It is reported at Catholic Answers that Fr. Francis, host of EWTN's "Life on the Rock" show has been given a leave of abscence so he can discern his vocation after becoming involved with a widow.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195503
(short thread)

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=195457
(long thread: 15 pages)

There is a thread on the prayer forum (at this website) about Fr. Francis of EWTN. But that is an inappropriate place for discussion. So, I'm starting this thread in case anyone wants to discuss the matter. (However, the second thread at Catholic Answers, at 15 pages, is pretty thorough).

-- John

I am personally thankful that Grace is larger than our follies.

JOHN:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!!

Certainly this is a shock. I have to wonder about the example set for young people who have come to look up to him. Does his example say that vows are until we decide that we want to break them? Does this carry over to yung people's thinking about marriage? (Hey, if a priest can decide to go back on his vows, why should I worry about my marriage being 'until death do us part"?)

Aside from all the arguments one way or another about celibacy being a rule for all Latin priests, the man is a monastic. I have to wonder, too, where his superior was in all this. Did he have too much free time? How could he be away from the monastery so much?

In another time, all Catholic priests were trained to avoid "personal friendships" that might endanger their vow of celibacy. Is this no longer the case for religious order priests?

My prayers for Father Francis Mary.

In Christ,

BOB

Prayers for Father Francis, the widow and her children, EWTN and the LOTR youth.

Gordo

dont be gossip mongers
so what he decided to leave
the church is not him and is much larger than him
stephanos I

Prayers for Father Francis Mary are in order.

Prayers for that super-cheesy and creepy show Life on the Rock, too...

Alexis

Prayers for Fr. Francis and all in this situation.

Personally, I'm sorry for the people involved . . . to a point. After that, there is such a thing as free will, and vows, and knowing better, and accountability, and so on.

It just really torques my engine that some of the people (like him) --who make a living telling the rest of us what to do-- are now doing what he condemned. I know: plenty of men and women are true to their vows. God bless them. It's the hypocrites I have very little patience for anymore. Lord have mercy.

I've seen the end result, too. I've met a man who is a former priest. He gave it all up for a woman. Now she's dead; and he's a lonely old widower, and perhaps an alcoholic, who lives with a profound sense that he threw his vocation away for a relationship that has passed. His case is very sad. It is also very instructive. TSometimes the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

-- John

Remedies and regularization processes are in place for just such an occurence for a reason.

It is not for us to speculate as (as far as I can tell) no one on the forum is involved with this situation.

Invariably some people will leave the priestly and religous life. It is then our hope and prayer that they can deal with the Church's wisdom on these matters. The alternative has been mistress-keeping, narcessitic bitterness, schism and apostacy on the parts of some others who have been in vow-challenging situations. I think we are all agreed, that serves no good end.

So prayers for this friar, but no gossip please. It accomplishes nothing edifying, and gives us an opportunity to stain our souls with sin.

You are not a fan of LOTR?

I agree - it can be cheesy...but "creepy"?

Also, why the warnings (speaking primarily to Father Stephanos now) about gossip mongering? None of us are doing that here. There is an element of scandal here to be sure, but at the same time, to Simple Sinner's point, at least Fr. Francis (and EWTN) has the integrity to step back and properly discern what his next steps should be. He could have handled this far worse, such as the Latin Catholic priest that lived across the street from us in Wisconsin who got in the pulpit one Sunday and announced he was tired of priesthood and was getting married by the JP the next day to one of the parishioners. I also know the priest that was called in to succeed him and repair the damage there, which was considerable.

I guess personally I am not as bothered by it on an emotional level. Perhaps it is because I have no skin in the game and am not particularly attached to EWTN like some are. But it is also because we do not know that he has broken any vow (nor do I care to know) and the woman involved is not married, but a widow with children. If he decides to give up religious life and his priestly ministry in order to enter married life, I can only say God bless him and his new family and wish him well as a father and husband. I hope he pursues the proper dispensations and that the process of laicization goes quickly.

I also hope he adjusts well to no longer having a public platform. However this is resolved, I seriously doubt he will be put in front of a camera again, at least not at EWTN. (Although there are notable exceptions to this, such as Amy Welborn and her husband who is a former Catholic priest, both of whom are published authors and popular speakers.)

God bless,

Gordo

WOW, Gordo: well said.

-- John

This is really sad because Father Francis becomes yet another example of someone making a key decision according to how he feels and not according to the Church's teaching. Feelings can be an incredibly powerful force and at the same time they can be incredibly wrong.

I can imagine that discerning one's vocation may not be the first decision that's made; if a seminarian has a stubborn personality, he can lead himself down the wrong path for some time. Let's reserve our reaction to when Fr. Francis has made a decision in discerning his vocation. Let's pray that he moves prayerfully forward.

Terry

Well, it's just the music, mixed with the guitars, mixed with the friars who think people my age really like the sound of that music, etc...it's creepy like The Wizard of Oz or Dumbo is creepy. Something just doesn't feel quite right to me.

Alexis

His words have not been creepy.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but...

I have been watching EWTN since 1996 and I've noticed that two of the MFVA (Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word) priests who used to serve there, namely Fr. John Mary and Fr. Augustine Mary, also disappeared long ago with a trace.

Before Fr. Francis Mary was ordained, Fr. Augustine was the "happy face" among the friars.

Does anybody know what happened to these two priests?

Fr. Agustine serves as a diocesan(sp) priest.

Fr. John is happy and doing well.

LOTR is cheesy. It's more of the happy, clappy Jesus mentality that seemed to originate in the 1970s. However, I don't know anything personally about the priest. I suppose there are two ways you can look at this. Perhaps this is a crisis in the priest's life that he will resolve and return to a life of genuine service. Or maybe he is in the wrong place and needs to do something else to avoid doing major damage in the future. Like I said, I don't know him, so it's hard to tell. But it has been my experience that some in the priesthood might have done the Church a greater service by doing anything else.

Didn't see this thread in Town Hall until now and I originally posted this in the prayer section:

Having had a relative and a friend, both good and examplary men, involved in very, very similar situations I can sympathize with the hurt and heartache this causes for everyone. One thing I will say is there is NO scandal here. Father Francis has done the right thing in the course he has undertaken.
"Once a priest, always a priest". This axiom is true in the Catholic Church, I can't speak for other churches. Even though a priest can be relieved of his priestly duties,["laicized"], he is still a priest and forbidden to perform priestly duties. The relative I write of was my uncle, of blessed memory, and I vividly remember seeing him at the final viewing at my grandmother's funeral quietly and discreetly give her his priestly blessing. The one and only time he exercised the priestly office after being relieved of the duty.

Pray for your priest and for all priests. Incessantly!

That there is NO scandal involved if a priest breaks his vow of celibacy to get married is your own opinion.

