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 ?

Dear Alex!
Wont change the problem a bit because the majority of people who commit these sins are married. And also some are female too.

The problem is not celibacy or the single life it is sin that is the problem and that unfortunately will be with us till the end of time.

As to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics just wait until it is revealed in your prospective Churches and not to be unfair, the Protestant Denominations too.

Stephanos I
Unworthy monk and arch sinner

[ 04-05-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]

Celibacy - a condition resulting from a vow, or actually the grace of God, never to (or again) have sex.

Chasity - would be the ethical and appropriate state of being sexual (erotic) and the function of sexual intercourse limited to the confines of marriage.

***

Celibacy is superior to sexual activity (in marriage) in my opinion. To achieve greater hightes in self mastery one must eventualy live in a state of celibacy. Sex even inside marriage is a lose of self control, it's animalistic and instinctual. Celibacy requires the art of reason and the grace of God.

Dear Stephanos I,

Agreed!

But what about the seeming lack of accountability by Church authorities when these scandals become public?

The issue of nondisclosure of details to the laity, the seeming authoritarianism of bishops?

Case in point, when I was in Catholic high school, we would sometimes lose a priest to marriage.

He would be a well-known teacher to us one day, and then gone the next day.

We were not allowed to ask what happened to him, it would do no good if we did.

Years later, we would meet them on the street, married with children.

Is this kind of authoritarian attitude correct?

More importantly, does the clergy and episcopate think that Catholic laity will put up with this or that this problem will just go away by itself?

It is a serious, criminal problem, and not just a matter of sinfulness.

Alex

I would like to contribute another differentiation between "celibacy" and "chastity" as the definitions given us by Maximus somehow skew my understanding of the discipline of priestly celibacy as practiced by the Latin church:

"Celibacy" should be defined as the condition of being unmarried, especially by reason of religious vows.

"Chastity" is, on the other hand, the state or quality of being morally pure, decent, or modest which includes abstaining from unlawful or illicit sexual intercourse/relations.

I usually throw in some pious thought and today is no different.
When I was in high school near Philadelphia and taught by the Augustinian Fathers I was repeatedly fondled by one of the priests as was most of the other students in my classes. I reported the case to the Father Prior and later that year the priest was transferred to a parish in upstate New York. What good did that do?
I believe that all of us might offer a gift of prayer and fasting for the Church, those who abuse and those who are abused. We are all sinners, capable of the worst of sins and the highest sanctity. Maybe we should also pay particular attention to being especially chaste according to our state in life. How carefully do we guard our own thoughts and eyes? Could I look into the eyes of Jesus and know with absolute certainty that He would look at me and be pleased with all that He saw in me?
Just my thoughts.
Silouan, old monk

Very good Amado. I can confuse people at times... including myself.

Actually, those definitions I gave were off the top of my head and my own personal definitions of the words I guess.

But Amado, remember you are talking to persons of 21st century not the 14th. Celibacy = unmarried or single life... could be understood differently by some people then yourself.

Old monk,

It is no surprise to me that those that take religous vows are those who ultimately become the most patient and less judgmentel. Priest for instance take so many confessions that they have a clearer understanding of the state of the human soul then most of us.

I have come to learn in my old age that in truth few people are who they seem to be, including myself. What motivates us! If we all answered this question truthfuly, assuming we all could be truthful, few of us would be able to hold ourself in Christian pride.

To your duties old monk!

Maximus,

perhaps you need to reread Genesis account of creation and the Song of Solomon. Sexual intercouse within marriage was certainly contemplated before the Fall. I would disagree with your opinion that the conjugal act,the basis of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage,in the Mystery (Sacrament) of Crowning (Matrimony)is something animalistic and instinctual.

Christian marriage is a Mystery (Sacrament), celibacy is not.

Maximus,

God said to be fruitful and multiply before he said Thou shalt not. Humans are more than mere animals, and whatever makes up their creation can be made holy. In John's Gospel, Christ's first Sign was at the Wedding at Cana.

