www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A Married Priest Looks At Celibacy

http://crisismagazine.com/october2006/ryland.htm

I thought this would make for an interesting discussion. I find that almost all the councils Father Ryland quotes to support an early tradition of priestly celibacy were local Western councils. His quote from Nicea is ambiguous and doesn't suggest that married priests vow continence. Of course I disagree with his article. I would be interested in what others think of this article.

In Christ,
Anthony

The Latins are very quick on the draw to cite the councils that uphold their view of a celibate priesthood.

But they sort of brush over the canons that call for celibacy/continence on the part of the diaconate and the lower clergy.

As to this statement:

One wonders where he would place the various conciliar statements of Vatican II and other teachings of the papal magisterium that uphold and praise the venerable disciplines of the East regarding a married and celibate priesthood.

Either Rome is lying on this issue or Father Ryland is completely ignoring the evidence to the contrary. I believe it is the latter.

Gordo

My reaction: even if you're right, so what? It's a tradition in the Eastern Rite, and it should be respected, whether you like it or not. Regardless of it's origin it's respected and legit.

Oh, this old argument is that same spirit as the whole 'immaculate conception' debacle. The innovation of the West in 'finding' evidence for the 'i.c.' is , (my opining), the same human deductive reasoning as lead to the 'enlightenment' and 'renaisainnce' humanistic thinking. That lead to the destruction of Christian monarchy, of Traditional morality, and many other Christian 'norms'.Though I have not yet figured it all out yet, there is a common thread that runs thru all this kind of stuff. It is like unto the ideas I had when as a Prot I meandered into Calvinistic 'reform' theology. That was a period of darkness, in considering the cruelty of God...as portrayed by that heterodox vein of thinking. That is part of the stew that brought about my rejection of Protestant thinking, and deductive reasoning. Then, a serious question about spiritual authority arose in the Baptist confession I adhered to, and the bridge over which I had passed years before began to smolder. When I first began to accept the idea of Apolicity of the Church hierarchy the flames began to appear in the Protestant path I had tread. My path was now changed forever to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith. Unfortunately, in America, one has too many choices. It is not what is behind 'door number 3', but 300, or 3,000..! Either way, God has permitted us choices, from the Garden till now. And...we are responsible for those choices we make. IF, one chooses an ecclesiastical vocation, it should not be at the expense of an unnecessary stumbling block of institutional celibacy, but, as the Lord stated, that each is given his own gift,...and not ALL have the 'gift' of celibacy. Look at St. Paul...he did...and St Peter did not. Such is life, deal with it, and move on. Just my 2 kopeks. mik s Bohom

Me thinketh the married priest doth protest too much! The assertion that matrimony is no advantage whatever to a married priest is, er, "fantastic" - that is to say, based on sheer fantasy.

The argument of Father Ryland, such as it is, is based upon two authors: Christian Cochini and Roman Cholij. Roman Cholij has since recanted his position, particularly in the light of the present Code of Canonos of the Eastern Churches. Cochini's work is a textbook example of "special pleading". The argument deliberately ignores or dismisses all evidence which the adamant supporters of coerced celibacy find inconsistent with their position.

That the Catholic Church does not recognize the Council in Trullo is quite simply false.

A bit of reductio ad absurdum might help: one of the arguments for the requirement of complete continence for subdeacons, deacons and priests is the reminder that at any time any of these clerics could be called upon to perform a Baptism. But so can any baptized lay person (except of course an infant). Does Father Ryland seriously wish to tell us that EVERYONE is therefore bound to lifelong celibacy?

Since the time of Saint Pius X (no doctrinal relativist, incidentally), the Church has strongly encouraged frequent, even daily, reception of Holy Communion. Do we take it that in Father Ryland's view this means, or must mean, a requirement of perpetual continence for the laity?

The same foolishness applies across the board.

Father Ryland appeals to John Paul II's Pastores Dabo Vobis. I rest my case, for the moment, on John Paul II's Code of canons of the Eastern Churches, Canon 373:

"status clericorum matrimonio iunctorum praxi Ecclesiae primaevae et Ecclesiarum orientlium per saecula sancitus in honore habendus est."

I gave that in Latin for a particular reason: the phrase "in honore habendus est" has a strong meaning in canon law.

Fr. Serge

(An Archimandrite and therefore unmarried, and not complaining about it!)

As Father Serge has pointed out the article by Father Ray Ryland is quite lacking. What I find absurd is the article's identification on the cover of the magazine:

[Linked Image]

Its important to keep in mind that celibacy is a Tradition not a dogma or doctrine. All churches at one time long ago allowed for a married priesthood. The west chose to go celibate and the east did not. Its just that simple. One choice over the other does not make a particular priest more holy or better equiped to administer the Sacraments. My own predjudice is for a married priesthood but thats my opinion.

