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

Oh point taken Joe, but at the present we often do not have more than one priest in a Parish.

I have to admit however that I did not realise that that restriction applied to the Latin Church as well as the Eastern Churches - put it down to the ignorance of a convert.

As for Deacons to help they are a rarity here.

See, this is what I'm talking about. If they already have to work a second job to pay the bills and still find time to celebrate the Eucharist daily, why not let them have something to look forward to when they get home in the evenings?

Dear Catholicos,

Precisely . . .

Celibate priests and monks are often engaged in hard work as teachers, farmers, administrators etc.

They often work harder than secular people do and because they are celibate or members of a religious order, they have no salary to speak of that doesn't go toward the upkeep of the monastery etc.

So the notion that priests shouldn't be occupied in secular work is nonsense since they're working ten+ hour days already.

And while I don't know about that rule governing hanky-panky before Mass, the priests in my family and among my friends who raise families of two and more children have a tremendous insight into the lives of their parishioners.

I know my wife insisted on us going to a married priest for marriage preparation rather than to the celibate priest in our parish (I know he's been around before his ordination though ).

I remember being in the home of a married priest friend with four children.

The time came for them to go to bed.

They then knelt before their icon corner with their parents and prayed out loud for 15 minutes, each child saying their prayers by heart.

At the end, they all extended their arms toward the icons and sang, "Lord Jesus we love you! Holy Mother of God, we love you!" over and over again.

A real "holy family" wouldn't you say?

God bless them and all married priests and their families!

Alex

Oh I'm with both Mor Ephrem and Alex there.

Remembering my background, I have always been used to married Clergy - and I think it does give them an appreciation of the married life that there is no way that a celibate priest can ever have.

This is obviously something that does need much thought.

Angela

One Orthodox priest convert with whom I spoke said that his bishop never even mentioned the "no sex before liturgy" rule. I say abolish it. It's a silly concept based on a faulty notion of human sexuality. We went into this in depth last year on the forum.

anastasios

I understand your point here and there is truth to it, I acknowledge that. However I think with age, as the Priest ages, this becomes less an important issues.

I'm not married, I have no intention of breaking my wedding vows, knock-on-wood - I'm old enough with enough regrets to know that my desires to be good can not be made real without sincere prayer. But to the point, I have a friend who is married and has no intention of maintaining his vows to his wife. I also have a friend incarcerated who had one of the best girls in the world, he had children by her, cheated on her, refused to ever marry her. And don't let me speak of military life - an absolute bordello of the "married".

With age I don't think one can equate what one *has* or doesn't *have* with proper appreciation or respect, regarding this issue.

No. This is because they have energy to spend.

I think I hear my little mind reiterating something like: "it is not good that man be alone; let us make for him a helpmate".

Scripture, methinks.

And, while we can theologize or sociologize about the non-married priest being able to devote 100% of his time to his ministry, the above scripture quote still obtains.

People do nutsy-cuckoo stuff about sex -- too many are scared to death about it. But the fact remains: the 'helpmate' issue is the critical one. We humans need to be intimately involved with other human beings who can love us, support us, share with us, and kick us in the butt when we need it. The Lord's prescription is a good one. All life-forms that the Lord created have a genetic predisposition to be with others of the species. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, there is a lifelong commitment to one particular "other".

For those who have the grace to be 'solitaries' ['monk' is Greek 'monarchos', literally 'one ruler', i.e., the self and not the helpmate], then that is their grace and we must honor it in the same way as we honor ALL members of our community. It is not better or worse; it's just a grace.

If a priestly man has received the great blessing of finding another human being who loves him and is willing to share a life together, then he is truly blessed.

There are, in my opinion, waaaaay too many folks out there who have no one to love them and help them through the travails of life. And, as a result, there's all kinds of folks who inveigh against a loving priestly relationship since it perhaps could involve intimacy. Thus, the prohibition against intimate activity prior to liturgy.

Sorry, but I think that this is just plain nuts. Human beings (priests included) NEED to have someone love them. People need to have someone hug them, kiss them on the neck and give a good squeeze with whispered words of affection. It's not (shudder!!!!) sex, but rather a sense of being loved, needed, and being able to give to another out of the fullness of one's heart. Intimate behavior is a natural concomitant of this relationship.

Why should our Eastern Christian priests be deprived of this gift? It's NOT the sex (EEEEKKK! Sex!!!!) but rather the reality of being a human being with a human need to have a special someone to be the complementary half of one's existence.

