www.byzcath.org

Yes - the West is very wedded to this idea of mandatory priestly celibacy, almost beyond all reason. Don't get me wrong - I think an active celibate clergy is a great blessing to the Church. But one is almost regarded as a heretic to question the viability of excluding married men from consideration.

Gordo

I think that the above opinion is heretical.

There are many scriptural reasons that can be used as an apology for married priests but for me it comes down to every day life situations like for example....

A priest is often times asked advice.... everyday advice..... it could be advice having to do with sexuality and marriage and kids, who would you rather ask, a Father that has no idea about any of it past the fact that girls have one part and boys have another, or a Father that has 3-4 children, has raised them and has been married for years and knows how a marriage really works.

I've gotten some great advice from our wonderful parish Priest. He has 2 sons. He is a great Father and a great Husband. If I need advice on a fight I am having with the wife or how to better raise my daughter I would much rather ask Him than Father Joe Shmo who has no idea about this.

Sure, there are many many wise celebate priests, elders and monks who can also give great advice, but Clergy with the gift of Eldership or such wisdom is not easy to find.

I would just remind the Cardinal that he's writing against the Canons of the Catholic Church and leave it at that. There are certainly segments in the Latin Church that disagree with anything that remotely deviates from their own tradition (as there are segments that do the same in all Churches), and they need to be corrected openly. Who better to do it than us?

I just want it to not be an "East versus West" issue, since that is precisely the kind of nonsense folks like the Cardinal are making it. His nonsense doesn't reflect a position on the part of Rome itself, especially given the Eastern Code of Canons which is upheld by Rome. There is certainly room for improvement in this regard (such as allowing non-Latin Churches to operately under their own law without interference by Latin Bishops when located outside their "home territory"), but that doesn't represent any kind of concerted attack on the married priesthood by the Vatican.

That being said, I agree that it's absurd how quickly a married Latin priesthood gets shot down in discussions. Of course, I myself am partial to it for reasons of tradition (I would certainly be a celibate priest if I became one, by my own choice), but it shouldn't be regarded as an off-limits topic. Furthermore, it absolutely shouldn't be addressed the way the Cardinal and this journalist are doing it, with falsehoods and outright attacks on the venerable tradition of fellow Catholics.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Borislav,

While your example is certainly a good one, as a (fellow?) cradle Orthodox who has experienced the marriage clergy all my life, I can give many arguments against the married priesthood too-- I just don't want to get into it, lest I be misunderstood and get in trouble!

The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Maybe we should just let each tradition (Latin and Eastern) continue the way it has for whatever venerable and/or practical purposes they were based on.

In Christ,
Alice

Alice,

I actually advocate for a "middle ground" view - ordain middle-aged married men (in their mid to late 40's) as opposed to twenty-somethings with new families. Let the witness of the man's family and work life indicate some of his fitness for ministry. I also think a larger parish with a celibate pastor and multiple married associates makes a great deal of sense.

Just a few thoughts...

Gordo

No offense but arguing against married priesthood is preposterous. There isn't 1 good reason priests shouldn't be allowed to marry. Not 1. The examples of thousands great Married priests speak for itself. And when it comes to Orthodoxy I believe that the grass IS greener on our side.

Also the fact that Eastern Right Catholic Priests are allowed by the Vatican to marry while the Latins are not is an example of hypocrisy.


A priest should be able to choose the path of the Black Clergy (unmarried clergy) if he so chooses, but it should never be forced on him. I think the unfortunate happenings in the USA and other countries involving celibate priests prove this.

I've long observed and commented on this forum before that there's an almost inverse "discrimination" in the church where the diaconate is now seen as an order for married men, and not for celibates, and that the ordination of celibate deacons would strengthen not diminsh the case for married priests, as itwould affirm the uniqueness of each vocation.

Having said that, I do not neccesarily believe that the marriage option would resolve the problems of a church that when the aged members die will have a problem with a supply of lay parishioners as well as clerics in the west, when the "balance" will be much restored.

Whilist I might bemoan occasionally the way laws on Holy Orders (esp Diaconate) are applied, I accept the decisions made by superiors and believe that the current "crisis" will be resolved without changes in discipline, just as previous crises of ministerial practice and supply have been.

Ned

I as a Latin, am more bothered by the "back door" ordinations of former Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist ministers (who are married) after their conversion to the Latin Church. It seems that only Cradle Roman Catholics who are married are the ones Rome won't ordain.

I'm not bashing any married priest at all... believe me!

By the way, I like Gordo's idea!

Greetings and Blessings...

I have just read the 25 page paper By Anthony T. Dragan..
"A Critical Consideration of The Case for Clerical Celibacy."

