www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Celibate Clergy and Latin Catholics

David,

Don't leave the catholic-pages. You are a good asset and experience for the forum. There are a good number of people on the catholic-pages that would be considered die-hard "conservatives" and also there are a good number of people on that forum who would be considered die-hard "liberals" and there are the people who float in between. To the extreme of what would be considered the catholic liberal you have someone like Bob J who is catholic but doesn't seem to believe anything catholic LOL! When him and I first encountered eachother on the catholic-pages, we had some heavy debates, but in the tone (well from me not from him) that was hostile about intentions. Then one day he defended a young woman on the catholic-pages I refered to as "sweet heart". He was right I was being condescending toward her. I also notice he never attacked people personaly in debates and always seemed to be rather charitable to all. I respected his defense of that young woman against me, and learned again that Christianity is not just in theology or liturgy but in how we approach and or treat others. I still haven't mastered my lets say... reactions, but that is something I have to work at. I also learned how to be a better more ethical debater from all the people on the catholic-pages whether one was to label them "conservative" or "liberal". I don't have higher education behind me so many of the lessons I've learned from the Christians of the catholic-pages (and even here) are important. They will help to make me a better person. And these things came from people I not always agreed with on a logical stance. I have to tell you if you go on a military chat forum it is common practice, even amongst the highly educated there, to attack the arguer not the argument. The charity toward others is very low compared to the Byzantine forum or the catholic-pages. So keep in mind that while you will not find common ground on all issues with every person on the catholic-pages you will find common grounds at times with other persons on that forum. And mostly all the people on that forum want to see the betterment of man, no matter what banner they would be classified under - "con." "lib."

But if you have to leave for your own growth, then you've got to do what you've got to do.


Justin

+JMJ+

A married priesthood is part of the Eastern tradition. Eastern Catholics should have a married clergy, though not a married episcopacy.

In the Latin Tradition, although it was not required, most clergy were celibate. It was then required of those ordained to major orders to prevent clerical abuses that were occuring at the time.

A married Clergy is not part of the Latin Catholic tradition. Please do not force your traditions on us. Byzantinizations are just as wrong for us as Latinizations are to you.

If the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church ever begins to ordain married men, I will run, not walk, to the nearest SSPX chapel.

Joe Zollars

+JMJ+

Alex,

Why has there not been a vocations shortage lo these many centuries since we have had mandatory clerical celibacy? Celibacy is not the problem concerning a shortage of vocations are concerned. A lack of traditional and conservative Latin Rite Catholic values is what is to blame. Conservative Dioceses have no problems coming up with enough vocations.

I am very good friends with a clerical convert from the Anglican Communion. He has been received into the Church and was Ordained as a priest. He says very clearly that married priests should not be the norm. He had to miss the birth of his child so that he could administer the sacrament of extreme unction. These married priests receive an INDULT, or exception from cannon Law, in order to be priests in the Married state. They are not the Norm and should not be for the Latin Rite.

Joe Zollars

+JMJ+

I feel I should say a few things more.

I have personally chosen the Celibate state. As of next year (God-Willing) I will go to the Latin Rite Seminary. Celibacy is a great gift. It is a gift that I give up as a nonmarried layman and maybe one day as a Priest. By taking a personal vow of celibacy (not binding cannonically until ordination), I give up the ability to have the joys of a wife and a family in order to serve God and His Church more completly. Now I am not saying that married people cannot serve God and His Church, but they must divide their resources (specifically time) among their family and the Church. As an unmarried person, I don't have the obligations that a husband/wife and a father/mother has. In short I have the ability to devote more time to the service of the Church.

I am dismayed at the lack of respect for the traditions of the Latin Rite. We now respect your traditions, can we not expect the same? If I do not see an improvement over the next few days in this regard, I will leave this forum permanently.

With this lack of regard for Latin Rite traditions, have you thought of the damage this does to the protestants and nonchristians looking in on this forum? I am utterly dismayed at your unchristian example.

Joe Zollars

Joe,
You are missing the point here.

I do not think that any of us here are calling for the Latin Church to have married priests.

I know I am not doing this. I think the Latin Church should keep to its traditions as the Byzantine Church should keep to its.