Unless one has been given the gift of 'monachos' (i.e., 'solitary' lifestyle), then let's just re-orient ourselves to understand that people need other people in their lives. And we, as a community, must recognize this reality and help encourage all loving relationships.

What the Western Church determines is the paradigm for their clergy is their business. But for us Easterns, we have the tradition of recognizing that ALL human beings have the right to have a helpmate -- just as the Lord has ordained. And we must defend this reality to the utmost, regardless of what the 'powers that be' have mandated because of some theological perspective.

May the Lord grant blessings to our peoples. And may He grant us the graces to bring appropriate candidates to the service of His people and with their loving helpmates.

Christos Anesti! Christos Voskres! Christ is Risen!

Dr John,

I usually agree with your stand point on matters pertaining to sexuality. And you seem like a fairly balanced minded person regarding human sexuality, so I would probably defer to you first before my own mind regarding marriage & sex or sex outside of marraige. But besides disagreeing with you in general on this topic, I am at a total loss to understand what you mean by the above. Could you explain? And without the use of ancient words from Timbuktu or Babas cultural slang from the tenth century Russia? Much appreciated.

Dear Brother Maximos, thank you for your response.

My core point is this: every human being needs to have someone else in his/her life who is a helpmate. Someone who is "in love" with the individual. They'll do anything and everything for their beloved because it is in the beloved's best interest.

This is true for everyone, including the priest.

In the East, this has been the general perspective. Married clergy? Is this really a question? A man truly needs someone special in his life. Sometimes the relationship is bumpy and kinda rocky. In truly blessed cases, it is pure comfort and a sigh-inducing repose.

Intimate behavior is a part of this loving relationship. And the intimacy comes about in all sorts of circumstances. A glance; a touch of the hand; a word; a 'feeling' of love, etc.

To suggest that this is an impediment to the love of God that is expressed in the liturgy is, in my perspective, a perversion. People are made to love each other; God made us this way. And fortunate is the person who has found someone who is just crazy-in-love.

As for being 'unclean' or whatever because of intimacy with one's beloved.... well, that's just both bad theology and crazy. And if a priest and his beloved share an intimate moment whenever before the public celebration of the liturgy, well.. so what? It's not a moral issue. They're in love with each other.

And for others who have a problem with a priest being in love with his better-half, then my only response is: "I hope that you find someone is just nuts about you; then you'll understand." To have someone look you in the eyes and say: "I truly love you" is the greatest of blessings and gifts.

Being a priest is enough of a challenge; to add the additional burden of trying to explain being in love is just unacceptable. And asserting the pseudo-theology that being 'celibate' is a better vocation is an insult to our humanity. A humanity that God Himself created.

Let the Western/Latin Church observe its own discipline. But for us Easterns, we have our own discipline. Sure, there are potential problems, including financial, etc., but we've lived this way for millenia and we know how to deal with the circumstances. And successfully, I might add.

Christ is Risen from death! And so will we!!!

Dr John,

I understand your point more clearly now. Thank you.

I agree with just about everything you said to include the want and and perhaps even human need for physical and romantic intimacy with another human being. However - while I acknowledge that you acknowledge the Latins right to their own discipline - I disagree with your opinion or assesment of the *fruitfulness* of our discipline. Life has pain, this is something we can't run from, and for some of us that pain will be in the form of sexual fustration, the lack of romance, or that love we *crave* for. But for the sake and peace of the individual at some point he or she must surrender and accept their station in life. It is actually freeing. I do agree with the Buddhist on their concepts of freedom derives from freeing ones self from *cravings*. The bond and connection our Latin Priest do not recieve from women they can recieve - though expressed in another form - from their brother Priests. This is why the fraternal bond of the Priesthood is so needed. And it is precisely why I oppose Bishops handing over Priests to secular authorities. Life Confinement behind monastic walls would be better. All Priest need to know that they have their Bishops and fellow brother Priests behind them no matter the contreversy or danger that lay a head. Our Priest can not get this from wives, who would other wise be the original source of this fidelity, so it is crucial for the good order the Priesthood that Priests know without doubt that they can recieve this from the Priesthood it's self.

