www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Priests should be allowed to marry - cardinal says

ebed melech:

What makes you think that? His Eminence will reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 in less than three years. So the diehards will have the appearance of being open to dialogue while knowing that the reaction from certain quarters will demand that his replacement will be someone much younger--for a longer term in office--and much less open to tolerating serious discussion of this topic.

I think that the recent Vatican study of this topic with its confirmation of mandatory celibacy for Latin priests puts the end to any realistic hope for any change in this discipline. Even the idea that more settled married men--older, second career types--might be considered was dashed.

I rather doubt any of us will see in our lifetimes a change in this discipline. I also doubt that a cardinal who once made such a statement would ever make it to election to the papacy because there are enough cardinals who support this discipline to make election impossible.

There is one thing that I do ponder, though. What happens if we should achieve unity with the Orthodox Church and have in the same town a Latin priest who must be celibate across the street from a married Orthodox priest with family? What do we tell the people in the pew now? And what do we tell young men who might feel called to the priesthood? That because of the sui juris church they are born into they cannot combine marriage and orders? Stay tuned.

In Christ,

BOB

Sorry, Bob. Not moi .

Gordo (aka "ebed melech")

If everyone needs to submit to Rome, then they'll love reading the many papal and conciliar statements praising married priesthood practiced by the East...not to mention the celibacy requirements for deacons from various councils.

My sense is that Rome will get a non serviam in that regard...

Gordo

PS: I know - they will say "it only applies to the East" but in the same breath talk about how it is only an accomodation...the West observing the TRUE apostolic practice.

If the Vatican was even remotely interested in seriously discussing the issue, they would publicly acknowledge that eastern Catholic bishops in the United States could ordain married men as they saw fit. I can't imagine what would happen in the case of reunion. There's no way that they could even suggest that the OCA, Antiochians, Greeks, etc. in the Americas send all their married clergy "home" to the old world. I suspect that though this is not something officially on the table for discussion, that Rome's giving up the mandatory celibacy rule would have to occur prior to reunion. I wouldn't be surprised if it were made a condition for reunion. I honestly think that it is not a good idea to have more than one discipline in the Church, especially today when "eastern" and "western" are really artificial distinctions anyway. In the early middle ages, for the most part, people were separated into Churches geographically. That is no longer the case. The best thing for the Latin Church would be to start making the transition now, preparing people for what will eventually have to change. Whether it takes 20 years or 200 years, I don't see how Rome can realistically keep up its ban. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I couldn't find any discussion of this on either blog. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Joe, the only way there will be reconciliation is within the bounds of the pre schism situation. I honestly have no idea how that will work in Catholic ecclesiology as it stands now, but I believe that's the case. So basically the situation would remain as it is now. Rome would have no jurisdiction over the Orthodox Churches, so I don't see how the situation with ordination or anything else would change for us.

The 'ban' is only an issue for latin-minded Eastern prelates nowadays, Rome isn't doing anything about Canadian Eastern Catholic bishops ordaining married deacons, nor does the Code of Oriental Churches have any such ban. Those Eastern bishops who are unwilling to ordain married men are doing it out of their own deficiencies, they can't go the the old 'appeal to Rome' argument anymore - Rome doesn't seem to mind (and even if it does what are they going to do now - force another 100K into Orthodoxy?).

Ilian,

Strictly speaking, Rome would have no jurisdiction over any Church but herself. So, in the pre-schism situation, the American Latin Bishops could ordain married men if they so wished, even without the consent of Rome. Perhaps, this is something that would be feared. If reunion were to happen, then various western Bishops would take it upon themselves to go ahead and start ordaining married men. I would see no reason why they couldn't. The notion of Bishops being bound to the wishes of one patriarch because of their liturgical rite is certainly not the situation of the pre-schism Church. Whatever ritual each Church used, each Bishop was autonomous in terms of the discipline of his own Church, provided he was in accordance with the doctrines and disciplines of the Councils. The whole problem of clerical celibacy really has its root in the notion that one Church has jurisdiction over other Churches. But a return to patristic ecclesiology would mean that inter-Church disciplinary rules could only be enforced by common agreement and what right would one Church have to excommunicate any Bishop without the consent of the other Churches? I think that, in the end, an enforced mandatory clerical celibacy will simply have to go or, practically speaking, there will be no reunion. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I suspect that you are right. But certainly, hierarchs can make life difficult for an eastern Catholic bishop even without imposing any official sanctions. I suspect that a bit of peer pressure may be at work. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Practically, what do the Churches of Greece or Russia do about the few priestly marriages that end in divorce?

....Yes, but can they afford it? *wink*


Seriously, I once heard a Roman Catholic professor say that clerical celibacy in the Latin discipline is akin to the monastic discipline of the East. He explained that the monastic and clerical ethos merged in the West, while in the East, it was seperated into strict cloistered monasticism or priestly vocation.

Alice

Joe,
I'm not sure I agree. It depends on the sense in which you use CHurch. WHilst they are genrally called rites, the Melkites, Ukranians etc. are more properly called CHurches. And in the sense that there is one Roman Church/Rite of which the American Roman dioceses/churches are a part, yes, Rome most certainly can and does determine the discipline followed in America. And aside from one or two Western Orthodox bunches rattling around, church union between the orthodox and catholics should'nt affect this discipline as not many orthodox churches would be claiming to belong to Roman jurisdiction (the Roman CHurch). Of all aspects of tradition I would have thought this was one western custom less likely to get in the way of union.

Ned

Ned,

I don't think it will absolutely get in the way of reunion. I just think it poses a practical problem based on the current world situation. Is it the case that the various patriarchs can determine, single-handedly, discipline in all the churches that fall under their "jurisdiction" so to speak? I didn't think that this was the case in Orthodoxy. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I know I've read somewhere that a married RC deacon was elevated to the priesthood when there were no other available candidates. Looks like even Rome will allow it in certain circumstances if I am remembering correctly.

Joe, I guess my impression is that each church would not individually go back to some pre-schism situation, but that the nature of the relationship between the two sides would have to use that period as a model. What that means to me primarily is what the Pope said when he was a Cardinal, i.e. that the Papacy would have to be exercised within the bounds of that period (and I know he also made contradictory remarks to that one). To my mind that would basically mean the following:

- No UOJ.
- Post schism western councils not accepted by the East.
- Orthodox Churches continue as they are (meaning the Vatican no longer relates to the East through the Curia or with the CCEO).

So I see no reason why the Western churches wouldn't continue as they are, with the same rules as to who may or may not be ordained. Nothing would change for us.