christian Church to the present time. Originally, the “fili-> oque” clause, (“i Syna”) was' not contained in the Creed, this being added by the Western Church in the Council of Toledo, Spain, in 589, despite the direct anathema of the Fathers of the Council of Nicea upon anyone chang- ing the Creed. It has been a theological bone of contention between the East and the West, and was one of the heresies impugned to the Western Church by Photius. The Eastern Church adheres to the words of the Savior as con- tained in the Gospel regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Western attempting to interpret in its text the co-equality of the Persons in the Trinity. 39) Pope Gregory the VII also called Hildebrand, was born in Tuscany, Italy, and became a Benedictine monk. In 1037 married priests were even forbidden to serve Holy Liturgy. 40) See: Schnitzer, Kathol. Eherecht, 5 Aufl. 1898, p. 460. -4 34 Telesefor Dionysius Boniface Felix III St. Agapet I St. Silverius Dens Dedit Theodore I Adrian II Martin / Boniface VI Stephen VI John XI John XIII John XV (125-136 A. D.) son of a monk. (259-268 A. D.) son of a monk. (418-422 A. D.) son of a priest. (483-492 A. D.) son of a priest. (535-536 A. D.) son of a priest. (536-537 A. D.) son of a Pope. Gormizd. (514-523 A. D.) (615-618 A. D.) son of a subdeacon. (642-649 A. D.) son of a bishop. (862-872 A. D.) son of a bishop. (882-884 A. D.) son of a priest. (896-896 A. D.) son of a bishop. (896-897 A. D.) son of a priest. (931-935 A. D.) son of Pope Ser- gius. (965-972 A. D.) son of a bishop. (985-996 A. D.) son of a priest. In addition, the decisions of other councils (4th to 8th century) and their decrees were not observed. In France, Germany, and Italy, the majority of the priests and bishops lived in matrimony, and it was with the time of Pope Gregory 7th (1074) that the celibacy of the Ro- man Catholic priesthood, beginning with the subdiacon- ate, was made mandatory through church canons, but not as a dogma. The Oriental Church to this day observes the reg- ulations of the Council of Trulla (692) which regulations are complementary to the Nicene Council, (325) estab- lishing celibacy only for the bishops, and these same reg- ulations barred the priesthood from contracting a sec- ond marriage even after the death of the first wife. These regulations which were approved by the Roman See in the act of the Union of Brest Litovsk, (1595) the -•«§{ 35 Synod of Zamosc, (1720) and the Synod of Lwow, (1891) and the Pact of Ungvar, (April 24, 1646) remained in the so-called Uniate Church up until the recent attempts in Europe, Canada, and the United States on the part of the Holy See to “liquidate” the married priesthood. This caused the disruption and the practical annihilation of the so-called Ruthenian Uniate Church. 41 ) 41) Many books have been written on this subject. These “Unions” and their conditions have been made the object of intense critical research in many court trials in the United States. These conditional Unions have been found to be historical facts by eminent jurists. -•*8( 36 THE EFFECTS OF CELIBACY IN THE WESTERN CHURCH. Mandatory celibacy of the priesthood resulted in the moral decline of the celibate clergy and caused div- ision in the Church. The Protestant Church embraced all of Northern Europe. The first assaults against the immorality of the celibate clergy began in the 14th cen- tury. After Wycliffe 42 ) in England, John Huss 4S ) rose up in Bohemia. 44 ) The Hussites renewed the war against celibacy 1. The Compact of Basle allowed the marriage 42) John Wycliffe was bom near Richmond, Yorkshire, about 1324. His education was received at Oxford. Most of the New Testament and a part of the Old Testament wag translated by him prior to his death in 1384. He came into opposition with the Church, but was not condemned until after his death, due to his many and influential friends. 43) John Hus was a celibate Roman Catholic priest, born at Husinetz, in southern Bohemia, in 1369. He became the Rector of the University of Pra- gue and upheld Wycliffe’s teachings in impassioned sermons at the Bethle- hem chapel at Prague, and attacked indulgences. He was burned at the stake in 1415. This caused the Hussite war under John Zizka, its leader. Strangely, one of the things demanded by the Hussites, was? the marriage of the clergy as well as Holy Communion under two forms as in the East- ern Church. The Hussites became the Established Church of Bohemia. A new flare-up among the Bohemians wag in 1924, when a considerable group of Roman Catholic priests defected from Rome, one of the causes being again, celibacy. The “Obrod”, printed at Usti nad Labem was their official paper, remarkable in its profound treatment of theological subjects and abuses in the Church. Simon Barr was their chief leader. See the Carpatho Russian Youth magazine, Perth Amboy, 1939-1940 for an accounting of this. 44) The Reformation stemmed from the Roman Catholic Church as a re- sult of the many abuses practised by it. Luther, Wycliffe, the Lollards, Thomas Munzer, Philip Melancthon, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and others, were some of the leading figures in this movement. The Jesuits, founded by Ig- natius Loyola, were a powerful contra-Reformation group, and the Council of Trent was for* the purpose of restoring the tottering Papal supremacy and sovereignty. Protestantism also inveighed against the celibacy of the clergy, or the rather, presumed celibacy. 