www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican stops suspending married men ordained for Eastern churches

Joe, your observations are all too accurate. The ACROD and OCA owe much to the Metropolia for vocations

Patriarchs Josyp, Maximos IV and Maximos V didn't take those suspensions very seriously nor should they have.

It is interesting that after the ordination of a married Melkite in the USA several years ago by Archbishop Elya (as I recall it was Father Andre St. Germain in the late 1990s), Cardinal Silvestrini commented when asked if Rome would do anything that "it was not wise for a third party to interfere".

So already the Secretary for the Oriental Congregration is admitting that Rome is not even directly involved if they are a "third party", indicating respect for the particular church sui iuris. I don't understand what the Ruthenian Metropolia is waiting for. The examples of the Melkites and Ukrainians are out there for everyone to see now.

And the Romanian eparchy of Canton.

God bless the folks at the ACROD and OCA for putting into practice what the Vatican II decree, papal encyclicals, and Instructions have teased us with for too many years. The ACROD and the OCA don't have to comply with permission slips with some absentee bureaucratic office having no invested interests in our future.

Joe

I understand what you are saying Cantor Joe and I agree with you.

From the standpoint of a man with family how can he justify preparing for the priesthood when he knows it is not open to him? Why not just go on developing that secular career? Who could blame them?

The whole problem is criminal.

I sympathize with those discouraged individuals, I feel the frustration myself.

I just wish that those who had an interest would pursue it anyway. We do also need a bishop who will announce boldly that he intends to ordain any suitably prepared married candidate that will step forward, in the same manner as the other jurisdictions. The reason we need such a statement is because no one is convinced that they will be ordained, so they don't prepare, catch 22.

We certainly have the open positions, in a few years there will be more vacancies than anyone ever dreamed of. Good candidates will have their pick of the litter so to speak.

In Christ,
Michael

Joe, I tried to reply but your PM box is full. Also I couldn't get through on your Yahoo address, perhaps I didn't get it down right.

That time is already here. Six retirements and one death in the past couple of years for the Eparchy of Parma (Byzantine-Ruthenian) alone.

Without commenting on individual hierarchs or any one particular jurisdiction, I should like to respond to the comment that it seems a waste of time to gain a theological education. That thought appears hasty; there is a critical need for good, well-educated theologians, be they laity or patriarchs. The present Dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary is a layman, and he was not chosen by default. It is true that for a married man (or a man who seriously wishes to be married) to pursue a vocation to the priesthood requires him to have a well-developed sense of initiative and responsibility - but a good husband, father and pastor will need those same qualities. All of us reading this discussion are aware that it is, right now, possible for a married deacon to be ordained to the priesthood; we should also be aware that it takes gumption, if I may be allowed an old-fashioned word. Protest by all means, but do not grumble (yes, there is a difference). Incognitus

It also takes bishops who will ordain them. Hence the reason why our church has become the vineyard for other jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, parishes will close first.

Surely I did not suggest that bishops do not need gumption? Incognitus

Dear Friends,

Cantor Joseph has raised a number of very important and even critical issues on this topic!

When I was thinking of entering the seminary in my last year of high school, I visited my bishop and questioned him about the married priesthood.

He said if I "really wanted to get married" then I should work on my seminary studies and let him "worry about" the marriage thing.

Why should he have had to worry about it? And is that any kind of secure situation to be in?

Another aspect to this that we haven't talked about, but I think it is worth mentioning, is the extent to which the Latin Church sees celibacy as an INTEGRAL part of the priesthood in terms of a universal law.

We may see this issue as part of the Latin vs Byzantine Church.

But Roman theology sees it as something that is part of the character of the priesthood - which is why a married priesthood may be tolerated in the "homelands" of Eastern Catholic Churches, but not so elsewhere, even though certain Particular Churches have been taking a stand and ordaining their own married clergy and "Rome go home."

So those Eastern Catholic bishops who refuse to ordain married men might perhaps be doing so not because of their belief in the force of any particular laws governing North America - but because they truly have bought into the idea that priestly celibacy is universal etc.

And if so, does this mean that the Ruthenian hierarchy is really Latinized in spirit, outward Byzantine "bells and smells" notwithstanding?

Alex

Alex,

A lot of it has to do with what is believed to be the 'mystique of the priesthood.' Celibacy is a gift, but there seems to be this nagging feeling that something supplementary has to fill its place: an aura.

The simple fact that one was educated in a seminary and has given up the life with a wife, demands something to fill the void. The walking, talking, and spiritually deliberating man who was made a eunech for the kingdom of God carries with him a special spiritualized or mystical projection that is almost ontological: they carry an aura, a non-existent metaphysical reality.

A number of former Latin priests who left the priesthood go into detail about this phenomena of auras and mystiques. Of course, their understanding is very negative because those who promote such fictional realities are actually looking for some basic appreciation at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I don't want my words to come off negative or unappreciative of the 'gift' of celibacy, but it still is a gift. Supplementing or giving a consolation prizes of auras and mystiques are poor substitutes for a life without a wife.

Those who embrace celibacy or perpetual continence freely are the living icons of sacrifice and dedication. We have our monastics to look up to.

Mandatory celibacy may still be the rule of the game (pure pressure from absentee bosses sitting behind desks on the other side of the pond) and will continue to be as long as we have auras and mystiques standing in the way.

God bless!
Joe Thur

One only has to tap one's heels together thrice, tell Rome to go home, and then the boogey man disappears.

If the boogey man doesn't disappear, then one only has to tie a chain to its neck, bring it over to this side of the pond, and make it tell our people in persona "No! Your doors must close first before we allow such a thing!"

Then we can wait and see what happens ... Maybe we can allow the boogey man to have an interview with the Boston Globe and see how far he gets before he has to change his name and be smuggled out of the country in a rolled up carpet?

I've come to the conclusion that some believe more in the boogey man than our Lord. Too bad. For its not the boogey man who sits on the judgment seat wondering why we let a church die for some tradition of man. Oh well ... Its getting hard to respect those who don't respect themselves.

Joe Thur

But isn't a celibate (unmarried) priesthood, abuses notwithstanding, ultimately a good thing for the Church (Latin or Orthodox)? Isn't a single man freer to travel, work till all hours, etc., as needed than a man with a wife and children to take care of?

Not to mention the extra cost of supporting a priest's family - how many churches could afford the costs of insurance and health care? There might be practical reasons, as well as spiritual ones, for maintaining a celibate priesthood.

Of course there's the argument that it should be optional, not mandatory - fine, but does that mean it should be completely abolished?

Theist Gal,
That wasn't a problem 100 years ago when almost all of our parish priests were married with large families. Somehow, our poor immigrant steelworker / coal-miner Rusyns (who were at the bottom of the economic ladder here like they were in the homeland) with large families managed to support the priest & his family, and build magnificent cathedral-like churches. The difference now is that back then, the people made financial sacrifices for their Church and the congregations were larger.

Yes, for all practical purposes, YES.

If you ask me, most celibates belong in a monastery and should stay there.