Just a question on this. I understand priests in orders take vows, but diocesan priests make promises not vows. Is this correct?

Only the scandal that you create. Priests are human. We are all human, to err is human. As one who personally knows the agony of the situation, it is not easy for anyone. It is much easier to condemn than forgive.

Having consulted Webster's I will retract my statement that there is "NO scandal" involved. The "degree", for lack of a better term, of scandal or our perception of what is deemed scandalous is left to each of us to discern.

Lord have mercy,
Bill

I don't know who's making any condemnation here ? I certainly won't condemn Father Francis Mary Stone if he leaves the priesthood to marry, but I would tell him in no uncertain terms that his actions are contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, something I have no doubt he's already aware of.

Yes, ByzanTN, LOTR seems to me, also, just very cheesy. It's uncomfortably Protestant in appearance, although perhaps not in content (and that's coming from an ex-Protestant...).

Alexis

Gordo,
God bless you for your graciousness and mercy. My thoughts are the same as yours on this and it saddens me, reading some other Catholic forums, to see how bitter and vicious some people will be over this.

Joe

I don't find this scandalous. Granted, Fr. Francis was a religious, but given the fact that being a married diocesan priest is not an option for Roman Catholics, isn't there not much difference being being a celibate diocesan priest and a religious? I believe that when Roman Catholic priests become Orthodox, they are given permission by many Bishops to marry since they did not have an opportunity to marry before ordination.

Personally, I think that the mandatory celibacy rule creates problems like this because there are many young men who are severely conflicted and perhaps they decide to go into the priesthood because they haven't "found someone" or simply because their desire to be a priest is greater than their desire to be married. Also, this mandatory celibacy for priesthood sets up the priesthood as if it is a parallel sacrament to marriage, i.e. you can marry the Church or you can mary a spouse. But I think this distorts the very nature of the priesthood. And I think that it is this distorted view of the priesthood that causes the scandal.

Joe

"There are many young men who are severely conflicted and perhaps they decide to go into the priesthood because they haven't 'found someone' or simply because their desire to be a priest is greater than their desire to be married."

That is a poor reason to enter the priesthood or to enter the religious life. This highlights the importance of discernment and whether or not the vocation chosen is right and proper for one's temperament and if it is what God wants from us.

Terry

Pani Rose, you mentioned Fr. Augustine is serving as a Diocesan priest. Do you know where? He is a great blessing to the Church, wherever he is.

Joe,

In this case, though, Fr. Francis actually broke off his engagement with a woman in order to study for the priesthood. He was working as an accountant, making pretty good money, too, as I understand it.

KIM, the Evil One will pounce on the smallest details to derail any vocation, and we don't know what those details are in this case (I don't even want to know, I'll just prayer for the man).

As to the distinction between diocesan and order priests, the latter have a "spirit" to follow, and brothers who are intended to care for them; diocesan priests are "on their own", once they are ordained. "On their own" in the sense that if they want help in their spiritual life, they must seek it out; there is no mandatory spiritual direction or means of formation entailed by their Ordination.

Best regards,
Michael

From the Catholic perspective, I would say that I beleive, based on what the Church teaches, that the desire for priesthood should be greater than the desire for marriage, if indeed one is called to the priesthood. A man who feels that he is called to serve God, should be willing to renounce EVERYTHING that the world offers, even the great goods of marriage, family, etc., for the greater good of the Church. Personally, I would not want to be both married and a priest at the same time. I would fear putting my family's well-being ahead of my concern for my spiritual children. (Please note that I do not mean to denigrate married priests, the church has been blesses with their service for centuries). However, the married priesthood is a toleration, celibacy is held in higher esteem.



I thought that these Canons from Session XXIV on Celibacy from the Council of Trent are interesting

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema

It is interesting that Trent says that: "God refuses not that gift(celibacy) to those who ask for it rightly."
It seems to me, that the Catholic Church teaches that those who are called to religious life, or priesthood (Diocesan or Secular) will be granted the grace to live a fulfilled celibate life, provided they seek to do so for the Kingdom of God.

What a tragedy that such a viewpoint is tolerated or accepted.

As an Orthodox I do not accept the Council of Trent of course. Yet, it is true that Orthodoxy has seen celibacy as a higher calling (though without dogmatically defining it as such). I will point out though that in the early church, celibacy was attached to monasticism, and it was monasticism that was considered the high calling, not holy orders. Indeed, ancient monks often tried to run away and had to be forced to be ordained.

It is interesting that you speak of married priesthood as something "to be tolerated." This clearly shows the view that the married priesthood is somehow a second-class priesthood. This opens up a huge discussion that ought to have its own thread; but I see the Churches as historically having views of marriage, monasticism, and Holy Orders that are times rather confusing and in tension.

I think the antidote to these problems is a return to the original New Testament ideas of Church leadership and marriage. Currently, we are closer to this in Orthodoxy, but both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches could continue to revisit the nature of priesthood and marriage in light of the New Testament.

Joe

Imagine (and people don't flame me please) if Fr. Francis, or another priest in his situation, were allowed by oiconomia to marry and resume life as a parish priest. Imagine the good that could be done in that. Must we never bend the rules?

Joe

I fail to see the joy in speculating about bending rules we do not have the authority to bend.

Terry

It is not an issue of joy or sorrow. No one is saying that this is a great thing that has happened. It is certainly not ideal. But everyone in this world deserves an advocate and friend, so I will advocate for mercy and oiconomia.

Joe

Will you call his bishop?

And I advocate on Fr. Francis' behalf not because of anyone here, but because of the viciousness I have seen on other forums and blogs; especially the Catholic Answers forum. And that Fr. Francis should become the object of such scorn and gossip shows how much some people misunderstand the nature of the priesthood and the nature of the Church. A priest is a man; he is a man called to perform a specific function and occupy a specify office in the Church. His authority comes from his fulfilling that office. He is not on a "higher plane" or "married to the Church" in a way that we are not. This is why this false parallelism set up between marriage and priesthood gives people such a distorted view of the Church. By baptism we are all married to Christ as members of the Church. We are the bride of Christ. The priest doesn't marry us, the priest marries Christ. But all Christians marry Christ, otherwise they are not a part of the bride. I think that while there is some value in the image of priest as alter Christus, I think that it can be overdone. Some of the early fathers also talked about the Bishop as the icon of God the Father and as the one who stands in the place of God the father. Yet we cannot take this too far either. The priest is still a member of the Church, not someone married to the Church. And if being married to Christ means that we cannot be married to a person on this earth, then none of us should be married.

Also, I have to say that we often have unrealistic expectations of our priests. We expect the priests to do everything, to bear everywhere at the drop of a hat, to have no serious personal problems, and to have no life except that dedicated to us. And I think that this is not in accordance with the New Testament and it is a way that we, as laity, shirk off our own responsibility as priests in Christ's Church.