4 37 fr- of the Utrecht Priesthood. Nevertheless, Rome did not agree to it. The priesthood and some of the Popes, Calix- tus III, Pius II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, and Alexander VI, contrived to live in illegal matrimony. Finally there came the Reformation, which, with all its forces, oppos- ed celibacy. Pope Clement VII, (1529) wanted to allow the Protestant ministers marriage so that he could gain them for the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the Council of Trent renewed the old decrees of Gregory VII, which even to this day, obligate the Roman Church. To the Pope was left the right to allow marriage to priests in unusual circumstances. At the time of the French Revolution, the war a- gainst celibacy was renewed. Many ordained priests be- came married. Before the Paris Revolutionary Commis- sariate, there appeared, from the provinces of France, from one hundred to two hundred priests who began to cast off their cassocks. In restaurants, church chalices appeared, from which the guests drank wine. Clowns appeared on the streets of Paris dressed in Church vest- ments. 45 ) The priesthood protested only then when the Revolutionary Government took away from it, its land, and made of them, governmental functionaries. And only the Concordat of 1801 fixed the celibacy of the clergy in France. At the end of the first half of the nineteenth century, after the July Revolution in France, the fight against cel- ibacy was renewed in the Church of France. Neverthe- less, the then Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, categor- ically dismissed the demands of the revolutionary priest- 45) See: “Confessions”, Victor Hugo, 1793. Victor Marie Hugo is well known as the French novelist, poet, and dra- matist, who in early youth had received such wide acclamation, that at the age of twenty, he was already granted a pension by King Louis XVIII. Some of his better known works are, “Les Miserables”; “Notre Dame de Paris”: “L’homme qui Hit”; etc., etc. — *§{ 38 }§• - hood. Gregory XVI even denied the higher clergy to be- come laics. Finally in the second half of the nineteenth centry, after long negotiations with the Vatican, celibacy was abrogated, that is, by the Old Catholics. 46 ) They exist even to this day, especially in Bohemia, Hungary, Holland and in South America. They have about 300 priests. In America there exists the Polish National Church, the head of which is Bishop Hodur, with three suffragan bishops, and has about two hundred thousand faithful in his fold. This Church demands the Polish language in church services and marriage for the priest- hood. 47 ) Even the Czech Roman Catholic priesthood, since 1924, has waged a war of liberation culminating in the establishment of the Czech National Church. 48 ) Thus we can see that marriage exists, as regards the priesthood, not only in the Oriental Church, but also in the above mentioned branches of the Roman Church itself. From all the above, it is seen that the clergy has the RIGHT TO MARRY, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN THE “LEGITIMATE” CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH TO HAVE A MARRIED CLERGY: 1) According to the law of nature. 2) On the basis of Sacred Scripture. 3) According to the decisions of Holy Mother the Church. 46) The Old Catholic Church had its inception as a result of the Vatican Council of 1870, presenting to an astounded world the doctrine of Papal in- fallibility. Bishop Strossmayer’s denunciation of this doctrine at the Vatican session, is an admirable summation and should be read by the reader. The Old Catholic Church accepts only the first seven Councils of the Church as ecumenical, rejects the “filioque”, Papal supremacy and infal- libility, uses the popular- language in services. Similar to it are the Polish Na- tional Catholic Church and the National Lithuanian Catholic Church. All these three are found in the United States. 47) Slowo Polskie, Oct. 1924. 48) See: Carpathp Russian Youth Magazine, 1939-1940 year book. -4 39 4) On the basis of the declarations of the Holy Fa- thers of the Church. 