What I am saying, as are many here, is that it is wrong when a Latin Catholic attempts to defend the Latin Church's tradition of a celibate priesthood by trying to show that is is a dogma of the Church, instead of recognizing that it is just a discipline, and as such it could change, not that it should.

As for your ancedote, that is the experience of one married priest within the Latin Church. Some people here, who support our Byzantine tradition of a married priesthood, could take offense to it. As in essence you are saying that married priests should not be the norm no matter what because they can't do their "job" and be married at the sametime.

If the reason behind your story is right, then firemen, paramedics, doctors, nurses, policemen, just to name a few, shouldn't marry either, as I know men in all those positions that have had to miss something important in their family becuase of their jobs. It just doesn't hold.

David

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

+JMJ+

It applies to the priesthood of the Latin Rite.

Byzantine Catholic priests should not take offense at this. As I understand, Byzantine parishes are usually smaller while the parish this priest was and is stationed at had over 3,000 families at the time.

As for people in other proffessions, they do not have the same responsibilities a priest has. For a priest there is no time off, there usually isn't someone else who can take over for the priest for a few days.


Joe Zollars

I can back up what DavidB says about his support for the Latin Church maintaining it's Preistly tradition of celibacy. Infact he can get quite mad at Latin Catholics who would call for a halt to Latin clerical celibacy on the sole grounds of increasing vocations and... I don't know... embracing sex.

I think if we all cool down a bit, and stop expecting so much out of others Rites, it will be a bit easier to get along. At least this attitude has begun to help me regarding this forum. I have since been resigned to the fact that Byzantines are just weird.

Joe,

I am personally in support of maintaining the tradition of celibate priesthood in the Latin rite. I also support the maintaining of the married priesthood in the Byzantine rites. Both have their place in the traditional discipline of the Church and neither are contrary to the priesthood. The argument for clerical celibacy is mainly pragmatic (which is perfectly fine) and certainly not doctrinal since it was never taught by Christ, His apostles, the Councils, or the Fathers to be absolutely essential and required -- though it was highly spoken of by St. Paul, etc, which demonstrates it is a laudable thing to be certain!

That being said, I do not understand your position that you would run to the nearest SSPX chapel over a simple matter of the change of a discipline. Perhaps you can further explain your thinking on this?

It would seem to me that, from the Roman Catholic perspective, putting oneself into schism from the Holy See over a change in a non-essential, disciplinary matter would be absurd and spiritually dangerous. If we were discussing the ordination of women, or the rejection of some doctrine or dogma in general, then I could understand and agree -- though I would not flee to the SSPX personally. If one is going to separate from Rome, it seems to me that it had better be for doctrinal/dogmatic reasons, not disciplinary.

+JMJ+

I seem to have been a bit hot tempered and I need to apologize. I have sat idly bye and listened to tens of thousands of people belittle the celibacy of the priesthood over the internet claiming that getting rid of celibacy would not have allowed the scandals to have happened. I appear to have gotten to the point I just couldn't take it any more. I am most sorry.


I would not, now that I think about it, put myself in schism unless Marriage was REQUIRED for priests. As I said earlier, I plan to become a Priest and I love the personal vow of celibacy I have taken. Nothing will be able to shake me from this.

Joe Zollars

Everyone,

I agree that Latins should not bash down on the married priesthood, in accordance with charity and respect (and the same applies the other way round). However, I do not agree that the celibate priesthood should merely be expressed in relation to pragmatism and expediency.

To the contrary, in this manner, we are making the same mistake we accuse the Latins of, by indirectly suggesting, "Hey, it's only a Rite, mere externals, mere disciplines." To the contrary, celibacy is crucial in the Latin Church because of its theology. There is absolutely nothing wrong--rather it is necessary--that a very long-standing discipline, especially one related to the priesthood, should be expressed theologically and its virtues extolled in that context. Theology, especially sacramental theology (which I presume is as great in importance as ecclesiology), to which the clerical discipline is inextricably tied (alter Christus), is the backbone to everything, and prevents hallowed practices from becoming mere skeletons that have no value aside from serving expediency. True, that the change to a married priesthood in the Latin Church, even mandatory married clergy, would be ultimately disciplinary and not doctrinal--however, it would be very imprudent and cause harm to the theological framework and tradition of Latin Christianity, since a discipline is a projection of theological outlook and a logical extension of the mind of a particular Church. Therefore, it is a discipline and not a doctrine, yet at the same time it is to some degree integral to the whole of the Latin Church, as discipline, theology, ritual etc. make sense as a whole and must be in concord with one another, and it is very much cemented with theology as to have its alteration impact negatively on the Latin Church. A slow development (not upheaval) of theology should precede a change in discipline, which is a natural expression of that theology.

