by Father Delmar S. Smolinski, JCL, SWL and comments for the Maltese situation by myself.

The following is a summary of a longer article in which a lawyer of the church shows the validity of married priests according to the law of the Catholic church. The full article can be found at rentapriest.com. I put some of my comments in order to adapt it to the Maltese situation.

At this time in the history of the Catholic Church, a shortage and unavailability of unmarried priests has caused emergency situations regarding the Christian faithful's constitutive (Baptismal) "right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the Sacraments" (Can. (Religious Law) 213). A reversal of this shortage of unmarried priests and its consequent emergency situations is quite unlikely for the future. In fact, most studies and prognoses of the vocational picture for the celibate priesthood indicate that the crisis will only grow worse in the years ahead, resulting in increasingly fewer opportunities for Christ's faithful to celebrate the Sacraments, as well as fewer and older celibate priests to serve increasingly larger numbers of the faithful.

In Malta although many will surely quote the high number of priests on the islands, yet in practical terms the majority have reached pension age (60+). In many parishes it's already becoming very difficult to make an appointment to talk with a priest. If one calls the parish many times, the telephone is left unattended or else one has to leave a message on the answering machine.

Let's focus on the Law of the Catholic church where it gives permission to married priests in order to exercise their eternal priestly identity. These are in cases of "danger of death" (Can. 976 and Can. 883:3), "necessity or genuine spiritual advantage" (Can. 844:2), "reasonable cause" (Can. 1003:2), "grave inconvenience" (Can. 1116 and Can. 1323:4), and "just reason" (Can. 1335). Perhaps unknown to some, the Christian faithful do not need further permission to act in order to fulfill their pastoral (gospel in practical life) needs in emergencies. Empowerment to act lies within the emergency Canons themselves, which flow from what must always be the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls (Can. 1752).

Some will argue but it's the same church which prohibits the "ex-priest" (please note that a priest is forever!!) from exercising his valid ordination. In terms of law it's Can. 292, which is concerned with restricting the right of a priest to exercise the power of orders (i.e. to administer the sacraments). This is merely ecclesiastical (of the church) law (a man-made disciplinary law) of the Roman Catholic Church. Can.1037, which requires the obligation of celibacy for priests, likewise is a merely ecclesiastical law. Such laws are of human origin and can be altered or eliminated by human initiative in view of the changing pastoral circumstances of Christ's faithful.

There are some laws which for obvious reasons annul the effect of the mentioned law in the paragraph above. It is Can. 213 which expresses the right of the faithful to receive assistance from the sacred Pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments, is of divine origin through Baptism in Jesus. Such a law is constitutive (essential) for the baptised and cannot be altered or eliminated by human initiative. It is correct to say that fulfillment of such a law must not be neglected by those who serve as Pastors in the Church. Under the circumstances caused by a shortage of celibate priests, Can. 213 has priority over Cans. 292 and 1037.

This is the reasoning and logic behind other canons which deal with the needs of Christ's faithful in emergency situations, such as Can. 976 which allows a priest without faculties to hear confessions in danger of death, even with an approved priest present, or Can. 883:3 which allows any priest to administer Confirmation likewise in danger of death, or Can. 1003:2 which allows any priest to administer the Anointing of the Sick for a reasonable cause, or Can. 1116 which calls for the presence of another priest or deacon in a Marriage celebrated before witnesses only, when the presence of or access to an authorised minister is impossible without grave inconvenience. This is the reasoning and logic likewise behind Can. 844:2 which allows reception of Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing of the Sick from any validly ordained minister (not just those of the Orthodox Church, as some would interpret), whenever necessity requires or spiritual advantage suggests it. This is the reasoning and logic also behind Can. 1335 which allows Sacramental ministry even by a censured/suspended priest who may have married without formal ecclesiastical permission, whenever the faithful make such requests out of necessity or for any just cause.

