www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Scandals and Celibacy Fallout

Dear friends,

In light of the unfortunate scandals the issue of priestly celibacy has been all over the news. What I have noticed is that many of my RC friends have become extremely defensive of celibacy in recent weeks, which is perfectly understandable. My only concern is that this may lead to some fallout for us Eastern Catholics in North America. Here is a possible scenario:

Rome realizes that celibacy is under attack in the U.S., and decides to strengthen the discipline. In order to do so, some Vatican officials decide to stop sending "mixed messages" about the necessity of celibacy, and decide to crack down on married Eastern Catholic priests. The end result is that the ban of 1929 comes back full force, with a renewed vigor.

Is this a likely scenario, or have we moved beyond such unfortunate times? I am interested in your opinions.

Also, do you believe that Rome will specifically choose a new Metropolitan of Pittsburgh who opposes married priests? I have heard many people hypothesize that Rome is going to ask each candidate what they think about married priests, and will choose a Metropolitan who will promise never to ordain a married man. Is this just paranoia, or is this a realistic possibility?

Again, has the Catholic Church grown beyond the mindset that led to the ban in the 1920s?

Eagerly awaiting your thoughts,
Anthony

Anthony,

Gosh I hope not. I am a former RC and I can grasp the concept of being in Communion with another Church. This Church is not under the Roman Church.The celibacy issue is not our problem.It their's. Hopefully there is no candidate who will agree to that. This Church has to move away from a subordinate mentality. The statement should be "WE are doing this" not "Can we do this". I think alot of our faithful would stand behind our Hierarchy on this issue. If your 1929 senario plays out they will also have to factor in "The Saint Alexis Toth reaction".


Nicky's Baba

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

Originally posted by Dragani:

Dear friends,

In light of the unfortunate scandals the issue of priestly celibacy has been all over the news. What I have noticed is that many of my RC friends have become extremely defensive of celibacy in recent weeks, which is perfectly understandable. My only concern is that this may lead to some fallout for us Eastern Catholics in North America. Here is a possible scenario:

Rome realizes that celibacy is under attack in the U.S., and decides to strengthen the discipline. In order to do so, some Vatican officials decide to stop sending "mixed messages" about the necessity of celibacy, and decide to crack down on married Eastern Catholic priests. The end result is that the ban of 1929 comes back full force, with a renewed vigor.

Is this a likely scenario, or have we moved beyond such unfortunate times? I am interested in your opinions.

Anthony,

As a current Roman Catholic, working on transferring to the Byzantine Church, I would have to say that this is highly unlikely. It really doesn't make any sense if you give it some thought:

Eastern Rite has always allowed married priests.

Easterners come to United States and some Roman bishops make a big fuss about their married clergy.

Vatican says, "Ok, let's put a stop to that for now to quell the ruckuss (sp.?)"

Decades later, Vatican "wakes up", realizes married clergy has always been part of the Eastern Rite, encourages the East to return to and "purify" its Tradition, lifts ban on married priests in U.S.

Roman clergy scandal arises, celibacy mistakenly attacked as a result.

Rome says, "Op! Time to impose the ban again so the world knows we mean business about celibacy in the Roman rite!" ????

Call me silly, but I just don't see that happening.

Also, do you believe that Rome will specifically choose a new Metropolitan of Pittsburgh who opposes married priests? I have heard many people hypothesize that Rome is going to ask each candidate what they think about married priests, and will choose a Metropolitan who will promise never to ordain a married man. Is this just paranoia, or is this a realistic possibility?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like it came directly out of "The Catholic Enquirer" or something. Yes, I believe it's paranoia.

Rome has worked much too hard in recent years to get the East to "stand up fo itself" and return to its authentic traditions to do a 180 like this.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Peace,

Greg

Hi Greg,

When restoration of the married Priesthood came about a few years back correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Rome reserve the right to have a final say on the married candidates. If so and they want us to stand on our own why would they want to keep their "fingers" in it?


Nicky's Baba

[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

Originally posted by Nicky's Baba:

Hi Greg,

When restoration of the married Priesthood came about a few years back correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Rome reserve the right to have a final say on the married candidates.

Hi, Nicky's Baba. Sorry for the delay. Yes, this is true.

If so and they want us to stand on our own why would they want to keep their "fingers" in it?

Good question. I strongly suspect that this is simply one of those transitional "Ok, instead of just throwing it to the wind and hoping that it flies, let's take it one step at a time" type deals.

And this is not, I am sure, a matter of Rome thinking that Eastern bishops may be "incompetant" in this matter or anything of that sort, but rather it probably has to do with "inter-ritual relations", for lack of a better term. While the Eastern and Roman Churches are separate in most of their jurisdiction, we are still all "ONE holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" and, as such, need to be, to a certain degree, sensitive to how our actions influence those of our brothers and sisters.

