www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Priests called to live in celibacy

No offense, Alex, but I think you are way off base here. The present Pope has been good to our tradition of married priests and has allowed the West limited married priests!

anastasios

I see the answer to this in a parallel with the mail. Unless the letter is specifically addressed to me, then I don't consider it mine. If the Holy Father has something he needs us "easterns" to know, then he'll send the letter, addressed to us. (Probably return receipt requested!)

As I see it, John Paul II, as Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome, etc. is operating within the context of the "Church" where he operates: i.e., the Western Church. We Easterns, as separate Churches, are in communion with him (and the West), but we have to take responsibility --as CHURCHES -- to do what is best for us, and to communicate with him as needed and not to take his every utterance as applicable to us.

Blessings!

Saying and doing are two different things. Our canonical traditions of married clergy are only canonically recognized by Rome in the native, traditional territories of your particular church.
Any "diasporic" church is under the ordinary power of Rome and not there particular hierarchy. Things are changing, however, in effect today in the USA, is a papal ban on the ordination of married men to the priesthood on eastern churches imposed on us during the 1920's. It is still in effect to this day. Two years ago the Byzantine Catholic Metroplitan Judson petioned Rome to reverse this prohibition and was rejected. The Church petitioned again, Rome said they would review it; two years later nothing.

So although it is intuitive to think that our canonical traditions apply to any particular eastern Church, anywhere in the world, they do not.

I do think that Alex raises some serious points that cannot be dismissed by saying he is "missing the boat". Everyday newsbriefs fly about papal decisions, opinions, coments and decrees. It is very hard to understand which "hat" he is wearing. With this particulararticle I am not overly concerned.

I agree with Dr. John, as Eastern Christians, we need to discern the difference. But herein lies the problem. With the exception of the people who post on this forum, most Eastern Catholics are still Uniates, slavishly imitating Roman Catholicss and not knowing the essential differences between our expreesion and understanding of the Faith and the larger Roman Catholics. Some may disagree, however, this is my firm conviction.

It would also be safe to say, despite the repeated and consistent teaching about the Eastern Churches by the Bishop of Rome, that about 90% of the RC's in the world have absolutely no clue regarding the teachings of the Eastern Church, the Fathers, and especially a canonical married clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churhces.

This all leads up to a critical massof ignorance on the subject and the majority of Eastern Catholics would accept this idea of a "necessary" celibate clergy as one of their own.
And they have the support of millions of Roman Catholics who see it that way too. This makes it hard to bring the married clergy back to our churches. I have witnessed prejuidice against married clergy from our own people.

This issue also touches with the greater misconception of Roman Catholic that Roman Catholicism=Catholicism. This gets so confusing that even Eastern Catholics get confused.

The latest edition of the Archeparchial newspaper of Philadelphia reproduced a Catholic News Service article about the "new" generation of seminarians in the Catholic Church. Among the other issues brought up in the article that would concern an educated Eastern Catholic was the conviction of Catholicseminarians that "the Church" should not change it's current positoin on a celibate clergy. Hello? As a future Catholic seminarian of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, who at this point is involved in a serious relationship that will most likely lead to marriage, barring a sudden change in "personal" revelation from my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I concerned over the messge this sends to our people and assert that these "future priests of the Church" do not represent my Church, or my views therein. Of course, The WAY should have provide an editorial piece or commentary, or not republished it at all, but that is another thread altogether.

Ultimately, Catholic media is not very Catholic but veryRoman Catholic. They need to change this, or we need to stop reading it. When a Catholic media source, such as zenit,or CNS report a piece concerning the Eastern Churches, or a Papal statement about them, there are numerous qualifying sentences letting their readers know that these issues deal with "eastern" Catholic Churches. I have never seen such qualifying sentences for issues involving the LAtin Church. When have you ever read an opening sentence from an aforementioned press service such as: "Acting as Patriarch of the West, the Pope John Paul II issued a decree concering the fundamental importance of a celibate clergy in the Roman Catholic Church".