Joe

What good would that do? Why should his bishop care about what I think? And it is none of my business anyway. But since this is a discussion thread and I prefer not to discuss Fr. Francis himself (since this is gossip), I simply offer some thoughts of mine on situations like these, for what they are worth; which is perhaps not much.

Joe

It would not be his bishop but his religious superior (just a needed pedantic moment in this strange thread)

You know, I understand that rules are rules but it seems to me that those, and I am not pointing fingers at any particular person, who get so bent out of shape about "rule breaking" have a problem. I do not see God getting angry when we break HIS rules every day. He consistently responds to us in grace and mercy. SO to me it smacks of hypocrisy and self righteousness and proud looking eyes, as the book of Proverbs calls it, to get upset. The only people who have a RIGHT to be upset are his fellow monks. The rest of us need to take a chill pill and quit griping about the faults of others when we are as guilty as they are. And yes, I am suggesting that every one of us is as guilty as Fr Francis. Who among us has never broken a vow? WHo has never had second thoughts? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Jason

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch. (2) SOME Roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment�.(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been.


Joe this argument runs into problems at two different levels. Young men in the Orthodox world who choose monastic priesthood will easily end up in the same sort of predicament at different times... And marriage was an option for them, but they chose to take those vows. Those that have pursued ordination after marriage are then in predicaments with death and divorce also - they may want to remarry, in fact some do.

"Mandatory celibacy" is a misnomer. It is optional - and that is the option one takes in the Latin or wider monastic life when one pursues priesthood therein.

No one is forced into priesthood. (At least no one should be!) And when the decision is made to pursue this call, it is done so in the context of the canons and disciplines available.

Let's all join in prayers for Father Francis. And let's all refrain from judgement or gossip - it is NOT our business.

Jason, well said. God bless you.

Joe

We also need to remember, as was said in another thread, we worship the Gospel Book, not a Canon Law book. Canon law is NOT God's law. It is the rules of men set down to organize the Church. Flame or disagree if you will but at the judgment you wont find any canon law books on the table for reference.

Jason

"He is not on a 'higher plane' or 'married to the Church' in a way that we are not. This is why this false parallelism set up between marriage and priesthood gives people such a distorted view of the Church."

I would not judge the qualitative differences between the vocation of a priest and a laymen, but a distinction does exist. Perhaps it is a distinction of occasion.

Spiritual marriage, being a spiritual father to his flock, has meditative roots in western monasticism. A married priest can be more concerned with worldly matters if he were to love his wife and children than a priest whose interest centers on his duties to his parish. The historical context of the development of the doctrine is interesting too. There is a certain wisdom in this doctrine and the justifications of priestly celibacy.

I would have to disagree with your opinion that an analogous depiction of the vocation of priesthood is distorted. It does not fully represent all priests, but it does represent the historical and current norm of Roman Catholic priesthood.

Terry

His religious superior would have the authority to write a special dispensation?

Fr. Francis, and the rest of his religious community, have been inadvertently referred to in this thread as "monks."

The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word is not a monastic order. The priests and brothers are members of a clerical religious congregation, hence they arecalled "friars." Even the original Franciscan order, the Order of Friars Minor, and its offshoots, are not monastic.

I did, but don't recall right off. Yeah, I really liked him also.

in 1976 I just came into the Catholic Church. This particular church, within a month, one of the priests resigned as (for the second time) he had gotten involved with a woman and got her with child. Then the other priest went into alcohol rehab. You can imagine my terror, my 'feet of clay' thoughts.

But what I learned is that you cannot build these guys up so high. They are, after all, human. I can tell this has shaken the other guys. Fr. Anthony was all over the place with his homily on All Souls Day, not once mentioning the dead, far as I could tell, but talking about gossiping and stuff.

I can tell that people feel betrayed. EWTN comes into our homes either once a day or constantly.

Again, he is only human. We have to pray that he makes the right choice.

Happy... happily married. Just found out from Angelqueen.

Amen. I came back to the Church (after having been away for years) just a few weeks before the big pedophile priest scandals became public a few years ago. I just had to marvel at the timing . . .

Some priests, deacons, bishops, monks and nuns have fallen to various temptations (sex, money, power, hatred, etc.). BUT: so many more have been true to their vows, spending their lives for God and neighbor. They all need our prayers, and the good ones also need our gratitude.

Lord have mercy !!!

-- John

"Some priests, deacons, bishops, monks and nuns have fallen to various temptations."

If the existence of the Church is not a sign of the Holy Spirit, I don't know what is. If the Church was dependent on the goodness of its laymen and clergy it would have fallen many centuries ago.

Terry

Here is an article written by Traditional Roman Rite priests explaining the Catholic Church's historical teaching about clerical celibacy. It certainly challenges the widely accepted view that married priesthood was the norm for the Church of the 1st millennia. It also challenges those who favor extending the priviledge for more married men to be ordained to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Church. The author's contention is that even in the East, celibate clergy had allways been the norm, and that it was the Eastern Churches who deviated from the original Apostolic practice of the Church, by permitting the regular ordaination of married men.

CLERICAL CELIBACY

"Clerical celibacy has a biblical basis in the evangelical counsel of
Our Lord as relayed in St. Matthew's Gospel (19:12), also taken up by St.
Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (7:8-9, 25-26, and especially
32-35), and confirmed by St. John in the Apocalypse (14:4-5). It is clear
that once the Apostles received the call, they did not lead a married life.

The tradition of clerical celibacy was solemnly proclaimed by the
Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, in 325. Canon No. 3,
unanimously approved by the Fathers, admitted of no exceptions
whatsoever. The Council considered that the prohibition imposed thereby on
all bishops, priests, and deacons against having a wife absolute. All
subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this
interdiction.

Not only would it be a violation of Sacred Tradition to blot out a
custom decreed for 2,000 years to be absolutely obligatory, but also one must
recognize that clerical celibacy is to be seen not merely as of
ecclesiastical institution, but part of what is more broadly known in
Catholic moral theology as "divine positive law," initiated by Christ and His
Apostles. That is, it is not merely disciplinary in nature.

The Council of Carthage in 390 stated that celibacy of is
Apostolic origin.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403): "It is the Apostles
themselves who decreed this law."

St. Jerome (ca. 342-420): "Priests and deacons must be either
virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual
continence after their ordination.... If married men find this
difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against
Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order."

Pope St. Innocent I (401-417): "This is not a matter of imposing
upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding
them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has
transmitted to us."

St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote: "No one can be ignorant of
the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed
the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders."

There is a reason for this Tradition. The cleric in major orders,
by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and
he cannot be a bigamist. St. Jerome in his treatise "Adversus
Jovinianum," bases clerical celibacy on the virginity of Christ.

