www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology celibate priests as better able to attend at our confession

Is there a word for "gurrr!" in Slavonic?

I was in a Theology of the Body presentation tonight, part one of two parts, in a Latin Church setting. In the final moments one of the facilitators went into a lengthy explanation about the development of this teaching and then the importance of the celibate priesthood and this included how celibate priests can really focus on us when we come to them in confession and a priest were he to have a wife and family would have those as their primary focus of course and so he would not have as much of his focus on me and my confession as would the celibate priest etc. I listened as best I could once he hit some buttons for me.

That was to be the final word of the evening. I insisted on speaking, and tried to do so with focus and calmness.

First I said there had been no mention the whole evening of chastity which we all are called to, married and celibate. Then I expressed my great appreciation of the value of celibate priests, and religious and I have no desire in the least to argue against the place of celibacy. Then I said I was really uncomfortable with the sort of second class status his explanation was giving to our married priests East and West (the Latin Church does have quite a number of married priests in the US.) He insisted that since only celibate clergy can be bishops East and West that shows that celibacy is a fuller expression of the priesthood... I don't want to put words into his mouth but however he expressed the preference of the celibate priesthood East and West as shown by only celibates being eligible for the episcopacy.
Again I said I am not comfortable with any sort of full, less full compartmentalizing of celibate and married priests, that a celibate priest could better hear my confession I find ridiculous (I didn't say ridiculous, I just emphasized the sort of step child attitude it presented for me.)

He then said the Church has never discriminated against the married clergy. I said that is not the case. In America indeed the Church did for a time discriminate by suppressing the married clergy for Eastern Churches.

The meeting had ended and I didn't want to get into an argument. I had made my point and it was going nowhere.

I don't believe for a minute a married priest is less able to focus on me in my confession. I find that an insult to the Holy Spirit at work in our priests. Is there some sort of less gift of the Holy Spirit that married men being ordained receive in ordination as compared to celibate men? I do not think so.

So, I am posting mainly to ask whether I may be misinformed. Is there a belief in the East/Orthodoxy that only celibate priests can be bishops because they more fully embody the priesthood than do married priests? (I am aware, or think it's so, that traditionally bishops came from the monastic communities.)

I was of course the only non-Latin in the group tonight. I really tried to be calm and clear in my response, but I also wasn't willing to let the last words of the evening be what felt to me as really bad teaching on the role and value of celibacy, something I very much value and see has its value unrelated to any comparison with married clergy as a less full representation of In persona Christi .

Some RCs like to argue that the legislation of Trullo requiring that bishops be unmarried "proves" that the Eastern Churches "really" believe in sacerdotal celibacy. I don't know of any Orthodox theologians who have any use for that bizarre idea. One might just as well argue on that basis for the mandatory celibacy of adult acolytes!

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father

Can you direct me to where I can read up about this on line?

I have only one word for "likethethief" - BRAVO!

Seems like some of what that "facilitator" (dontcha just love these dainty little titles they impose on themselves?)was enabling was prejudice on the part of Latin clergy and laity against ECs and Eastern Christians in general.

Believe me, that kind of prejudice hasn't evaporated, as much as we might like to fantasize that it has. Nowadays it's just more likely to be expressed in subtler terms than, say, in the days of Archbishop Ireland (r.i.p.)

Too bad. This kind of demon can be cast out only by prayer, fasting and education.

That's my 2 cents.

two things:

1) Just a note of clarification. Facilitator tends to be used as a more generic term to signify that the discussion is not meant as a school type lecture, but is more of an open-ended discussion.

2) I would assume that the prohibition of bishops to the celibate only to be a canon of the Church, not immutable doctrine. Obviously, the Orthodox see value in selecting Bishops only from amongst the celibate clergy. Can anyone elaborate more as to what the benefits are? Just curious, that's all.

