The past couple of weeks I have been working on an article at my blog on the issue of married priests in the Eastern Church and the ecumenical implications that might have for future reunion of East and West. While priestly celibacy is not viewed as one of the major issues in the ecumenical dialogue, the issue is something to contemplate. It actually could be one of the first things to be settled if actions would match words. But, I'm tipping my hand here...

The article has been a work in progress and has grown from its initial posting. It can be read here:

Can East and West Coexist With Married Priests?

I seek comments from people here to help me finalize the final form. Please feel free to post comments and suggestions for improvement here or via PM. Thanks!

Dave,

I did a very quick read and it is, to no surprise, an excellent article. I want to read it again at a bit more leisure than I have at the moment and will get back to you after doing so.

Have to admit that even I - jaundiced and cynical as I am - was amazed at the speed with which someonee seized on the topic and declared that the



And that's the bottom line, we need to get with the program - that it's not our program is just our hard luck

Thank goodness, that was his balanced, non-polemical view - I'd have hated to see his comments were he feeling triumphalistic

Many years,

Neil

I think stronger mention should be made of the presence of married priests in the Latin Church--presently more than 100 in the United States alone, far outnumbering the married Eastern Catholic presbyters here--and the likelihood of many more entering through the new Anglican Use ordinariates.

You can also mention that, in addition to this dispensation, present Latin usage permitting married "permanent" deacons is a departure from the traditional Latin view that all higher clergy (subdeacons upward) had to be celibate. If the Latin Church is flexible in its application of its own disciplinary rules, and in fact can modify those rules according to its own needs, it is in no position to demand anything on that account from the Eastern Churches.

In fact, I would make the case that the problem lies more with some Eastern Catholic bishops than with the Latin Church. They do not really want married presbyters and find that celibates are cheaper and easier to administer. I've also heard the sorry excuse that admitting married men would not be "fair" to the existing celibate presbyters--a self-fulfilling prophesy if ever there was one.

"celibates are cheaper and easier to administer".

Easier to CONTROL micht be a better word. The Bishops (God bless 'em) know that married priests answer not only to them but also to their wives, children nad in-laws. Since I am persuaded that many if not most bishops really SAVOR exercizing POWER over people, a married priesthood would diminish that pleasure.

To say nothing of the expense involved in providing insurance, housing etc. for the priests' wives and children.

And then there's that old worry about what the Latins would think. When (if ever) are we gonna lay off being troubled by what they might think? Why would any of us even CARE?

If what I'm saying is true then things have seriously gone haywire.

Well, yes. I was trying to be, um. charitable. The first words that actually came to mind were control, manipulate, bully and cow. Kind of hard to do any of that with an angry Pani banging on the chancery door.



I would estimate that a married priest would require about $75,000 per year in direct compensation, plus housing, a car and a medical plan. Out of that, he could buy his own life insurance policy.

For comparative purposes, most rabbis make about $150,000, and some of the upscale synagogues pay their rabbi more than $300,000.

The manager of your local supermarket is paid more than six figures. A priest is worth at least that much. The journeyman is worthy of his wage.

75k, plus housing, a car, and a medical plan?
That's a pretty sweet deal that the majority of American families don't even have.

I will admit, though, I think that is really what it will take. I hold to the belief that what used to draw men to the priesthood was upward mobility. The priesthood used to offer education and increased social stature. Now that everyone has the chance to receive higher education, and can get a 401k plan, etc. the economic and social benefits aren't there anymore.
I wouldn't discount that factor in the decline of vocations in the past 60 years.

Consider Catholic social doctrine, which requires that a man earn a living wage, so that his wife can care for their children. Consider also the responsibilities that the parish priest undertakes: beyond his purely pastoral responsibility for the spiritual welfare of his flock, he manages a major physical plant, distributes charity, contracts for services, has to meet payroll. I would say his job is at least as onerous as a supermarket manager, wouldn't you?

And, to be honest, in many parts of the country $75,000 doesn't go very far (it would be lower middle class in my neck of the woods). A priest with children needs to sock away money for college, as well as for his own retirement (and life insurance, as I indicated above).

I'm not against having just one priest on payroll, by the way. The pastor has a full time job, but not the assistant pastor. He can have a secular job, provided it is suitable (bartender in a strip joint would be right out), and, like the deacons (and the Apostle Paul), can pay his own way.

I think you end up with a situation where a married priest with a family could only serve at a rather financhially stable parish.

Stuart,

I'm not disagreeing with you, in principle. But the argument always revolves around just what constitutes a "living wage".
Does a living wage constitute the ability to save for a 401k, to save for kids college, for a new car every 5 years? It depends upon how one defines the "needs" of a person.

Many protestant ministers are married, and many make a very good wage with a housing allowance as well. I don't be-grudge a minister his pay. But I think the devil is in the details.

Our parish is far from financially stable. It is only by the grace of God that we have survived at all the last 10 years. In September, we welcomed a married priest and his family. We are not even in a position to provide them with housing. Each month that goes by, we see a deficit and wonder how it will all work out. We invited him here, and he graciously left his homeland to come and serve us as our priest. We pray that someday our parish may grow to the point that we can support him and his growing family, and we are excited to see that growth happening, but we still have a long way to go. The practical issues are significant for Father and his family, though. Even the most generous parish in America is not used to giving at the level that would support a priest with a family.

By all accounts, he has been well received by the local Latin Rite church. His wife is Latin Rite and her family is well known in the community. I have not heard a single negative comment about his arrival, but his presence has created many opportunities for education. I have enjoyed watching the reactions of people as they learn about his marital status, which range from surprised to curious to very accepting.

I would say you have to look at comparable jobs and structure the compensation package to cover matters such as locality (costs of living vary widely), family size, and outside compensation (e.g., if there are no children or grown children, and the wife chooses to work, that can be taken into account). I do think a living wage ought to include provisions for retirement (unless, of course, the diocese wants to pick up that one), and something that would allow the family to send its children to school. If the priest and his wife live in accordance with Catholic moral doctrine, you can expect them to have many children, as well (though perhaps not as many as some Orthodox rabbis I know, who have seven or eight).

Per Lawrence, yes, financial stability is important. Somehow the Orthodox manage to do this. Most certainly there is going to have to be a change in the typical Catholic layman's attitude that dropping a couple of bucks in the collection plate absolves him of further financial commitments to the Church (part of that comes, I think, from the widespread notion that the Catholic Church is rich as Croesus).

Many Protestant groups actively encourage tithing; I think the Catholic Church ought to do the same, also taking into account in-kind contributions and sweat equity.

IMO, American (latin rite) Catholics are fickle. It seems that many want a married priesthood, but if they were then expected to pony up an extra 10-20 bucks a week in order to properly support a married priest, I'd bet it wouldn't happen. I hate to say it, but that's my guess.

Just running some numbers;

to support a married priest, with a total salary and benefits package of $90k, even for a very small parish of only 100 familes (assuming 1 offering per week per family), would be just over $17 per week from each family.

That's really not all that much if you think about it, and that's just with 100 regular weekly contributors.

My latin rite parish has over a thousand families.

I think you're underestimating the number of people who think they are doing well to put 5-10 dollars in the collection plate every week. For them, and they represent significant numbers, you are asking that they more than double their contribution.

I'm curious, how much do you think married clergy actually get per year?

Having grown up as a PK (priest's kid), L am speaking here only from my own experiences. Your figures about compensation brought me a good laugh as within the Slavic Orthodox churches in the United States such levels are hardly the norm. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has a more generous structured salary plan. The distinction between the compensation levels of the Churches of Slavic origin and the Greeks is that with the American Slavs it has been typical to provide a rectory. Most Panis, Matuskas and Presvyteras these days work full time, as sadly do many of the clergy in order to get by. One more thing that is true, it is much harder for Bishops to move and assign clergy these days due to outside jobs and the fact that today's American children are far more outspoken than children in the past. Ironically, I know of more than one parish whose history in Orthodoxy can be traced to the celibacy disputes in the 1930's who prefer celibate priests today. I personally think that there is room in the Church for both married and celibate clergy as each brings his own special grace to the priesthood.