The universal law of clerical celibacy confirmed by the Council of
Nicaea applied, and still applies, to the Eastern Church as well as the
Western. It is noteworthy that at that Council, the Easterns (Greeks)
made up the overwhelming majority. Previously, the Council of Neo-
Caesarea (314) had reminded all Eastern clerics in major orders of the
inviolability of this law under pain of deposition.

The Eastern Church began at a late date to violate its own law of
celibacy. The Quinisext Council of 692, which St. Bede the Venerable
(673-735) called "a reprobate synod," breached the Apostolic Tradition
concerning the celibacy of clerics by declaring that "all clerics except
bishops may continue in wedlock." The popes refused to endorse the
conclusions of the Council in the mater of celibacy, and the Eastern
Church planted the seeds of its schism.

The German scholar, Stefan Heid, in his book, Celibacy in the Early
Church, demonstrates that continence-celibacy after ordination to the
priesthood was the absolute norm from the start -- even for the separated
married ordinand -- a triumph of grace over nature, so to speak. The Eastern
practice we now see was a mitigation of the rule, not, as the Modernists like
to claim, the original practice from which the Roman Catholic Church
diverged."

I happen to disagree with the author however, on the subject of the married Diaconate. I do not believe that there was ever a major complaint made by the west about married men being ordained Deacons in the East. The Latin Tradition that the priest stands "In Persona Christi" makes sense to me for a reason that the Church held a celibate priesthood in the highest esteem. However, in the East a Deacon is simply a servant who assists the priest and congregation at Mass and serve the community of the faithful(at least that is how I understand the role of deacon). I see no reason why a celibate Diaconate should be held in higher esteem than married deacons. That is just my opinion, however, the Church should have the final word.

Yes he is. He is also much healthier. Actually he had become a skelton of himself before leaving EWTN. It is truly hard to imagine the pressure cooker these guys are in. He is married to a wonderful woman, both love our Lord, and serve them to the best of their ability where they are in life. I am not saying I agree with his leaving the priesthood, but they are doing ok. His love for the Church has not waivered, but he made a choice, right or wrong.

There is another priest who left many years ago and was married. Not associated with EWTN at all, Francis McNutt married Judith, he was laisized, and both have been in the Church since shortly after his leaving. They now have been requested by the Vatican to teach healing prayer to the layity in the Church.
http://www.christianhealingmin.org/ The school is not specifically Catholic as far as those who come to the school. However, they teach in agreement with the teaching authority of the Church and when they are with a totally Catholic gathering, everything is Catholic.

So, who knows what God will be using them for in the years to come.

I guess one has to wonder what Herr Heid was looking at, since one need look no further than the Council of Gangra or the Apostolic Canons to see there were indeed married clergy from the earliest times. The western tradition did show an early variance from this, such as with the Council of Elvira, but even then mandatory clerical celibacy probably did not become universal in the western church until Trent. This is a good article on the topic - http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

It doesn't seem suprising that with ideas like the ones put forth in the traditionalist Roman Rite piece or places such as Crisis that the traditions of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome would continue to be looked down upon.

This article is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.

Joe

Besides being way off topic, this article is nothing more than proselytizing material for the pseudo-traditionalists agenda. Little better than Jack Chick, imo.

Jason

I find this highly offensive on an Eastern Christian forum. Are you not aware there might be married priests and/or their wives on this forum?! How does this in any way help relations between East and West?

Maybe we could all agree that this thread has run its course?

It had a border-line gossip tendancy by its very nature and now it is veering into the realm of "referendum on presbyteral celibacy v. marriage" which also seems terribly inappropriate.

How would ignoring credible opinions regarding priestly celibacy help to resolve the controversy over it? You know, it is not only traditionalists in the Latin rite who share the view of the author of the article, but also some Eastern Catholics in the Ukraine. Ever heard of the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat? It is bascially an Eastern Rite affiliate of SSPX. Their society seems to be doing well, a lot of people seem to support them in the Ukraine. These opinions are out there and deserve to be debated.

I realize that this is a bit off topic, I was trying to respond to Anna's question.

I, for one, do not share the opinion that these are "credible" opinions or even worthy of debate. You are certainly allowed to believe as you will, but to think these ideas will receive a welcome an an Eastern Forum that takes joy in it's heritage is seriously misguided.

Jason

Is this "Eastern Rite affiliate of SSPX" in communion with Rome?

Terry

Yes, the thread should be closed.

Why in the world would an eastern rite church need an SSPX unit?

Joe

Nope - they are not

One should respect whose house he is in. I agree this thread should be closed. It is way off topic.

Just because you do not like the opinion of what someone quoted or believes regarding the priesthood is not a reason to close the thread. The idea of clerical celibacy is a volatile issue for all in the Catholic Churches, not just the Byzantine ones.

BUT the issue of this thread has not so much to do with the volatility of this issue, but a religious priest that is currently in a deep spiritual struggle with his priesthood on the line. We can focus on whether or not a married priesthood is appropriate, but this priest freely entered the religious life and priesthood vowing to God and his superior and bishop to maintain a life within his calling. Now this is the topic and what he is experiencing is an emotional and spiritual roller coaster that I would not wish on anyone. This is the focus of this thread. Even if marriage were allowed under the current system, because of his vows prior to ordination, this would not be an option still.

What this priest and the many faithful that have been touched by his ministry need are our prayers to the Almighty, that He can help direct this poor priest in his time of need. Our speculation may be for our own benefit, but surely it does not help this priest in his hour of need.

I have spoken with one of the moderators from this section already, and the demand is that this thread stays on topic and remains charitable. If posters can not, then maybe action needs to be taken individually since too many topics and threads are being closed due to the insensitivity and lack of charity of a few. Take this for what it is worth.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Fr. Anthony: Please realize I was not asking the thread to be closed because of personal feelings or differences of opinion, only because it strayed from its original intent. I believe my last comment made that clear.

Dear Anna,

Yours is not the only comment regarding that the thread be closed. I am just making clear the feelings of the moderator and the administrators in this matter. From here on out this thread will be directed to stay on topic and remain charitable. If a poster feels they can not, either they should not post or start another thread in the appropriate section.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

If this was a married man taking "time off" to "discern his future" contemplating leaving his wife and children would we so philosophically mutter, "Invariably some people will leave their spouses and the married life. It is our hope and prayer that they can deal with the Church's wisdom on these matters." ???

Carole, priesthood and marriage are two different sacraments. And while leaving the married state is incompatible with being a Christian, leaving the priesthood is not (otherwise, the Church would not allow it). The priest does not marry the Church (certainly not in the sense that husband and wife marry each other). We need to stop thinking of priesthood and marriage analogously and as parallel sacraments. They are not.

Joe

I am so sick of hearing this justification.

He made promises to God and to the Church. Whether those promises are Sacramental in and of themselves is immaterial.

