www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Conference on EC Married Priests

Well, graduate students are not seminarians, which is what was being discussed.

Speaking of seminarians, at St. Vladimir's, which I know best, they live on campus, serve in the chapel, sing in the choir, etc. etc. Almost certainly, then Catholics would not be full members of the community (have their confessions heard by priests there, communicate, etc.) Where the line would be drawn on other things, I can't say. But if there were a significant number of them and they were serving at the altar, singing in the choir, I bet that, even if the OCA leadership and the seminary faculty was OK with it there would be public controversy.

There's great potential for cooperation (and there should be more of it), but lets not oversell it.

If all the Greek Catholics who sing in Orthodox choirs left, there would be an awful lot of parts unsung.

OK, but the informal and independent practice of parishes is different than setting up a formal program at a seminary as the result of an eparchial or higher (Catholic) and synodal (Orthodox) policy.

DMD ... also what is the deal with ordaining Married Episcopal Priests in Latin Rite to the Priesthood vs. letting us ordain married men to the Eastern Rite?

I hope they address that or mention that is is really weird.

If you have a chance to bring it up ... please do so.

Some updates from the Seminar:
CNS [catholicnews.com], US Catholic [uscatholic.org], and an interview on Vatican Radio [en.radiovaticana.va] with presenter Fr Peter Galadza, a married Ukrainian Greek Catholic prelate and professor of Oriental liturgy at the Sheptysky Institute in Ottawa (scroll down to "listen here").

Well, perhaps I am overly sensitive, but I find it amusing - if not troubling - that neither article mentioned that there was an Orthodox presenter at the conference offering a personal perspective on the subject. Knowing Fr. Peter, I am sure that he made the writers aware of that, but apparently it was edited out for one reason or another. Oh well...

I probably shouldn't have posted both links since in reality it is only one single article/news source, CNS/Catholic News Service, not really two articles.

Any comments on the audio interview?
I imagine Fr Tom Loya will also have something to say on his radio program when he returns.

If Fr. Peter is blogging or on here maybe he will give us his impressions.

My understanding from someone who was there is that the whole thing was recorded to offer as podcast eventually. (I was at a symposium here in SF back in Feb. that was recorded and we were told would be on Ancient Faith Radio, but still isn't so just because a group records it and says they have arranged to have it podcast doesn't mean it will be podcast )

I spoke with our bishop a couple of years ago at his visit to our parish.

He had imported a slovakian priest. Seems there is a seminary in Slovakia that produces more priests than it can place locally, and they're all married.

Getting health insurance for the priest and his family was the hardest part of the whole process, he said.

We also had a visiting, quite young, married priest from one of the other Ruthenian eparchies visit and concelebrate a few months ago. (OK, in Las Vegas, we get more than our share of visitors, for some reason a couple of years ago, our little parish actually had three priests concelebrating on Saturday . . .)

hawk

In the near term, the Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. could look for its married priests among more mature men for whom it would represent a "second career". Being retired, they would have their own life and health insurance already, and would not have small children to support. This would ease the financial burden on the eparchies (though I note that the Orthodox manage to support married priests even at very small parishes).

Consideration should also be given to many of the married deacons in our Churches, who are already employed and have learned to balance the demands of family and ministry. If they are already employed, they should be allowed to continue that employment, exercising their ministry principally on Sundays and off-hours. In that position, they could serve as assistant pastors, or provide the Liturgy at parishes today which are served only by a priest who also must serve at several other parishes.

All of these are only transitional schemes, of course. Eventually, our parish are going to have to find some way to sustain the married priesthood from their own resources.

A reasonable compensation package for a priest with a wife and two small children should be something on the order of $75,000 per year, including rectory housing. This would allow his wife to stay at home until their children are grown, meet basic necessities, buy life and health insurance (or pay the employee's share of group insurance provided by the eparchy), and put away some money for their children's education and for retirement. By way of comparison, the manager of your local supermarket probably pulls in something north of $100,000 per year.

So, what does $75,000 mean in practical terms?

Assume a parish with 100 families. That means the average share per family is $750 per year, or $15 per week (rounding up). It would be fatuous to say this is an unsustainable burden, even if one puts this on top of whatever one is already donating each week.

Even for a parish of 50 families, we are only talking about $30 per week. On the average. Some could pay more, others might have to pay less. In cases of extreme poverty, the eparchy might subsidize the salary of the priest by the amount of the stipend already paid to celibate priests.

But still, people--if the Tradition is worth anything to you, you should be willing to support it with your money. And I know we all know people who have been going to church with us for years and years--and who still only drop a dollar in the plate each Sunday.

I agree with Stuart. There may be many married men over the age of 65 (myself included)who sense a vocation to the diaconate or priesthood. I could support my wife on my retirement income and not be a huge burden to the eparchy.
A policy of ordaining older married men would solve many objections to a married priesthood.

One ought to remember that, canonically, the minimum age for ordination to the presbyterate in the ancient Church was 33 (good number, that), which at the time was a man in the fullness of his maturity, verging upon middle age. At a time when life expectancy at age twenty was about 50, this was the equivalent of limiting ordination to men of 50 or more today. There should be no bias on the part of the hierarchy to ordaining middle aged men to the presbyterate, particularly not if the rationale is "getting a good return on investment" for the time and money spent in presbyteral formation at the seminary. But then, I've never been a big fan of seminaries.

Stuart, your high cost of living and high payscales is really evident. Here in rural northcentral PA a supermarket manager makes half of what you quote. I supported a family of five with a single income never more than $43,000. A priest, with the allowances he receives should support a family on $35,000 (plus stipends) and still be relatively comfortable.

I would also think the cost saving of having a rectory for the family would also help with the financial burden. Housing takes up the most form most household budgets (I know it does in mine) and having a house provided to the priest and his family would make a smaller pay check doable. Up keep is much less expensive than a mortgage payment.

In Chicagoland, Stuart's number would be just below the middle of the income needed for a small home and cost of living for a family of 4.

I have serious doubts that any Catholic under the age of 60 would be scandalized by a married priest, here in America. In fact, I would bet a C-note that people would welcome it, even in Latin Rite parishes.