Don't get me wrong. I have a very short fuse and am very bellicose. I have a tendency to uncontrollably lose it, when I come across typical remarks from Latins that undermine our tradition of married priests and even sometimes insult it. Nontheless, I believe celibacy can within a Western context be praised, explained, and extolled theologically without causing injury to the Eastern tradition (If someone should state that standing, and not kneeling, before the consecration is disrespectful, as long as it is explained within a Western Church context, and not stated as an absolute principle that applies universally, I would not be offended in the least. I wouldn't be happy if someone impeded upon my right to chastize my fellow Easterners, "How dare you prostrate yourself on PASCHA???!!!W'laaaa!"

At the same time, the explanation of leaven as representing impurity is not offensive to me, as long as it is understood to relate within the framework of Latin tradition and custom, and with regards to the matter of kneeling, even within that of traditional Latin piety.

However, when talking about the clerical discipline in the sense of practicalities and effeciency, this becomes an economical argument, not a moral one, and the paradigms of different cultures come into play. When malice and uncharity are avoided in these issues, it becomes an impartial discussion and an objective and reasonable inquiry on how the discipline is impacting on the Church in effeciency, fincances, etc. Alex, the sociologist would concur with me that North Americans lack an understanding of the bond between culture, values, language (and its endless nuances), and in the sake of Church matters, Rite, ethnicity, culture, and GEOGRAPHY!

We must remember that Western society is based on the nuclear family, which partly explains the Western distaste for married clergy---and calling priests by their first names (eg. "I don't want to say hi to Fr. Bob [first names don't sound the same way in different cultures--eg. Abouna Boulos--believe me, they sound very different to these ears, and I can understand the prejudicial mental images and displeasure that immediately jumps into the Western mind] the mailman who allegedly needs a second job to support the family, his wife, giggling Mrs. Betsy, and Billy Bob playing Nintendo--don't flame me here; I'm merely giving you an idea of what I believe these prejudices look like in the mind of a Western Latin). The East on the other hand, and I speak of the Levant, is clanish, communal, more rural, and is based on the extended family, the perfect cultural setting for the married priest, the venerable prysvetera, and their children, who run the parish as a community. I fanatically support our right to married clergy in the US, no question, but I'd be lying if I told you that I don't see the picture of the American priestly family as unattractive, through my cultural lens. Being a stauch opponent of multiculturism(which is why in retrospect, I would have wished there never were Eastern migrations to Western shores to begin with, including the migration of the Eastern Church itself), and since I believe that cultures should always be separated and segregated by geography and population, instead of unnaturally congregating with each other and Balkanizing different regions, and should only deal with each other economically, and through cultural interactions that have characterized relations between civilizations throughout history, I can better imagine the friction that was involved when the Eastern and Western Churches clashed in America, and why the prejudices against the married priesthood are difficult for the Latins to get rid of, as the Church and its traditions are very influenced by culture, which not too long ago was a whole package, language, ethnicity, customs, and geography. The Eastern Church could never have been born in the West. It was the Eastern cultures it flourished in that fashioned her. Now that she has uprooted herself and spread across the globe in alien territory, the same conflicts and clashes between the Churches (whether in discipline, theology, or whatnot) will occur and perpetuate as the cultural friction or erosion that characterizes multicultural societies. So my final point is, if we don't look at these matters with the cultural eye, we will fail to understand much of the dynamics, relations, and problems between the many Churches that share the same jurisdiction here on American soil--and Europe. The question of married priests is one of them. Westerners are much more open to the idea today because they have lost all sense of the anchor of history, culture, and so forth that anchors a particular Church, and the chaos involved when those bonds are broken and the Church in question has an identity crisis. In addition, they are only concerned with things that concern the average North American and North American society--their obsession with sex and sexual liberties and imagined "sexual frustrations and the inherent repressive nature of the rule of celibacy" (which is an insult to the celibacy of the monk in the Eastern Church, which isn't by any means anti-celibate but merely relegates it to its proper place in the East, to the monastery) strongly characterizes, I believe, the drive for the married priesthood in the States more than any theological impetus. Celibacy shouldn't be reduced to and identified solely with the contemporary view of sex and sexuality, which makes up the narrow focus of American society on many matters nowadays. The principle of the married priesthood does not rest on this flimsy base of whether or not it is "haraam" to deprive Fr. of a sexual life. It is worth much, much more than that, and I don't think many Westerners even possess a proper understanding of the sublime Mystery of Marriage or of the true worth and value of the conjugal act (as opposed to the crude version, picture, and perception of it society has given us; in short, a desecration of what intercourse is meant to be), to actually effectively use it in their arguments for a married priesthood in the Roman Church.