I wondered how the situation would play out if a married priest's wife has a good paying job that's necessary to support the family, and then either the parish closes or the bishop moves the priest.

You work things out, the way you do in military families. But usually the bishop leaves things as they are unless he can get the agreement of both the priest and the pani. Of course, not all bishops are equally wise. . .

babochka-

that's true... that's why it is important for each parish to teach on stewardship/tithing. For a significant number who do put $5-10 in the offering that represents less than 1% of their weekly income. As with other areas of our lives, when it come to financial support, we no longer give the first fruits to God, but our left overs.

My priest makes more than my wife and I combined do, especially if you count the rent-equivalent for the 2 bedroom rectory.

For me, a $5 is a painful amount; it means 25% of whats left after rent and bills.

On a good week, that is.

Contribute in kind. Sweat equity is always welcome. Latin parishes could (and probably should) reduce their expenses by cutting back on the plethora of paid "ministries" on the payroll.

Given the Australian cost of living, 75k plus all the perks (except the house) is indeed a very good deal.

But America is not Australia. Now, in the wilds of Pennsylvania or Ohio, $75,000 is living in the lap of luxury, in California, Metro DC, downstate New York, most of New Jersey and a number of other places, $75,000 is just getting by for a family of four. To get an idea of the cost of living differences, you can check the Office of Personnel Management's locality adjustment tables.

If the Jewish model works, we can always imitate that model. How much money in relation to his income is a Jew obliged to spend on the congregation? Do they tithe, or collect money during services, or what?

In Germany churches are financed by the state, but the church members are obliged to pay a special church tax. A good way to promote secularism, IMO.

I've heard the 'rent' equivalent' argument all of my life. My father always said to people that it was fine, and he accepted that, but when you can't serve the parish, you are left with nothing. We lived in a fine, middle class house with beautiful furniture. After my mother passed away and my father retired he bought a house at the age of 75 and struggled the rest of his years with a mortgage and home ownership issues. I'm not complaining, nor was he, but lay people have to realize that the ability to have equity for retirement is necessary with a married clergy. That is why the Greeks typically do not provide a rectory and pay their pastors like the professionals that they are.

Get out of your bubble!!! The latest figure I saw recently was that over 1/2 the country (USA) makes less than $50k...

Colin, even in the USA that is a very good deal!!!

Whether 75K is really all that great of a deal depends on a lot of things--number of children in the family, the cost of living in a given area, whether or not you have student loan obligations, etc. I almost never agree with Stuart, but I'm with him on this one.

If you start with the argument that a priest is a trained, educated professional, probably possessing seven years of higher education as a minimum, with a vocation to serve the Lord (this allows you to presume that financial gain is not his motivating force) a look at 'comparable' professionals in an area's public sector is probably your best base for compensation comparability. 'Comparables' would include, but not be limited to: social workers with at least an MSW, school guidance counselors, addiction/marital counselors etc... A compensation package would have to include family health insurance, disability insurance and a retirement plan. This issue vexes many an Orthodox congregation on an annual basis and would represent such a cultural change in the Latin Church that I wonder how many decades it would take to adapt to a married clergy.

Well, it's not really the Latin Church of which we are speaking, but the Greek Catholic Churches in North America, which were stripped of their patrimony by the constitution Ea Semper and thus never had a real chance to develop the institutional infrastructure to support married priests.

But, as the Holy See has called upon us to restore the fullness of our Tradition in all respects, we must also restore the married priesthood (and Byzantine monasticism, too), which means starting pretty much from scratch. As I said, there are more than 100 married Latin priests in the United States today, and I expect those numbers to increase as more Anglicans take advantage of the new ordinariates. Eastern Catholics can at least look at how their parishes manage, in addition to those of our Orthodox brethren.

The situation is not helped when some Greek Catholic bishops say out loud that they do not favor restoration of the married priesthood in their eparchies. It's one thing to have a "policy", but it counts for little if the policy is undermined by the attitudes of the people meant to implement it.

I believe Jewish congregations tithe, in addition to periodic capital campaigns, and charities.
Columba

I think that many parishioners would be simply envious if they had noticed that the priest earns more than they are, and has no problem in supporting a large family. "Clergy is rich, and this is wrong" is the elementary marxist anti-Christian slogan used for years, even in counties with no significant presence of married clergy.

Given the passage of time since Ea Semper, I suspect that my observations would apply as well to the Pittsburgh Eparchy Churches in the United States. In my home town in upstate New York, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has been served by married clergy for the past twenty years or so. (Given the litigious history of the local Rusyn community, many of us found it ironic that they would live to see such a day - both among the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics!) The present pastor is a fine young man who is from the United States, went to Seminary in Lvov, his Pani is from Ukraine and they have three or four children. Perhaps some insight from our Ukrainian brethern here in the states or Canada would be helpful.

Actually, most synagogues charge membership dues, assessed annually based on the projected operating budget and the ability of each member to give. The membership issue comes home to roost on High Holy Days, when only members are guaranteed seating.

Charitable outreach is done independently of these dues. Only some orthodox Jewish synagogues tithe in the strict sense of the word.

Amen to that. Our small parish (Byzentine)has one person on the payroll, our priest. We may give the accountant something I am not sure. We take in around 900 a week not much but the priest will tell you he is grateful for this amount. We don't have 100 families and we are a working class parish. Most all of our needs are met by those that have the skills and gove of their time.

The Latin Rite in our town has a priest, two secretaries, two CCD lay ministers, grounds keepers, 2 housekeepers, paid music ministry and a jack of all trades. They take in 7 to 8 thousand a week and complain they are always under budget. Money is the main topic at every Mass. They have 1000+ families mostly mid class and farmers not rich by any streach of the immigination. They could make payroll if they switched to fewer paid positions to allowing those that are willing and able to do the job as part of their contributions to God. Money is not the only way people are to give to God.

Actually, for some years now the Roman Catholic Church has allowed married priests ordained under the Anglican dispensation to serve as parish pastors. By all accounts, they are very well liked by their congregations.

Unfortunately because of the size of most Roman parishes it is almost impossible to have the needs of the parish serviced by only the priest and some volunteers.

Many on here, always complain about how many paid Pastoral Ministers there are in the Western Church; if it was not for these paid positions I would be out of a job. I have more souls that I am responsible for in my areas of ministry than many Eastern Priests have in their entire parish.

I agree that more position should be volunteer positions in many Parishes, but it is also a fact that many of us that work for the Church essentially donate our time to the service of the Church.

For example, I am the Coordinator of Youth Ministry (and Young Adult Ministry) in a parish of slightly over 3,000 families. I am responsible for the Faith Formation program for those students in 7-10th grade that attend public schools, as well as the Confirmation program and all aspects of Youth Ministry, totaling roughly 400 teens. If you add in the Young Adults (ages 18-35) I have well over 1,000 souls in my care. I am responsible for fundraising, budgeting, volunteer development and many other aspects that most people dont' evenr realize. I am paid a yearly salary of $23,000 plus benefits, roughly coming out to about $9.50 - 10.00/hour for the amount of time that I put in. The diocesan guideline for the salary of my position is around $33,000/year. I have an undergraduate degree in Theology, plus Continuing Education courses and seminars as well as certifications in my areas of concentration. If I were employed in a secular business and responsible for overseeing 20 "staff members," fundraising, budgeting, staff development, the well-being of over 1,000 "pupils," I would be paid at least twice of what I make now.

Now that I have said all of this, if there were more clergy to fill these roles and/or we would have smaller parishes, I would be the first to resign my position, find secular employment and begin to volunteer more of my time to the Church.

All this goes to another one of my hobby horses: Latin parishes are just too big. Industrial scale Christianity does not work.

I feel a great NEED to comment! Stuart and I have something to agree on!!!

I agree that the parishes are too big, unfortunately it seems as though we are at a point where there's not turning back.

Until the Latins have enough vocations to lower the priest to parishioner ratio, industrial scale Christianity will be the norm, I fear.

We Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics are blessed in this regard. We have parishes small enough that we only need one liturgy, where all the faithful can attend as a parish. latin parishes often have at least 3 masses per weekend, and saturday 4pm church-goers might not ever meet the sunday 8apm church-goers. Not really a sense of community, like we have.

It is a vicious cycle. Large parishes, multiple masses on Sunday, make it impossible for the parish to function as a spiritual family. It also makes it impossible for the pastor to know his flock, and places him under immense pressure. On the one hand, this leads to pastoral burnout; on the other, seeing what poor Father goes through, who would want to emulate his calling? How can the priest be an exemplar to men with the potential to become presbyters, if the conditions of his ministry make it impossible. So, fewer priests, larger parishes, fewer priests--until the implosion.

Many of the Latin parishes have at least two, and sometimes three priests. I would divide the parishes by the number of priests, and establish separate communities--whether as missions or full-blown parishes depends on the situation. Initially, they could camp in the same building, but eventually, one will move out and create a new community. The process should be repeated whenever the size of the community exceeds 1000 families--and ideally, no more than 500.

The ancient ideal was one parish, one altar, one Eucharist on one day. The proliferation of Masses in the Latin Church dilutes the ecclesial meaning of the Eucharist, and efforts should be made to restore it.

Interestingly, the Old Order Amish use a system much like the one I described. Since they meet in house churches, once a congregation gets too big for the meeting room, it splits, and a new congregation is formed.

The pastor of the new group is chosen by the ancient method of casting lots: three men are nominated, then each is given a Bible, one of which contains a slip of paper in an appropriate verse. The one who gets that Bible becomes the new leader. Interestingly, this is not greeted with joy, but rather with sadness by the man and his family, because the ministry is a heavy burden.

This very primitive approach appeals to me very much. It's at least as good as the system we use today.

the primitive approach works for a community that is based in those times. 1 parish, 1 priest, 1 liturgy is not a pastoral model that is going to work well in urban areas with large populations. while it may have worked well in a setting that had small towns and villages spread far apart in the middle ages, it isn't conducive to all situations today with a large shortage of priests, facilities, and larger populations.

It becomes a matter of, pastorally, what can be done considering external circumstances. If we wanted the ideal original model, we would still be celebrating the original pristine liturgies.

Lay ministry came of both necessity and was also a product of the Church's application of Vatican II. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, nor would I assert that it is functionally better to have a cleric in certain positions instead of a lay person.
While it is nice, it certainly isn't necessary in some areas.

This was, however, the norm in the great urban centers of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Constantinople and Rome alike were cities of more than a million in population, filled with churches great and small. Multiple liturgies did not become the norm in the West until the 14th century. The norm for the Orthodox Church remains one liturgy per church, which is why the cities of the Orthodox world are still full of churches, some of them very small indeed. It's not a rural phenomenon.



Vatican II called on the Church to develop a theology of the laity; its inability to do this must be accounted one of the failures of the post-conciliar era. The present situation merely exacerbates clericalism by creating a host of neo-clerical ministries competing for power and resources within the parishes. What was once done by a horde of minor orders and monastics is now done by laymen acting like clerics--but also demanding a salary.

The real answer is to dismantle the bureaucratization of the parish, flatten the organization, and have the laity be self-organizing, with the pastor acting more as "conductor" than administrator.

Well, since the minors orders have been surpressed, religious orders are down, and there is a shortage of priests, it seems that there are two options; either have the laity fill the gap made up of formed individuals who have a calling to serve within the Church, or simply let the Church wither in its inability to meet the needs of the people.

The USCCB document, Co-workers in the vineyard comes directly from the calling of Vatican II. As someone in the trenches myself, with a certificate in lay ecclesial ministry from my diocese, I see the need. There's no one to do it otherwise.

There is a severe lack of credibility in the latin clergy right now. That is a shame, but the priest scandal is due to the clergy's problems, not the laity. Many people seek those in lay ministry because we have families and we are formed to apply our formation to the pracitical problems in life that many latin clergy simply don't have direct experience.

It would be great if there were enough clergy to fill the gaps. lay ministry cannot and will not replace the ordained clergy. If you read the USCCB document, it puts the relationship between the two in its proper context within ministry.

BTW, i don't get a salary. I do not work full time in my parish. What most lay ministers do, they do because they are called and the Church has equipped them. Their earnings come from day-jobs.

I have no problem with laymen doing essential tasks within the parish. In fact, there are few tasks a priest can do that a layman cannot, and almost all of those are sacramental in nature. If a layman can keep the books, run the religious ed program, do charitable outreach, and sing with the choir, then he should do it. But I object to having these tasks professionalized and called "ministries". Volunteers should be doing almost all of this, and while they should be reimbursed for expenses, I don't think they should see this as a salaried position. it only encourages empire building.

stuart,

i think that we probably agree in the most part. There are things that only the clergy can do. Their task is to govern (the bishops and the pastor over a particular parish) as well as their sacramental duties. I don't think that lay ministers should be preaching the homily. This is forbidden, but it is still done in some latin rite parishes.

I'm not quite sure why the term ministry would be bothersome. While i understand the caution of blurring the lines between the roles of the clergy and laity in terms of the sacramental mission of the clergy, ministry can also be seen in a broader sense. That is why it is often referred to as ecclesial ministry to make it distinct from ecclesiastical ministry. Some Bishops (my own), prefer the word apostolate. I've never had the opportunity to ask him why he prefers this, but I suspect that he is cautious over a possibility that some lay people might confuse their vocation as being what clergy can do, which they clearly cannot.

my own role is ongoing catechesis of our religious education teachers, who teach from pre-K through 8th grade to equip them to teach the kids, to plan and lead RCIA with our DRE, and to assist in other various adult faith formation programs in the parish as they come about. We always work under the direction and with the guidance of the pastor, but i work more closely with the Director of Relig. Ed. since she is salaried full-time. The pastor always knows what we are up to, but he just doesn't have the time to be involved in every single thing, as I'm sure you know.

"The real answer is to dismantle the bureaucratization of the parish, flatten the organization, and have the laity be self-organizing, with the pastor acting more as "conductor" than administrator."

From our experience in the Orthodox world, beware of creeping congregationalism. It can foster a certain anti-clericism. As my late Bishop observed, in the final analysis, the Church is NOT a democracy.

Congregationalism is merely the mirror image of clericalism. Neither is a proper model of Church, which ought to be a true communion in the Holy Spirit, in which each defers to the others according to their status and gifts. Proper balance and understanding of limits is the key.

A more trenchant comment from one Russian Orthodox bishop to a newcomer from Russia: "In America, every priest thinks he's a bishop, but every parish council thinks it's a patriarch".

Ye gads! Is that abuse still happening? It can only happen if nobody understands the purpose and symbolism of the homily within the liturgy.

I don't know where you are finding your information regarding priests assignments. In all 3 dioceses in which I have been involved, the trend has been much the opposite, where 1 priest is serving 2 or 3 parishes. There are only a handful of parishes that have more than one priest serving.

You can't have it both ways, unless of course you can find a very small parish made up of wealthy people who can support a priest along with his wife and children.

A small parish is usually one that is fighting against shutting it's doors permanently.

Here in Northern Virginia (Diocese of Arlington), the larger parishes have several priests, as a rule.

How do small Orthodox parishes manage? How do small Protestant congregations manage? How do small synagogues manage? For that matter, how do Latin parishes with married priests manage? All of them have married clergy, yet somehow they manage. Not all are wealthy, but a relatively small contribution from each household adds up. As I said, the attitude that a dollar a week is sufficient just won't do. Catholics will just have to reconcile themselves to digging deeper into their wallets.

They simply don't pay anywhere close to the $75k that was proposed earlier. I must say, we look at figures like that and "shake our heads"...There are unfortunately priests and their families that live close to the poverty level...however, my experiences have been that although the paycheck is small, with no mortgage and the limited housing expenses, even in a "poor county" like Fairfield County CT it is possible to "get by" on a mere $40k...we forget the generosity of the congregation for holidays and meals the good babushkas help to provide...