Joe

Hi Mor,

Here's my humble swing at this issue:

First of all, Jesus himself in Matt 19 testifyies to the fact that "it is *better* that man not get married." So there must be something to that. Here's how I understand it:

There are, obviously, two different orders, two different "realms" that exist in this life - the heavenly (supernatural) and the earthly (natural). The natural order/realm is, properly speaking, "good" because it was created by God, but the supernatural realm can be said to be a step higher, better; "holy", if you will, because it is that toward which all things are tending. It's not that the heavenly is good and the earthly is bad at all, it's that the earthly is good and the heavenly is even better. Follow me so far?

So in this case, when we take a look at marriage and celibacy (religious celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God, not just for one's own secular designs), one of the first things we should note is that the married state is the highest calling, highest state in the natural realm. And, to take things a step further, we should note that "religious" celibacy doesn't even enter in to the earthly, natural equation. "Secular" celibacy (being celibate because you maybe don't have any other physical choice or because you don't want the "hassle" of a family, etc.) does, but "religious" celibacy belongs to a higher order - the supernatural.

Those who choose to marry and live holy lives in the state of matrimony perform, in a manner of speaking, a "good act"; the best act, or state of life, this world knows. Those who choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God perform a "holy" act. (Which is not at all to say that marriage is not holy. I hope no one gets that impression. I am merely trying to distinguish between what is proper to the hierarchy in each order/realm.) They live in a state that is higher than and is only possible beyond this realm in the supernatural. (Which is not to say that it can't be lived here on earth. It can obviously. But only because of/with supernatural grace that calls them to and sustains them in that supernatural state.)

I do hope this makes sense (and is an accurate assessment). If you need any kind of clarification at all, just let me know.

(And if anybody out there can point out to me where I am wrong or can say it better, please do!)

Peace,

Mystic

bisantino & J Thur,

Marriage is good so is sex. I don't mean to say there bad. And yes J Thur humans are more then animals. We humans have a greater capacity to reason. But no matter we humans are still animals just the highest form of animal life on this earth. We share many things in common with our lower animal brothers and sisters, one of which is sexual intercourse. The difference is to the degree we are driven by instinct. Humans do not just react to our instinct, we have a far greater capacity to reason, this reason gives us the ability at a far greater depth of reflection. Thus the human ability to be a mystic. Non-Corporal beings such as angeles aren't in need of sexual relief, they would not have "wet dreams" nor do they need to marry so as to mysticaly become one with their sexual partner. It is the angelic creature we strive closer to resemble, as opposed to the mongoose, as best we can do that in our chosen vocation. Two orgasmic people aren't a beautiful site (in my opinion) nor are they two persons in rational control, but two people *driven* to reach the ends of their euphoric high not as two angelic creatures but as two biological operators of conjucal lust.

This does not mean sex is bad or that married persons are bad. God createed all and all His creation is good - yes? Celibacy however is one of those hard won prices one must pay to be the spiritual guru or sage that has nothing or owns nothing but the direction to God's door. In many ways I much prefer a wife with full hips, willingness to please, and a lot of sex from her. Unfortunately God makes awsome good out hunger and want they are our torturing paradox.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
In reference to the comments made in other parts of the Forum and on the news pertaining to the Bishop of Palm Beach> It is written that he had allegations made (I believe he confessed to them recently) but that the church paid to settle the situation out of court(many years ago). The insinuation is that all out of court civil settlements are wrong. The answer is no.

When the Church fails to forward allegations, she does a disservice to the priest, the church, and the victim. If an allegation is made and goes to court, as it should, the cleric has the possibility of actually being cleared. Many of these cases have been found to be spurious when investigated fully and in the eyes of the legal system. If found not guilty or unfounded, the Church is out nothing except the possible legal fees of the cleric. There is no "settlement" to plague the church's finances as they have done in many places in the USA.

In reality the church may actually be losing money by trying "hush them up" with out of court settlements. No conviction, no money.

Yet, the Church is not doing anything that has not been done before. The medical field does this when a patient cries malpractice. To them it is cheaper to pay the smaller civil settlement than to risk going to court, paying legal fees and facing the usually higher dollar jury settlements that result from public ire at the medical or read that (in the case of the Church)anger at the church and the clergy in general.

