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

As I see in the operation of tiny church communities, when a church becomes so small that it cannot financially support its pastors, ministry will become a part-time job. Unless you are lucky enough to have all community members tithe 10% of their gross income, you will need numbers. Is this possible in all communities? How many Byzantine Catholic parishes are financially well off that they can afford the luxury of a full-time married priest, his wife, and children? Are clergy training programs set up to prepare divinity students (and their future wives) to become full-time?

It might be necessary to find ministers from other communities to join yours or financially independent vocations. Money, not orthodoxy or charism, might be the main factor in who or who doesn't get ordained. I don't know if this is the case here, but I witnessed it elsewhere. A generation of young future ministers watched their own chief shepherd welcome already-ordained clergy into pastoral positions with a flick of a pen/signature while their own divinity students realized that they would have to wait many more years to get full time pastorships. Financial security and pastoral urgency was paramount.

Ed

Herein lies the problem of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Let's say that about 50 years ago there were many married priests from the old country still serving the church here. They have all since passed on, and the only people who remember them are people who themselves are now passing on.

So the last vestige of a married priesthood remaining will also soon be gone.

My Father has many times brought up Father Stephen Loya and his twelve or thirteen kids. He was the pastor of the Greek Catholic in Portage Pa, when he was a child. The church was very Latinized, but nobody thought anything of Father Loya and his large family.

These people were hard working coal miners whose nickels and dimes supported this huge family. Now the thought of ordaining a married man is such a taboo subject in a church that is supposedly trying to recover its roots? A church where married priests is the tradition?

Who's kidding who? If those in charge can't realize that inclusive language shouldn't be used, does anyone here expect to see a vast army of married priests in the next twenty or more years?

I am convinced that union with Rome will never allow the Eastern Catholic Churches to be completely Eastern, and that is a terrible shame.

This is a terrible shame. This is like putting roadblocks in your own driveway so you can't even get onto the road.
Ed

Chris, you should say it still less.

What some of those men have had to deal with to take care of their flocks in the face of any number of adversaties is not small.

That they have to be second guessed at all times, challenged and outright disrespected in that way that they are is a tragedy and shame.

The HOURS that Met. Judson of blessed memory would put in as his age advanced and health declined were inspiring and heroic. The efforts made by the bishops of Parma and Van Nuys to oversee a huge diocese of far-flung parishes are not small.

When I see ByzCath forum turn into "ByzBishBash" Forum it just makes me sad and leads to despair.

Once again, non-Byzantine Catholics pontificating with ease and certitude as to what is wrong with "them". Really guys, the tone and underlying righteousness with glib pity on these "terrible shames" just seem to ring hollow.

I am the first person to recognize and admit that some pastoral decisions made were ill-informed and have not served us well. But it is not nearly as bad as some here seem to want to say.

In the past two years we have ordained some 27+ married men to the diaconate, and there are MANY more on the way. I am no insider, to be sure, but I have every reason to believe that some of today's married deacons will be tomorrows married priests.

There is in fact NO taboo on the discussion of married priests - we have some, some others are being trained, and it is fully reasonable and realistic to expect more are on the way.

Ed, I attended our seminary. The seminarians are not victims or in the dark. The ones that were there during my time were there to serve as celibates. You really don't need to feel sorry for us.


I know this is your hobby horse, but yoking it to this issue is just plain odd.

We have married priests.
We have married candidates for priesthood.
We are going to have more still in the future.

Discussing conspiracies or blame-placing is just plain odd and counter-productive.

For some bizarre reason, reports keep coming to the effect that the Metropolitan and Bishops of the Pittsburgh Metropolia are not permitted to ordain married deacons to the presbyterate. As if that weren't silly enough, it is also apparent that there are ongoing efforts to convince people that a married deacon is somehow not a cleric.

The Ukrainian hierarchs, the Melkite Eparch of Newton, the Romanian Eparch of Canton, manage to ordain married deacons to the presbyterate without the roof falling in. For that matter, the Ruthenian Bishop of Parma has ordained one or two married deacons to the presbyterate, and the roof doesn't seem to have fallen on him either. So what is this all about?

As for deacons: married or single, a deacon is a cleric in Major Orders. Face it.

Fr. Serge

All that people can do is continue to pray for them...I agree 100% that the bishops do not have an easy task...the problem appears to be (and it's been this way for a while so it will take a while to get out of this mentality) arrogance on the part of the bishops...not following the advice of those who speak against what the eparchs say...the bishops have, apparently, and rather unfortunately, placed themselves into an echo chamber, they continue to spout off bad policy & practice...the metropolia continues to decline...and they don't seem to be learning from mistakes that they have made since they continue to make them...but this has gone on for 100 years so I don't see it turning overnight...I just hope it's not too late...