I hear about it, but mostly only on the internet. Personally, I have never come across it, but I am hardly an authority on such things. Unfortuantely, there are many latins who do not understand the symbolism of a priest giving the homily.

Job is correct. I know that within ACROD the pastoral compensation levels set by the Diocesan Sobor (Council) come nowhere near the $75K level. (I believe that is also the case within most of the OCA.) I personally am familiar with a majority of the ACROD clergy over the past three or four decades and I am unaware of any families that lived in, or even near, 'poverty.' As I posted earlier, again in mostly smaller parishes, many priests and Panis work in the secular world to supplement their parish compensation. Certainly, I do know of a few parishes that treated their pastors poorly and the Chancery usually dealt with those issues administratively and promptly. The generosity of people, and clergy families, who need to stick together to keep their parish going, is amazing in terms being able to make things happen. When I visit one of the smaller parishes in various parts of the Mid-Atlantic, I am always amazed by the per-capita weekly offerings which reflect the needs of the parish - and not necessarily the average income level of the congregation! The 'labors of love' (i.e. donated labor for property maintenance, youth education, chanting, choir and, of course, fund-raising) are a vital part of the fabric of such parish familes. In other words, if there is a will, there is a way and God will provide.

In this area, most Latin parishes have 2-3 priests serving, but that is not nearly enough given the thousands of families in each parish. Compare that to the 20 or so families in my parish, served by just one priest.

In my experience, situations with 1 priest serving several parishes are found in less populated areas, where just one Mass will suffice for each parish.

The parish where I am employed has 3500+ families, we have on priest, as do many of the other large parishes around. Even with the massive amount of Church closings that has occured in the Diocese, there are not enough young priests to take the place of the ones that keep retiring and dying.

Prior to the schism in the 1930's my home parish in upstate New York had over 2000 families. One priest and one "cantor/ professor" were all of the staff that serviced the parish. After the split, the two pariehes still had over 100 children (combined) in the First Confession/Communion classes of the mid 1960's. The lack of pastoral attention due to sheer size led many to seek spiritual comfort elsewhere, both as a result of the unfortunate schism and the changing demographics. Today, the situation is not as acute, but that is due to dimishing numbers and lost regional population.

Some very interesting discussions so far. Many thanks to those who suggested changes to the article. Further suggestions can be made here or via PM. Thanks again!

Maybe I'm wrong and small parishes could support a priest and his family. Afterall, I know of plenty of Catholic priests who manage to have first rate medical plans, drive late model cars, have cable TV and satellite dishes and rectory kitchens stocked like small restaurants.

My observation is that size and richness of the parish are main factors contributing to the richness of a priest. So it can vary from parish to parish greatly. Also sometimes the pastor doesn't like to share money with younger priests.

I don't think there are any latin parishes around here even close to being as small as the "large" parishes menitoned . . .

13,000, 17,000, 19,000 are typical numbers . . . nor do any have as few as three or four Masses . . .

Anyway, Bishop Gerald is in the process of importing married priests from Europe. He already had one when I last spoke to him, and was planning on more; the first worked out well.

The biggest issue was *finding* medical insurance, which turned out to be easier than had been expected.

Also, the eparchy needs to handle the expense of keeping him for an entire year of English immersion . . .

That's progress, considering that several years ago, when the idea was broached, the answer was not just no, but "Hell, no! We can grow our own". There was a firm conviction, expressed in the most forceful terms, that European priests would not fit into the "American" culture of the Ruthenian Church. It was even suggested that such priests would mainly be attracted by the money. And despite the long waiting lists to get into European seminaries, there were no plans at all to bring over some to study at Saints Cyril and Methodius, which, to be charitable, has a slight overcapacity problem.

Although he has been enthusiastically received by our parish and has been well received by the Latin Catholic community as well, the financial realities remain a problem with no solution in sight. Outside job possibilities are few, particularly those that will still allow time for a parish and family life. He is in a unique position. He has an American wife and he and his family are currently living with her parents.


(Father Fero, if you're lurking out there, jump in on the conversation with your thoughts.)

Elizabeth

Conversely, the slavic seminary in question is producing too many priests to place them alL!

As far as the finincial issue . . . The only solution I see is for wealthy Catholics, east and west, to step up to the plate. Buy a couple of victorians near C&M for married seminarians and their families. Stock the refrigerators. Hire them in nominal positions to get them health care, or get enough of them to have a group plan. Then fund trusts to supplement their incomes without being subject to the vagaries of parish finance.

Oh, and work it out for their kids to go to Catholic schools.

(For that matter, if I'd be able to keep the kids in catholic schools, I'd be willing to show up--but given my Latin roots, I doubt that Rome would approve).

Why is this a concern for Latin Catholics? Quite simply, they'll be borrowing a lot of them. Both priests of our eparchy work part time for the Latin diocese. Our parishes tend to be small enough that our priests can split time. More of our priests means more to borrow

hawk

It's great that Bishop Gerald has and is possibly willing to bring in some married priests, and attempt to figure things out. If he were to continue doing so, at least one expense that might be lessened to some degree, depending on the parish, would be the English immersion. Some parishes might have people that are qualified to help with that, I know that when I attended a Syriac Orthodox parish, we had had new parishioners and members of the priest's family, heck even members of the patriarch's family coming to the states to live, who did not speak English. We just all got together and helped to teach them. Granted many of us in the parish had backgrounds in language acquisition, but it is not what any of us did on a professional level.

I know several Malankara Syrian Orthodox priests who have very small parishes, mostly mission parishes, some with only 20 or so families, if that, and they are able to make things work, while having families. Perhaps if we are wanting to have married priests, we should be looking to some of these smaller orthodox congregations that are able to make things work, quite well for an example. Or even be willing to ask them how they make things work.

I know if a BC bishop wanted to discuss such things with these priests, or their bishop(s), it could be easily facilitated. They are very open and friendly to Catholics.

Actually an excellent idea. The property market is most favorable, and the Church could pick up some houses at foreclosure sales for a song. Volunteer labor could fix any deficiencies, donations could provide furnishings and appliances. If not immediately available for use as clerical housing, the properties could be put to use as shelters or temporary accommodations for the indigent of the parish.

The Theodore Romzha Seminary, I believe, requires its students to study English. Preparing for work in missionary territory, I guess.

Good idea!

What an excellent plan!

I sense much doubt and fear among my Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters on the issue of married priests and how to support them should the day come to their parish. I urge you to take heart and learn from your Orthodox brothers and sisters and your Ukrainian Catholic brethern. Those of us in ACROD and the OCA, whose roots were in Eastern Catholicism prior to the enforcement of celibacy and other issues in the 20th century, have found a way to provide for and support our clergy and their families. To prepare the way, talk to your neighbors, cousins and friends who are Orthodox and learn from them the way to deal with this issue. In many cases, the pastor of the local Orthodox community would be approachable to share his family's insights into this important issue. It isn't easy for many small parish communities, but we find a way to cope and provide. I don't know if this advice would be applicable to the Western Church, but I sense the day is near for the Byzantine Catholics in America and much further away for the West. S'bohom.

The Bishop is willing to import married priests from Europe but not willing to ordain highly qualified married men from America. WOW! Kind of a slap in the face to those married men in the Byzantine Catholic Church who have a true vocation to the priesthood but are shut down because that also have a vocation to marriage.

Apparently, there is nothing new under the sun. Before the final imposition and acceptance by Bishop Takach of 'cum data fuerit', young men from America were going to seminary in Uzhorod and Presov, being married and ordained there and returning to America. I agree with Mike L. in that I can not imagine how importing married clergy from Europe is palatable for a young man in America who would otherwise have a vocation, but finds celibacy unacceptable. I suspect that this is very difficult for young Americans to reconcile knowing that the Greek Catholic clergy in Slovakia and Ukraine are, for the most part married. I know that in the UGCC church there are a number of American priests who studied in Lvov, married there, were ordained there and then accepted in the US. But, if you lack the language skills, the family support and financial resources to take that journey, that would not seem to present a viable option. The Orthodox church in the states has a number of wonderful priests who began their journey as Byzantine Catholics who were unable to fulfill the dual vocations of the priesthood and marriage. It is sad that this issue has vexed the American Ruthenian church since the church's entry into America over one hundred years ago. It certainly fractured many families and communities in the first half of the twentieth century.