Celibacy is a precious, but little understood gift these days it seems (even among those who are called to it and live it). For a number of different reasons, it's value is being seriously debated in various Roman quarters right now (*especially* in the United States). I have a feeling that for Rome to have given the Eastern bishops (in the United States) a green light instead of a yellow and for Rome to have said "Ok, ordain 'em (married men) carte blanche" would only have aggravated the situation even further.

No, it is not right for the East to have to discontinue their tradition indefinitely because of deficiencies in the understanding (or lack thereof) of some Romans. But for the time being, I think that if we keep this in mind (the faith of our Roman brothers), we can all understand what is "taking so long" for Rome to fully "let go", no?

Peace,

Mystic

It is my understanding that there are more Roman Catholic married priests (due to conversions of Anglican, Episcopalian priests) than there are Byzantine married priests. At my church we have a married priest but he is a retired Roman priest who is now bi-ritual. He and his wife converted from the Episcopalian church.
Xenia

Dear Anthony,
The Eastern Code of Canon Law is clear, married men can become ordained priests in the Eastern Church. That is it. Period.
The rest is up to you and your Eparchs and Clergy.
Be what you are to be.

Stephanos I

Greg,

The Metropolia doesn't need a green light from Rome. Its a Sui Iuris Church. That's a subordinate mentality. Why should we be sensitive to a Church who's Hierarchy tried to destroy this Church and who's majority membership do not know we exist? Why should this Church suffer for what is happening in the Roman Church?


Nicky's Baba

Originally posted by Nicky's Baba:

Greg,

The Metropolia doesn't need a green light from Rome. Its a Sui Iuris Church.

A What? I'm sorry. I need some help with the definition of "Sui Iuris".

That's a subordinate mentality.

I'm not sure I understand. Of course, all bishops, patriarchs, priests, metropolitans, etc. are subordinate to Rome. That's the way the Church is structured.

Why should we be sensitive to a Church who's Hierarchy tried to destroy this Church and who's majority membership do not know we exist?

My short but very sincere answer to this is that we are all still in the same family.

I would like to elaborate a bit, however, and ask you to qualify one of your remarks please:

I'm sorry, I'm no history major but I smell something rotten here. "who's hierarchy tried to *destroy* this Church"??? Could you be more specific as to who in the heirarchy you are referring to and how it is exactly that they tried to "destroy" the Byzantine Church? I'm terribly curious.

Further, what do you mean by "who's majority membership do not know we exist"? I think Roman Catholics are more aware of your existence than you realize. And certainly no one will be left in the dark once the media pick up the story. "Byzantine Catholics ordain married men." Please. I know the Roman rite already does this as an exception for Protestant clergy, but once this becomes a standard for the Byzantine Rite here is the U.S., something tells me it will be ALL over the evening news and COULD end up only aggravating the "celibacy controversy" in the West even further.

If your question is, "Why should that matter to us?", I'm not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer. (Not because there isn't one, but because I'm not sure the answer itself will matter to you.) It's pretty simple. Common courtesy toward your brothers and sisters. Does this mean, as I said before, that the East should be at the West's "beck and call"? No. Not at all. But a simple transition in this matter, rather than a carte blanche green light, can hardly be all that painful (correct me if I'm wrong), and, IMHO at this time, is a prudent thing to do.

Why should this Church suffer for what is happening in the Roman Church?

Solidarity?

Are you really suffering that badly, having to run things by Rome real quick? Has Rome refused to allow the ordination of married men since reinstating that capability?

Peace,

Greg

Hi Greg,

In the" Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches"
in the Glossary ,the term:

Sui Iuris: of is own right; an acknowledged autonomy with regard to goverment and discipline.

As far as RC Hierarchy trying to destroy this Church look under this section for "Married Clergy
a Menace" go to the thread that leads to "Clash of The Titans".There are other instances but I don't have time to go into them right now.
We recognize JP II as the Universal head of the Catholic Church but he also heads the Church of Rome.
No one under him in the Roman Church should have any input on what happens in the Eastern Churches. Only Eastern Catholic Hierarchy should have that authority.
When was the last time the Roman Church ask for input from the other 20 Churches on what was happening in their Church?
To anybody out there is this a possible senario? When you look at a diagram of the members of the universal Catholic Church,could the other 20 Churches if they felt they had a valid reason ever claim the Roman Church is not in Communion with them? Or maybe I should start a new thread with that question? Administrator?


