Dear Friends,

In the midst of all this talk about the recent and sad sex scandals in the Latin Church, I heard one commentator refer to the Eastern Churches and their tradition of married priests.

Without getting into the matter of married priests as an antidote for the Latin Church's current woes, how do you think that having a married priesthood in the Latin Church would have impacted on this current scandal?

It seems that many (lay) Catholic commentators discussing this issue are talking "married priesthood" and some are saying "just look at the Eastern Churches."

What do we as Byzantine Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) have to say to the Latin Catholic church right now by way of this tradition?

Alex

If any one watched Peter Jennings hour long program called 'Crisis In the Catholic Church' last night they saw the segment regarding the Ukrainian Catholic priest in St Petersburgh who was accused of sexually molesting one of his teenage parishioners years back. They even went so far as to interview the girl!

Why is it always that the only time we 'Eastern Christians' get airtime is when it about something
of this sorid nature? They spent more time on this one Ukrainian priest than they did on all the rest of the priests in the RCC.

OrthoMan

Without getting into the matter of married priests as an antidote for the Latin Church's current woes, how do you think that having a married priesthood in the Latin Church would have impacted on this current scandal?

Dear Alex,

I could be wrong...

It seems to me that even if the Latin Church had a married priesthood, these scandals would still have the fury they have today. I think that the moral stand that the Roman Catholic Church takes against immoral ideas in society is what is being attacked, by attacking the whole priesthood, a minority of whom are involved in such atrocious activities.

What other Church* goes after the pro-abortion ideology, the homosexual/transsexual/etc. lifestyle, pre-marital, extra-marital relations, and a whole host of other forms of "fun"? The Catholic Church stands above the rest in taking a stand against the immorality that plagues our society.

So when one of its own, and a cleric at that, breaks that strict moral code which Christ holds us to, contemporary society goes wild, because one who believes/teaches one thing, has done quite the opposite. All you need is one hole in the wall, and you can take the whole thing apart. One doesn't have to worry about the moral stand of the Church when one demonises the Church to the extent that it carries no moral authority in the mind of society.** Sometimes, I hear what's going on, and all the clamouring against the Catholic Church, against the priesthood (the bulk of which are good men) and what I hear is something akin to "Give us Barabbas! Take him away! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

As has been pointed out before, a restoration of the married priesthood in the Latin Church isn't going to fix this problem...these things happen even with married priests, and rabbis, and Protestant ministers, and others. People say that it would fix the "pedophile priest" problem, but people are stupid. If a guy is married, and he's a pedophile, having sex with his wife isn't going to calm him down...he probably won't even enjoy it. And given that the actual cases are more homosexual than pedophile in nature, marriage wouldn't fix that either. And of course, since homosexuality is "good" to society, that wouldn't necessarily vilify Catholics, although it would make them hypocrites. Calling this a pedophilia problem makes priests look like despicable human beings at best.

So, I don't think a married priesthood would've impacted this problem much or how people see this problem, since it's not really the problem. You've got to find out what the real problem is, and then fix that, without doing much to other things unless it's necessary. You don't cure a cold through surgery...

*I know the Orthodox Church also teaches these things, like the Catholics, but from my experience, the Orthodox Church isn't as vocal or "out there" with these things as the Roman Catholics are.

**Granted, those who have done these evil acts to young people have done their own part in demonising the Church.

I feel that by moving priests around after accusations/proof had been made about priests abusing children instead of taking a hard line against these men, the bishops have shirked their duty and brought much harm to many other children and to the Church. Priests who needed help and/or punishment, were basically allowed to believe that their "jobs" were intact, because they could always get a "fresh start" elsewhere.... The Church would protect them!
Unfortunately, this mode of operation isn't restricted to the Roman Church, but has been the way many "unseemly" acts have been "handled" in the Byzantine Church, also.
When the people cannot trust the people "running the Church", faith is shaken, people leave, money dries up, community is disrupted, and souls could be lost.
It's too bad (an understatement) that the bishops and cardinals didn't take the steps necessary to stop these things from happening--instead, things were only done when the news crews arrived!
Sorry to break the mood of Bright Week with this kind of discussion, but the people of the Church have been made to look the other way or told to "Be silent" by the superiors of the Church when action against perpetrators of these abuses were warranted, but instead these men were allowed to continue their dastardly acts! Meanwhile, the innocent people suffered....
Shame!

Dear Franklin,

Thank for sharing your thoughts!

As for the mood, what with the situation in the Middle East and the scandals here, anything you have to say won't make matters worse!

Alex

Ive always personally thought that the reason the Roman rite has a celibate priesthood is both for spiritual and financial reasons. Has anyone ver thought how much money the Church would have to pay if priest had both a wife and a couple of kids that also needed to be taken care of? Remember as well that Catholics also were once known for having big families and priest would be no exception to that rule. If priest were suddenly permitted to marry then many already financial strapped diocese's would be even more over burdened with the cost. Plus a priest would have to balance his time between serving the needs of his parishioners as well as his own family. The frequent transfer of the clergy from parish to parish would also be made more difficult.