Great comment. We do need to approach groups that are already doing it. Especially the priests and their families to learn about the special issues, but also to learn about the things that will actually be non-issues.

I've noticed so often that even people who would like to see married men being ordained, but are not or no longer used to it, have an underlying "fear" of how it will or will not work. It always seems silly. Yes their are issues particular to married priests, but their are also issues particular to celibate priests, and people have just gotten used to the issues of the celibates, and often time taught to fear the issues of the marrieds.

We all know that having a married priesthood obviously is functional, we just don't all know how it is functional, but the only way to figure it out and make it work is to just do it. We can make these things work. We just have to be willing to make them work.

I agree that it is a slap in the face those married men, but at the same time, considering there haven't been married priests in the BCC at least in general for so long, maybe this is his way of getting the people used to the idea of married priests, before he starts accepting married men for formation, ect. Who knows. It is a slap in the face, but one can hope and pray that it is actually a step toward, accepting American men of the BCC who have vocations to both marriage and the priesthood.

The idea of Trusts to provide for the priests is a good one, provided one remembers that:
1) trusts can fail
2) there is still obligation to the parishioners to provide for their priests and deacons, and the families thereof.

I expect certain wealthy benefactors might actually set up such trusts; the idea has been suggested by one such (pray for him), in that he bought land, donated it, and stipulated it was to be reserved and later sold to provide the needed funding for the parish in his home town.

What about the issue of birth control? My husband's Anglican pastor has decided that it is wrong although he doesn't preach this, and he has 5 children, the oldest of whom is 7. He was friendly with the local priest who says the "Latin Mass (Tridentine, Gregorian, Extraordinary form, whatever name you prefer.) That priest joked to him that none of the married Orthodox priests in town had more than two children. Usually having only two children means that one is contracepting; of course there are people whose low fertility makes them lucky to have two, and some people are really really good at natural family planning...or perhaps their fertility isn't all that high, but most families who don't contracept wind up with way more than two children. A married Catholic priest would certainly have to obey the Catholic Church's teaching on this matter. Therefore one should not expect his wife to work at a job outside the family, as people here have been saying that many Orthodox priest's wives do, at least not for the years of active childbearing. When one is having a baby every year and a half to three years, working outside the home is not really an option. In general I don't think we should make a plan for the support of married priests which would require the mothers of small children to work outside the home. I believe people should expect to support their priest and his family, and they should expect this to be a considerable family. My husband,s Anglican parish manages this. And they are not doing it with bequests from past years, as the Episcopal church took all of that when his parish left the Episcopal church. They are doing it from ongoing donations. They aren't a large parish, with an average Sunday attendance of about 100. If they can do it, Catholics should be able to do it as well.

Mike-

seems that you are putting words into the Bishop's mouth. Dochawk's post made no reference to what you posted. Do you know of any married men who approached the bishop about priesthood only to be told that their marriage excluded them from pursuing the priesthood?

Be careful of citing anecdotal stories. For example, in my family my parents had three children and my mother had at least two miscarriages along the way. I know many Orthodox clergy families with many children and some with none or few. Don't generalize or make an assumption. Nor should one presume that a married Orthodox clerical family is not following the teachings of their Church. Clerical families have to deal with the same issues of modern life that non-clergy families cope with daily, with the added burden of raising a family while living in a glass house. It is difficult, but not impossible. (Sorry, I had to get that off my chest from personal experience.)

You would obviously know better than I, Father Deacon, but it my understanding that he's open to married ordination. (His predecessor was not, but I understand that he helped find a UC bishop in Canada when one of his seminarians fell in love during a parish assignment ) . . .

And for all the blanket statements about face-slapping, it is my understanding that there are currently married men enrolled at C&M.

hawk

I did not put words into his mouth, just making a judgement call on what I see. Will he ordain a married man? My guess is no and that's why it's a slap in the face to import them from a eparchy that will!

When I expressed interest in the Priesthood as a Married Byzantine Catholic I was told that it was not possible and that I should focus on the joining the diaconate. I have been recieved into the Orthodox Church and it is no longer my fight to fight. However, if I were still BC it would feel like a slap in my face to have a married priest from Europe serve my parish when I could not. As for a married seminarian at Cyril & Methodius, yes there is one, but that does not mean he is from Bishop Gerald's eparchy or the Archeparchy in general, as the seminary is open to other eastern catholic jurisdactions. Here is a quote from the Dean of St. Cril & Methodius Seminary regarding married seminarians:



BTW, I mean no disrespect to the Bishop. I don't literally think he "slapping" anyone or intending harm, but the situation is certainly dishearting to married men from within the BCC archeparchy. Afterall, I thought that Eastern catholics were suppose to reclaim it's ancient Eastern traditions, this should include a married priesthood no matter what country they are ordained.

Bishop Gerald most certainly hasn't ruled out married men being ordained. He does have certain expectations, expectations that make it difficult. I discussed it with him, briefly.

Other Ruthenian-American bishops may differ wildly.

Part of the problem, however, is the Seminary... married men require certain accommodations, like room for their spouse and children.

Eulogos, I just wanted to mention that I've sent you a PM.

If memory serves correct...The Ruthenian Seminary of Sts. Cyril & Methodous in Pittsburgh did make such accommodations several years ago...there was at least one seminarian who was married with a child...I could be wrong, someone please correct me if you know more complete information, none of the Ruthenian bishops would ordain him though...

The article on married priests is being discussed over at Mark Shea's blog (popular RC writer). I am surprised that at least one respondent there seemed comfortable with the idea perhaps of having Orthodox Bishops under the Latin Rite in a reunion scenario. Hopefully, he was pointing out the logical inconsistency of such an idea as I think ideas like that would kill any reunion talk.

Having personally discussed this with him . . .

Just *importing* married priests has logistical difficulties.

And he dealt with them.

Note that this took *significant* work.

Let's not criticize him for not running while he's putting significant work into figuring out how to walk!

hawk

He was ordained today to the priesthood in the Latin Church.

Also, Sunday, 2/16/2010, Fr Loya had some interesting observations on some of the challenges for the married priesthood re ECs in the US.

I was one of the posters (maiki) in that thread... I'm not sure who you were referring to. I was certainly not implying Orthodox Bishops should be under the Latin Rite! That does seem logically inconsistent. (Maybe you are referring to someone else, however. I just wanted to clear up that I did not mean such a thing). In any talks of reunion, Bishops should remain Bishops of their own particular churches. All I implied is that I think a major area of conflict arises from the fact that it is impossible to hold to "one city, one bishop, one church" when there are many particular churches in one city -- thus, a notion of jurisdictional conflict resolution needs to exist, and not simply submitting to the Bishop of Rome's/Latin rite's opinion.

-Mariana

We Orthodox have been struggling with the one bishop, one city issue in the US and Canada for over one hundred years with no real solution in sight.

The only real solution to the "One Bishop One City" problem is to have the multiple bishops i neighboring cities have overlapping parallel jurisdictions, or to have submission to a central authority which can sort out the mess and has the political will to do so.

In short, it's curable save for human frailty.... since no one group wants to give up it's autonomy nor identity to another in order to solve a relatively minor canonical issue.

A hypothetical question: Assuming that the mass migrations and permanent resettlement of peoples into lands with many competing cultures, each with their particular rubrics, hierarchy and customs, was likely neither envisioned nor confronted during the first millennium of the Church by the seven councils or the fathers, east or wes; why is that we modern peoples apparently lack the ability, insight or inspiration to devise earthly solutions to those newly presented problems which confront us? I suspect aramis already answered this but I am interested in other thoughts as well. Thanks.