He should suck it up, live out his promises. Period.

It is the same advice that countless people are given.

I find very little practical difference between the two situations. The argument is one of semantics. The idea that you can go back on your word once given because you've found something "better" is pitiful and to actually do it is an act of cowardice. Courage is standing by your promises even when it costs you something.

Well, that's it. I'm not commenting anymore lest I say something imprudent.

Joe

I think that the fact that many of the men on this board are being compassionate towards Father Francis is a kind thing.

We should try to never be judgemental to a point that borders on intolerance and hatred, and I think that our men have demonstrated that they will not entertain such a mindset. (Hopefully the same mentality will be fairly displayed towards the weaknesses and indescretions of women as well )

On the other hand, I was thinking about this situation. Father Francis is a GREAT priest and he has offered MUCH to the Church, the Body of Christ, through EWTN. He has been a priest for 17 years. He made a commitment...not for a career (though there are some married priests in ethnic churches that have done that throughout history), but for the Holy Priesthood.

Today's world is one dominated by the LACK of commitment everywhere. Marriage is the hardest commitment around, and anyone who has been married for a while knows that, yet divorce is rampant because when times get tough, all too often one or the other spouse will leave because of all the usual selfish rationales:

1. the other didn't understand me and I met someone who does
2. I am not happy anymore
3. I am not in love anymore
4. I found someone who can offer me better that what I have, etc., etc., etc.

I think that what Carole is trying to point out is that a promise or commitment is just that, and that it is never a good thing or a good example to break them, especially in the Church and in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I posted an excellent article written by an Orthodox priest on Town Hall a while ago called 'Let's get real about Priestly indescretions'. It was the first thing that came to my mind when I read about the scandal. Especially the part that said: "if you are counseling a woman and start finding yourself attracted to her, find her another priest to go to". I am reprinting the article because it is excellent, and addresses all the temptations which priests are succumbing to today.

My prayers are still with Father Francis that he will not give in to the temptation of breaking his holy commitment to the Priesthood and that he will find strength in this situation where many emotions of the heart are now involved. My prayers are also with those women who are so vulnerable that they would dare entertain the interests of a priest of the Church.

St. Nektarios, an unmarried bishop, once rebuked a nun because a letter she wrote him sounded like she was caring too much about him and not enough about Christ-- he said that it was his job to bring people closer to Christ, not to him...
*****************************************************************

Let's Get Real About Priestly "Indiscretions"
Fr. Aris Metrakos

Aren't we disgusted with the shocking number of high-profile cases of priests engaged in pedophilia, homosexual activity, and adultery? Some excuse this behavior with the platitudes "a sin is a sin" and "we are all sinners." Uh, excuse me?

Persons who say "a sin is a sin" don't live in the real world. My wife is more than forgiving when I snap at her for no reason. I don't think that she would be that charitable if I were to come home smelling of another woman's perfume.

I concede that we are all sinners, but clergy relinquish the right to even think of engaging in certain classes of sin. When a priest sins sexually he damages the Church the way that crooked judges, lawyers, and police officers damage the legal system. How can anyone not understand this?

Looking back on my seminary years, nobody ever told me that I shouldn't put my hand on an altar boy's private parts, leave my wife for a man, or go to bed with someone other than my wife. Come to think of it, they didn't tell me not to eat yellow snow, either. The faculty assumed that we all knew better.

There's a saying about the word assume. If you don't know it, ask somebody who served in the military to explain it to you. So, rather than assume that seminarians and young clergy know right from wrong with regard to sexual matters, here are some essential rules of behavior for those preparing for and serving in the priesthood:

If you are delaying ordination until you find Miss Right, then be willing to wait for the appropriate woman to come into your life. Rushing into marriage with the wrong person is like voluntarily infecting yourself with an incurable illness. Ask any married person -- our spouse will either make us or break us. The priesthood poses enough difficulties without having the millstone of the wrong wife around your neck.

If you have sexual fantasies about anything other than a woman, get help. If these ideations persist, choose a different career.

If your heterosexual fantasies occupy as much of your time as they did when you were 15, see an experienced confessor. If you are married and have persistent sexual fantasies about anyone other than your wife, again, see the confessor.

If your marriage needs fixing, then go to counseling. If counseling doesn't work, you have three options: separation, divorce, or "gutting it out." Finding a mistress is not an acceptable alternative.

Appearances matter. Don't put yourself in situations where your integrity can be challenged. Don't stay in the same room with children when no other adults are present. Don't go swimming with anybody other than other clergy, and certainly not with minors. Don't meet repeatedly for one-on-one counseling sessions with the same person outside of normal office hours. Don't meet with a long-time female friend in a hotel room when you are together at a conference. Don't give rides to a woman or a child unless other people are in the car.

It's not too late until it's too late. If you are counseling a woman and you are attracted to her, send her to another priest. If you are about to walk into the bedroom of a person who is not your wife, walk away. If you are kissing someone other than your wife -- stop, and get on the phone with a priest-friend whom you can trust.
All sexual misconduct is unjustifiable. Some child abusers excuse themselves because they were victims of abuse. Yet plenty of adult survivors of molestations go on to have normal sex lives. Get help. And before you put your hand where it doesn't belong, remember how bad it felt when it was done to you.

And all sexual misconduct deserves the maximum penalty. When persons on the bench, in the bar, or with a badge undermine the legal system they get locked up for a long time; they are held to a higher standard. Priests who are pedophiles, homosexual predators, and adulterers need to be defrocked -- not only to send a message but to protect the Church and her members. Some of them need jail time too.

And why give a wolf in shepherd's clothing a second chance to ravage the flock? Maybe an adulterous pastor who had one occasion of adultery could be given a second -- and last -- chance, but only after plenty of counseling and a transfer to the other side of the continent. The rest need to be removed.

The second century priest-martyr Haralambos was dragged by his beard through the streets because he refused to deny Christ. In the 21st century, clerics drag the good name of the priesthood and the Church through the tabloids and the evening news. Sexual sin among the clergy must stop.

****************************************************************


Rev. Aris P. Metrakos is the pastor of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Columbia, South Carolina. He is frequent retreat leader and speaker for both teens and adults. Prior to attending seminary, Fr. Aris was an aviator for the US Navy. He travels annually to Romania to help the Romanian Orthodox Church establish ministries for Romanian youth. You can contact Fr. Aris at FrMetrakos@orthodoxytoday.org.

Link: Orthodoxy Today

Yes and so should women. My wife left me, not the other way round.

Frankly Carole I am offended by your comments. It comes across as a woman with an EX to grind. If the Admin feels this should be deleted then fine. But I do NOT appreciate your comments.

Jason

Dear Jason,

I don't think that our personal lives and assumptions about other's personal lives should come into this topic.