We know that there are people who have indeed been the victim of clergy sexual predatorship. We also know that if statistics are correct, we will be seeing a higher number of "ambulance chasers" coming out for some of that money. The Church would be wise to let each allegation face the light of day and then settle. Not settle and hope it does not surface as in the past. Out of Court settlements when a cleric IS guilty would be the less expensive way for the church.

I can not guarantee that even if the church immediately reports an allegation of sexual abuse, that she will not be sued. In our society's love with high dollar law suits, we will likely have lawyers urging the victim attack the institution that is seen to have the money. How many priests do you know would have an extra $100,000 to $250,000 to pay the usual court ordered settlements?

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 04-06-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Hi,

Things like this are always to be read with our decernment.

I found these interesting. The second address has to do with the message from LaSalette, France. Though the LaSalette has Church approval, that part didn't, and I wonder if it was too far fetched for them, that pride would not allow them to conceive of these things happening back in 1846?

The first is very clear, it's from 1981.
http://www.spiritdaily.com/fostoria34.htm

http://www.spiritdaily.com/priestsattack.htm

What is happening was stunningly prophesied on September 19, 1846, by the Virgin Mary at LaSalette, France. We should say "alleged" because the prophecy was in a "secret" that did not meet with final Church approval (although the apparition itself and a shorter message did). Whether or not it was a formal part of the apparition and whether or not it pertained to the 19th century or our time as well, the words ring out as a clarion warning of how the devil planned to discredit religious vocations.

It is also a comment on our entire society. The secret said that "disorder and the love of carnal pleasures will be spread all over the earth."

"May those in charge of religious communities be on their guard against people they must receive, for the devil will resort to all his evil tricks to introduce sinners into religious orders," warned the LaSalette secret.

Rose

Regarding a married priesthood in the Latin Church - I believe that a VAST majority of PRACTICING RCs are not for this. Not only that, they aren't even willing to discuss it or consider it. Call it Bishop Ireland's legacy if you want, but they just aren't ready for it.

Most of these RCs have only a vague notion of the existence of the Byzantine Church, or no knowledge of it at all.

As a Latin Catholic, I have no problem with the idea of ordaining married men to the priesthood, to serve as parochal vicars and the like. We latins are far too cheap at the collection basket to support a priest's family, so a married priest would have to hold a day job, like the PNCC priests do.

The resistance to a married priesthood by practicing RCs is the biggest impediment to the restoration of the married priesthood in the Byzantine church in the USA.

Wow, there is sure a lot to respond to. And I am very interested in your ideas, I have few people to talk to about religious matters.

Although I am Roman Rite, I have recently started going to a Byzantine Rite church.

I have been of the understanding that priests did not marry in order to focus on their vocation of "priest", as I focus on my vocation in the married life. Frankly, I devote so much time and energy to this vocation, that I could not imagine being a good mother, wife, and properly undertaking a religious order. And Jesus did call each Apostle to leave everything behind: job, property, belongings, family. These are the models of the priesthood, the first priests.

I really don't like the aura of this 'us' and 'them' thing in regards to the RC and Byz rite, by the way. Satan is very much in our midst, let us not divide ourselves.

And I would like very much to discuss the issues surrounding sex: the idea of sinfulness in marriage, carnality, being like animals, etc. I have had issues with sex being a holy thing since I began having sex. But procreation is from God, created by Him. After much prayer and three years of marriage, I had a mystical experience during intercourse. It was a trancendence to a mingling of souls and the Lord was there. And that is about as well as I can describe it. It was as though he was telling me that there are proper circumstances in which coupling is a holy and spiritual thing. It has to do with the contectedness to God and to each other, in this state, God and both partners, we all became single. There was no beginning of him, or end to me, it was all the same and it didn't feel anything like sexual intercourse. Perhaps a holy ecstacy? Please understand, the word 'carnal' could not be used to describe this in any sense.