5) On the basis of the sorrowful results of manda- tory celibacy with regard to the morals of the priesthood and laity. -«8{ 40 )§- “OBJECTIONS” TO A MARRIED PRIESTHOOD. We have heard various objections raised against a married priesthood. These are raised by two classes of peoples; namely, those who sincerely have not investi- gated the truth of the matter, or those who refuse to ac- cede to any other thought except that which has been commanded for them to accept, be it good, bad or indif- ferent. Needless to say, they are the intellectual hyp- ocrites who have both "eyes and ears” that see and hear not! The most galling of all impudence, however, is characterized by the broadcast of July 13th, 1941, which we have mentioned before, ostensibly sponsored by the Roman Catholic Monastery of Graymoor on the Hudson. It was most insulting in its vicious attack on the splendid work of the married priest in that VERY ROMAN CATH- OLIC CHURCH! Where would the Church be today were it not for the long and illustrious roll of the mar- tyred married priests? Unconsciously we remember a bit of doggerel verse that runs something like this: "Sile, amice, sile, Pro una, habebis mille, Sed sine quacumque prole!” And here are some of the "objections” to having a married priesthood: “A priest should emulate Christ who was unmar- ried.” -4 41 4- On the basis of the Church's teaching, Christ considers himself the Son of God, and as such is sinless. A priest is only human. Christ never for- bade a priest to marry. St. Paul considered mat- rimony for a priest at times obligatory. But if a priest really wants to emulate Christ, or should emulate the Lord, then he should first RE- NOUNCE ALL DIGNITY, FROM DEAN, MON- SIGNOR, BISHOP, ETC., UP TO THE POPE HIMSELF, AND RENOUNCE ALL “BENEFI- CES,” LIVE IN POVERTY, FAST FOR FORTY DAYS, AND FINALLY BE CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS! Life in the state of matrimony could hardy be sin- less.” Therefore it is necessary to consider all the coun- sels of St. Paul as regards marriage, as sinful. This is sheer heresy. It would also follow that all married people are sinners. Then the saintly mar- ried Apostles were only sinning wretches. And it is logical then to assume that no married per- son could attain heaven, being sinful? On the contrary, it would seem that the “pious celibate” shall have the greatest of difficulty in getting by St. Peter! ! ! “Marriage is not suitable for the priesthood.” Then it was not suitable for our parents. Mar- riage is just as much a Sacrament as the priest- hood, and as such, is not inferior. They cannot be in conflict the one with another. (Theiner, p. 488) Otherwise the Sacrament of Ordination would be in conflict with the Sacrament of Mar- riage, both instituted by Christ, But the Holy -<$ 42 )§*••» Spirit cannot be in contradiction with itself and be unworthy in the person for whom Christ in- stituted it! I “The Holy Liturgy should be said with chaste heart” Then the Holy Apostles, bishops and priests of the first Christian era possessed polluted hearts, since they lived in matrimony! This “Objection” stems from a woeful ignorance of the purpose of the Holy State of Matrimony, and a perverted un- derstanding of the duties of marriage. It also con- demns nature as created by God Himself, and crit- icizes Him as making us man and woman. “He who partakes of Holy Communion every day, ought not to be married.” Then even the wish of the Popes, namely, that all pious Christians, even those married should par- take of Holy Communion daily, cannot be fulfilled. It would also mean that married people could not do so with clean conscience. This is not only a condemnation of the Sacrament of Matrimony, but labels marriage a sinful, fleshly, perverted state of life. “Woman is the creature of the devil and should be avoided.” This is the statement of Sf. Jerome and Peter of Damien. If anyone should utter today such bal- derdash, he would be considered with aversion. Logically one should shun his own mother and the Mother of Christ. -4 43 4- “A priest should live divorced from the world, otherwise he cannot impress it.” The first priests propagated the faith of Christ all over the world, even if they did live in matrimony and the world. -« 8{ 44 ]- THE UNION, CELIBACY, AND THE ORIENTAL CHURCH. Much has been said and written recently concern- ing this question. In times past, Rome has attempted to inveigle the Oriental Church into union with it. But from the times of Ferrara-Florence, all these attempts have been abortive, and even Catholic writers as Adrian Fortescue cannot help but admit that a lack of sincerity militated against Union. More recently, Congresses (in Velehrad, Czechoslovakia, (1907, 1909, 1911, and 1924) were arranged by Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics, at which questions of “Union” and methods were discussed, and at which missionaries were prepared for this end. These also, were q,uite unsatisfactory, even to the so-called “Uniates” present, as evidenced by the issues of the “Ni- va,” the ecclesiastical organ of the Lwow diocese (is- sues of 1924) where gross discrimination against the Orientals, on the part of the Roman hierarchy, is charged. A Union with the churches involved, is a most beau- tiful idea. It is, however, astonishing why the union- favoring Roman Catholics do not work among the Pro- testants. They have, in their own