Not quite. The American Latin Rite bishops asked Rome to require celibacy of Eastern Rite clergy outside their traditional territory. This Rome did, but that decree is contrary to (the later) decree of Vatican II on the Eastern churches, which would take precedence. So there's, AFAIK, no legal reason to prohibit married men from being ordained to the Byzantine or other Eastern rite priesthood in the U.S. Also, there are a few married Latin rite priests, so the Latin bishops would have nothing whatever to stand on if they tried to enforce that rule today.
Thanks. I recall that that was the way I'd read it, several years ago.
... to require celibacy of Eastern Rite clergy outside their traditional territory.
But didn't that apply only to the USA or perhaps any other nations which requested a similar arrangement. It was not world-wide, was it?
... but that decree is contrary to (the later) decree of Vatican II on the Eastern churches, which would take precedence.
I've recalled a conversation with a retired Ukie priest maybe ten years ago. The topic of vocations came up, and he lamented that in the US married Ukrainian men could not become priests, because, he said, Ukrainian families treasured the family name being carried on through their sons, and thus many parents discouraged their sons from considering the priesthood.
Was he speaking anachronistically, remembering the pre-1960 situation, or is this still the situation in the USA today (whether by strict law or by common consent)?