Leia

Dear Friends,

With respect to the issue of celibacy as being "holier," that only really obtains if the celibate truly IS living a holy life.

Some have suggested that celibacy allows the priest to focus on his vocation.

Again, I went through the Catholic education system where religious priests were often so overworked, as they often told me, that they didn't have time to say an "Our Father" like my old Latin teacher!

Latin celibate priests and monks probably work at secular jobs as much, if not more than, secular married people already.

They are very connected to "this-worldly" pursuits and professions. Even monastic orders working at agricultural jobs tend to "outclass" their secular counterparts, producing better products and animals that win first place ribbons at shows etc.

The issue here is not whether celibacy is good or bad, but whether IMPOSING it on all potential candidates to the priesthood is a good thing. And where did Christ ever impose it in the Gospels? Did He not leave it up to the individual, whether or not he could "take it?"

As for support, most priests I know have jobs and so do their presbyteras. And I think the experience of daily work is very good for any priest's pastoral formation. It allows him the opportunity to understand his flock in a special way.

Leia's point is interesting. A friend who is a married Eastern Catholic priest asked me my view about having sex the night before the Liturgy - an important consideration since he serves the Liturgy daily!

His presbytera insisted he call me . . .

I understand the act of sex the way Leia does and told him about that. Sex doesn't have to be ONLY about carnal issues. It can have a religious and spiritual dimension.

The relationship between Christ and the Church is described in terms of marriage as well.

Needless to say, my friend was quick to take my advice as "imprimatur" and the two have continued to be both very spiritual -- and very happy together!

God bless,

Alex

As a Roman Catholic who is seeking to transfer to the Byzantine rite (FYI to all), I second this sentiment completely! This is the only issue so far in my study of the Eastern rites that has...well..."rubbed me the wrong way".

"We believe in ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church..." do we not? Let's all please act like it.

Peace to all,

Mystic

Dear Mystic,

Well, we BC's have always been obliged to defend our rites and traditions against Latinizations of our discipline and liturgical heritage, as Vatican II Council has reiterated and as His Holiness Pope John Paul II has said as well.

We are called by the Holy See to come out of our Latinized cuccoons that have enveloped around our Churches over time due to certain places and persons, as Vatican II says.

That is a fact.

And being Catholic does not mean we belong to one undifferentiated, amorphous mass.

We Easterners belong to Particular Churches that are in union with Rome. We have our own distinctive identity and church structure that is uniquely "ours" and is not Latin.

To want to preserve that has nothing to do with satan or anything of the sort.

As the Church is saying, the enforced Latinization of our Churches in the past, and present, is not good, is bad as a matter and is what has us on the "horns of a dilemma."

The Polish Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II has likewise always defended its Church interests against Rome throughout its history.

Fr. Meletius Solovey of the Basilians once wrote that if you counted up all the years in which the Catholic Church of Poland was in schism from Rome over this or that disagreement, then the number would be 200 years out of the 1,000 since Poland's Baptism as a Christian nation.

Sorry, but for us the devil is in Latinization . . .

Alex

Your a better man then me Alex.

Don't get me wrong I like romance - perhaps a little to much - but when it comes to sex I tend to like it in it's rawest form.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jw,

I don't want a married Priesthood. I think the whole thing is an escape from the true root of the problem - flawed and weak leadership. However if the Vatican was to allow for a married Priesthood amongst us Latins.... so be it, it won't give me a heart attack. And if it works out to be change for the better then so be it again, what is for the good of the Church should come first before my personal preference. [which really takes balls doesn't it. I mean it's not like I'm the one who has to commit to a life of celibacy. So I'm like every other armchair quaterback on this one.]

What scares me, Alex, is that I'm afraid that this is exactly how he (the devil) would have you see it. "Forget me. Fight the 'real' enemy - your Roman brothers and sisters."

In the little time that I have spent studying the history of Latin relations with the East, I have no doubt that the Latin Church has caused some hardships for you over the ages; some of it likely intentional and some of it unintentional, I'm sure. The point is - what are you going to do about it *now*? Are you going to hang on to all the abuses only to reverse the trend and bash the Romans now in return and cause further useless suffering? Will you let the sun go down on your anger and hold grudges and not be able to pray the Our Father again any time soon? Or will you forgive seventy times seven times and move on toward that unity which our Savior so passionately pleaded for on the night he was betrayed (John 17)?