An interesting news item and video from a recent conference in Rome where a Catholic theologian shares his view that celibacy should be promoted in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Santayana comes to mind, "Those who forget the past, are condemned to repeat it."

I was curious about Father Touze and, with a bit of checking, find that he is a theologian at the Pontifical Institute of the Holy Cross, run by Opus Dei.

My only comment - I agree with my brother, DMD.

Many years,

Neil

Dear friends,

I call your attention to the following Interview published in Zenit.

I personally disagree deeply with the reasoning, but I would like to hear your views.

The translation, I'm afraid, is very poor...

One Traditionalist Catholic blog picked up the article, apparently favorably endorsing its premise. Sadly, it was entitled: "Eastern Catholicism and Clerical Celibacy." Thankfully, some of the responses show some sense. Its disconcerting that such views are still held in some quarters. I was very disappointed that Zenit published this.

I don't think Rorate is endorsing the theologian's view in the article. In fact, most likely the opposite. They're very supportive of the Eastern Catholic Churches. But, I believe at least one person involved with the blog is actually a member of this forum and may be along shortly to clarify their position.

I hope you're right. After this article on Rorate, I was quite concerned.

That's kind of scary...I thought a theologian at a Pontfical Institute should be "the best of the best".

http://www.zenit.org/article-28589?l=english

MARRIED PRIESTS WILL ALWAYS BE AN EXCEPTION

Interview With Theologian on the Foundations of Celibacy

By Carmen Elena Villa

ROME, MARCH 9, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Married priests are an exception and the Church is increasingly convinced that they must remain so, according to a spiritual theology professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.

Father Laurent Touze explained the foundations of priestly celibacy when he spoke at a two-day conference held last week at Rome's Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. The conference, "Priestly Celibacy: Theology and Life," was sponsored by the Congregation for the Clergy as an event for the Year for Priests.

ZENIT spoke with Father Touze about the exceptions to priestly celibacy and the future of celibacy for the Church.

ZENIT: Is celibacy a dogma of faith or a discipline?

Father Touze: Neither one nor the other. It isn't a dogma of faith because we see married priests in the Church today such as, for example, some [priests] of the Eastern Catholic Church. Not all but some admit married priests. Or as has been reminded recently in the Holy Father's motu propio "Anglicanorum coetibus," published last Nov. 4: Among the ex-Anglicans who want to return to communion with the Catholic Church, there will be married priests admitted.

ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn't so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

ZENIT: But in the first centuries there were many married priests, including the Apostles?

Father Touze: Studies have convincingly shown that this must be questioned: Celibacy of all clerics wasn't lived, but from the moment of inclusion in the priestly order these men had to live continence with the permission of their wives, because this was a commitment of the couple.

ZENIT: Why, then, are exceptions made?

Father Touze: Historically because there has been a manipulation of texts and I believe a bad translation that the Eastern Church, which has separated from Rome and has recognized that what they had declared contrary to tradition, could be accepted. In this connection there truly are some exceptions. The Church discovered that she had the possibility of admitting exceptions but that these should be understood as such. Respectably, as the Second Vatican Council stressed, there are very holy married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches who have contributed much to the history of the Church and to the faith in times of persecution, but they are truly exceptions and must be understood as such.

ZENIT: However, these exceptions are not made with bishops. Does episcopal celibacy have a special meaning?

Father Touze: Undoubtedly. It is very different, both theologically as well as historically. What's more, with the constitution "Lumen Gentium," Vatican II defined that the episcopate is the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is necessary to discover the specificity of the episcopate and, hence, episcopal celibacy. And it can be demonstrated with the fact that for the celibacy or continence of a bishop an exception has never been made.

This is something studied by the Church on which the Roman pontificate has had to reflect more recently in contemporary history on two occasions: after the French Revolution, where some bishops, or better, former bishops, asked to marry.

This has been studied and it has been said that it is impossible, that this had never been done, that at stake was the dogmatic issue. Or still recently with the ordination of married men and married bishops that were effected in former Czechoslovakia by imposition or with the pressure of the Communist Party in power. There also the Church affirmed on the fact that the bishop must always be celibate or if he had married before his ordination because he would have to live continence from the moment of his episcopal ordination.

That may be, but association with Opus Dei somewhat guarantees a very narrow viewpoint, to my way of thinking.

Many years,

Neil

I would describe OD viewpoint as "ultramontanist". OD always thinks what the Pope thinks. Or at least this is what they're trying to accomplish.

I don't cotten to hardly any of that Opus Dei stuff...as erudite as Fr. Tauze undoubtedly is, his remarks betray that he might be a bit short on ecclesiology.

Just another vexatious expression of the fantasy that somehow the way things are done in the Latin Church is paradigmatic for all the Churches in the Catholic Communion.

Or what OD thinks the Pope should think.

Many years,

Neil

Interestingly Dave--he's the same guy who wrote the "piece" I posted on the thread about the pope sending the patriarch birthday greetings.

Whatever it is now, looking at the history of Opus Dei reveals rather mirroring the attitude of currently reigning Pope than one organizational line, consistent in time no matter who is the Pope now. (But the question is, how much does this particular priest speak for himself, and how much for Opus Dei).

Like I alluded earlier this morning in another post, each 'side' has their own self-styled 'apologists.' For example, the Latin Church has Opus Dei, the Ecumenical Patriarch has to deal with SOME of the Athonite monasteries and Elders. Yet, the work of the consultations continue.

Is it any wonder people get to the point they just want to head for the sidelines and throw up their hands?

Bob

It has been related to me by old-timers that when Greek Catholic parishes split in the 1930's that as many people who left the Church to join the Orthodox Church simply left completely. I know that was true where I am from from a review of the metrical books, which stayed with the parish as it transitioned from Greek Catholic to Orthodox following litigation.(one of the few that went in that direction.....) I often wonder how we don't all manage to scare away potential converts with the harsh triumphalism exhibited by many.

An informative and excellent post from Stuart, who is on a self imposed hiatus for the remainder of Lent..this was sent to me as a private message. I have his permission to post it:

The problem here is wishful thinking that passes as scholarship. We know nothing--nothing--about the discipline of the early primitive Church. We do know that in the area where the Church first arose--the Near East, Anatolia and Greece--married clergy were (and remain) the rule, even from the earliest times.

The first we hear about celibate clergy in the West is in some fourth century local councils. We know that local Western councils continued to legislate for celibate clergy (including both the diaconate and subdiaconate), which, of course, indicates that the previous rulings were not being observed. We know that there were not only married Western priests down through the the 11th century, but that there were also married bishops (generally before the 5th century) and even a married Pope or two.

From all this, we can conclude that, whatever it is, mandatory clerical celibacy was not the rule of the primitive Church, let alone apostolically ordained. It is merely a discipline of the Western Church that evolved over time as a result of attitudes and events within the Western Church. The validity of the Eastern discipline is in no way dependent on the approval or sanction of the Western Church, and vice versa.

If the preservation of the Western discipline is dependent on the suppression of the Eastern discipline within the Eastern Catholic Churches, then the problems of the Western Church are far more grave than people realize.

Stuart

Stuart,

Well said - especially on the last sentence.

Both celibacy and married clerical states have their Sacred Tradition and historicity. I don't know why either side feels the urge to push onto the other (in the modern age, the celibate Latin side pushing its practice onto everyone else). All Churches - East, West, Oriental, CofE - have always had both married and celibate clergy. All have unanimously abandoned the Tradition of married bishops.

Among orders, the East generally sees the monastic as the one in whom Christ resides most fully; which is why the bishops are supposed to be selected from among these - as the bishop most represents Christ in his person after Episcopal ordination.

The West - due to limited married clergy - started to regard all its priestly clergy as monastic in some degree, even extending this view to the deaconate and sub-deaconate. As the Bishop most fully represents Christ, the priest should (at time, "must") most fully represent the bishop.

There are logical arguments for celibate clergy - all of the reasons that we have for a celibate episcopate are nearly equally applicable to the priesthood. The arguments for married clergy are just as logical and Sacred Tradition speaks clearly.