In short, and I am not so good at this , they need to clarify more.

Sinner,
Ality

An interesting sidebar to this -- my wife and I were watching a news program a few nights ago wherein two Roman Catholic scholars were discussing the celibacy issue. When one scholar (I guess you would call him the "liberal" one) mentioned that the Eastern Churches do not have a celibate priesthood as mandatory matter, the other scholar intoned that celibacy was always the norm for the church but that in the Eastern Churches it was relaxed due to human weakness (!).

Obviously there was a difference of opinion expressed by these two RC scholars -- but we were aghast that one of them could say what he did with a straight face. That speaks volumes, ISTM, about the attitudes that persist in RC circles about the Eastern Churches -- whether Catholic or Orthodox. Very, very condescending, still, after all these years.

Brendan

Dear Ality and Brendan,

I believe you have the "rites" of this issue .

Brendan is right, absolutely - RC scholarship, such as that book on celibacy that I had the privilege of reviewing here before the Crash, insists that even "IF" Eastern clergy had wives, they lived together as brother and sister (!).

And what planet are they living on?

The fact that there are Anglican and Lutheran (and Polish National Catholic) clergy converts to Catholicism who continue to cohabit with their wives DOESN'T mean there is a change of policy here.

It is, sorry, a political thing meant to entice others. But the fact they are married is seen as a kind of "well, they are and that's that, what can we do about it?"

And of course future clergy from the Anglican Use could not marry.

Rome has turned a blind eye to married clergy in our Particular Churches for other reasons. It is not part of a concerted policy to allow or approve of them.

I wish it were otherwise.

The good news, of course, is that some of our bishops are going ahead and ordaining married clergy anyway, come Rome or high water.

God bless,

Alex

Dear friends in Christ:

From the point of view of the Latin Church, priestly celibacy is an ideal she aims and wishes for the Universal Church. But she also values the customs and practices of the Churches of the East, including her married clergy. Bolstered by Pope Paul's encyclical on the matter, which clearly recognizes the married clergy of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, and Pope John Paul II's exhortation for the Eastern Catholics to recapture their own traditions, priestly celibacy pertains ONLY to the Latin Church.

The problem is that certain Eastern Catholics seem to distrust any pronouncements made by the Holy Father to the contrary. And, it shows that some members of the Eastern Catholic hierarchy continue to "fear" offending the Latin hierarchy.

I think you, Eastern, should revive/recapture/nurture your own rich ecclesiastical patrimony. (Just keep the good "Western" things, such as the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross!)

The discipline of priestly celibacy is not THAT inflexible in the Latin Church. As Alex has previously declared, Anglican and , to a certain extent, Lutheran, married clergy may be ordained into the Catholic priesthood. A case in point is the relatively recent conversion of Fr. Burns K. Seeley, married with four children, of the Episcopalian clergy, where he was assisted in his journey by the late Fr. Hardon, S.J. Armed with a recommendation from the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, Pope John Paull II allowed his ordination.

Which is the better discipline: priestly celibacy or married clergy? Frankly, I personally do not know. Or, as my gradfather used to say: que sera, sera!

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

I think the statement quoted above explains why "certain Eastern Catholics seem to distrust any pronouncements made by the Holy Father to the contrary", regardless of how much Rome respects Eastern traditions. When the rest of us, minus a few, were saying above that the Holy Father's statement seems to have applied to the Latin Church alone, you (nothing against you, brother) bring us the idea that the Latin Church wishes that there be a celibate priesthood in the *Universal* (i.e., not exclusively Latin) Church, and that is scary. Not that there is anything wrong with celibacy -- there isn't. But if it is really as you say, and Rome wishes this in an ideal situation for the entire Church, then that's not a far ways away from Eastern Catholic Churches being mere Rites under Rome; that's the way I see it, anyway, and that is scary.

Amado,
While I agree that at times what you have said above appears to be the truth, is there some document or statments by the Holy Father or from the Vatican that says it?