Well, we BC's have always been obliged to defend our rites and traditions against Latinizations of our discipline and liturgical heritage, as Vatican II Council has reiterated and as His Holiness Pope John Paul II has said as well.

We are called by the Holy See to come out of our Latinized cuccoons that have enveloped around our Churches over time due to certain places and persons, as Vatican II says.

That is a fact.[QUOTE]

Yes, I know.

And being Catholic does not mean we belong to one undifferentiated, amorphous mass.[QUOTE]

I never suggested that it did. And if I thought that, why do you think I would be seeking a formal transfer of rites? (It was in this thread that I mentioned that wasn't it? If not, now you know.)

We Easterners belong to Particular Churches that are in union with Rome. We have our own distinctive identity and church structure that is uniquely "ours" and is not Latin.

To want to preserve that has nothing to do with satan or anything of the sort.[QUOTE]

You're absolutely right. But the way you've phrased it here is the key - "To want to *preserve* that has nothing to do with satan..." To want to use it as a "weapon" of sorts to cut down, or at least maintain an unhealthy distance from your Roman brothers and sisters is no good.

As the Church is saying, the enforced Latinization of our Churches in the past, and present, is not good, is bad as a matter and is what has us on the "horns of a dilemma."[QUOTE]

Assuming you live in the United States, would you do me a big favor and please describe to me what exactly you see as your dilemma in the Eastern Church right now? Because I can tell you, if you don't live in the United States, or if you do, that at least in my experience, when it comes to Eastern Catholicism in the United States, the biggest problem of all among Roman Catholics is pure and simple ignorance. There are very few, if any Romans over here that are wanting to make you Latin, and it seems, plenty of us who would like to learn more.

Currently attending Franciscan University in Ohio, I recently had the privilege of attending a Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on campus and to say that I was enamored afterward would be an understatement. The priests and seminarians who conducted the liturgy held a Q&A session after the Liturgy, and I can tell you that the only thing that tripped me up the whole night was the "us versus them" attitude I glimpsed in one of the priests during the Q&A. Other than this minor stain on the evening, it was the most memorable night I have experienced here on campus yet!

The Polish Catholic Church of Pope John Paul II has likewise always defended its Church interests against Rome throughout its history. [QUOTE]

Yes, and unless I am grossly mistaken, the PNCC is schismatic. So bringing them up is like saying that the Lutheran Church has always sought to "defend itself" against Rome. Doesn't do us much good in the dicussion at hand.

At any rate, sorry for this lengthy post. It's just that unity (*not* uniformity) is a major passion of mine and, as far as I (and no less than Pope John Paul) are concerned, it is a major pressing need for the Church at this time.

Peace be with you, dear brother in Christ,

Mystic

Well, it was about Western Schisms isssue. 200 years - it seems unlikely. Poland mostly supported
Popes against anti- Popes in order to oppose the
Western Empire which was the main supporter of
many anti-Popes. However, there was an amount of
time when Polish RCs were schismatics (as they supported the anti-Pope Felix V) but the Ruthenians (Ukrainians and Byelorussians) of
Eastern Rite were good Catholics as their Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv signed the Florentine Union.

History likes funny situations...

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

The Polish National Catholic Church is of course
separated from Rome. However, you remain "grossly
mistaken" as Alex obviously meant the Roman Catholic Church of Poland, not the PNCC. So your
comments on Lutherans are completelety pointless
in that context.

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

Administrator's Note:

Clearly, Alex was commenting on the Roman Catholic Church in Poland but since the Polish National Catholic Church was mentioned I offer the following comments. I do ask participants to begin a new thread if they wish to discuss the PNCC.