Joe, as for leaving for the SSPX, even if the discipline of married clergy was imposed and mandatory on all priests (an absurd occurence with almost zero chance of coming about), with all the major problems I confess that would bring about (laymen would have right to protest to Rome), I don't believe it would justify what you suggest. Clergy's follies are our cross, as you know.

In IC XC
Samer

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

SamB,

Good post.

Dear Johanan,

I agree with you!

I too believe that the Latin priests I know have exchanged too many secular occupations and concerns for what should be their primary spiritual objects in terms of leading prayer and worship, the Mass, catechizing etc.

Fr. John Meyendorff, the Orthodox theologian said as much too (+memory eternal!) when he said that celibacy is valid when it finds its expression in constant prayer and self-sacrifice etc.

And no one is suggesting that the Gift of Celibacy is a bad thing or should be done away with!

It is a true Gift of the Spirit to those "who can take it."

But again, it was never meant to be imposed. One cannot impose a Gift of the Spirit.

So you would run away to the nearest SSPX chapel if you had married Latin priests?

Now you know how we feel when celibacy is imposed on our Particular Eastern Catholic Churches and many of our members become Orthodox!

But I agree that the call to celibacy is one that involves a great commitment to prayer and meditation, to vigils etc. as St Thomas Aquinas wrote.

And, without that strong spiritual element, again as Aquinas wrote, celibacy will be a failed venture.

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

You are right - I stand chastened and corrected!

I just wanted the fellow to come here so we could beat up on him .

But that isn't nice, is it?

Khrestos Anesti!

Alex

Myself, if the Latin Church were to suddenly allowed a married presbyterate (which ain't gonna happen), I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, as long as it handled married priests the same way the Orthodox do.

I will say this - for all the kvetching American Catholics do about wanting married priests, are they willing to cough up enough guilders to support the priest, his (insert Latin term for 'matushka' here) and their 4 young'uns?

I have never, EVER, understood this cleaving to clerical celibacy as if it were an Article of Faith.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Byzantine East and the Latin West are in disagreement on this issue of course. Until, the edict that the Eastern Catholic Priests could not be married and then ordained in the United States (during the bad old days), the Orthodox and eastern Catholics were of the same mind and spirit with each other.

The Byzantine Church does hold that Celibacy is a special gift and charism from God. She holds her monastics in high esteem and only from this special group without worldly attachments she has for centuries chosen her Bishops, the Chield Pastors of her flock. The Byzantine Church also recognizes the special charism that the married clergy brings to the priesthood---presbyter and presbysterva (Priest and priest-wife) serve as an icon of the church, the marriage of Christ to the church as exemplified in the successful marriage of the priest. The married priest and his wife become the spiritual parents of the parish, often working in tandem with each other. Some of them also choose to live as brother and sister in celibacy, as did St. John of Kronstadt and his wife at the turn of the century. Others fully accept the commandment to be fruitful and replenish the earth providing the Church with large families emphasizing the preciousness of life.

I have several friends who are former married Episcopalian Priests now ordained in the Latin Church. They state that the demands that Latin Catholics place upon their priests leave little time for family. In most cases their wives have had to go to work so that the husband may glorify his mission and calling as a priest without financial worries. The Latin Church does not know what to do with these priest's wives and often seems to just want them out of view. If the Latin Church wants married priests, there will have to be a lot of education and problably a whole lot more money made available to support a married priest.

I feel this topic will continue to be an issue in the Latin Church and that it will need to look to their European Byzantine Catholic relatives to learn how to do it right.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]