Dr John, some will never walk, some will never see, some will be so deformed that sexual intimacy will have a financial price. We should seek comfort in what we have, not seek it in what we long for. As my friend I had spoke of earlier that is incarcerated, I do not begrudge him for his fortune in the woman he had found but never appropriately loved. He's a good looking guy, and all around he's a likeable guy. He has always had the fortune to have pretty much any woman he wanted - white, black, latino. It must in it's self be a source of pain to always be able to recieve the effection you want from the oppisite sex, if you want it, because you may never develope the appreciation - in it's completeness - for that *one* who truely loves you and committes herself to you, no matter how attractive she is. For myself this why I don't like extremely attractive (physicaly) women, they have always easily recieved loved, and so our outlook on the world and our relation to it is totaly different. But back to the point -- so what if I had to give up sex and marriage for the Priesthood, life and joy does not end. Am I know more tragic then the leper on the streets of Calcutta, am I now more tragic then the innocent and incarcerated and raped in prison, am I now more tragic a figure then the young man that has lost his genetals in an accident and very likely will never find a woman to love him. I don't think so and worst comes to worst just jag ***.

Dear Mor, let me know your number and I'll give you a wake-up call!! Even long distance!! (Hope you cn be present.)

Joe has also made some comments that I would like to address:

"The fundamental issue behind the scandals is a complete abandonment of Catholic Tradition. In dioceses where traditions are followed, there is no scandal." I'm not so sure about this because there are similar problems in Ireland, and that's about as 'tradtional' as one can get -- by and large.

I think that the real issue is not abandonment of "tradition" but rather abandonment of "discipline". It is the absolute definition of sin when one allows one's self to do things that are not in harmony with the Gospel: Love God; love one's neighbor.

"Our priests and prelates (in the Latin Rite) have rejected many of the Churches teachings on Human Sexuality. So says William Donahue, president of the Catholic Leage for social and political justice."

Who?

"3. The Vow-promise issue. All priests (unless they have been dispensed from it) make a vow of celibacy on Ordination day. All those who are women's religious make a promise of celibacy. Which can be broken were they to leave the convent."

Methinks there is some 'fuzzy English' here. The ceremony of 'pronouncing vows' in religious orders (poverty, chastity, obedience, and as established: 'stability' for Benedictines, 'obedience to the Holy See' for Jesuits, commitment to missions among the 'heathen' for Maryknoll, etc.) implies that they are perpetual. Religious congregations (not orders) oftentimes have their members pronounce vows for (usually) three years, and then they are renewed, and then made 'perpetual'. Diocesan clergy, at the time of ordination into major orders, also make "vows": one, to remain celibate; two: to provide obedient service to one's bishop (Hmmm. Just like the marriage vows to love, honor and obey. Think about it.)

My point is: the Latin term "promitto" is the operative word in all these cases. Jesuits use it for perpetual poverty/chastity/obedience; nuns use it for their order's vow ceremony; sisters use it for their congregation's vow ceremony (even the 3 year commitment) and diocesan priests use it for celibacy and for obedience to their diocesan bishop. It appears that the English terms have seduced us into the distinction that is not really there.

"4. Married Bishops. In the Eastern Churches, I say decide it yourselves, but in the latin Rite I say absolutley NOT."

OK, that's your opinion. And I'm sure that there's some theology out there that can defend it. But I also remember reading some historical stuff about ordaining American blacks (and even some Africans) to the priesthood. The prevailing theology was questioning whether blacks had souls or not and therefore were capable of receiving 'grace'. [In my early years in seminary, I met a very elderly priest who was still of this mindset. He was assigned to a very rural monastic house of formation where he was 'working within the walls', and NEVER in a parish or public forum.] So, for married bishops, the tradition usually talks about widowers; I'm cool with that. Married priests, well that's another story.

"In light of these issues, I beleive we can come up with a consensus in which everyone benifits. Send those Latin Riters who feel they have a vocation both to the Priesthood and to the Married life to have discussions on the matter with their bishop and spiritual director/confessor about the issue. If they are all three come to the consensus that these two vocations exist simultaniously, SEND THEM TO YOU EASTERNERS AS IN OUR PARTICULAR CHURCH THESE TWO VOCATIONS CANNOT EXIST EXEPT IN THE CASES OF CLERICAL CONVERTS."

No thanks. We don't want your cast offs. They would be as useful to us as fog in a shipping channel. Apart from the fact that these guys would have no clue as to who we are, they would potentially screw up our parishes by being Roman-minded, and they would be frustrated by trying to transmogrify themselves into something they are not. To take a more critical perspective: who do the Westerns think they are to tell us who is fit to serve our peoples? And to be somewhat nasty about it: Leave us alone. You live in your house; we live in ours. Just because we're related doesn't mean that you can barge right in and give us your unwanted boarders, re-arrange our furniture, tell us whom we can love and marry -- or ordain, and pick a color-scheme for our residence and tell us what to wear. There are times I just want to change the damned locks and screen ALL the calls.

