www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Fr. Francis of EWTN

From the Catholic perspective, I would say that I beleive, based on what the Church teaches, that the desire for priesthood should be greater than the desire for marriage, if indeed one is called to the priesthood. A man who feels that he is called to serve God, should be willing to renounce EVERYTHING that the world offers, even the great goods of marriage, family, etc., for the greater good of the Church. Personally, I would not want to be both married and a priest at the same time. I would fear putting my family's well-being ahead of my concern for my spiritual children. (Please note that I do not mean to denigrate married priests, the church has been blesses with their service for centuries). However, the married priesthood is a toleration, celibacy is held in higher esteem.



I thought that these Canons from Session XXIV on Celibacy from the Council of Trent are interesting

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema

It is interesting that Trent says that: "God refuses not that gift(celibacy) to those who ask for it rightly."
It seems to me, that the Catholic Church teaches that those who are called to religious life, or priesthood (Diocesan or Secular) will be granted the grace to live a fulfilled celibate life, provided they seek to do so for the Kingdom of God.

What a tragedy that such a viewpoint is tolerated or accepted.

As an Orthodox I do not accept the Council of Trent of course. Yet, it is true that Orthodoxy has seen celibacy as a higher calling (though without dogmatically defining it as such). I will point out though that in the early church, celibacy was attached to monasticism, and it was monasticism that was considered the high calling, not holy orders. Indeed, ancient monks often tried to run away and had to be forced to be ordained.

It is interesting that you speak of married priesthood as something "to be tolerated." This clearly shows the view that the married priesthood is somehow a second-class priesthood. This opens up a huge discussion that ought to have its own thread; but I see the Churches as historically having views of marriage, monasticism, and Holy Orders that are times rather confusing and in tension.

I think the antidote to these problems is a return to the original New Testament ideas of Church leadership and marriage. Currently, we are closer to this in Orthodoxy, but both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches could continue to revisit the nature of priesthood and marriage in light of the New Testament.

Joe

Imagine (and people don't flame me please) if Fr. Francis, or another priest in his situation, were allowed by oiconomia to marry and resume life as a parish priest. Imagine the good that could be done in that. Must we never bend the rules?

Joe

I fail to see the joy in speculating about bending rules we do not have the authority to bend.

Terry

It is not an issue of joy or sorrow. No one is saying that this is a great thing that has happened. It is certainly not ideal. But everyone in this world deserves an advocate and friend, so I will advocate for mercy and oiconomia.

Joe

Will you call his bishop?

And I advocate on Fr. Francis' behalf not because of anyone here, but because of the viciousness I have seen on other forums and blogs; especially the Catholic Answers forum. And that Fr. Francis should become the object of such scorn and gossip shows how much some people misunderstand the nature of the priesthood and the nature of the Church. A priest is a man; he is a man called to perform a specific function and occupy a specify office in the Church. His authority comes from his fulfilling that office. He is not on a "higher plane" or "married to the Church" in a way that we are not. This is why this false parallelism set up between marriage and priesthood gives people such a distorted view of the Church. By baptism we are all married to Christ as members of the Church. We are the bride of Christ. The priest doesn't marry us, the priest marries Christ. But all Christians marry Christ, otherwise they are not a part of the bride. I think that while there is some value in the image of priest as alter Christus, I think that it can be overdone. Some of the early fathers also talked about the Bishop as the icon of God the Father and as the one who stands in the place of God the father. Yet we cannot take this too far either. The priest is still a member of the Church, not someone married to the Church. And if being married to Christ means that we cannot be married to a person on this earth, then none of us should be married.

Also, I have to say that we often have unrealistic expectations of our priests. We expect the priests to do everything, to bear everywhere at the drop of a hat, to have no serious personal problems, and to have no life except that dedicated to us. And I think that this is not in accordance with the New Testament and it is a way that we, as laity, shirk off our own responsibility as priests in Christ's Church.

Joe

What good would that do? Why should his bishop care about what I think? And it is none of my business anyway. But since this is a discussion thread and I prefer not to discuss Fr. Francis himself (since this is gossip), I simply offer some thoughts of mine on situations like these, for what they are worth; which is perhaps not much.

Joe

It would not be his bishop but his religious superior (just a needed pedantic moment in this strange thread)

You know, I understand that rules are rules but it seems to me that those, and I am not pointing fingers at any particular person, who get so bent out of shape about "rule breaking" have a problem. I do not see God getting angry when we break HIS rules every day. He consistently responds to us in grace and mercy. SO to me it smacks of hypocrisy and self righteousness and proud looking eyes, as the book of Proverbs calls it, to get upset. The only people who have a RIGHT to be upset are his fellow monks. The rest of us need to take a chill pill and quit griping about the faults of others when we are as guilty as they are. And yes, I am suggesting that every one of us is as guilty as Fr Francis. Who among us has never broken a vow? WHo has never had second thoughts? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Jason

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch. (2) SOME Roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment�.(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been.


Joe this argument runs into problems at two different levels. Young men in the Orthodox world who choose monastic priesthood will easily end up in the same sort of predicament at different times... And marriage was an option for them, but they chose to take those vows. Those that have pursued ordination after marriage are then in predicaments with death and divorce also - they may want to remarry, in fact some do.

"Mandatory celibacy" is a misnomer. It is optional - and that is the option one takes in the Latin or wider monastic life when one pursues priesthood therein.

No one is forced into priesthood. (At least no one should be!) And when the decision is made to pursue this call, it is done so in the context of the canons and disciplines available.

Let's all join in prayers for Father Francis. And let's all refrain from judgement or gossip - it is NOT our business.

Jason, well said. God bless you.

Joe

We also need to remember, as was said in another thread, we worship the Gospel Book, not a Canon Law book. Canon law is NOT God's law. It is the rules of men set down to organize the Church. Flame or disagree if you will but at the judgment you wont find any canon law books on the table for reference.

Jason

"He is not on a 'higher plane' or 'married to the Church' in a way that we are not. This is why this false parallelism set up between marriage and priesthood gives people such a distorted view of the Church."

I would not judge the qualitative differences between the vocation of a priest and a laymen, but a distinction does exist. Perhaps it is a distinction of occasion.

Spiritual marriage, being a spiritual father to his flock, has meditative roots in western monasticism. A married priest can be more concerned with worldly matters if he were to love his wife and children than a priest whose interest centers on his duties to his parish. The historical context of the development of the doctrine is interesting too. There is a certain wisdom in this doctrine and the justifications of priestly celibacy.

I would have to disagree with your opinion that an analogous depiction of the vocation of priesthood is distorted. It does not fully represent all priests, but it does represent the historical and current norm of Roman Catholic priesthood.

Terry