www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology sexual guidelines for clerics

Dear Spdundas,

Why does it have to be that "the Latins" are uptight about sexual matters? Why can't it be that "the Latins" are trying to understand a situation which they don't have to deal with much, since the priests of their Church are celibate?

This matter is something that has interested me in the past and interests me still, not because I'm a sex-crazy twenty year old, but because among other things, this twenty year old is thinking (seriously, but not seriously...you know? I don't know how to express it) that he might have a vocation to the priesthood (my own priest, bishop, my priest-uncle, and some folks at my church have told me I might have it, and I've had it in the back of my head since I was a kid).

Since the whole married priesthood thing is something that directly affects my Church and most of ours, I think discussion about it is healthy and necessary, and not a reflection on how sex-crazed or uptight the topic starter or his/her Church is.

Spdundas,
I agree with MorEphrem (by the way, MorEphrem, I am a twenty-year old seminarian in the Latin Church). Anyone familiar with western Catholicism knows that celibacy is definitely an issue both among Catholics and non-Catholics and Catholics themselves.
I have to agree with everything Brendan wrote. I was unaware that Divine Liturgy was normally not celebrated daily and the likening to other types of fasting makes perfect sense. I think that which is mentioned by Edwin and Serge can only be rectified by a better understanding of fasting. No offense to them, but the arguments posted sound very secular and Protestant. I say secular because of the argument that harkens to the argument against the hierarchical structure of the Church. The obligatory rules so looked down upon by others are actually being looked at from a disproportional perspective (this also comes up in the contraception and homosexuality debates). I say Protestant because of Protestantism's lack of understanding the connection between the physical and spiritual. I believe Brendan called the human person "an intricately linked unit of body and soul." I wholeheartedly agree with his statement that "to assert that we can try to completely focus spiritually when we are not completely focused physically just doesn't make a lot of sense to Orthodox spirituality." This is true in Catholicism as well. This is why the notion of fasting seems to confuse many Protestants.
Edwin and Serge, it is true that Catholicism holds that there is a hierarchy of goods. A celibate life is considered a higher state than marriage. This however, does NOT mean that marriage is not desired or good. Another example that comes to mind is that of food and water. Both are necessary, but one can live longer without food than without water. Both being good, water is a higher "good" than food is.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say in their article on "fasting": (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/)
"Contrary to the groundless assertions of these sectaries, moralists are one in maintaining that a natural law inculcates the necessity of fasting because every rational creature is bound to labour intelligently for the subjugation of concupiscence. As a consequence, rational creatures are logically obliged to adopt means commensurate with the attainment of this end (see MORTIFICATION). Amongst the means naturally subserving this purpose fasting lays claim to a place of primary importance. The function of positive law is to intervene in designating days whereon this obligation must be observed, as well as the manner in which the same obligation is to be discharged on days authoritatively appointed.
"What pertains to the origin as well as to the historical development of this obligation in the Church may be gleaned easily from the articles on ABSTINENCE and BLACK FAST. The law of fasting ecclesiastical in its genius, is unwritten in its origin, and consequently must be understood and applied with due regard for the customs of various times and places. See the corresponding historico-archaeological articles in the various modern dictionaries and encyclopedias of Christian Archaeology, e.g. Martigny, Kraus, Smith and Cheetham, Cabrol and Leclercq. Details will be found under ADVENT; LENT; FRIDAY; SATURDAY; VIGIL; EMBER DAYS."
"Inasmuch as fasting considered as a function of the virtue of temperance bears such a relation to the promotion of man's spiritual well-being (see Lenten Preface in the Roman Missal), it certainly embodies an obligation generally serious. To this a priori reason may be added what Church history unfolds concerning the grave penalties attached to transgressions of this law."
God bless,
Michael

Brendan,
Do you have a source that you can give me where I could find information similar to that which you gave me regarding the frequency at which Mass/Divine Liturgy was celebrated? Also, I have a source that says Christian clerics in the early Church were bound to continence after ordination (the writer cites St. Paul living with his wife as brother and sister do). Do you have any information as to when this tradition was changed to married clergy being able to engage in conjugal acts after ordination?
God bless,
Michael

Serge,
Sorry, my earlier post should have had "Anastasios" in place of your name.