Finally, this is the reasoning and logic behind Can. 1323:4 whereby a person cannot be penalised when he/she has violated a merely ecclesiastical law or precept, who acted out of necessity or serious inconvenience in regard to matters that are not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls. Regarding Can. 843:1 which is about sacred ministers not being able to refuse the Sacraments to the faithful, it seems reasonable and logical that asking for the Sacraments from a validly ordained, married Roman Catholic priest, out of spiritual need, when no celibate priest is available, is a request that is as opportune/appropriate as can be.

In Malta there are other occasions when the unmarried priests simply refuse to administer the sacraments for some queer reasons! I have in mind especially the divorced or those living with a new partner or those committed in same sex relationship. We'll see the religious validity of such unions in a future article. Today we shall focus on the Sacraments as Christ-instituted, sine qua non which means for accomplishing the sanctification of humankind now (Can. 840), not in the afterlife. Some, from their canonical perspective, feel obliged to defend the status quo with a more restrictive and less generous interpretation of the above canons on pastoral needs in emergency situations. The problematic consequence of such a defence, however, is a failure to fulfil the demands of Can. 213 regarding the constitutive right of Christ's faithful to the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments. From the laity's perspective, it is like offering your car to a friend to get to the store for groceries, while simultaneously withholding the ignition key.

Surely Can. 1752 is of primary importance which states that the supreme law in the Church must always be the salvation of souls. Sometimes, perhaps especially in pastorally transitional times, we have to reply along with Peter and the Apostles: "Obedience to God (fulfillment of need for Sacraments) comes before obedience to men (singular method of ministry that is no longer effective) (Acts 5:29). We ought also to keep in mind this statement of Canon Law Professor Ladislas Orsy, SJ, of the Catholic University of America, when he addressed the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome in 1992: (Theologians) "must intuit and determine the values that the community needs to sustain its life and growth. The ecclesial vocation of canon lawyers is to be trustees of the values necessary for the life of the community, and to be administrators of the process by which the community can appropriate them." The sensus fidelium, the actual, Spirit-led, pastoral experience of local Christian communities of faith is a true locus theologicus-canonicus, a genuine and indispensable source of learning theology and producing appropriate canon law. This is one of the reasons not mentioned by those quoting a law out of context. One person maybe won't make a great change. But if we have quite a good number of people agreeing on the same theme, it could be the Holy Spirit which is trying to develop our understanding of God's will. This is the sensus fidelium which in religious terms carries great weight. Throughout the history of the Catholic Church practice leads to custom and custom leads to law-a living law both generated and received by the faithful to realistically meet their spiritual needs. One mentions hear the example of the private confession which started without authorisation from Rome or the Pope himself. Many lay people surely don't know this historical fact! The Pope later approved such practise!

Pope Paul Vl, on November 20, 1965, in an address to the Pontifical Commission for the revision of the Code of Canon Law stated that Canon Law must be accommodated to the new manner of thinking (novus habitue mentis) in accord with Vatican II, which stresses very much pastoral ministry. Canon Law must, therefore, consider the new needs of the people of God. The preface of the Latin Edition of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law, besides the virtue of Justice, is to take cognizance of charity, temperance, humanness. And moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself. Hence unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather, recourse is to be taken to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline."

The role of bishop and priest developed as the needs of the people of God changed. There have been different theologies and different models of priesthood throughout the centuries. At one time the emphasis may have been juridical, at another time it may have been cultic, at still another time it has been monastic or pastoral. Clearly, diversity and adaptation have been staple features in the history of the priesthood. Priesthood exists to serve the Church, not the other way around. We cannot be complacent with static notions of the priesthood while thousands of Catholics throughout the world are in need of evangelization and the sacraments. People are spiritually hungry, and where the Church fails to provide leaders and sustenance for the flock, the flock will seek nourishment wherever it finds it...."

CONCLUSION

In view of a shortage and unavailability of unmarried clergy, the use of married priests to provide pastoral-Sacramental ministry to Christ's faithful is a measure that is valid, lawful, and appropriate for our time. Perhaps just as important, the return of a married priesthood ministering to the faithful, side by side with a celibate priesthood, in the third millennium of Christianity, is a pastoral development and wholesome balancing whose time has come.