Of course people will point out that such a system of married clergy already exist in the east so why bar the west from such. WEll, the east has been doing it our way for centuries (Since the beginning in fact) and a restoration of a married clergy would be an almost entirely new thing to the west which might not know how to deal with the implications as well as we easterners have done. To put it frankly, what may work for us might not cut butter with them.

Robert K.

Robert K.'s point is well heeded. Many Latin Catholics I know already have a tough time with cheerful giving to their parishes...if they have a problem with putting a couple of dollars in the collection basket on Sunday with a celibate clergy, how much more grudgingly will they give when they have to support a priest and family? Will they give enough at all? Everyone clamours for a married Latin priesthood...I wonder how many of those Latins are ready for such a sacrifice on their part.

Phaeton handling the reins.....how many times have I said that already?

In fact, does anyone have any idea what I'm alluding to? A more perfect annalogy never existed.

And the same principles apply to collegiality for the Romans, I believe, and many changes that the Patriarch suggested at the Council. Despite the fact that many of these advocated practices were actually practiced by the Romans in the first millenium, the Latins have developed in their own direction since then, and more importantly built a theology around these new practices, and we all acknowledge theology to be the bulwark for all these external, liturgy, ritual, and discipline.

I am not necessarily against the Latins returning to these old ways, but if so, it must be done gradually and over a span of generations, giving the Church enough time to develop its theology to a point where such practices can be supported and be made compatible with the spirit of the theology, but given the theology already built around the celibate priest, it is no longer a matter of merely changing disciplines but an entire religious outlook on the matter, as well as the Latins' own sacramental theology of the priesthood. Again, to make drastic changes like this all of a sudden, not for theological reasons, but rather especially for reasons of expediency and quick fix-ups (that don't work) for sexual problems brought about not by celibacy, but by a deficient process of priestly formation and the departure from the traditional attitudes held towards sexual deviants and the strict disciplining that their actions would provoke in response, would do nothing but sow confusion within the Roman Church, as it would be reduced to a bunch of amateurs adjusting to radical changes that have not come about naturally and incrementally, and that have left the clergy and flock unprepared in dealing with practices they are wholly unfamiliar with and that run contrary to the traditional ethos of the Latin tradition. Again, thanks to the wonders of Greek mythology, I had encapsulated all this into one phrase, one allusion that spells it out vividly.

In IC XC
Samer

I think that too many tangents can confuse the real core issue. That is:

A priest (or other cleric) stands before God and the community and makes a public commitment to remain in the celibate service of the Church, in obedience to his bishop.

Some priests are weak, and they violate one or more of their promises; perhaps through psychiatric illness -- like alcoholism, or other disorder. They may be wonderful servants of the Church except for this one aspect of their lives. (Some priests carry on long-term love affairs; this too causes scandal -- not because a priest is involved with a woman, but rather because he is not "what he appears to be". And this scares people.)

When the betrayal involves a "more serious"(?) issue, like abuse of children, then the scandal and fright is magnified exponentially: it's not 'normal' sexuality.

From my perspective, it's not the sexuality in itself, nor the sexual orientation, but the very real sense of betrayal people feel when a person is revealed to not be what people perceive him/her to be. Truth is being violated.

As for the media: they always are looking for something to tittilate, and people choose the media that gives them this tittilation. (The National Enquirer sells more papers per week than any other newspaper in the U.S. I think this is very telling about hunger for the scandalous offbeat. I notice at the grocery store, none of the regular scut-rags is featuring this particular 'story'; it's still celebrity affairs, two-headed dogs, 'fab' diets of the stars, and the most recent secrets of Fatima.)

Much of the reportage is 'accurate' in the telling of facts; it is, however, somewhat problematic in the editorializing. Today's Washington POST features a headline (I haven't read the article) about the "crisis" in the Catholic Church. But it also notes (in a subheadline) that Catholics' faith is still very strong. Crisis? Don't think so; perhaps in those parishes where there is/was a problem, there is going to be a lot of raw emotion; but for the rest of the church, it seems to me, to be business as usual.

As for the "married priesthood" as a solution, this is patently stupid as others above have pointed out. Married guys do strange things too. Perhaps we should employ chastity belts? Or even saltpeter or some other sex-stultifying chemical?

The issue is not sexual orientation either. Heterosexual men serve as priests and live up to their vow of chastity. Homosexual, and bisexual, men serve as priests and live up to their vow of chastity. These servants of the Church are not the problem. The problem arises when someone doesn't live up to what he (she for nuns) publicly professes. While some are willing to wink at 'normal adult heterosexual' transgressions among the clergy, and perhaps even homosexual transgressions among consenting adults (though it makes a lot of people uncomfortable), when the transgressions involve children, then people go berserk. And rightly so. Heterosexual or homosexual, it's abuse of children.

This is a whole different ball of wax.

Again, the critical issue is the failure of some clergy to live up to their public vows. But when it involves children, I have a solution: step one: get them into treatment, and then slowly (with FBI-like monitoring!) allow them to return to service in the Church. Step two: if they transgress again, release them from their clerical status, report them to competent authority, and pray for them. NO bishop should ever, under any circumstances, and despite the shortage of priests, allow any of these people to be a part of the public ministry of the Church.

