www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology canonical impediments to ordination

Not in the East Ed

A Priest has to be married before he is ordained and IIRC so does a Deacon.

Hi,

For Permanent Deacons in the Latin Church, this is true as well.

In general, an ordained man cannot get married. Married men can be ordianed.

Shalom,
Memo

Nor in the Roman Catholic Church. I know two Roman Catholic priests who are married. As for the *East*, I would like to have that qualified a bit more.

The real test is whether those students of divinity or seminarians who are Eastern Catholic know they are free to marry prior to ordination? I know Orthodox seminarians can, but can all Eastern Catholics in THIS (USA) country?

My Byzantine Catholic aunt tells me that her bishop (name withheld) will NOT ordain married men, and another (name withheld) seeks permission from Rome. If marriage was not an impediment to ordination then why the absolute refusal on one hand and red tape on the other?

If a married man contemplates seminary training or a single man contemplates it (with an eye to getting married), can they enter the seminary and train to be priests? If no impediment, as Our Lady's Slave states, then is this path freely open without hindrance? If so, then explain to me the program or student manual that clarifies this freedom.

Ed

ED:

A good question on this beautiful Saturday morning. If I or any of our Eastern Catholic brethren having this same frustration could answer that . . . As it is, we just throw up our hands and wonder with you.


True enough. There are some former Anglican ministers who have come to the CAtholic Church and been allowed to continue their service as priests. But it takes quite a while to get permission from Rome for them to begin their journey. And for many, the only ministry open is one that does not involve serving in a parish. We are supposed to have one in my diocese but the last I heard he ws resticted to campus ministry as a chaplain.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Why is this so? Are they priests or not? Why the two tier priesthood? This implies second class priesthood. I know several former Protestant clergyman who became Orthodox and all of them are pastors of their own church communities. The Orthodox don't seem to have a difficulty with this as much as the Catholics. Is it because marriage is held in higher esteem there?

Ed

Theophan/BOB,

So, impediments DO exist that prevent ordination for some (or most) men unlike what Our Lady's slave states. But I think she was referring to the Orthodox who do not let marriage be an impediment.

I am aware of the order - marriage before ordination. The topic was about impediments *to* (understood as *before*) ordination. Marriage DOES seem to be one such impediment (in the U.S.).

Ed

It depends on the discipline of the Church and the prudent judgment of the hierarchy.

Ed ,

I stick by what I said - strictly speaking there is NO problem providing that the Priest-to-be or Deacon-to-be was married before ordination.

There was a historical problem though - it was thought that celibacy was the ideal , and it still is for RC Priests. This period was a sad time in our history as I'm sure that you can understand - it's been mentioned enough in the past on Byzcath

HOWEVER

In recent years married candidates have been ordained, and will be in future , in the Eastern Catholic Churches where the tradition has been of a married clergy , not all EC Priests are married , many are celibate.

As to RC Priests being married - if you ask them you will find they were married before they entered the RC Church and were Ministers of Religion in another denomination.

I hope this helps

If no problem in theory, but why in practice? My Byzantine Catholic aunt says that one of their church members wishes to be a priest, but was told that his desire to marry (he has a girlfriend who stated she can wait for him to finish studies) prevents him from the bishop sponsoring him. I am not naming names, but it seems that what is tradition is not what is practiced. So, in conclusion, I would say that there still are impediments to ordination.


Do all current divinity students or seminarians have that option today? What is the average age of a married priest being ordained?


So a married minister who wants to be a Catholic priest has it easier than a Byzantine Catholic seminarian? I recommend that they become ministers in other denominations before applying to the priesthood. This I call the fully assembled clergyman ready for ordination.

Ed

No, Edhash, it does not. Roman Catholics have celibate priests, that is how Roman Catholics do things. Believe it or not Roman Catholic parishes tend to be quite big and believe it or not large parishes require a lot of time. So by putting a married priest at a hospital job frees up the celibate priest for parish work, this way the married priest can have some family life and maybe a job on the side. I don't know why you can't respect that.


Yep, us Unionizin' Homo-discriminatin' Immaculate Conception' havin' Catlicks HATE marriage - that's why that old Polish guy wrote so much about it during his 20 year reign as the successor of St. Peter, and that's why we don't believe in divorce.

Edhash it is quite obvious you have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church, I mean even the ex-Catholic Orthodox here show us more respect.

Edhash, what religion are you (Anglican, Baptist, Methodist etc)? I mean this is a religion forum and you are (I guess) attepmting to debate... so I think I have a right to ask that question. Because no Catholic (or Orthodox I know) would EVER suggest doing this... the mere thought makes me sick.

Ed

I wish you would get off your soapbox about this.

Our tradition in the East is that priests may be married - it is their choice. neither you nor anyone can take that away from them.

RC priests on the other hand are expected to abide by the discipline of celibacy - if they wish to be priests then they know they are to be celibate.

However things have got more complicated with some married Clergy from other denominations entering Catholicism - these applications are considered on their individual merits.

You certainly seem to have a problem with this - get over it please.

Ed,

Just to provide some clarification here. There was a directive from Rome, implemented around 100 years ago (maybe a bit more, I'd have to find the document) that prohibted Eastern Catholics from importing married priests or from ordaining married men to the priesthood in the United States and Canada. This was at the request of the Latin bishops who feared confusion among the laity.

