www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Embracing Celibacy follow-up

So with all the grumblings about this issue I assume that the Byzantine Catholic members of this forum will speak to their vocation directors about all these married/want-to-married seminary prospects.

Married priests ARE a legitimate issue, I share the concern. I also have a concern that if a married priesthood is allowed, in another generation we will have no celibate priests and we would be like the Carpatho-Russian Church and have to "adopt" a bishop from somewhere else, RC perhaps? Think it through, guys. A married clergy alone isn't going to make our Church grow; its not a single issue dilemma.

JA - I think the Melkite Church has provided an excellent example in terms of leadership. Specifically Sayedna Nicholas Samra's speech published in Sophia in which he unequivocally stated that the Melkite Church in the US will begin to accept married men to the priesthood.

There is nothing stopping Metropolitan William from doing likewise. Nothing to untangle. Only the willingness to lead in this regard. We all know where the Melkite Church stands. Can we say the same of the Ruthenian Church?

Paul B - As to whether there will be no bishops if celibate priests are a thing of the past, I think that is a particularly Roman way of viewing the matter. We need to take into account the corresponding importance of a healthy monastic community, from which bishops would ideally be drawn.

This isn't a separate issue, but a necessary assertion of Eastern sacramental praxis across all vocations - priests as married men, monastics (and from them, bishops) as celebates.

It can't happen at the snap of a finger, but we need to very directly and unambiguously aim the ship in this direction - not for the growth of the church, but because it is right.

When you enact what is right, growth tends to follow.

I have it was a ROCOR church that had only 20 families. The priest had a full-time job as an engineer at an aviation company. His wife was the cantor and his son was the altar server.

Very small parish that was lacking nothing.

My Melkite parish has a married priest. I expect in a few years, we'll have two.

That brings up the other shoe: if you are going to have married priests, you need to have robust monasticism. And I don't mean the weak-kneed Basilian or "Byzantine-rite" Franciscan variety, I mean real Byzantine monasticism, of the kind we once had in Holy Resurrection Monastery, but chased away to the Romanian Eparchy.

Monasticism and marriage live in dynamic tension in the Byzantine Tradition, and we need both for a healthy spiritual body. But I get the impression that, with few exceptions, most of our hierarchs and many priests are viscerally opposed to authentic Eastern monasticism. I asked Hegumen Nicholas once why he did not try to form another monastery here on the East Coast (I had a property in mind), to which he replied, "Oh, Bishop Andrew is very anti-monastic". A couple of years later, Bishop WIlliam replaced Bishop George in Van Nuys and began making life impossible for the monks, who then departed to greener fields (quite literally, it turns out). Our bishops need to stop seeing monastics as a threat to their authority, and more as an example for all to emulate.

Stuart,

Must you always include a snide remark. God bless the Basilians and Franciscans and Benedictines who have served our church.

Yes, Bishop Andrew was so anti-monastic he allowed a real Byzantine monastery to be founded and prosper, Holy Cross in FL until their murder scandal and bolt to the OCA and NC.

As for Holy Resurrection, how did Metropoltian William make life impossible? By requiring them to abide by canon law? They made life impossible for themselves, not the least of which was adopting a location they could not afford or sustain.

Someone has to, if only so that the truth will out. The penchant for niceness has a way of interfering with the ability to see things plainly. I stand by my remarks concerning Bishop Andrew, and hold him at least partially culpable for the situation at Holy Cross in Florida. I also stand beside Hegumen Nicholas, who was quite right in insisting upon the rights guaranteed in the Typicon of the Monastery. It seems just about everybody appreciated Holy Resurrection Monastery except for the bishop in whose territory it existed. Their present situation is much better for them, not the least because they have the unqualified support of their Eparchial bishop.

sigh

Having a strong monastic community for which our future Bishops will be picked is going to be needed if we return to a married priesthood. A good point which I did not think about.

I just want to point out that the original comment was from a Deacon who spoke with Metropolitan William. Hearing that Cardinal Sandri was not trying to restrict married priests from happening was not responded to in joy from those who have commented so far (myself included). That we have the status quo is important. It emphasizes that it's not as though we are returning to the time of Fr. Alexis Toth, where the few married priests in this country are being stricken of the ability to serve the people. Yes, it's not a message that we are expanding married priests actively, but if I remember the original response to Sandri's talk, there was more concern than merely the status quo. And I want to say I'm thankful that the news from Rome is not a return to the days of Fr. Alexis.

In XC,
J. Andrew

The monks of Holy Resurrection Monastery broke no canons. When they appealed to Rome after Bishop Skurla put them under interdict Rome supported them and ordered Bishop Skurla to immediately rescind his order of interdict. Rome then offered the Romanians their choice of other Greek Catholic jurisdictions to join. Anyone who claims that they were violating canons is misinformed.

Yet another straw loaded upon the poor camel's back.

Brethren,
Bishop John Michael is in communion with Metropolitan William, and he even joined in the enthronement of our Most Reverend Metropolitan.

As a Ruthenian monastic associate of Holy Resurrection Monastery, I would humbly ask that you all stop heaping up past issues.

In XC,
J. Andrew

When the monks are attacked with falsehood I will defend them.

I didn't say they broke any canons, I said they did not like abiding those they were under. They thought they had the right to erect other monasteries, the Bishop saw that as his perogative. They then sought canonical release and were granted it. Also please produce the announcement of interdict, a canonical penalty which comes with a formal publishing.

A warning - heed it!

If the tenor of this conversation continues unabated, the thread will be locked and likely removed.

Words such as 'interdict' which have specific meaning ought not be bandied about as though they can be substituted in the common parlance for any old expression of disagreement. Deacon Lance has asked a direct question which merits an answer or a retraction of the allegation made. I anticipate that one or the other will be forthcoming in short order.

The fervor which some folks are devoting to pre-emptively disparaging the hierarchy might be better addressed to prayer that we see a swift return to our traditions, instead of speculating with all the bold assurance of a storefront crystal-ball psychic as to how things will play out. Last I knew, Nostradamus was not listed among the forum membership.

Many years,

Neil