Just my thoughts.

Christ is Risen!!!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The sad thing when a priest or other cleric fails to maintain their celibacy or Chastity (other than the damage they do to the other partner or victim)they hurt the Church (Catholic or Orthodox). The world hates the morality of the Church. They hate the witness of the Priest (be he married or single) for when the priest is chaste and married he is the living witness of the marriage of Christ to the church---when he has been called to celibacy he witnesses the virgins who kept watch to the world.

In a world in which the active practice of homosexuality, sexual excess, unchastity, promiscuousness, fornication, and adultry are touted as normative behavior. Those who embrace the Church's standards of celibacy or chastity are the first to be attacked by those who fail to maintain the standards given to us by the Lord. For in doing so they can attack the church and the believers within it.

Let us pray for the Lord's mercy and peace!

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Celibacy is not the issue when it comes to the problem of sexual abuse among some priests. The greatest amount of sexual abuse of children occurs in families, mostly by parents. In the matter of the present sexual scandals among some priests it should be noted that most of the cases of sexual misconduct have to do not with children before puberty but with adolescent boys and young adult men. The problem then is with priests who are homosexual, persons who would not be interested in marriage anyway. But at present it is not "politically correct" to see homosexuality as a problem. Celibacy can be a profound way of offering oneself in loving service to God and to people, if those who choose to do so are spiritually and emotionally healthy. This is also true in the case of married priests.

Dear Friends,

What interesting commentaries!

I don't think anyone honestly believes married clergy will prevent sex abuse in future.

I was thinking more along the lines of what kind of witness and role can a married priest have in today's society where, as others have said, sexual immorality is prevalent and sexual mores run counter to the Church's values.

By emphasizing a celibate-only clergy, is the Western Church saying that sex is bad or not as holy as living an "angelic" life?

And if so, then isn't the reaction of some married lay Catholics against celibacy at this time a reaction not against the value of celibacy, but against this perceived view on the part of the Church with respect to this celibacy vs marriage debate?

Why is it, for example, that Monks are in a "State of Perfection" as are Bishops.

Why is it that married Christians are not as a result?

Alex

Dear Alex,

In my personal opinion, a married priest can serve as a great witness to the sanctity of marriage and all that good stuff ( ) while being totally faithful to God and to one woman.

Problem is, even if the Latin Church brought it back, it still wouldn't make the general populace happy. They're not seeking a married clergy from the Latin Church as much as they are seeking approval of all those sexual mores which run counter to the Church's values, as you say eloquently (I don't use the word "mores" nearly enough...).

So what if Roman Catholics now have a married priesthood? Tell us that it's OK to have sex with a same sex person, tell us that masturbation is great, tell us that we can have sex with another person before marriage or in spite of marriage. Tell us that it's OK to abort or to use artificial birth control (without getting into how Orthodox and Catholics might differ on this point, I'm referring to how the Latin Church addresses it). Tell us something useful.

That's the attitude.

As far as making sex look less than angelic, sure, this has probably happened along with the emphasis on celibacy. But I think such attitudes (I once read that Saint Alphonsus Liguori wrote that a man and woman holding hands while unmarried was a mortal sin, and that Saint Augustine held that sex for procreation was only a venial sin if it wasn't enjoyed...whether any of this is true or not, I don't know...I'd like to think it is a spoof; if it is, it depicts that perception on the part of the people, and if it's not, then it's a perfect example of that perception) are changing now, as we learn more and discern more, and realise where we may have gone into excess and error with certain things.

I think what you wrote about monks and bishops being in a state of perfection is on target. I recently read in an Orthodox article that the monastic vocation is superior to the priesthood, and this reminded me of how in the West people think of celibacy as higher than marriage, citing Saint Paul. Whether this is actually true as written, I'm willing to be taught by those more well versed in theology than I. But I was also reminded about something which Mother M. Angelica of EWTN fame said with regard to this: celibacy may be great, but that doesn't mean that marriage is bad...celibacy is a gift, marriage (and in our context, Holy Orders) is a sacrament.

So I don't know why celibacy would be considered higher than marriage or priesthood in this sense, considering that celibacy isn't really a sacrament. To me, they are at least equal. Someone willing to teach me?

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, the West has had all those "hang-ups" about sex being at least venial even when done within the bonds of matrimony.

As for those who think that marriage is all about enjoyment and pleasure, well, they should get married . . .

I'm suggesting that in a world that has gone to one (immoral" extreme with respect to sexuality, the witness of a celibate clerical lifestyle isn't really compelling, but a married clerical lifestyle might be.

The fact is that under Augustinianism, the Western Church seemed to give the impression that sex of any kind was at least venially sinful and therefore bad.

The New Testament admires the celibate lifestyle, as does St Paul, but nowhere does it impose it.

When I was in marriage preparation, my then fiancee insisted on getting a married priest to counsel us, even though I was best friends with a celibate priest at the time.

It seems like people have their own ideas about this, regardless of the theology behind it!

Alex

What about those who are married and pratice celibacy (for whatever reason), are they considered angelic? Can someone define the difference between celibacy and chasity ?