That prohibition is no longer in force, and technically hasn't been since the Second Vatican Council although until the first married man was ordained here in the U.S. (by Bishop JOHN or the Melkites) there had been no real test of the change. Ruthenian bishops had decided among themselves to seek permission from Rome because they were not sure of the canonical status of the former prohibition.

As has been noted, marriage is not an impediment to Orders, but Orders are an impediment to marriage. Thus, there is no canonical or theological reason why a married man cannot be ordained. There are bishops, however, who prefer not to ordain married men, and that is their right as bishops.

I hope this addresses your issues and questions.

Fr. Deacon Ed

I was told by the same Bishop John (after he had ordained a married man to the priesthood) that there would be no repeats of ordaining married men and that it was not possible for a Melkite married man to be ordained in the United States.

My understanding of things is that the retention of married clergy for the Eastern Churches is a "dispensation" for those Eastern Churches in the old country. But Eastern Catholics in the west are expected to conform to the Latin rules for celibate priests, even if it is no longer explicitly stated in canon law. In other words, a Melkite Bishop could ordain a married man here, but then he would likely get a call from the Vatican and a big slap on the wrist telling him that it was a "no no." That is apparently true to this day.

Joe

Dear Fr. Deacon Ed,

Thank you for the explanation. It seems to be a matter of episcopal choice in some cases. If that is what it is then that is OK.

Our Lady's slave,

I wasn't trying to preach from some soapbox; only trying to determine the reasons for inconsistencies. Fr. Deacon Ed was kind enough to state the situation matter of factly. Do I not have the right to inquire? I am currently in a state of spiritual flux. I just migh be church hunting and need to turn over every stone before I make any commitments.

I am leaning to the Orthodox. I must confess that the Eastern Catholic churches seem to be a hybrid church that is neither all here or all there. I cannot fathom living out the rest of my life trying to determine if I am more *Catholic* or more *Byzantine*. I would think that it is perfectly alright to be both one and the same without some false dichotomy; trying to prove one over the other.

What is so wrong with being Byzantine Catholic without hesitation?

I like the idea of the East being in the same church umbrella as the West/Rome. But here are my observations:

1. The model of church which is the unia or Eastern Catholic is not one and the same with the First Millenia church. Eastern bishops, from what I read, were not under the Pope of Rome. But Eastern Catholic bishops today are. The First Millenia church ended at the end of the First Millenia.

2. That Rome has rejected the very model that the Eastern Catholic churches were created by tells me that this church model is null and void. However, Eastern Catholics exist, they have a right to exist (I believe), and Rome now has to live with its decisions. Eastern Catholicism seems to be a discounted form of Eastern Christianity.

3. My questions might bother some here, but I can't but help notice that the only ones getting peturbed are Byzantine Catholic mostly. I can only imagine visiting one of your parishes, asking a question, and getting the boot. My questions on this thread are about what I perceive to be a second class clergy. As usual, the typical responses have been ad hominem. Fortunately, Fr. Deacon Ed has answered my questions by putting things into perspective. I thank him for it.

4. I ask a lot of questions. Maybe they seem to be from a soapbox. But I know more about the Byzantine Catholic churches than you think. But these issues I am not permitted to discuss publically. I will respect the policy of these forums. I do have Byzantine Catholic family who deal with these issues. If you don't like my questions then you don't like my Byzantine Catholic family. Some of these topics are of heated discussions in their homes. I see the distraught and frustration on some of their experiences. I also see the joy and prayer life that illuminates their lives as good Christians.

5. The Eastern Churches, including the Catholic ones, have a treasure chest of spiritual riches and customs. My main beaf is why would anyone not open that treasure chest and enjoy the rich benefits? Why would anyone prefer to wear junk or costume jewelry instead? If Byzantine Catholics have a just theology thta is just as equal as any other church (assuming they are not heretics), why does that theology have to be replaced, supplemented, based on other foundations to be accepted? The Administrator wrote several times on another forum that the churches, Byzantine Catholic ones, have to first enrich themselves or get acqauinted with their OWN traditions FIRST (not exactly in these words) before tinkering with it, namely their own worship service. I agree with this. You can't change something if what you are changing is not bona fide originals.

6. In all my contacts with Orthodox clergymen, I have never been insulted. The EXPECT stupid questions and signs of ignorance. I don't feel threatened in my pursuit of answers.

7. I don't have a *problem* with former Protestant ministers getting ordained in the Catholic Church. I just view the ministries they are allowed (non parish oriented) as a sense of second class priesthood. Not being able to be a pastor is troubling. It is like their new ministry is not good enough. It is not my problem that i only point out the reality that these same ministers can get ordained in the Orthodox Churches and then find themselves really pastoring a parish of souls like their fellow clergymen who were born into the Orthodox Churches. It is not me, but this radically different forms of treatment and acceptance between the Catholic and Orthodox churches that is the real problem. If the Catholic Church had married priests, would these former Protestant ministers be treated as second class or junior priests? That the Catholic Church mandates celibacy, I can only think or imagine that this two tier system is to give or prefer the celibate clergy (the more honored ones) with parishes. I would think that a married clergyman would be just as viable in a parish setting, that his perspective in marriage would be a plus, that his dedication to a wife and children (if any) would keep him humble. The culture of celibacy is not a secret. If I gave up the opportunity to be married (to a real nice gal) for the sake of ministry, I would be a bit angered that those who came into the fold from the outside and got ordained would get the same opportunities as I. If they were given non-parish ministries (out of sight) then I would feel thta i got something out of it (out of me giving up the married life). It is the give-and-take that i would expect.

Ed