Please, let's read people's messages for *what* they are trying to say, and not react to the *sound* of their message...please!!
This led to many hurt feelings last week that have still not been healed.

Let's stick to the topic please.

Alice, Moderator

Carole,


I am not going to pull the splinter out of Fr. Francis eye because I have a beam in mine.

I don't know about anyone else here, but at my Baptism, I made quite a few promises to God and the Church, and I routinely find myself breaking them all over the place, repenting, and then breaking them even worse. Why isn't there a thread on this forum about me?

I keep wondering how many of us have broken promises ?

Fr Francis is human - and like us he falls at times.

I cannot and will not condemn him.

I think Joe made a good point earlier about Marriage and Holy Orders being different sacraments. The Catholic Church obviously allows individuals to leave the priesthood and get married. It does not treat it as a sinful act. The difficulty for people seems to be that a priest is breaking a promise and we want to think everyone should fulfill their promises. We may all break promises in our lives, but I would think we feel some remorse for that and try to live up to our promises (if possible). In this instance, maybe it just isn't possible for Father Francis to live up to his promise. I don't like that he's leaving the priesthood and I would encourage him to try to remain in the priesthood if at all possible, but in the end, the Church permits him to leave if needed.

I think in the end we have to deal with all situations as charitably as possible. It can be hard because we feel like someone is getting away with something or getting off easy (because who wouldn't want to be married and be able to hear death-bed confessions), but we are accountable for ourselves before God. We are all sinners, but hopefully we try not to persist in our sin. Therefore, in a situation such as this, we place our trust in the Church. If the Church is to allow it, we generally must assent to the Church even if it conflicts with our intellect or sense of moral right.

But this raises another question for me. Please correct me where I am wrong on this issue as I do not want to misrepresent the views of the Church. Maybe it should be another topic, but Father Anthony said earlier that marriage is not possible because Father Francis has received Holy Orders. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that Holy Orders places an indelible mark on your soul and "once a priest, always a priest." The process of laicization simply relieves you of your authority to perform priestly acts but it cannot reverse a sacrament and render you "not a priest." Why then is Holy Orders considered an impediment to Marriage? Is it a matter of discipline and rules or is it an intrinsic barrier to the sacrament? It seems as if there are Roman Catholic priests who are subsequently married. How is this treated differently by the Orthodox Churches?

Thanks for your help.

It is indeed a matter of discipline, not dogma. In fact, it is possible (though rare) for an Orthodox priest widower to get permission to remarry. Theoretically, it would not be impossible all of the Bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to get married and continue to function in their offices. But it is a question of disciplinary canons and I think that it is most unlikely that the canons will ever change.

My understanding about Catholic priests is that if they convert to Orthodoxy, they are given permission to marry since that was not a live option for them as Catholics. Of course, Orthodox will ordain Catholic priests anyway after their conversion.

Joe

Jason,

I am sorry that you choose to be offended by my post. My point is that no person (male or female) who takes a solemn vow and makes a promise should ever be encouraged to or considered to be "courageous" for walking away from those promises.

The circumstances of your marriage are immaterial to my opinion. As are the circumstances of my personal life and my gender. I think you should rethink the chip on your shoulder.

Regardless of who the individual is, I find breaking one's word to not be courageous.

It has nothing to do with an "EX" to grind (I assume that was a rather lame attempt at a pun) nor do I have an ax to grind. What I am is a Catholic who is deeply disturbed by the idea of a priest with a national ministry creating a scandal like this.

I am praying for this priest. I am also praying for his order and EWTN who are obviously suffering for his actions.

What I question is the apparent belief that coming forward with this information publically and causing scandal is "courageous." I don't think it is.

I do not condemn him. He is no better and no worse a sinner than I. But nor will I hold him up as an example of courage. Courage is doing what you have promised to do, even when it costs you something. Courage would be distancing yourself from a source of temptation to sin.

Do I empathize with Fr. Francis? Yes, I do.

I just don't believe that his actions are the model of courage. Nor am I required to think so.

I don't find it particularly scandalous. Actually, I think the fact that he has stepped away quietly and is not making a public issue out of it shows Fr. Francis' maturity. I had a discussion with an Orthodox priest I know the other day and his suggestion was that we cannot rule out the possibility that God did not intend for him to remain in the active ministry. God can call someone to be a priest for awhile and then set it aside in order to pursue other holy things like marriage and raising a family. I am not saying that this is the case here. But I don't rule it out as a possibility and the person who suggested this to me is a monk! I don't think that we should be legalistic about these things. Since none of us personally know Fr. Francis and we really don't know all of the circumstances, we should hesitate to pass judgment. We know of no sexual sin here and in fact have every reason to think that there hasn't been any sexual sin. And so I stand with those here asking for mercy and reservation in judgment.

Joe

And I will add that you can look in the sayings of the desert fathers and you will see instances where a brother says he just can't struggle any more and the abba will tell him to go back into the city and marry. The monastics actually tend to be much more compassionate and flexible about these things then we in the world do.

Joe

Dear Friends:

God is the God of second chances.

Yes, perhaps it would be better or "more courageous" for this priest to maintain his vows. But humans fail, but we have all sinned and have need of the glory of God.

St. Paul has some rather frank- blunt, actually- advice for one that finds he or she cannot maintain celibacy- see 1 Corinthians 7.9 and 1 Timothy 5.11-15.

The Bible has a refreshing frankness about it.

Blessings,

Lance

Joe,

I never said anything about sexual sin. I'll thank you (and everyone else) to avoid attributing to me words I have not said and motives I do not possess.

I am having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that the Church believes that the permanent mark of Ordination left on one's soul is somehow really not all that permanent. And that God can call someone to be a priest for "a while" and then "set it aside."

Yet marriage is forever, no matter what.

That the same people who are saying that the laicization of any priest (not talking about any one situation) is "okay" are often the same people who accuse the Church of "handing out annulments like candy" and that they (the tribunals) shouldn't do it because "marriage is forever."

I'm not passing judgment on Fr. Francis. I'm praying for him and everyone as this situation must be very hard for all of the people involved.

But I am confused and concerned about the prevalence of the attitude that priests should be able to just be "priests for a while."

Gee ... I wish every time I thought I'd found something better in life I had the option of taking a "time out" and "discerning my future."

But alas. I'm not a priest. I'm married. So I'm well and truly bound by my vows. Pardon me for expecting that a priest and/or religious should be as well.

Carole,

I didn't accuse you of anything and I didn't attribute any words to you about sexual sin. My point of saying that there is no sexual sin that we know of is that we cannot say that this is scandalous in the serious sense in which a priest caught in immorality would be a scandal. There was nothing personal in any of my comments directed toward you. And I think that passions are inflamed precisely when we personalize these things. The question of how to understand priesthood and marriage is something objectively answered by Scripture, Tradition and the Canons of the Church. It has nothing to do with our own personal feelings about the matter.