Edwin,
Regarding your quote: "What a monopoly on the episcopacy! Yet we did have a "Tradition" of married bishops," unless you have other information, the only married bishops that I am familiar with in Christian history are those among the Arians. From what I have read, the Arians would often impose fellow Arians to episcopates. They would allow for them to be married. Based on this information, there were married bishops, but that was illicit because it was faulty teaching on the part of heretics.
God bless,
Michael

Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Edwin wrote: >>The rule that bishops must come from monasteries is another post-NT development that ignores the apostolic writings of Paul. Latin catechisms of the recent past used to depict the monastic tradition as being "better" than the "sacramental" status of marriage.<<
Dear Edwin I'm afraid you didn't read all epistels of St. Paul. Arguing that marriage is better than celibacy and virginity because it is Sacrament, contradicts pauline teachings in 7th chapter of the 1st epistle to Corinthians. Of course celibacy choosen for the sake of God's Kingdom has to be considerd, as you read in gospel according to St. Matthew, in 19th chapter.
In Christ
Piotr C

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Piotr C ]

LoveGod,

Not Protestant at all. Why is every approach to a particular understanding has to be understood either as a Latin Catholic or Protestant. Cannot the West accept that other Catholics can be different without being labelled Protestant? It is not the East that has separated body and soul, but a separatist mentality that divorces the two and devalues one.

You wrote: "I have a source that says Christian clerics in the early Church were bound to continence after ordination (the writer cites St. Paul living with his wife as brother and sister do). Do you have any information as to when this tradition was changed to married clergy being able to engage in conjugal acts after ordination?"

You have a faulty source and your chronology of tradition is *ss-backwards.

As for married bishops, I would recommend you get more acquainted with some of the Cappadocians (both Gregorys) who were married bishops who had wives that were deaconesses. Why would a married bishop be considered a heretical teaching or Arian? What does Paul write concerning the qualifications of a bishop/overseer?


Piotr,

Yes, but many Christians did think the world was going to end soon, hence Paul's later change from a missionary to a pastoraly-minded apostle. Terms like "Son of Man" fell out of use because it too referred to an eschatological-not yet. The search for a pre-eschatological christology began with the concerns of Jesus' life and times (the Gospels were written decades after the epistle, which by the way, rarely mention anything about Jesus' earthly life). Soon, the latest Gospel concentrates on a christology of a pre-existent Son of God. Likewise, marriage became more of a vehicle to sustain salvation in the immediate sphere of human life as the church awaited the end. Like Christ and the Church, marriage became a relationship between husbands and wives - a little church. Celibacy was considered to be a gift.

Please discuss Paul's teachings on celibacy as it relates to (1) his teaching on his right of an apostle to have a wife and (2) Jesus' instructions on marriage as it is compared to celibacy.

[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

You know, I figured you were older...so I finally find out you're my age, and I look for an email address in your profile (since I don't know many people my age who are also good Christians), and I don't find one? That's messed up, dude... :p

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Dear Friends,

Writings of the Church Fathers in the Eastern Orthodox Church speak of three martyrs in the Church:
1) The Red Martyr was the martyr whose life blood was shed fertilizing the Church and inspiring new converts---these martyrs may have been married, celibate, chaste, young or old, male or female.
2) The White Martyr was the celibate monastic, hermit, anchorite who martyred their passions and thus inspired new converts by their conquering the passions and living the Christian Life. This martyrdom came to be the more dominant martyrdom after the Red Martyrs became fewer due to the position of the Holy Church in the world.
3) The Green Martyr was the righteous married couple who by living the chaste and holy life of a Christian witnessed that one can live in the world yet not be of the world. These couples are the symbol that Christ spoke of when he compared himself to the Bride groom and the Church as his bride. These green martyrs today can be a great inspiration to those who are not of the Faith or who are weak in the faith---they show that Christianity can be lived by one who is not a monk, nun, or priest and thus serve to encourage others to sainthood and theosis.

Each is called to a special calling by God. I feel many divorces would never be if our people would understand that both celibacy and marriage are callings from God. When we answer God's calling we are blest---our marriages are blest and those who are called to celibacy are blest. If we assume that all men who are called to be orthodox/eastern catholic priests must be celibate we fail to recognize what the early church and church fathers saw, taught and practiced---that marriage is also a martyrdom equal to celibacy to those who practice is correctly. I pray that we may all discern God's calling to us that we may serve Him and his Holy Church as true witnesses.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Edwin,
I am not denying the validity of eastern practices. I called some of your statements "protestant" because they seemed to deny the value of denial of the physical as a tool for strengthening the spiritual. Your early comments regarding sexual abstinence/fasting seemed to focus on a sort of "slamming" of the Sacrament of Marriage and the conjugal act as a defilement. This is an argument that I hear from Protestant circles because they ignore the meaning and importance of fasting.
Concerning married bishops, I am familiar with St. Paul's writings. My argument concerned the involvement of bishops in the conjugal act. As my source, "Celibacy Dates Back to the Apostles" by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, STD, indicated, St. Paul writes that the married Apostles lived with their wives as brother and sister do (1 Cor 9:5). He uses the Greek words "adelphaen gynaika" to describe such women. This translates as "sister-wife." Fr. Zimmerman discusses the writings of St. Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) extensively.
He also quotes Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.'s "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" a lot.
Fr. Zimmerman says that Bishop Gregory the Elder of Nanziansus was married and fathered Bishop St. Gregory Nazianzen. Thus, I do not deny the fact that there were married bishops. What I do argue against is a bishop continuing to engage in the conjugal act with his wife after being ordained a bishop. The Arians allowed for this to happen with thier bishops continuing to father children whereas orthodox bishops would observe continence. From this I deduce the practice of only ordaining men who are not married (whether widowers or monks) to the episcopacy in the east must have evolved from the fact that they must remain continent anyway so why be married. Maybe someone who is of an eastern Church would be able to say more on that.
God bless,
Michael

MorEphrem,
I thought I did have my email posted. It's mikeyd81@hotmail.com

Michael,

I assume you a seminarian at the FSSP Seminary of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Denton, NE? I hope the reason you are asking these questions isn't because your seminary is teaching that married priests were continent and the practice of the Eastern Churches is an abberation that is only to be tolerated until thay can be forced to give it up nonsense. The book you refer to is so poorly written and researched from a scholarly viewpoint it does not even merit discussion. Those who suscribe to such theories are trying to reinvent history to support their agenda.

What is even the point of arguing over the issue? The Church has constantly taught and reaffirmed that clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. The only reason I can see why one would try to argue it is doctrine is if they wish to see married clergy cease to exist in the Church, East and West.

If I seem combative I apologize. It is just that Many Latin traditionalists I have had experience with all have this celibacy hangup and denigrate our Eastern tradition. I hope you are not one of them. I offer you my prayers as you discern your vocation.

In Christ,
Lance, (married) deacon candidate

Lance,
I am a seminary for the diocese, but we have frequent interaction with the FSSP seminarians just down the road; they are very learned men.
I have no qualms about eastern practices and very much understand that celibacy is a discipline and not doctrine. I am trying to understand its history in order to not only understand it better, but to provide a more informative answer to others who ask about it.
Do you have a better source on the history of celibacy that I could obtain?
God bless.

Brendan,
I have inquired about the history of daily Mass in the west at EWTN's History forum and received the answer that celibacy and daily Mass are not connected. Dr. Carrol states that celibacy was required in the west since the seventh century and daily Mass began centuries before that (http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=233603&PG=Forum3&Pgnu=1&source=E).
God bless,
Michael

"Your early comments regarding sexual abstinence/fasting seemed to focus on a sort of "slamming" of the Sacrament of Marriage and the conjugal act as a defilement."

LoveGod,

Someone obviously hasn't read my posts. If you actually read them you will see the exact opposite. :rolleyes:

Your sources have been discussed at lengthh on this forum before. They are poor scholarly works.

Oh boy...here we go again...with a guy accusing Orthodox for being too Protestant by not having clear connection between spiritual and physical.

I have to say that you're mistaken. The Eastern Christianity (both Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox) are the FIRST to say that the Physical and Spiritual are totally connected! In fact we are the FIRST to be called Christians.

That's why we are super crazy about Easter...the Resurrection...to look forward to our own. Which death separates it.

The Byzantine Church (Catholic & Orthodox) are extremely sensual Church...uses of Icons, Incenses, chanting, gestures, etc... In fact...Icons are almost the closest thing to a real person...that's why we incense to it...to give respect and homage to the person shown on the icons...that they are among us spiritually as it's indicated in the phyisical icons.

So, having an idea that Orthodoxy have poor understanding between phyisical and spiritual is lucirious!!! It's the Latins that have poor connection between spiritual and phyisical. But sure..the Protestants have so much poorer understanding.

I always hear priests in the Roman Church saying...that it's "natural" for humans to die..etc. NOT SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sometimes I'd like to stand up and say, "NO!!!"

A lot of times I feel that only very very few things that the Romans teach are heretical...(it's not the right word...doesn't mean heresy...but more like...just understanding things very poorly...that it's poorly explained...etc. Make sense?).

Pope John Paul II said that the true light comes from the EAST (Byzantine Christianity). And that the whole Christianity wouldn't be where it is today without Byzantine Christianity. So...young man...I'm a young man too...and you have a lot to learn from us.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PS...No, I'm not Orthodox...I'm Byzantine Catholic...but I'm sympathetic to Orthodoxy (not all but...).

I really didn't want to continue the argument begun by Edwin and spdundas, but I'll reply just this once. My arguments against Edwin's initial statements, the one I likened to being Protestant, were against his statement and not against eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy. We were discussing fasting and how celibacy/abstinence prior to liturgical celebration follows a similar idea. This isn't a discussion about the validity of neither western nor eastern practices.
God bless,
Michael

LoveGod,

Why do you insist that the approach taken by Eastern Christians are Protestant? I read in your posts:

"If it sounds to me like Latin Catholic, then it is Catholic."

"If it sounds to me not like Latin Catholic, then it must be Protestant."

"Eastern Catholics aren't 'Catholic' because they don't accept the idea that the soul in imprisoned in the body like some Platonic cave."