Nicky's Baba

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

Hmmm, Anthony, I do know that several of my relatives were Orthodox to begin with but that a few more switched from Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholic churches to Orthodoxy in the 1920s and 1930s. I gathered that they didn't feel their customs or traditions were going to be respected in the New World. So that gives me some pause as I consider your post. But I'm not really enlightened enough, to guess what will happen in the future. I'm really interested in what others have to say. I've always been puzzled as to the reasons for all those difficulties in the late 1920s.

Originally posted by Nicky's Baba:

In the" Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches" in the Glossary, the term:

Sui Iuris: of is own right; an acknowledged autonomy with regard to goverment and discipline.

Ok. That's what I suspected but wanted to have it confirmed. Thank you.

As far as RC Hierarchy trying to destroy this Church look under this section for "Married Clergy a Menace" go to the thread that leads to "Clash of The Titans".

Are you talking about the link in the first post that has since been deleted, or are you referring to something else?

We recognize JP II as the Universal head of the Catholic Church but he also heads the Church of Rome. No one under him in the Roman Church should have any input on what happens in the Eastern Churches. Only Eastern Catholic Hierarchy should have that authority.

Not being quite as familiar with the whole curial layout of the Vatican as I perhaps should be, one thing that stands out at the moment are the various congregations (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Congregation for the Cause of the Saints, etc.). What about them? (And by the way - do you happen to know if there are many or any eastern rite bishops/patriarchs in any of these congregations?)

When was the last time the Roman Church ask for input from the other 20 Churches on what was happening in their Church?

Well, the second Vatican Council comes to mind when Rome was apparently even asking some Protestants for their input on at least one or two things. And John Paul II being as collaborative a soul as he is, it wouldn't surprise me if this sort of thing happens often in his administration. As for specifics beyond Vatican II, however, I cannot give them to you as I am not personally aware of what they might be.

Peace,

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: Mystic ]

I certainly hope that the current scandal in the Latin Church has no effect on the traditions of the Byzantine Church.

I say this as a Latin Catholic - if the Bishops of the Latin Church cannot explain to the nebby media that the Byzantine Catholic Church sets its own laws with regard to the ordination of married men, then they aren't doing their jobs, and probably shouldn't have them anyway. Orientale Lumen applies to the Latin Bishops and latin Catholics too.

I have NO problem with the ordination of married men to the priesthood - in ANY Catholic church.

Celibacy is a gift, but not a gift to which all are called to give.

If JPII is serious about ecumentical relations with the Orthodox, then the ordination of married men must be allowed, without interference of the Curia.

Still, I share some of Mr. Dragani's fears. I do not want the Byzantine Church to be harmed by OUR actions any further, but I fear it might.

Greg,

Read 3rd topic under byzantine news.
Congregations- the Prefect for the Congregation of Oriental Churches Is Eastern Patriarch of Syria Moussa I Daoud. The other Congregations- I don't know when they were established in reference to the reunion. So I don't know their functions in regards to the Eastern Churches or if they should have any. I took Vactican II out to read it. I don't think the Eastern Churches had input on changes in the Roman Church.I don't think it helped asking the Protestants for input. The Decree on Eastern Churches is interesting. Starts on page 441.
Which brings me back on track with this thread.It was written almost 40 yrs ago. Its a shame that not until 1999 the issue of married Priesthood was revisited. Anthony could you tell me if I am correct? "Rome" did not bring the subject up our Church did. Didn't our Canonists review documents and our Hierarchy concurred that there was no impendment to restoring the Married Priesthood? Which leads me to believe Rome is not that anxious to have Eastern Churches in the US embrace that particular aspect of it's tradition. It dawned on me as I watched the news. The Cardinals were called to Rome not only because the Holy Father was upset. It was mostly the outrage of the laity in the US which brought about that meeting. Keep that in mind. Outrage of the laity could be a a useful tool in restoring our Traditions and not to mention a real time time table on choosing a Metropolitan.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Anthony,

Rite or wrong , the Latin Church is currently facing enormous pressures from within its own clerical and lay ranks with respect to the married priesthood.

There are just so many EEM's that the Latin Church can have before it starts to resemble a Protestant church with Bible and Communion services, and this is what my many Latin friends are telling me - some with tears in their eyes.

Add to this the POPULAR connection made between celibacy and homosexuality and pedophilism among Latin clergy, and I think Rome will do anything but try to come out like gang-busters on clerical celibacy in either Church/Rite.

I've already heard three lay Catholics publicly say that "we have the blessing of Eastern Rite married clergy."

I don't think anyone has anything to fear right now, unless you are a Latin Catholic who looks forward to a Communion/Bible service most Sundays for lack of a priest.

Alex