And, I applaud his discussion!!..PRAISE GOD!

Several years ago, after hearing a homily by a RC Priest discussing the idea supporting RC Clerical Celibacy. After the Holy Liturgy, I approached him with the question: "What about Eastern Rite married Clergy? This Priest (a young man) began shouting at me and would not discuss the topic! I was completely stunned about the whole event!

Also, today we see "many" married RC Priests coming from the Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Also, I know of "two" ordained RC Priests who have raised a family and are today managing parishes.

Anthony Dragan should publish a book to counter Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler statements!

GOD LOVE YOU!

...Ignatius

Actually, there are two good reasons why there are cases when married men shouldn't be ordained. (1) God isn't calling them to be ordained. (2) God isn't calling them to be be married.

I don't mean to be flippant. I mean to point out the obvious which is sometimes overlooked by the policy makers. Vocations are callings by God, not man; and they require discernment and obedience.

Hence, I agree with what you said in the following quote:


Put another way, men should be allowed the freedom to discern the vocation that God is calling them to: the single life, the married life, the priesthood, the monastic life, being married and a priest, or being celibate and a priest.

Just my 2 cents worth.

-- John

Ignatius,

I'm sure that your story is not all that uncommon. I had an experience on a Catholic radio program where I called in and brought up the Eastern practice of married men being ordained presbyters in light of Paul's letter to Timothy and the importance of the witness of family life for leading the "household of the Church". Despite the fact that other callers were permitted more time and follow-up questions, I was quickly dispatched. It reminds me of the child who places his hands over his ears and says "I'm not listening! I'm not listening! Blah blah blah blah..."

The problem is that the celibacy-only apologists have convinced themselves of the righteousness of their cause because:

1. Many of them had to make the difficult (and very praiseworthy) choice of celibacy for the kingdom.

2. They constantly battle against the distorted notions that celibacy is somehow abnormal in an over-sexed, pornographic culture. Their path is truly a sign of contradiction. (But then again so is a healthy loving marriage and family life, which, while it may shock some young singles, is not all about sex.)

3. Opponents of Catholic orthodoxy often clump "married priests" (which does not just mean ordaining married men to the priesthood but normalizing the faculties of priests who have left the exercise of their ministry with or without permission of their hierarch to enter the married state) with a list of other completely unrelated points of protest:

- married priests
- women's ordination
- contraception
- gay rights
- divorce and remarriage

Married priests often tops the list, which I believe makes even well meaning orthodox Catholic clergy and laity bristle at the idea since they assume that the whole package comes with it. We faithful Eastern Catholics need to help drive a mental wedge between the married priests issue and the other items.

4. Rome has spoken!...well, sort of. Rome recently spoke on the issue or ordination within its own Latin rite. But the average RC Joe and Jane Schmoe - even Father Joseph O'Schmoe - thinks that CATHOLIC = LATIN. They are generally ignorant of all the affirmations wihin and since Vatican II affirming the virtue of our disciplines. In fact, they are generally ignorant of the existence of the Eastern churches!

So it will take some effort to catechize these folks who would be our friends on so many other issues.

Gordo

Absolutely right, but I was obviously speaking of men who are being called to priesthood and marriege.

Dear Friends,

In fact, there is a continuing fear among Latin Catholic bishops that the EC practice of married clergy will somehow "infect" their ranks.

Our former Cardinal himself wrote an article to a local Catholic paper to criticize what I had written on the subject (without, however, naming me personally).

He referred to some letters on the matter (which I had written) and said the whole issue of a married priesthood had again "reared its ugly head."

I had originally responded to an article there that strongly suggested that a celibate priesthood would be the 'best thing for the EC churches' as well.

I wrote back to give reasons why the tradition of a married priesthood, alongside celibate clergy, in the Latin Church would be of immense benefit to it, especially in these times when an example of good married life could be witnessed to by such priestly families.

Unfortunately, Latin Catholics, in general, seem to equate marriage only with sexual gratification - and its absence with a self-imposed penance.

Such Latin Catholics clearly are either unmarried or have unhappy marriages.

To be married is to share, in a special, unique way, in the Way of the Cross.

And to be unmarried can, even with celibate priests, be a way out from under that Cross.

Alex

Pardon me if I am going to sound to harsh, but Clergy members who say things like that need to be excommunicated for heresy or at least disciplined.

Borislav,

While you and I agree on certain points here, madatory celibacy for the Latin Church is not, strictly speaking, a heresy. That being said, certainly there could be heretical reasons for asserting that the discipline is mandatory. But one should not assume that it is heresy.

God bless,

Gordo