Chris

Some thoughts and only a few of the many questions that one can think of when considering the administrative structures needed for a married clergy. Perhaps proceeding slowly is wise. When considering whether to ordain a married man, how does the church judge the stability of the marriages of relatively newly married young seminarians? (I believe that deacons are supposed to be 35 yrs. of age or more, in stable marriages, and not aspire to be priests, though conceivably some might be interested in greater responsibilities.) Another question, what is the role of the Pani in the Church? What happens in cases where he is committed to the priesthood, but she isn't so well suited for her role? How should she be prepared, in advance of ordination of her husband, for her role? What modes of assistance are available when problems arise, and what options are acceptable? Does she/should she work outside the home to provide health care, college funds, etc. for the family, or is this something that the parish/eparchy would be expected to provide? What happens if/when there is a "special needs" child? How would the needed accommodations in the house, therapy, etc. be provided? If the priest/husband and father should die prematurely, what happens to his family? How do they move on, and still allow another priest/family to provide for the needs of the parish? What is the division of responsibility between the parish and the eparchy to provide for such contingencies? Its not that all the questions need to be answered in advance, but some structures do need to be in place. Perhaps the Orthodox and Ukrainian churches have experience that the BCC could adapt or even improve on.

As has been said by others in various contexts, the demographics of the US argue for easing the shortage of priests by opening the possibility for married Deacons to become priests and serve parishes as needed, especially if children are grown or otherwise on their own. In some cases, the priesthood may be like a second career.
Peace to you all!

My understanding, according to my Spiritual Father, is that in the Antiochian jurisdiction, the wife must consent to the ordination and must actually write a letter of recommendation to Metropolitan Philip and interview with him. Also, when placing new priests, I have heard that Metropolitan consults with the wife to find the place that would be suited for her as well as for her husband in terms of work, etc. Also, many married priests work full time jobs so it isn't necessarily the case that the parish will have to fully support an entire family. My spiritual father is a full time college administrator and serves two parishes. Many married priests work at secular occupations and then help start new mission parishes.

Joe

Unfortunately, this is probably true.

According to Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, we can have married priests. The prohibition against married Byzantine Priests in America and other places was very unfortunate, because Rome broke the terms of the Reunion Councils when they prohibited married men from serving in the priesthood in our country. Prohibition of married men was always an injustice, and our Bishops need to find their courage and do what is right, regardless of what some people in the Vatican think. Our church is dying man! The lack of vision among our bishops, the lack of married men serving as priests, and this new liturgy are all undermining our future. Bishop Elko probably set us on the course of self-implosion back in the 60's.

Just another reason among many that our Orthodox brethren have no interest in reuniting with us; they see how the Eastern Catholic Churches are dealt with historically, and they want no part of it. I do not blame them.

Okay- my soap box for the day...

It is a big problem with no quick fix or easy solution. At my home parish, and Ung will remember this, we had a wonderful priest. Father William. Unfortunately I can't remember his last name at this point in time. Early onset I guess. It was a good slavic name though. He was a great speaker, very full of energy, young, on the move and really brought life back to the church. But he left the Byzantine Church and became an Orthodox priest. Why? Because he would be allowed to be married, of course. Things were looking up--attendance, donations, the church as a "community" and the race to get out of the parking lot after Liturgy dwindled as people started to talk to each other again. The Orthodox gained a really good man.

How do the Protestants handle the questions raised about a married clergy? How do they handle the wife and the specific challenges she will face? How do they handle someone who wants a divorce? Or special needs children? I don't know. I'm asking a serious question. And how are the Protestants doing as far as growth? Is a married priesthood the cure all for the Byzantine churches? Or at least the Byzantine-Ruthenian church? It seems a bit simplistic to say that everything would be great if only we went back to our traditions.

The world is different in 2007 than it was in 1957. Or 1897. Going back to our full traditions, which would include a married priesthood as well as the full Liturgy--would that really turn the Metropolia around? Would we see an explosion--either fast or slow--in the number of people attending church and donating money? I don't know. I know I would feel more comfortable with doing things the way they were done before the latinizations. Even though I have never experienced them. But we are making progress--no more Stations of the Cross in most churches, an iconostasis either replaced or put in place where there was none among others.

I wish I had the answers. But I don't. I do know that the Bishops do have to walk a fine line. They can't antagonize the Roman Catholic priests or Bishops or there could be some serious consequences in some areas. There has to be closing of some churches. It's impossible to keep a church open when there are only six to ten parishioners and a priest has to drive half an hour to get there. And there will be hard feelings no matter which churches have to be closed. I wouldn't want the job. But they need our help, not criticism. I don't agree with every decision that has been made. But some of the posts I've read on this Forum really do tend to get vicious about the Bishops and their decisions. I'm not saying they can't be wrong. Far from it. But they need our help in the form of guidance, not saying hateful things or name calling. Letting them know your opinion is a good thing. We should all take the time to let our Bishops know what we think of some of the decisions. You never know what might happen if enough people speak up. Just a thought!

Tim

Tim,

I agree with you somewhat, certainly in the sense that we should respect our bishops.

But I disagree with your premise, if I understand you correctly.