States, dissenting Pro- testants, whom statistics place at something like two hundred ten million. It is amusing to comment that Vien- nese Germans occupy themselves to have the disunited Russians join the Church of Rome, and yet neglect their -•$ 45 )3«~- own Protestant brethren living in Austria and Germany. Likewise the Poles evince a keen desire to “unionize” White Russia and Galicia, and neglect their own Maria- vitians. And Rome sends missionaries to the disunited Orient, but not to England, Germany, Scandinavia, etc. The answer is simple. The Protestant Church is a liberal, self-conscious and independent element, AND THERE- FORE NOT DESIRED BY THE MONARCHISTS RO- MAN CHURCH ! ! Can you image a Presbyterian or Con- gregational Church accepting canon 218 of the Codex Juris Canonici as regards the plentitude of the Papal power, or canon 335 regarding the administration of church congregational property? It is true as far as the Oriental Church is consider- ed in general, that every intelligent Roman Catholic priest or bishop KNOWS AND MUST ADMIT IN HIS HEART, ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN CHURCH DOGMA, that the Oriental Church preserved IN FULL the teachings of Christ and the traditions of His Church. Whoever reads the book of the Jesuit Palmieri, “La Chiesa Russa,” can be convinced that even the Italian Jesuits think more of the Eastern Church than the“Uniate” priests themselves, especially the Basilian Fathers. Such books, however, are rare in the West. The Unionists speak of and declare that the Oriental priesthood is of Apostolic procession, that all Sacraments, confession included, in the event of “in periculo mortis” are valid, 49 ) “In periculo mortis, omnes sacerdotes . . . VALIDE ET L1CITE ABSOLVUNT .... omnes sacerdotes, ergo etiam irregularis, S'USPENSUS, IMMO ETIAM EXCOMMUNICATUS VITANDUS, SCHISMATICUS, HAERETICUS, VEL APOSTA- TA. Sacerdos non approbatus etiam paraesente 49) Noldin, “De Sacramentis”, Oeniponte, 1930, p. 348-349. approbate VALIDE ET LICITE ABSOLVIT. In the peril of death, all priests ABSOLVE VA- LIDLY AND LICITLY . . . . all priests, therefore the irregular, SUSPENDED , EVEN, THE EX- COMMUNICATED VITANDES, SCHISMATIC, HERETICAL, OR APOSTATE. A non-approved priest, even though an approved priest is present, ABSOLVES VALIDLY AND LICITLY.) Yet, curiously the Roman Church would have its faithful believe that a marriage performed by a disunited priest, or confessions heard by him are INVALID. This is evidently a “straddling of the fence” doctrine explained by the expediency of attempting to explain the dif- ference between the powers obtained by the priest by virtue of his ordination, and by virtue of obtaining ju- risdiction, which doctrine cannot be upheld either on the basis of the words of our Lord or the “legitimate cus- toms of the Church.” (Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secun- dum ordinem Melchisedech.) And even in attempting to deny the validity of the sacraments as performed by the disunited priest, the Church of Rome is dangerously push- ed to the precipice of claiming that they (the Orthodox Priests) have no Apostolic succession, or that, on the other hand, if they have Apostolic succession, then those Apostoles from whom they stem, did not HAVE THE POWER TO ADMINISTER SACRAMENTS, both of which assertions border on, if are not, in truth, heretical ! The whole difficulty revolves around the trouble- some question of THE SUPREMACY AND INFALLI- BILITY OF THE POPE, which has torn the Church of Christ and which hinders the union of the mystical Body of Christ, “ut omnes unum sint” ! ! ! And how was or is the “Uniate Church” treated? Histories have been written on this subject, and it is im- -•••€{ 47 f possible to do justice to it in this booklet, demonstrating that ROME ITSELF is destroying the idea of Union! For example: In the Cholm district, in the Uniate diocese of Bishop Przsedzecki, 350 Orthodox Churches were padlocked! According to newspaper reports, the Roman Catholics threw out the holy Icons. And then they were turned into Roman Catholic Churches! In recent years, the disunited in Poland were subject to such frightful persecution, churches desecrated etc., that the Uniate Archbishop, Graf Andrew Szepticky of Lem- berg, raised HIS VOICE IN DEFENSE OF THE OR- THODOX IN POLAND ! ! ! ! A curious spectacle of a UNIATE ARCHBISHOP defending the ORTHODOX CHURCH, while ROME HAD NO VOICE OF CONDEM- NATION OR THE SENSE OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY TO STAY THE BLOODY HANDS OF ITS “CATHO- LIC” POLISH CHILDREN! No union can ever be even remotely effected by such means! The defenders of obligatory celibacy always assail the disunited Church, and especially the Russian, osten- sibly that it was responsible for atheism, for the Lenins and the Trotzkys and others, forgetting that such atheists and communists were educated in the Western States by the writings of likewise Western Socialists. (Jean Blanc, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Fabian Socialism, etc.) They should know that in 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church suffered persecutions worse than that meted out by pagans. Twenty eight bishops and a great number of priests sacrificed their lives for the Church of Christ! The French Revolution indeed did not have such defend- ers of the Church, EVEN IF THE FRENCH CLERGY WAS CELIBATE AND COULD MORE EASILY RISK THEIR LIVES THAN THE MARRIED RUSSIAN OR- THODOX CLERGY! The Bolsheviks considered the -••«?