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

I believe the ordination of married men to the priesthood would actually create more problems than it would solve. In dioceses where tradition is still alive, vocations are not a problem. The church has far bigger problems to address than the ordination of married men. Truly sad how often I now hear elderly Catholic men telling me, that priests will continue to molest children until they're allowed to marry. Right there it sounds like some old dudes need a heavy dose of Catholicism For Dummies, not to mention some statistical data on the background of convicted sex offenders.

I'm only sorry that his Eminence was silenced. but that will not change his mind, and I congratulate him on his courage to say what must be said. stay tuned, boys and girls, this ain't over yet, not by a long shot.
Much Love,
Jonn

Joe:

I think you seriously misread western history here when you speak of the pre-schism situation. The bishop of Rome was directly repsonsible for all the missionary efforts throughout western Europe and sent bishops of his own choosing to areas needing evangelization. In later times when the civil authority did not select bishops, Rome still had much influence in who a bishop reported to. Evne when bishops were selected by the civil authority, these bishops had to answer to Rome. The situation could get interesting when a bishop had to choose, such as the time of the English Reformation, but that just seems to illustrate the difficulties with dual loyalties inherent in the western experience.

Each bishop in the Latin Church has, today, a personal relationship with the Pope and reports to him on everything that goes on in his diocese every five years during his ad limina visit. I rather think that any American Latin bishop who would do as you say--ordain a married man without Roman approval--would end like Abp Milingo: excommunicated. And as the bishop fo Lincoln, NE, recently pointed out episcopal conferences have no canonical position in the Latin Church similar to synods in the East. They are simply the means by which bishops in a given geographical area can come to common ways of dealing with common problems but cannot bind an individual bishop to follow any decisions taken.

As far as the Eastern Churches operating independently, that might be the case in traditonal lands, but the problem might come when they operate in--to use terms often put forth by the Russian Orthodox Church--the canonical territory of the Latin Patriarchate. And this may be part of the reason for the Pope's dropping of that traditional title: Patriarch of the West. What happens to Eastern Churches erected in the Latin Patriarchate, say North or South America? These areas are part of the West. I do agree, however, with the idea that the traditional concepts of East and West have little meaning today because of the migrations of peoples thorughout history.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Archbishop Milingo wasn't excommed for ordaining priests, only for ordaining bishops without Papal oversight - which is in violation of Latin Canon Law.

The elevation of a married permanent deacon would be highly irregular; not so much because he is married in fact but even more crucially because it undermines the stability and distinctiveness of the permanent diaconate. Yes, it is not uncommon for ex-Anglican priests to be ordained in Australia so the elevation of the deacon would be unusual for the other reasons mentioned more so.

The topic name really gives the answer; you CAN have married clergy, but SHOULD you? I'm certainly in favour of leaving it as it is, as the exceptions already mentioned indicate there is certainly enough flexibility to cope with situations in which bishops may ordain some married men to holy orders whilst preserving a long-standing tradition in the Western CHurch. It is important to remember that there is some evidence that some married clergy in the early church in the west lived a radical kind of marriage than laypeople. If we also take it as a given that married men who might be called to the clerical state would not be ordained in the church today unless they were faithful to and exemplary proponents of church doctrines on the family I feel that such a hypothetical step would be unlikely to assuage some of the more liberal voices in the church who are proponents of changing current discipline.

Ned

Michael_Thoma:

I know about the Milingo case. My reference was a step beyond that to the case suggested above--where an American Latin bishop might just start ordaining married candidates on his own initiative. My point is still that a Latin bishop is a papal appointee and, as such, has a direct responsibility to the Pope to do exactly what the Latin Church calls for and nothing more. Perhaps excommunication would not be the first step; simple removal from the diocese he was heading might be that first step.

BOB

Bob,

I understand that the Pope does have the authority to remove a bishop for any reason, but shouldn't the practice of Papal oversight be balanced with episcopal autonomy? I agree the Pope can remove a bishop for any reason, but shouldn't this be limited to doctrinal errors and not disciplinary issues which is really each local bishops domain (unless there is a error in theology, doctrine, schism arises, etc)?

For example: Would the Pope remove a bishop for suggesting he doesn't want his diocese to have altar girls? How about if a bishop decrees that his diocesan norm is to receive Communion via tongue - is that grounds for removal?

The issue of the ordination of married men is theologically and doctrinally no different, that the Pope would remove a bishop for allowing the practice seems to be making it a bigger (theological) deal than it is.

Michael_Thoma:

There is a big difference between what might be theologically and doctrinally correct and what might work in practice AND what the reality of ecclesiastical politics will tolerate.

My thesis is that there are some issues that will cause Rome to move and some that they will tolerate. Currently it seems that it will allow a bishop latitude in the areas you mention--liturgically because the bishop is supposed to regulate the implimentation of liturgical norms within his diocese.

But on bigger issues, such as disiplinary items like mandatory clerical celibacy, it seems they have focused on coming down harder on that issue.

On the other hand, if you look around, there are some quiet changes being made on the ground that are being done without causing a lot of waves. There is, for example, a married priest serving a parish that I am aware of--far out in the country; far removed from the glare of lots of media attention--and the man is doing a great job. No one seems to know a lot about his background, whether he is an Anglican or Lutheran or Orthodox convert, but he is serving a parish instead of being hidden in a chaplain's position.

I've had lots of time to spend with clergy over the years, listening to their explanations of the nuances of ecclesiastical politics--how it varies from "official" positions and documents is fascinating stuff to me.

BOB

BOB

Vocations were flourishing in the West as recently as 50 years ago, and continue to flourish in healthy seminaries and religious orders. Celibacy is not a problem in the West, and I think it would be unwise to institute a married Priesthood as a remedy for real problems.

Also, I think it's important to note that celibacy is not a "ban", but a theological and spiritual discipline. The Eastern Churches, as I understand it, only ordain celibate Monks as Bishops. But the infant Churches did ordain married men to the Episcopacy. Should the Eastern Churches revert to the more ancient discipline, solely on the premise that it is more ancient? I would say no, and I think the same freedom should be accorded to the Western tradition.

Are individual Eastern Orthodox Bishops free to ordain married men as Bishops if they choose to?