Joe

I think that too many people are prejudging here-and they are NOT, as far as I have read, juding Fr. Francis--but judging what Carole is trying to say.

Fr. Francis is a great priest with a great persona, but he happens to be a very public one with a great deal of influence, and I would suppose that is why this thread was started.

I think that what Carole is trying to say is no different than what Fr. Aris Mitrakos, in the article I posted on the previous page is trying to say. We are becoming too lenient towards everything, and when that happens, and when we are not held to accountability of commitment in anything, that leads to a society which cannot trust and if we cannot trust, we cannot really love the way Christ wants us to. We already see this lack of commitment in businesses towards their employees today. We already see this lack of commitment in the number of divorces today. We see this lack of commitment in the sexual promiscuity of our youngest adult generations and how they put off marriage because of it. It is all really sad and rather far from what Christ desires of us as individuals in His image.

I don't want to speak for Carole, but I sense that she is very disappointed. The Holy Priesthood is something which, most especially, Roman Catholics have revered through the ages--infact, much more so than the Orthodox. When priest after priest gets knocked off their pedestal, where does that leave the state of the Church?

I am simply disappointed that Fr. Francis allowed himself to be put into such a tempting situation, and that because of it many people over at EWTN are hurt because of it. He had SO much to offer the Church. (As Fr. Aris said: 'if a priest finds himself in a situation where he is attracted to a woman he is counseling, he should send her to another priest'). That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed lately when married Orthodox priest after priest and presvytera after presvytera, in numbers too proportionately great to ignore for such a small church, leave their spouse for another. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed when any priest, Orthodox or Catholic, touches a child or adolescent. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed that we live in a culture where the thrill of sexuality with others as the media has presented it, has become so pervasive that no one can live without it the thrill, even if they are married. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed when any priest is defrocked or leaves the priesthood for whatever reason. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed when marriages fail. The Orthodox church allows it, but I am still disappointed. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed that many women today have no respect for a man's marital or clerical state. That is not being judgemental.

I am disappointed that our society does not hold a high bar on commitment. Period. That is also not being judgemental.

Let's not eat each other with condemnation. Let's not scream the 'judgemental' word whenever we don't agree with what a person is saying or how they are saying it. Let's try to understand EACH other here as much as we are being understanding to a stranger.

I think that this thread has pretty much run its course. It will stay opened, but let's try to just pray for Fr. Francis, for EWTN, and for all our priests and religious, because as the great St. John Chrysostom, whom we celebrate today, said those who are held most accountable in the final judgement will be our beloved priests, whose job it is to bring us to Christ through the Church and to save our souls.

Let's also pray for all those lay people who are affected in their faith and their spiritual life every time a priest falls off his pedestal in some way, and remember that disappointment for some can manifest itself in an angry tone.

May God bless us all and grant strength and guidance to all of us in our spiritual and earthly struggles,
Alice

Totally agree Carole. Seems to be the message I'm getting here, is that Holy Matrimony (if Fr Francis goes that route) somehow supercedes Holy Orders. Sounds very Protestant.

Carole,

I am going to keep this very brief since anything further would likely be going beyond what is necessary and rudeness.

I do not have a chip on my shoulder. Search these forums and see for yourself that I am NOT easily personally offended. In fact, I believe your post is the first time I have responded to someone having been personally hurt by their words. I did not choose to be hurt by what you had to say, mind you. I am certain you did not choose to be hurt by Fr Francis. SO allow me the same liberty.

I think if you will take a moment and notice how many negative responses you got to your comments it will be clear that you were NOT clear in what you wanted to say. I think in principle I have to agree with you. But your manner of expression clouded the actual meaning. I think we all, especially in a non face to face cyber invironment, need to refrain from emotionally charged words.

This is all I have to say and I will not reply to any further comments.

Jason

Is Fr. Francis beyond hope of reconciliation? I will pray that he be reconciled and grows in love and wisdom with a certitude that rests in God.

Terry

Alice,

This is beautifully said. I think it gives us much to consider. In our society of "tolerance", we have lost a bit of the sense of the obvious. (I include myself in that.) It is the frog in the pot analogy writ large across our Churches.

I also think Joe has made some very good points that also lend perspective, at least historically, to this issue. That something may be permissible, however, does not make it ideal nor should it necessarily be made easy, like changing a tire. From a biblical perspective, it is much like the distinction between Sinai and Deuteronomy. One represented the ideal, the other a lowered threshold to accommodate human weakness and failing. That Fr. Francis has made vows and has been made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisidek should not be forgotten. If he abandons these callings for the earthly goods (and they are true goods) of the love of a woman and family, salvation can still be his in God's merciful accommodation (enacted through the legislative and economic power of the Church). But it is far from ideal.

For my part, I should not have inferred that it was not a "big deal". It is a "big deal" whatever my emotional reaction to it. At the same time, Fr. Francis is still our brother in Christ and a sharer in the baptismal common priesthood. I think somewhere between tolerance of sin and judgmentalism there is a via media. We all have to table our own disappointment or biases in favor of a supernatural perspective.

Personally, there is an aspect of what Father is doing that I respect as well as an aspect that I equally abhor. Not always easy to reconcile the two.

God bless,

Gordo

Forgive me if I missed something along the way here...but did someone term Father Francis' decision to take a leave of absence to enter a period of discernment as being "courageous"?

As well as knowing priests and nuns who have left their vocations,(not because they felt they found something "better", but because they could not in heart and good conscience fulfill the vows they had professed), I also have known priests and nuns who probably, (no, better than probably), should have left their vocations and didn't/haven't.

Wherein lies the greater scancal?

Lord have mercy,
Bill

Gordo, I do agree that if Fr. Francis leaves the priesthood that may not be ideal. I am not saying hip hip horay! even if it seems like it. Just a point I would like to quibble with though. It is Christ who is high priest according to the order of Melchizedek and by our baptism in Christ we are all priests of the order of Melchizedek.

Joe

Joe,

I never thought AT ALL you were gleeful! I really liked your points.

As to the nature of our priesthood, I'm inclined to disagree, but need to research why. In part, and I think we would both agree here, the sacerdotal nature of the participation of presbyters and bishops (and deacons in a unique kenotic way) in the priestly ministry of Christ as High Priest is distinct from that of the common priesthood. The classical distinction is that the difference is not a matter of degree, but rather more essential - of nature.

As I said, I need to think further about this. (Thinking with a library is usually helpful.) I may have to get back to you on that.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I think that it is possible to argue that marriage supercedes Holy Orders and one this viewpoint is not specifically protestant. St. Paul makes marriage that typical sacrament that signifies the relationship between Christ and the Church and also in the qualifications for presbyters in the New Testament, being faithfully married to one woman and having command of one's household is essential.

