www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope to hold summit on married priests

OK...I'm kinda new to the forum, and so my questions may seem naive, but...

Why would the news agency try to edit statements that do nothing but describe something that is going on in parts of thier own church? (I'm anticipating that the deleted posts on the CNA site were something along the lines of 'The Orthodox and the Byzantine Churches have had married priests for 2000 years now without a significant problem', and that nothing inflammatory was about to be posted.)

You're only describing something that they should already know about. Why won't they allow the truth to be discussed? It won't affect you folks being in communion with Rome or anything.

Can this suppression really be as bad as described?

Actually, I just checked the site. It looks like comments are submitted and screened and then posted (if acceptable) within 48 hours.

Here are the comments I made:


We'll see if it gets posted...

Gordo

Another interesting quote from the Time article on this:


I'm curious how Cardinal Schonborn expressed his support for this. Clearly, of all Latin prelates, he is one of the few that can voice a fully favorable and orthodox position...although I believe that, if true, he has tanked any chances he had of becoming pope. (Perhaps that was the intention!)

God bless him!

Gordo

I know that when Christ returns he will hold me accountable to how I have respected and followed the directives of His Vicar. I don't argue are refute the Holy Father's decisions in any way shape or form.

Aside from that, though I am an Eastern Catholic. I agree with the Latin thinking behind priests living a life bound sacramentally to the Church. It gives me strength and encouragement as I try to prevail in my own vocation of holiness being a single man.

Sincerely,

Brian,

Welcome to the Forum!

Three quick points:

1. All priests of the Church - married or celibate - are bound sacramentally to the Church and to Christ.

2. The matter at hand is not a matter of doctrine, but rather discipline. If you read the history of the Church, there are many examples of even saints of the church disagreeing with the pope on disciplinary matters. (The disagreement of Polycarp withthe pope over the date of Pascha is a great example.) While I admire your willingness to honor his primacy, it does not serve the good of the Church to equate following the Latin discipline with being faithful to Christ.

3. Ultimately, Christ holds us accountable for our love of God and neighbor. If love for the pope as the Successor of St. Peter and the bishop of the Church which presides in love flows from these two principles seen in the light of divine faith, then I agree.

Be careful that your agreement with "Latin thinking" does not come at the expense of your Eastern identity. I don't take issue with your overall intent, but rather with the emphases you bring to its expression.

Good to have you here. God bless!

Gordo

The following article was on BBC's website today.

Vatican stands by celibacy ruling [news.bbc.co.uk]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

This was forwarded to me this morning on the same subject.

BeliefNet Story [beliefnet.com]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I stand corrected. My quote did make it up when I checked this morning.

Love the charitable response posted under me, though: to the effect that if one doesn't like the Church's teaching about celibacy one ought to leave.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Did you expect anything else there?

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

could we just get back to the issue at hand, that is married priests? I agree with Father that Gay bashing is not to be done, at least in this discussion.
anywhatever, I was elated to hear that His Holiness is at least in the conversation mode about ending mandatory celibacy for secular priests. celibacy for the Latins is not a dogma, nor is it a "tradition" as a recent poster asserted, it is but a canon law in the Canonum Romanum, it can be done away with, and it should be.
look around you, people, the Latins are seeing Episcopal priests and Protestant clergy coming into the Church with families in tow, and they are being reordained as Catholic priests.
on the subject of celibacy, I was happy to read some time ago that the Ruthenians were going to ordain married men to the Priesthood, and if the Latins had a problem with it, tough, get over it and live with it.I am hoping that the spiritual children of Father Toth (eternal memory) will eventually rejoin their brethren and sisters in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I think we all know that it was because of the ignorance of Latin bishops towards married Ruthenian priests that was the major cause of the division. I recognize that the damage has been done, and it will take a long time for healing and reunion, but I am always hoping.
as far as the next step, married bishops, that is far fetched, but again, I seek the day when it happens. many of the original bishops in the Church were married men, just take a look at Pope Peter for starters.celibacy was mandated, at least in the Western church because married bishops were bequeathing their dioceses to their offspring, corporate law being as paleolithic as it was. it would be tantamount to the President leaving states to his daughters.oh, while on the topic, what is this I hear that there are married Eastern bishops, any comments?
now I was discussing secular priests and bishops, but I see no reason to discontinue celibacy for religious priests and bishops, and they too should be considered for the Lord's service.
Much Love,
Jonn

We, Romans, don't deny that priestly celibacy is not a Church doctrine but "merely" a discipline. It can be abrogated!

However, to dismiss it as not amounting to a "tradition" in the Latin Church smacks of hypocrisy.

If you read the statement, priestly celibacy is a "Catholic tradition," i.e., it is also valued in the Eastern Churches, where there are many celibate priests and, of course, an all-celibate monastics.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e0_en.htm

Frankly, I think that the Eastern discipline is more correctly termed "optional celibacy" rather than a "married priesthood!"

As to St. Peter, we come to know from biblical accounts that he had a mother-in-law.

However, we do not know for certain whether his wife was surviving during his apostleship or if she was already dead. Or, if St. Peter continued cohabiting with her or otherwise led a celibate/chaste life after answering the call of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

How about the other Apostles? How many were married and how many were unmarried and celibate?

One thing for sure, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the "eternal priest" in the New Covenant was unmarried and celibate (unless one believes Dan Brown's thesis that He had children with Mary Magdalene!) His only "bride" was/is the Church!

Dear ebed melech,

Thanks for the hasty generalization of my response. The invalid analogy was really off the hook.

Yours in Christ,
Brian

I know that this topic has been discussed exhaustively, and I certainly have nothing new to inform the discussion. However, I continue to struggle with this issue, and am hoping that maybe others have dealt with it and can help me change my focus.

After eight years as a Catholic, I cannot seem to escape the conclusion that priestly celibacy attracts misfits. Of course not always, or even a majority of the time. But even the most conservative estimates say that at least 30% of American Catholic priests are homosexually oriented. If the Pope has rightly declared that these folks are not fit for the priesthood, then the celibacy requirement - at least in our hypersexual western culture - appears to be a discipline of ecclesial self-sabotage.

I used to think that this was not an issue among Byzantine Catholics, but realize that it was wishful thinking. As an alternative, I am thankful to have found a nearby RCC church with a pious, orthodox, and manly pastor. Wherever I have lived, I have always been able to find a solid priest somewhere.

I totally buy into the concept that celibacy can intensify the priest's relationship with God in a way that nothing else can, and I thank God for the men who have loyally followed that profound calling (however imperfectly) so that I might receive the sacraments. Gratitude and honor to each of them!

But I am tormented by the fact that I sometimes only can wonder at the brazen, thinly-veiled disloyalty to that same calling: as if somewhere along the line, these people were assured that disinterest in marriage was an indicator of priestly fitness.

I know that I must be careful not to judge. My life is far from exemplary. Call me bigoted if you will, but I cannot apologize for wanting a father who thinks like a man, and not like a woman.

Brian,

Maybe it is my jet lag , but I am not clear on your comments here. Are you saying I made a hasty generalization and an invalid analogy? Or are you agreeing with my points?

Again, sorry if you have to spell it out for me but I just am not sure what you are saying.

God bless,

Gordo