Our priests are married I adapted to this with no trouble.

Wow I'm shocked.

Not.

Andrew

actually, celibacy is a canon law for the Latins.if it was a tradition, do you really think that there would be Latin Priests who have been married (Sts Peter and Paul in Chattanooga had a widower as pastor in the eighties), or would Rome allow former Protestant and Anglican clergy who have come over bring their wives and children, and pastor a Catholic church?
Much Love,
Jonn

He says both the priesthood and marriage are full-time jobs which cannot be effectively done together. I see several problems with this.

1. Does that mean married people cannot take other full-time employment?

2. Does that mean he is now neglecting his wife or is he now neglecting his church?

3. Does this take into account the approximate size of eastern and western parishes? (rhetorical)

4. Does this mean he should resign his position or live separately from his wife?

5. He argues that even those men who were married and became priests were then required to live celibately, so does this mean that he is now denying his wife marital relations and other marital commitments in favor of his role in the church?

If he is doing the above, I believe it is breaking the promise he made to his wife (which he undertook before his ordination), and if he is not then I believe he really has no ground to speak from telling other men it is what they should do.

I used to use these arguments. But now as a doctor they don't hold water. I can be called to go take care of a patient at any time, so can a married priest to give the sacraments.

My dad is a conductor on the railroad, he works 1 1/2 days on the rails and 1 day at home (more or less.) Is he any less a husband and father, is he torn between two masters in his 31st year of marriage?

The argument that it is a strain on a marriage to have married priests is fallacious.

St. Paphnutios pray for us!

There needs to be a website set up somewhere that debunks the Latin mythology on priestly celibacy. And it should be a site that is faithful and respectful in every way to the magisterium.

Actually what REALLY gets my goat is when you hear the married priesthood grouped in with "women priests and birth control" as if it were part of the unholy trinity! Does anyone actually READ the teachings of the popes and councils on this matter?

It is so aggravating.

Gordo

Brothers and sisters:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!! (And thanks be to God the Father and Him for that.)

I get so tired of the people who think that celibacy is so absolutely necessary for the priesthood. Personally, I believe that the most important quality is a "heart for people." By that I mean a genuine love for and care for and compassion for God's people.

I've worked with so many clergy over the years in my profession I can't count them all. But one thing stands out and marital status AIN'T it: that's not bad grammar; it's for emphasis.

There are those who will drop what they are doing and go to serve when they are called no matter the day or night. They pray; they administer the sacrmental mysteries; they stay and comfort family members and the needy persons themselves. They are God's gift to His People. These are the men who stay all night with a family as a loved one dies; they visit the sick on a regular basis; they're always running to help, comfort, support, encourage a fellow human being--one of the Lord's "little ones."

Then there are those who should have gone down to the railroad and popped rivets into sheet metal all day. They have the personality of a wolverine and all the compassion of a tree stump. They come on their own good time and complain about the inconvenience when called. They don't bother to ask if the family needs something--sometimes they come to the dying and treat the family like the chairs in the room. Sometimes they come to the funeral home, run through a Vigil Service or Parastas Service and are on their way before anyone even realizes what has happened. I once had a priest tell my neighbors that small contributors always demanded so much service--that's after my wife had a 54 hour labor and almost died in childbirth; all she wanted was a visit from our pastor while in the hospital. I could tell countless stories gleaned from people I've served, but you get the point.

And the men with or without a wife fit into both categories. So send me a man with a "heart for people" and I don't care if he goes home to his wife or some peace and quiet without one.

Two cents from a man who's wondering if he's just getting old or been around too long.

BOB

"never even implied�that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy."

This is quite inaccurate, and as Father Serge has mentioned, in addition to the CCEO and Orientale Lumen there is, in fact, documentation to the contrary. And I see he has fallen prey to the questionable scholarship of Cholij and Cocchini.

What is also distrubing to me is this part of it "on par with her own discipline" - are we then not Catholic or not of "her own discipline"? Smacks of praestantia ritus Latinae in some regards.

I recommend some well-written letters of comment and correction to Crisis (which once again has disappointed me). I have to say First Things does a much better job for this type of magazine and represents the Eastern praxis much more evenly.
FDD

Aside from the elitism that permeates this article, there are other problems. The exegetical and historical claims made to support the thesis that celibacy was required in the Apostolic Age-even of those priests and bishops who were married-are just that-claims. These conclusions are the opinions of the writer-they may or may not be true-but you can find plenty of historians and Biblical scholars who will disagree. My own personal opinion is that these claims are wrong-however, I don't know that they can be either proved or disproved.
Ryan