"As any practicing Latin Rite Catholic will tell you, in our Church we have a tradition of having daily Mass. Now if a priest was married, he would still have to be celibate in order to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass every day. Canon Law and longstanding tradition states that a priest must refrain from the exercise of the marital rites before offering up the Liturgy."

This is just plain wrong and self-contradictory. When Latins had married priests, there was as no concept that being married (with ALL that that implied) was somehow 'dirty' and an impediment to the celebration of the sacraments. It's a later 'theologizing'. Married love is a sacrament where two souls become united in love of God and love of humanity and most importantly: love of each other, until death. It is a most beautiful and wondrous gift from God.

"The Latin Rite cannot accept a general married priesthood. If it did it would stop being the Latin Rite in general."

Wow. Is there a basis for this proposition?

"A good indication of how bad this can get in the Latin Rite is a group called "rent-a-priest" which advocates the marriage of priests after ordination. Now I realize that what is under discussion here is ordaining already married men, but this step will only give more vigor to this group and the countless other groups like them that are trying to destroy the Latin Rite by corrupting our priesthood. Ordaining already married men is but one step from allowing priests to marry."

So, let's use the same logic that says: being aberrant in terms of Church discipline (i.e., allowing priests to marry) will destroy the Latin Rite. Then, 'ceteris paribus', the fact that there are primarily 'traditionalists' (like SSPX and their friends) who are in schism from the Holy Roman See, should indicate to us that these 'traditionalist' schismatics are also a serious problem.

What gives me grave cause for concern is the mindset that there is one and only one way for the Latin Church to behave. If it changes, then it is no longer the Apostolic Traditional Sanctified Holy Roman Catholic Church. (We have this same mindset among some in the East.) However, the reality is that many of the 'traditional' issues are really of recent origin. The Most Holy Sacred Immutable Tridentine Mass Ordo is but a mere 400 years old. We've got 1600 years of prior history that is oftentimes conveniently overlooked.

This is not "adhering to the tradition"; it is, rather, a "I like what I did as a kid and changes tick me off-ism".

In the East, especially among Ruthenian Christians, we see the same thing: "Blessed is the Kingdom.....Svajty Bozhe". That's what we knew!!! Where did all this 'antiphon' stuff come from?

It is a question of education; we NEED to let people know how things developed and were changed so that we can use our best judgement to adhere to the core elements of our praxis, and make emendations where they serve the pastoral needs of the people.

Adhering to 'late change' and 'immutable' traditions serves no one but the historian. As a CHURCH, we have the primary obligation to spread the Gospel as we understand it. It's our witness to Christ's teaching and His glorious Resurrection from the dead that validated everything He taught. Nothing more; nothing less.

Christ is Risen!!!

+JMJ+

I am amazed simply amazed at the abundance of hypocrisy on this forum. You mourn the Latinizations of your Rites and then at the first chance you get try to force your traditions upon us in the Latin Rite. Just a tid bit of Hypocrisy? me thinks so.

It is for this reason that I will be leaving this forum now and forever more.

Joe Zollars

I'm sorry that Joe feels this way and has left the forum. While we Easterns do indeed lament the Latinizations of our churches, and are doing what we can to recapture (as the Church has asked us to do) our legitimate patrimony. The same should be true for the Latin Church -- rediscover the spiritual roots that have given rise to the genius of the 'rite'/church. This may require prayerful changes to the overall lifestyle and discipline in the community. Suggesting immutability in the face of previous historical realities is not fair, especially to those who are tasked with providing leadership and spiritual care to the faithful. We should not hamstring our priests and bishops by requiring them to 'soldier on' with the current status quo, especially if does not serve the needs of God's people. They too are prayerful people, and we need to co-operate with them in moving the Church towards its culmination in Christ.

Christ is Risen!

Dear Joe,

Please don't leave, Joe!

Dr. John can be a bit caustic at times .

But I think that is not because of Dr. John's Eastern Christianity, but because of his training as a Jesuit .

(Hopefully, by the time I'm done this post, the two of you won't be leaving here together . . .).

I personally don't think anyone here would like to impose a married clergy on the Latin Church.

And I only asked a question about that "sex before Mass" issue for Eastern priests.

On the other hand, the Church canons (such as those of St John II Metropolitan of Kyiv) forbade sex before Communion for LAY CHRISTIANS