I deeply love the ascetic thrust of our faith and I believe that in Christ no one is higher or lower and that the whole notion of comparing one state to another is what promotes pride, clericalism (or anti-clericalism), and divisiveness between Christians within the same household. Perhaps the early Church put too much emphasis on the superiority of the ascetic, celibate life and denigrated marriage too much (and the early Church, despite canons to the contrary and the exception of a few fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Athanasius did indeed denigrate marriage). Perhaps one reason why there are so many problems with the laity and with marriage and fidelity is that for centuries, married lay Christians were told by much of the hierarchy (and a good number of Nuns teaching in parochial schools) that they didn't really count, that they were second class citizens, and that they were only really holy if they produced lots of babies so that some of them could become priests and nuns. This sounds like a caricature I know. But believe or not some caricatures are frighteningly close to reality. For all of the errors of Protestantism, upholding the dignity of the laity and the marital state was one of its strengths and I can't help but think that were Fr. Francis a protestant minister, his people would be rejoicing that he had found someone to be a soul mate and he would continue in his ministry doing much good for his congregation. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, but perhaps I'm a bit too radical.

Joe

Slava Isusu Khrystu!

I cannot understand and perhaps I am being deeply petty about this why people are still harping about Father Francis of EWTN. What that poor man needs is prayer and not a lot of finger pointing...he should have done this....or he should have done that......Our priests and sisters need Prayer and not a lot of finger pointing at them. None of us are perfect. We are all sinners and the Lord came to redeem us from that and to be merciful. I do think that Father Francis is in need of the mercy and love of Christ which I am sure he is receiving.

Please excuse and forgive my sounding so petty. May the Lord and Lover of Mankind Have Mercy on Us.

John Doucette

John,

You don't sound petty at all. I think you are exactly right.

Joe

Dear Joe,

If he were Orthodox, he would have had to have decided on a wife before being ordained a priest.

Dear All,

I am getting the feeling that the undertones of some of the posts here are ones arguing in favor of marriage as being the most perfect state for all men. Marriage is not and never has been for every man or woman, and whatever discipline and decisions a church has set for its members should be respected here, since we are a forum of both Catholics and Orthodox.

I started to think that perhaps marriage might be better for RC priests because of how many are falling, until I found out about the numerous married Orthodox priests who have had adulterous affairs lately, committed paedophilia, or have had their wives leave them for others. That is why Father Aris wrote that article 'Let's get real about priestly indescretions'.

There is no perfect state in this crazy society we live in. Let's not contribute to the craziness by imposing our personal experiences, values, desires, and struggles on the different decisions and disciplines which the Church, East and West has decided for its clergy. The rules are what they are, and we need to respect them, or else we will be eroding Christ's Body from within while others do it from without. Traditional Christianity has enough enemies and critics. Let's not add to them.

Being married or not married doesn't make you less holy or more holy, and in Orthodoxy, it is considered a holy bond, but being a priest definitely does put one on a different level.

The Orthodox say that even the angels are in awe of the Priest, for the priest is the one who holds the body and blood of our Lord in His hands!

Priests are also our role models. While no one is without sin, St. John Chrysostom spoke of the danger of priests falling when he spoke of the roads of hell being paved with their skulls. Some positions in society are held to a higher accounting, and priests fall into that category.

Speaking of no particular person specifically, I would say that falling in love and leaving the priesthood, in and of itself is definitely not sinful, but the disappointment and example it sets for those souls who looked up to the priest as someone who would hold firm and strong in his commitment to the Priesthood, may be something that priest will have to answer for--who knows? What we do know, and should know, is that the priesthood is never something which should be entered upon lightly.

I think that we should also wonder about women today, because these attractions to priests (Orthodox and Catholic), married men, etc., which they entertain today were always 'off limits' in days of more self respect and self discipline.

I was hoping that this thread would have finished a page ago, but since it hasn't, let's just try to understand and respect all the different viewpoints here, and remember that this thread started for a particular priest. We don't all need to agree with each other, but we do need to remember to pray for him and hope that he makes the right decision.

Lord have mercy on us all!

Alice

Good points, Alice and Joe and John.

The idea that being a celibate is intrinsically higher than being ordinary folk is wrong. I think the celibate life can be a means for cultivating more spiritual states of consciousness. Yet, ultimately, those are just different states of consciousness . . . and selfishness and sin can happen in any state of consciousness. Many a monk has become evil in his advanced spirituality . . . over pride in his spirituality. Something similar happened to Lucifer too. Spirituality is not the same thing as holiness. It's just another state of consciousness.

Holiness is living in communion with God: directly and in the neighbor. That just takes a open, humble, and grateful heart. As one laywoman, wife and mother once said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior . . . "

Breaking one's vows is always a serious matter. So too is forgiveness and going forward.

Fr. Francis is discerning his vocation. I agree with John that what he needs right now is prayers.

My two cents.

-- John

John,


Whereas I agree with much of what you write in your post, the above statement I quoted goes against 2,000 of Christian tradition. The call to celibacy has always been seen as a higher calling than married life - in the patristic age as well as the middle ages and even today. This, of course, does not mean that all are called to it, nor that one cannot become holy in other states of life. But, objectively, celibacy is a higher calling than the married life, as one has given up a great good for the sake of Christ.


Of course, she was also a celibate.

Lawrence and friends,

We do not know what is going to happen yet, or what Fr. Francis is going to do.

One scenario is that he will be released from his vows, allowed to be married and remain Catholic. This is sometimes deemed appropriate in the Church, and the Church has the power to do so. That is not necessarily a "Protestant" outcome.

In the same way we hope priests will honor the vows, let's also honor the Church and her power to bind & loose.

Blessings,

Lance

That is a subjective and not an objective statement if I've ever read one.

The Orthodox Church has always considered celibacy in monasticism a higher calling...think of what you are giving up: the companionship and love of a spouse and children in order to serve God completely and fully! That is why monasticism is called 'HOLY' monasticism.

Could I ever expect to reach the heights of spiritual mysticism that a monastic who is in prayer 24/7 can--I seriously doubt it unless I was prelest.

I have never met an Orthodox man who has had a problem with that until this forum!

I think that Francis' whole post was excellent and I was waiting for the usual fur to fly...

The usual responses have been rehashed on this forum way too often and this has become way off topic.

Since many of our posters are taking statements and conversations on this thread way too personally here, I think that it is finally time to close this thread. I also think that we have spent too much time in 'idle talk' about this matter.

Someone sent me this link from Fr. Groeshcel, and he is admonishing us, so this thread is hereby closed:

http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2007/11/fr-benedict-groeschel-admonishes.html

I will lock it, but I have also contacted Fr. Anthony to make the final decision because I am in no mood for reactions to my decision. This topic is NOT to be reintroduced or it will be deleted by the Administrators.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator