Married and Ordained. The Minor Leagues of the Catholic Clergy

There are at least two thousand of them. Of the Eastern rites, or converts from Protestantism. They have wives and children, and celebrate the Mass. The Church recognizes their "equal dignity" with celibate priests. But that doesn't hold true in practice

by Sandro Magister
November 16, 2011

More (including photo of married Melkite Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy) at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350085?eng=y

Well, it holds true for Eastern Catholics, but of course, we're not really "Catholic" Catholics, if you catch my meaning.

This is a questionable stance on the part of the Pope, who is a good enough scholar to know that the practice of celibate bishops arose only gradually in the Church, both in the West as well as in the East. Gregory of Nyssa was a married bishop, the son of a married bishop; Gregory of Nazianzen wanted to be a monastic, but his father, a married bishop, contrived to have him ordained into the presbyterate. There were married bishops in the West, including several married Popes (and, indeed, a Pope who was the legitimate son of a Pope). To claim that all these western bishops remained continent after their ordination to the priesthood won't do--at least not to anyone who can do math and knows the gestation period of a baby.

The celibate episcopate emerge gradually, and mainly in response to two factors: first, the growing influence of monastics, and their high status within the Church; second, the growing legal and economic power of the bishop, which, it was felt, would create an "institutional conflict of interest" between the bishop's biological family and his spiritual one (the nepotism of the medieval and renaissance Popes shows this fear well founded, but hard to avoid even with celibate bishops).

Married bishops declined in number through the fifth and sixth centuries, and finally disappeared altogether after the Council in Trullo ruled that bishops should be chosen from among the monastic clergy. It is hard, therefore, to see how Benedict XVI can claim apostolic foundation for the celibate episcopate, since there is no evidence that even the majority of bishops were celibate during the first few Christian centuries.

I am also disappointed to see the discredited work of Colchini and Strickler referenced once again as evidence for some sort of "apostolic" mandate for clerical celibacy. How many times does one have to put down the Big Lie before it stays dead?

Does the claim that married priests were to abstain from relations with their wives a certain period before celebrating Liturgy have any basis in fact? I have heard that once before from an FSSP priest who claimed it was still the case, which is clearly false.

Ritual purity issues did not become a major factor in the Church until after the Patristic period--say, in the late 7th-early 8th centuries. Most of the arguments for mandatory celibacy made during the Gregorian reforms focus on ritual purity.

To the extent that married priests abstained from sex prior to celebrating the Divine Liturgy, the reasoning had less to do, in the beginning, with ritual purity than with the concept of mastery of the passions (ironic that the Latin Church, which insists on clerical celibacy, has all but forgotten the Eucharistic Fast). However, this was never really a problem in the East, because daily celebration of the Eucharist was never a universal--or even common--custom. Yes, some monasteries might do so, but even the Great Church of Hagia Sophia did not celebrate the Divine Liturgy every day until money was set aside for this in the 9th century.

And, of course, there is always Sunday afternoon. . .

I'm not sure about that Stuart; I would argue that numerous canons from Nicea I are about ritual purity, and are in many cases direct lifts from the Old Testament.

Which of the Twenty Canons did you have in mind? None seem to involve ritual purity at all.

the rule I've heard from certain Orthodox priests (presumably found in the Pedalion) says that a presbyter must abtain for 24 hours prior to the Divine Liturgy (no mention of other liturgies). He must also be present for Sunday Vespers and Orthros, and say the full preparation liturgy, a service that that takes arund two hours.

Moreover, the laity must not only confess, but also attend Sunday Vespers and Orthros, fast from the midnight before, say the preparation prayers, and hold the Monday, Wednesday, and Friday fasts. And at least one of the priests I heard this from held people to this - obviously he can't play private devotion poloceman - but he claimed he would reject someone from communion if they hadn't been to Vespers and Orthros. (imagine if Catholics did that......)

Now, not every jurisdiction or pastor is this strict. But as in all things Byzantine, this points us to an ideal - not so much in rules, but in spirit.

And Stuart is right on the point of non-daily celebration of the eucharist. In the dioceses of old Rome and New Rome, during late antiquity, only the bishop celebrated the eucharist, and did so usually around three times a week, to include Sunday. The entire diocese would be expected to attend (and great processions and rhetoric we employed to get people to attend), and were exhorted also to attend daily morning and evening prayer. Father Taft, who is my source for this (though I've read some of the primary sources he cites and they are consistent), claims that no "obligation" to attend holy day eucharistic liturgy can be found, but an implicit "obligation" to attend daily morning and evening prayer existed. Again, imagine if Catholics did that again......... (I don't necessarily advocate it, just am thinking of the pastoral implications)