--

There are currently good relations between the Catholic Church and the Polish National Catholic Church and even a limited intercommunion. Bishop James Timlin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton and Bishop Robert Nemkovich of the PNCC's Western Diocese in Chicago are the current co-chairmen of an ongoing dialogue that will hopefully soon result in the restoration of full communion. The statement in most Roman Catholic missalettes (I think from the late “90s) indicates that the Catholic Church does not object to members of the PNCC taking Eucharist in Catholic Churches. The PNCC has also issued a similar statement.

A brief account of the fall session of the dialogue between the Polish National Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church that took place at the PNCC National Church Center in Scranton on October 24 and 25, 2001 can be found at:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/comm/archives/2001/01-189.htm

Maximus,

I don't believe that marriage has to be sacrificed in order for one to be a guru. remember in the life of St. Anthony, how the angel told St. Anthony that he wasn't "all that" because there was a doctor living in the city (presumably married with kids) who was holier than St. Anthony.

It's easier for a monk to be a saint than a married man/woman. The rewards must be greater for the married saint.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Alex,

If we were to answer "no" to whether it is a good thing or not, then by this logic, the Ethiopian Church has been wrong all along in using its authority to impose Mosaic strictures on the whole populace when that issue is elucidated much more clearly in the Bible than that of celibacy.

To go through life without pork: Have you any idea how terrible that is?

Do you sir???!!! To live my days without some succulent ribs, to see others feasting on such delights and not join them?! Why I ought to......

Unbelievably enough, the Ethiopians take it pretty well. How, I can't fathom.

In IC XC
Samer

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

Samer,

This reminds me of the story of the priest and rabbi at an ecumenical luncheon. While in the buffet line, the priest askes the rabbi if would like to try the pork ribs. The rabbi responds, "Oh no Father, we Jews are not allowed to eat pork, it's against the Mosaic Law".

As the presenter began to discuss issues related to married ministers, the rabbi asked the priest how was the relationship between the priest and his wife, to which the priest responded,"Rabbi, I do not have a wife. You see I've taken a vow of celibacy, so to have relations with a woman is like your eating the pork."

The rabbi said, "Father, let me tell you, I've tried both, and believe me there is no comparison."

Dear Friends,

Having barely survived the early morning wake-up call yesterday, I am happy to be back!

I thank the Administrator and Piotr as well as Mystic for bringing up the points you did in response to my earlier post.

I was actually referring to the Polish National Catholic Church which is separated from Rome and has married priests who ARE allowed to continue as married priests when they (and they do) join the Roman Catholic Church.

I know a former PNCC parish that joined the RC Church "lock, stock and barrel." The Pope recognizes their priestly orders and has done much to bring them back to the unity of Peter.

I was only saying that there are exceptions to the general celibacy rule in the West, including Anglicans, Lutherans and PNCC-ers who whose married clergy join Rome and are then either re-ordained or receive permission to be MARRIED PRIESTS within the Roman Catholic Church, just as obtains in the Eastern Catholic Church.

That was my only point here, that there are exceptions to the supposedly rigid rule of priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite.

As for "Latinization," that is truly a complex issue.

Our brother, Mystic is mistaken in assuming (which is easily done) that "Latinization" and efforts aimed against it by Byzantine Catholics are aimed also and directly at Rome.

And nothing could be further from the truth!

"Latinization" was imposed on many Eastern European Byzantine Catholics not by Rome AT ALL!

As a matter of fact, Rome has tried to PREVENT Latinization of the Eastern Rites.

Fr. Bohdan Lypsky, for example, a noted Byzantinist, maintained that "not one Latinization" has come to us (Ukrainian Catholics) from Rome, but via Poland and those Ukrainian religious Orders and hierarchs who promoted (and continue to promote) an agenda of Latinization in our Church.

(Piotr, I was merely quoting Fr. Solovey - remember, nothing ill of the dead! )

So "Latinization" in North America, and you are perfectly correct, Mystic, is an abstract concept where there really are no "enemies" other than ourselves who continue to nourish it within our ecclesial bosoms, even to the point of going against the directives of the Holy See in this regard.

By being against Latinizations, we are not against the Latin Church or its traditions.

What we, and any Particular Catholic Church, are for, as Rome has told us we should be, is the purity of our spirituality.

Without it in its purest possible form, we rob the Church of Christ of its riches. Without it, we stand as an ecumenical roadblock to both Eastern and Western churches in their relationship with Rome.

The devil (and I use this word only metaphorically WITH everyone's permission, of course ), is truly Latinization defined in this way.

As for what the actual Devil is about, I don't know - I am happy to say we are bad terms with each other.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you so much for your post.

At this point I only want to try to make one thing crystal clear here:



Understood and agreed with one hundred percent. The key and trick (and I *absolutely* know from personal experience that this is much easier said than done) is to "separate the sin from the sinner", because all you may be *intending* to say is that you don't appreciate your brother Latin Catholics imposing Latinizations on your spirituality and rite ("Stop changing stuff around in my room! It's mine!"), but the way it comes out sometimes (too often, in my humble opinion) is more like, "I hate you and want nothing to do with you and don't even consider us to be living in the same house any more!"

As a brother in Christ, continually striving for unity and understanding, it is important to me to let you know this. I am sure that I and others, as fallible observers, misunderstand your communications in this regard sometimes and probably think you are saying something that you are not, but not always. I just ask you (and all) to be careful to...well...as much as possible, with the grace of God, to criticize the sins and not the sinners not let them build unhealthy walls or cause unhealthy reactions. That is all I am saying and all I ask.

Peace be with you,

Mystic

Dear Mystic,

You are absolutely correct, of course.

Personally, I believe that it is a healthy thing to partake of the spirituality of other Catholic Churches and traditions.

For me, this has meant devotions to Western Saints, Ethiopian traditions etc.

It also means going to Confession and Communion in other Catholic Churches, Latin, Coptic etc. and we are fortunate to have all these in Toronto and surrounding area. We also have Masses in the Tridentine Rite which I like very much as well.

The daily Rosary - I can't be without it. It has become for me a great hymn in honour of the Incarnation of our Lord while reflecting on the chief events of our salvation.

Our Lady of Prompt Succor, of Guadalupe etc. - love them all.

(Don't tell anyone, Mystic, but I have some statues at home . . . shhhh!) .

God bless,

Alex

Statues, Alex? Oh, the horror, the horror! :p

You'll be able to forgive me for having a couple of my own...

Dear Catholicos,

Which are your favourite Western devotions?

Should we begin a new thread?

Alex

Christ is Risen!

This thread has wandered far, a new topic is a good idea, and we'll let this one end?

Elias

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father!

I have begun another thread, anticipating your kind guidance on the matter!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

GASP!!!

LOL...

Greg

Dear Greg,

Where have you been?

You are invited to go to the thread on Western devotions in East/West to make a contribution.

You don't have to, but I'd like you to . . .

Alex

Thomas,
The sad fact is that it cost more money to go to court than to pay a settlement.
A settlement is not an addmission of guilt!
Nor is it "hush money"
Insurance companies require the Church to settle out of court simply because it saves them MONEY, while in some cases the innocent cleric must be the one that really suffers injustice.

Stephanos I

I'm not sure the above comment is to this tread, but I would like to respond.

A settlement is an act of restitution for wrong done, though one may avoid a public admission of guilt. No insurance company can force the Catholic Church or any church to settle.

I woudl think that if the Church is settleing for matters it is not responsible for, it is committing a sin. I know by the standards of the world (as with Enron) settlements while denying responsibilty are common. That does not make it right. I think it is an abuse of justice.

I would note Pilate was clearly willing to allow Christ to settle.

My hope would be that the Church would rise above such behavior.

Axios

P.S. Since I on a roll, my other pet peeve: "I apologize if I have offended anyone." I hate that saying. It admits no offensive while has the pretense of an apology. It drives me up the wall everytime I hear it.

[ 04-20-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Sorry Axios but the sad fact is that the Secular Insurance Companies are calling the shots.
Which agrivates me to no end.
We should do away with them and have our own insurance coverage.
I aggree when there is no crime or no evidence there should be no settlement.
Stephanos I

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]