I agree with what Mor Ephrem has to say, but I disagree with you that this is something offical.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."[70] Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"[71] they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.[72]

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.[73] Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.


Your brother in Christ,
David

After reading the quote refering to us from the Latin canon: "This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.[73]"

why do I get the feeling that they are sort of tossing us a fish? "considered legitimate"? Gee, thanks. We'd have never known.

Grrrrrrr.

(Well, blessings too (as usual), to those who deserve them.)

For "many" centuries?

Like maybe only ten or thirteen and not twenty since the Apostles?

"Considered legitimate"

On the surface, it just sounds like a "comforting word" to those Latins who don't know about the married priesthood, a way to explain it.

But if it's in the Canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches, then it's a poor choice of words, I think.

More Ephrem-

I looked into my Code of Eastern Canons Book. I find no mention explicitly of the Eastern Churches being canonically entitled to a married presbyterate, similar to the Latin Canon explicitly codifying a celibate clergy.

Only wives are metnioned when it is an issue that would involve them, such as rights of property to family and children in the spouse's (priest) death.

That it is not explicitly stated that candidates for the priesthood can be married, or celibate, depending on their personal calling translates, to me, that Rome does not want to confront it, much less create a Canon that specifically garauntees us a right to ordaining married men to the priesthood.

At least that is how I see things.
Ality

Huh? How can you aim and wish for a celibate clergy in the UNIVERSALChurch, BUT"value the customs and practices" of the East? You are saying two different things here. The Universal Church is not JUST the Roman Catholic Church. The Universal Church is every Catholic Church in sacramental union with each other and the Bishop of Rome, our common ecuemenical hierarch. To take "aim" is a military term to point or direct at with a weapon.
In your context the Latin Church is aiming at making prieslty celibacy the norm, the ideal for which we strive, for the entire Church Universal. If that idealshould become the norm, then the Latin Church is not respecting the ancient canons of the Eastern Churches. And why should the Latin Church think that they should have the right to impose that standard on the Universal Church? She can only do so if She feels that She is superior to all other churches, or equates Herself as being synonimous with and exclusively the Universal Church.

As a personal prayer for individuals, I have no problem with Eastern Catholic who who wish to say the rosary. As an institutional mandate, No!

How can you serioulsy say to Eastern Catholics that you wish us to return to our traditions and then state that YOU think we should keep Stations of the Cross? Such a ritual during Lent is in absolute contrast to the whole meaing of Lent for Eastern Christians.

I really hope you were kidding. But you did not put one of those smilly faces on your post at the end so I think that you meant it.

If you are serious about your statement above, then I believe that you are insincere about truly wanting us to be real Eastern Orthodox Catholics.

I tell you what, I will support Stations of the Cross in our church, IF you, Romans, reinstate an icon screen in your church, re-introduce chant in your liturgy, and do away with Eucharistic Ministers!

In fraternal Christian Love
Ality

The answer to your quandary is quite simple: The Roman Church considers itself the Universal Church. We Easterners don't fit into the equation. Of course, when someone wants to show how "catholic" (=universal) the Church is, then we get trotted out -- all 22 rites of us even if the 'rite' (not Church, mind you) consists of only a handful of people.

Thus, in the West: "Universal Church" = "Roman Catholic Church" including anybody who is 'in submission' to the Roman See. They don't like to admit that there are "other Churches" that are as legitimate as the Roman Church. While there are some Roman Catholic clergy and laity who are just tickled to death to be with their Eastern brethren and sistren, the overwhelmingly vast majority don't even know we exist, and when they do so, it is more like the attitude regarding the 'looney Aunt' who is kept in the attic when company calls.

In some ways, we Easterns should be grateful: if they don't know we exist, the less chance there is that they will feel the filial concern to come and "help" us out and "fix" things. (QUICK!! Everybody start speaking Ukrainian, Greek or Arabic. Maybe it'll scare 'em off!)

To once again quote Blessed Elmer of Fudd: "Be afwaid. Be vewy, vewy afraid."

Blessings!