{ 48 }3t— Orthodox priesthood and Church as the greatest foe of Bolshevism-Communism. But WHAT IS SAID ABOUT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HITLER AND MUSSOLINI? WE STILL ARE PATIENTLY AWAITING FOR THE “HOLY FATHER” TO EXCOMMUNICATE THESE TWO FRIGHTFUL CREATURES OF ABOMINATION-PRO- DUCTS OF HIS OWN SCHOOLS AND TRAINING!!! -« 8 ( 49 4- THE CARPATHO RUSSIAN DIOCESE OF AMERICA. It is not our intention to treat of this subject at any great length in this brochure. It is our hope that in the near future we may be able to outline in detail its his- tory, cause, and development. Space does not permit to treat the religious history of the Carpatho Russians. This has been treated by most eminent writers. The phase of their religious life in America has yet to be written as a saga of a valiant, freedom-loving people who found in the United States a true haven of religious expression. It is sufficient to say that the Galicians and Car- patho Russians were designed to be the “bridge” over which the yet disunited were to cross over to “Sacred Union.” In actuality, it is a bridge for all the Slavic peoples to go back to their Mother Church of Constan- tinople from whence they received the Light of the Gos- pel through the Slav Apostles Ss. Cyril and Methodius. Today we are witnessing a religious regeneration among the Carpatho Russians and Ukrainians who have found the truth of the adage “aliter in theoria, aliter in praxi,” and are rapidly throwing off the shackles of formalism, to seek a more mystic union with the Lord of Hosts through His beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Rome does make mistakes! And the mistake made, as far as the Carpatho Russians are concerned, was that it thought it an expedient time and place, here in Ame- -•*{ 50 )§*•••- rica, to shear the Oriental church of its splendor and customs. Three attempts were made. The first in the late ’90s which gave the first impetus for these peoples to revert back to their original Eastern Church purity under the leadership of Alexander Toth. The second attempt was in 1907 when the ill-fated Bulla, “Ea Semper” appeared and again a war of defense was be- gun. Finally with the coming of the Roman satellites, Bishop Bohachevsky (Ukrainian) of Philadelphia, and Bishop Takach of Homestead, and the appearance of the “Cum Data” decree of 1929, the final destruction, by Rome, of the Uniate Church took place. Three dioceses have been formed. The Ukrainians under Archbishop Theodorovich and Bishop Bogdan, both dissident from Rome, and among the Carpatho Russians, the dio- cese headed by His Excellency, the Most Rev. Orestes P. Chornock, whose See is at Bridgeport, Conn. Undoub- tedly, with the renewal of the decree “Cum Data” in 1941, more defections from Rome shall take place, so much so, that to all practical purposes, the “Sacred Union” will be but a memory. The reasons for this re- ligious upheaval are that, contrary to solemn promises given repeatedly in times past, Rome now is attempting to insist on mandatory celibacy and latinization in many forms. The result also will be that the “missionary” ef- forts of Rome to bring back the disunited into union with it, will be an absurd and abortive effort, despite the calling to its aid of the order of the Redemptorist Fathers in Europe, which adopted the Byzantine Rite purposely, or the Basilians in America. To what length Rome has gone in its determination, is evidenced by the many court trails for the purpose of determining pro- perty control, instituted by Bishop Takach and even Roman Catholic Bishops against the Carpatho Russian Congregations in the United States. The Carpatho Russian Greek Catholic Diocese of North and South America, whose head is Bishop Chor- nock, is especially active. Ecclesiastically it is in affili- ation with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constanti- nople. It has established a seminary for clerics, has or- ganized the youth of the diocese into an organization called the “American Carpatho Russian Youth” with its own monthly magazine called the “CRY,” has edited se- veral publications, pamphlets, prayer books etc. The Carpatho Russian people, as never before, are taking interest in church affairs. They realize that with the ABROGATION OF A MARRIED CLERGY, WOULD BE ANNIHILATED THE MOST “LEGITI- MATE” CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, and sound the death knell of the beauty and progress of the MOTHER OF ALL CHURCHES, THE EASTERN!!! —$ 52