The preference for celibate bishops evolved as the power of the bishops grew from the 4th through the 7th centuries. Gradually, as the power of the state waned, more and more tasks previously assigned to secular magistrates were deputed to bishops. And, through a process of accretion, the bishop also became responsible for the management and disposal of the properties donated to the Church. It was felt that a married bishop with biological children would feel the kind of pressure to look after his own that had formerly afflicted secular magistrates. Beyond that, this same period also saw a rise in the status and moral authority of monastics, who were able to leverage this into an increased domination of the episcopate. By the end of the 7th century, celibate bishops had become almost universal within the oikumene. Trullo merely formalized what had already happened, and was more specific than simply mandating episcopal celibacy--Trullo requires bishops to be monastics, a requirement often honored in the breech by having a newly elected bishop take his vows and receive the monastic tonsure just before his ordination.

Makes sense. thanks.
Some similar reasons are given for imposing celibacy on the west.

But a married priest or bishop is no less in persona christi than a married one. Otherwise one would have to admit that St. Peter was somehow less than the other Apostles who were not married.

Let me fix that:

Otherwise one would have to admit that St. Peter was somehow less than the other Apostles who were not known to be married or widowers.

Scripture is silent concerning the relationship of the company of women who travelled with the Apostles and the Twelve.

Peter's marital status is known only because Jesus' healing of his mother-in-law is the first recorded healing miracle (as distinct from Exorcism) in Mark's Gospel.

Correct. thank you.
I believe that Eusebius also mentions daughters of St. Phillip, which then infers that he was married at one time as well. Whether he was married or widowed after Pentecost, we do not know.

That was Philip the Deacon; nonetheless, the Western Church repeated insisted celibacy was demanded of all in major orders, including deacons. Of course, things are, um, different now--not only can deacons be married, but they can remarry if eligible.

I'm still not sure about my question which I maybe didn't word well... Is there a history in the East/Orthodoxy that celibate priests are somehow a better model of priesthood than are married priests, and thus it follows they are the only ones who can be ordained bishops? This was a form of the argument being given last night to me for the preference of celibate priesthood.

He made the argument in reverse that since only celibate priests may be ordained that clearly shows the inherent value (ie better than married pastors to serve their flock) of celibacy.

No, there isn't. We don't see the choice as between marriage and ordination, but as between marriage and monasticism. Bishops are selected from (nominally) monastic ranks because it was felt the powers of the bishop would present a married bishop with irresistible temptation--and because monastics dominated ecclesiastical circles in the 6th century.

Thanks for all your responses! I was caught totally off guard at this presentation, but I feel after reading these posts that my response was not inaccurate.

It's possible it will come up again when our RCIA reconvenes back at our home parish next week. Our RCIA went as a group to the presentations so the other RCIA team members from my Latin parish and our Candidates and sponsors were there.

I'm going to read a bit more, too. I see some mention of bishops in earlier times who were already married when ordained not allowed to remarry when widowed because basically they would not be permitted to consummate the marriage, so couldn't have a valid marriage. In general it seems like the preference that developed for the bishops to come from the monastic ranks was also influenced by the issues of powers that bishops took on that exceeded what are basically ecclesial powers in our time.

No, bishops were not allowed to remarry for the same reason presbyters were not allowed to remarry: as St. Paul wrote, a bishop (and by extension a presbyter) must be the husband of one wife. The early Christians universally held the belief (today maintained by the Eastern Churches) that marriage is an eternal sacrament that transcends death and perdures in the divine kairos. Thus, there can be but one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, and remarriage, whether after widowhood or divorce, is a form of adultery. Even while the early Church tolerated those who remarried as a condescension to human weakness, it refused to celebrate second marriages (all such marriages were conducted through civil ceremonies), and focused its efforts on reintegrating the remarried into the Body of Christ through prayer, fasting and abstention from the Eucharist (typically 2-5 years). Bishops and presbyters could not remarry, because remarriage was a violation of a universal Christian norm.