I believe our bishops should do the right thing, over church politics. I think that is a perfectly reasonable expectation. We need leaders to have integrity and be courageous. We need to honor our authentic traditions, otherwise, what's the point?

I am not sure married priest would save us now, but I think it historically has hurt us not having them.

I think it would help.

Blessings,

Lance

Joe, can you point to this culture among the monolithic Roman hiearchy? The liberals are all for it. One of the most conservative bishops in the US - Bp. Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln (bi-ritual, he served the Ukie community during his time in Rome...) is fine with it. All this whispering about "the Romans" can we demonstrate that? 10 years ago in seminary we were told they were polled and most were in favor or indifferent.

The majority of Latin bishops west of the Mississip' or south of the Mason-Dixon are far more likely to run into Pastoral Provision priests and their own married clergy - deacons. I really have no reason to believe the Latins are giving it much thought at all - let alone fearing it or lobbying against it these days. I just remain unconvinced that it is (tacitly) to be understood that our involvement with the Latins is the root of our problem here.

But again, we DO ordain married men to the priesthood and the diaconate. I seem to recall that being mentioned a few times...



Our bishops DO have the courage to do what is right. They are ordaining married men to the priesthood. Where are all the candidates?

Three things:

1) The prohibition did not necessarily break the terms of the unia. I haven't read the document (which I only can read in English anyway) in some time, but I recall no assurance that the Ruthenians would be given carte blanche to go worldwide in all practices and privelages, rights and rites. We could start a new thread on that if you like.

2) It it not chic of me to be contrarian in this fashion and in this place, I know, but the merits of the celibate clergy in building up our beloved church. (You know, the majority of the fellas that built and pastored that place we go on sunday and love.) There are babies and bathwater issues here, to be sure, but it seems like the half-dozen celibate pastors I have had in fact we were lucky to have them and have them unattached.

3) The "lack of married priests" may or may not explain some of the lack of growth in the BCC. Frankly, I think it explains SOME (not all) of the vocations shortage but I don't know that it would stymie the decrease appreciably. It might (or might not) add a whole lot more priests to the mix. But will all these priests in turn engender an evangelistic spirit that will lead to growth while time is divided between a parish, a career and a family?

To be clear I am NOT taking aim at the Orthodox on this matter, but rather looking at the WHOLE of eastern Christianity (Oriental and Byzantine, Catholic & Orthodox) and have to note that we are all shrinking. Third and fourth generation eastern Christians who are active and attend are far outnumbered by their cousins who do not. My cousin was brought up Latin and married another Greek Catholic who was brought up the same. Their daughters? You can guess. Our parish could have had 5 married priests and this would just as likely have happened.

Now as to the actual topic of impediments to ordination... On the two-way street issue of mutual trust and union/re-union, it is a little bothersome to me that most jursidictions in America today will readily accept married (post-ordination) Greek Catholic priests into their fold through chrismation and vesting. If they are bothered by our particular canonical and disciplinary oddities, I must be clear, I am a rather bothered by this one at times myself.

Married priesthood is not the cause of or solution to all our problems. It is a complex situation that is not half as easy to understand, implement or deal with as people make it out to be. I wish the bishops - who do consider and do ordain married men - were given just a little more slack. In time as it becomes more common still, a lot of people who thought it would be a panacea of all good things are going to see that it brings its own challenges, and some of the problems we have today, we will still face then.

Lance--I agree with you 100% that our Bishops should do the right thing, regardless of politics. The reality is that it doesn't happen. It never has happened. People have different ideas of what the "right thing" is. Just look at church history--Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria Egypt (If I remember correctly) was in and out of office several times over his tenure as Bishop. He was in, then a heretic, then back in, then a heretic again, etc. Who was right? Both sides thought they were right. Despite the riots and loss of life.

Who's right here? I agree with you. Our traditions are great and should be returned to us and enforced. A married priesthood certainly would not hurt, it would help. But it will not be the cure all that some people seem to think. Why are our traditions not enforced? I wish I knew.

There seems to be a division among the Bishops. One ordains married men. But that leaves three others. Why have they not ordained married men? Is it because there were no candidates? That hardly seems likely. Why would only one Eparch have married candidates? That doesn't make sense. Or could it be the Bishops have let it be known, unofficially, that they won't ordain a married candidate? I don't know. But statistically speaking, it doesn't make sense that only one Eparch would have married candidates.

How do we get our Bishops to enforce tradition? Butting head to head and name calling, as some have done, is certainly not the way to go. That's going to cause problems. They're in charge and they will win. We need to find a different way of getting our Bishops to enforce tradition.

But we are in agreement much more than we disagree.

Tim

Have any married men here approached these eparchs with a view to priestly ordination? Do we know for certain that deacons and diaconal candidates at this time who are married are not or will not be considered for priestly ordination in the future?

Why is everyone so quick to assume (even though they are not privy to the mind of our hierarchs) that they have no plans or goals in this area?

Our bishops get beat up left and right and up and down in this forum, when most of us don't have the first clue what they are facing, and what their plans are.

Are we praying for them?