The dumbest argument I've read, now repeatedly, is the one about how the newly ordained bishop lived in continence from his wife - I've never seen any merit to this statement, nor proof of the claim, yet I've heard it repeated numerous times. I am sure there are examples of newly ordained bishops choosing to live in celibacy post-ordination, but I would hardly call that universal - nor should it necessarily apply to priests...

Anyhow, my 2cents..

The following is posted on behalf of Carlos Antonio Palad at his request...

"I left ByzCath a few months ago so I can no longer directly reply to those wondering about my opinion. Permit me to state that I have always been supportive of the Eastern Catholic Churches, as many of my posts on Rorate will show. I also have a generous opinion of the Orthodox Churches and I normally refrain from targeting them with polemic phrases, although I must state my belief that I do think that they are in error.

However, please bear in mind that there are several contributors to Rorate. New Catholic is the owner of the blog and posts regularly, while I contribute frequently. Jordanes is more active in the combox responding to the comments, while Mornac and Bonetus post on occasion. We do not interfere with each others' posts and opinions, and we have different opinions on certain matters, so I don't think it would be unfair to characterize this or that stance as being that of Rorate as a whole. We are, indeed, united in our promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional theology of the Catholic Church. How the individual posters on Rorate go about that is entirely their responsibility.

Thanks."

I have found an interesting comment on the aforementioned Rorate Caeli blog about married couples living in continence:



Another blogger wrote:


So, if the Church doesn't see married couples living in continence wrong, and even allows married couple to voluntarily agree for continence even before marriage, this may give some support for the thesis that the Apostles were indeed living in continence with their wives. This opinion is common among the Latins.

Also, I would ask you as Easterners, because this looks interesting, do the Eastern Churches really teach that Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married?

I do not know if she made a prior agreement to live a chaste life but she was desparately unhappy in the marriage because of this aspect and tried several times to obtain a divorce from the Holy Synod but was denied.

I think that non-consummation is a basis for annulment in the West.

Neil,



I think you are being unfair to Opus Dei, and perhaps even engaging in calumny. I am not officially a member of OD, but I have been very involved with them for some years now, even up to receiving regular spiritual direction from them. In that time I have never sensed any acrimony towards Eastern Christians. Yes, they are very "Latin" but that is not wrong, is it? I'm sure some members think that their particular spirituality is the only true spirituality, but they would not be the first Christians to believe this. I have found that my own association with OD has in many ways deepened my appreciation of the East, especially its ascetical practices.

BTW, you can see my own opinion of Fr. Touze's unfortunate remarks on my blog: http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/03/11/are-married-priests-an-exception/

Father Ambrose, your comments on John Of Kronstadt are fascinating because I know that letters exist between him and his wife and they seem to have argued over money matters (so a OCA priest told me). If you are right about the nature of their marriage, his wife (at least in my eyes) should have the one who was canonized! Although he may have been all the good things that have have been said of him, he treated his wife miserably. In a word, he should never have married. One could honestly ask if he should have been canonized!

Francis, my brother, (can't get used to calling you 'Eric' after so long )

You're correct. My opinion was harshly stated. I readily admit to a lesser degree of tolerance than one should probably have for OD - not because they are 'very Latin', but because I perceive them - rightly or wrongly - as zealots and zealots, of any stripe, make me wary because I equate zealotry with intolerance. Admittedly, I am unaware of any particular bias on the part of OD against the Eastern Churches and I transferred my reaction to the father's comments to the institutional entity without a valid basis for doing so. My apologies to Opus Dei.

Your blog entry, as is always the case when it comments on matters of the East, I find refreshingly forthcoming and reflective of a caring that our Churches be neither ignored nor treated as the redhaired stepchildren in a family of towheads. Thank you for it.

Many years,

Neil

Why do you say this about him...because he did not want to consummate his marriage?

Did he not make this intention of living like siblings quite clear before he married?

His wife may have not liked it, or maybe she did, or maybe she didn't care all that much, or maybe she grew to accept it-- who are we to really know how any individual feels or what goes on in a marriage between two people and behind closed doors? Are we looking at this marriage through our sex obsessed modern culture that says that even 100 year olds are supposed to be happily having and wanting sexual relations and that absolutely no one should go without it?!?

The only alternative women had at that time in history was to remain unmarried and be called and labeled an 'old maid', which was a terrible fate and embarrassment to the family of a woman in the old countries.

Marriage is for the sanctification of both partners in Orthodox theology. How do we know that she was not fortunate in that maybe she became quite devout and graced by the Holy Spirit as a consequence of having such a platonic marriage and holy partner and that, thus, her soul is now in Paradise?

As for these 'money matters', that again, is a private and personal thing between two individuals, and is not a sinful thing in and of itself! St. John Krondstadt *was* a human being, and not a monastic one. Even the holiest individuals have to address wordly matters.

I do not think that defaming and idly gossiping about a saint is a good thing...the tongue is our most sinful member. I find this particular conversation quite distasteful and ask Fr. Ambrose and JohnZonaras to *not* continue with it.

May our Lord forgive us all. St. John Krondstadt intercede for us. Amen.

Alice, Moderator

Neil,

A great deal of my appreciation for the Eastern Churches has come from this forum over the years, especially from your posts. I appreciate your apologies to OD.

Amen!

Apart from the case of this particular man (I don't know much about St. John of Kronstadt)- I think that marrying while being opposed to its main purpose, that is procreation, would be a good basis for marriage annulment in contemporary West (defect of intent). You don't have to marry to sanctify yourself. Why marry then? Just to avoid being called an old spinster, or to achieve a social goal? But the end doesn't sanctify the means. It's like being ordained to the priesthood just to wear fancy vestments.



Such women could always have entered a convent or engage in other sublime forms of motherhood, like charity or helping their family. Every family had old spinster aunts and they had their place in the society.

It is intolerant zealots who preferred to die for Christ, rather than light a pinch of incense for a false god, that build the Church

Seriously speaking, my experience is that Opus Dei is rather quiet, very quiet. I was hardly aware of the existence of their apostolate in my hometown until a friend has told me.

No more idle conversation about the holy saint of God, John Krondstadt. Here is a brief account of his life.

http://www.vor.ru/English/Christian_Message/program_7.html

Well, the East has existed with herself for years with both married and celibate priests.

Why not East and West?

On this topic, Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna was quoted in this Czech article as stating the need to look seriously at all the causes for the current sex scandals in the Catholic Church in Europe, including the possible role an all celibate clergy may have had to play. This is interesting because Cardinal Schonborn is looked upon in Europe as very conservative as well as very pro Eastern. It's not just the liberals who question the possibility that an all celibate clergy may be somewhat of a "hiding place" in the Western Church for those who aren't marriageable. I tried to find this in English but was unable. http://www.lidovky.cz/vidensky-kardinal-navrhuje-prekoumat-opravnenost-celibat-ptd (I'm not saying that all unmarried priests are 'unmarriageable' just that such a system may create a little corner for those men who are)

Francis,

I thought your blog article well done. I am surprised at a few of the comments to your article that suggest that the East should reconsider its tradition, however. I'm hoping that view doesn't gain more support among Catholics.

Drs. Kellog and Graham developed the corn flake and Graham flour (now only used in the Graham cracker) for the same reasone--they belonged to sects that were opposed to sex *within* marriage, and thought these mild foods would supress drive.

History has not recorded what Mrs. Graham and Mrs. Kellog felt about this . . .

hawk

An interesting New York Times article , published today, on a married Ukrainian Catholic priest in Rdno, Ukraine. It also contains many pictures from his family and parish.

This is becoming more common within the UGCC in the States. The local parish in Johnson City, NY has had married priests for the past ten years or so.

Outstanding married priests with delighful families presently serve the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes in Wilkes-Barre, Edwardsville, Hanover and Plymouth PA.
Also, St. Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Scranton PA had an absolutely wonderful married priest with a loveable wife and six good children from 1952 to 1979 when he retired. The rectory was truly the parishioners' home too as everyone was welcome to visit.

This is a very complex issue. In my personal opinion. Celibacy is a gift, it is a vocation, however not all are called, and it is not sacramentally required for the priesthood. The Latin Rite however only ordains those who they have discerned to have this calling. The problem has been many in the seminary who believed they had this calling, ended up later changing their minds, or continued in the priesthood trying to suppress their true feelings. I do believe it is easier to be a priest as a celibate. One trend i am noticing however, that in relationship to the Catholic Church, if you break the rules, and want back in, the Church will make you a concession. In example, married episcopal, and lutheran priests, pastors who ask for ordination, are allowed to be married. In other words. There has to be some kind of consistency in the Church. For those born into the Latin Church and want to be a priest, they are required to take the vow of celibacy, but if a married anglican priest wants to be a catholic priest he is allowed? Something wrong with that.

I write this as a cradle Latin-rite Catholic who worships at an Anglican Use parish with two married priests of orthodox Catholic Faith and as a man who once considered a vocation to the sacred priesthood but who now believes God wants him to be a good Catholic husband and father, among other things, instead.

The priesthood, in addition to celibacy, is also a gift...not an entitlement. Therefore it is not a matter of strict fairness but of charity to allow married former Protestants to become priests. Instead, the fact that the Church permits exceptions to the rule is evidence of her great desire to see all Christ's faithful united in one flock. The theory behind allowing these ordinations, as far as the Anglicans are concerned, to proceed is to make it easier for congregations of former Anglicans to come into unity with the Catholic church, since the priest they had as Anglicans would be the same one they have as Catholics. In reality, nowadays many, if not most, former Anglican priests are becoming Catholics w/o their congregations, and vice versa.

It is just like the case of the good thief: in the Gospels Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a person is born again of water and spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God, but in the case of the repentant thief, Jesus tells him that "this very day you [the thief] will be with me [Jesus] in paradise". Protestants object that this is evidence that birth of "water and spirit" cannot be baptism, and that baptism cannot be necessary for salvation since Jesus didn't require the thief to be baptized, but Catholics say that this is evidence of God's charity in a special instance (a condemned criminal expressing remorse). And this concerns doctrinal affairs (i.e., baptism) by divine command, not disciplinary ones set by the Church. So, what I am coming at is this: if Jesus can set aside divine law in a certain instance, cannot the Church set aside disciplinary measures (to be sure, based on the eunuch statement in the Gospels as well as St. Paul's preference that all would be like him) in certain instances?

We should also consider that it is not really possible to do much with a divinity degree outside the church anyway, so I am speculating (this is pure speculation on my part, grounded in no facts at all, but a reasonable one, I humbly submit) that the Church is permitting this to occur so as to ensure that these former Anglican priests have some livelihood from which to make a living, which then would be another example of the Church's pastoral concern for her children.

Finally, as far as "breaking the rules", and then being allowed to "come back in", we must remember that before entering the Catholic Church they were never bound by our rules. We should also remember the Church recognizes that other Christian communities have the right to govern according to their own rules, and that once again, celibacy is not a doctrinal matter but a disciplinary one, so therefore it follows that if another Christian group permits married priests, then there is no violation of divine law by that fact alone, absent other factors (women's ordinations).

Many years,

Paul R. Viola

(My sincere apologies for the lengthy post.)

Just an update:

Since I wrote the article referred to in the first post in this thread I have greatly expanded it and have noted new developments.

I have reposted the article with the updates and thought it might be of interest to some Forum members.

The updated article can be read here:

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/repost-can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests-2/

Thing is, Dave, there is no ban. The fact that not one but many Eastern Catholic jurisdictions have ordained married men in North America, Australia and Western Europe, and the Congregation for the Clergy has done nothing to stop the practice--neither sanctioning the ordaining bishop nor disciplining the priests in question--indicates that the ban is a dead letter, except when Eastern Catholic bishops choose to hide behind it for their own reasons. The tendency to elevate the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church as representative of ALL Eastern Catholic jurisdictions is misleading. They may have been the largest, back in the day, but that day is long gone, and rather than being the leading jurisdiction, they are now a lagging indicator. It seems rather silly, in light of the ordination of married men by the Ukrainians, Melkites and Romanians, to say that the Ruthenian Church is the norm.

All the more so as married priests from Europe are 'popping' up across their Eparchy. Question: How does a married BCC priest advise a young man from his American parish who has a vocation, but doesn't view celibacy as a 'gift?' Answer: He buys him a ticket to Johnstown.

DMD,

Sorry, but I do not get the reference.

Manuel

Yeah, but I did.

Saw the Boys From Presov this evening. It was truly remarkable. I started to lose it when they got to the Lenten hymns, and was gushing by Pascha. Jack asked how many would like to serve as priests in America, and then he asked the audience how many would want them to serve as priests in American, and ever hand went up. Then he said that the seminarians would have to ask their girlfriends if they also wanted to come to American, "Because they all have girlfriends and will all be married priests", and everyone applauded. Like the Duke of Plaza Toro, the bishops lead their regiments from behind, instead of in the fore-O!

Stuart,

The article isn't just about "the Ban," which some jurisdictions feel is still an issue. It actually documents the changes going on with respect to ordinations of married men, especially in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It is also about problems such as in Italy and Western Europe with married Eastern Catholic priests serving in traditionally Latin Rite countries.

I was careful to speak about different jurisdictions, so I don't understand your claim that I am "misleading" by 'elevating the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church as representative of ALL Eastern Catholic jurisdictions.' I even differentiate them from other jurisdictions in an analysis at the end of the article.



Stuart, your continued disrespect for Bishops is tiring to read and is not worthy of any response.

I have great respect for my own new bishop. And I have tremendous respect for quite a number of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox bishops (do you want a list?). I respect the office of the bishop in general, but the persons holding the office have to earn individual respect through their words and deeds.

I happen to feel--and I believe history will judge me correct--that throughout its history the Ruthenian Catholic Church in this country has been very badly served by its hierarchy. Am I to ignore that history? Should I ignore the 2000 year history of the Catholic Orthodox Church, during which time innumerable bad men have worn the episcopal crown along side those who have been good and saintly (not to mention those who were merely mediocre and trying to do their best)?

Stuart,

I agree with you in general principles here. I'm just saying there's a time and place for making one's observations about Bishops. I don't think this Forum is the place to do so.

A Latin bishop once remarked to me that, after they make you a bishop, you will never again eat a bad meal nor hear the truth about yourself again. I have not observed that much difference in the Eastern episcopate.

If not this forum then where?

Well, that was my point. I was hoping prurient interest would cause some of Their Graces to turn their eyes hither and have the scales fall away. Probably a vain hope, I know, but someone has to try.

Johnstown is the home of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Seminary of Christ the Savior of ACROD. From its founding in 1940 through the present, it has been a haven to many young Greek Catholic men torn between their vocations, torn between their beliefs about the meaning of the Unions and the state of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics in the western Hemisphere who had to make a difficult choice between obedience to a man-imposed condition (i.e. celibacy) and the teaching of the Eastern Church (united with Rome or Orthodox.) I am sure that offhand many of you can name several dozen such men whose gifts were lost to the BCC as a result but who served their people and through them, our Lord, as a priest for decades.

In recent years, the UGCC has served a similar purpose for married men promised by the Ruthenian Church they would be considered for the presbyterate but who found themselves parked in the diaconate for years. I also know some Ruthenians who passed through the Melkite Church en route to Johnstown. While the Melkites would certainly welcome them, for many of Carpatho-Rusyn background, it's just not the same thing (just how different was brought home to me when I attended the Slavonic Divine Liturgy led by the Presov seminarians yesterday).

This is what neither the Russian Orthodox nor even the Greek Orthodox ever have understood or 'get' with respect to either the Rusyns or Ukrainians...We may fight each other like cats and dogs over whether we were and/or are Greek Catholic or Orthodox, but we will jointly cry at events like the concert regardless and kick anyone who 'doesn't get it.'

How many Ruthenian Married Priests are there in the U.S.?