www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Clerical Marriage

I completely agree. I am sorry 'rigid' can across as pajorative. What I really meant is that I see no need to teach elaborate and competing theological ideas (interesting as they might be) to someone (ie a parish priests to a rural part of South America or indeed North America) who just needs to have the essentials of the faith and a sound ability to perform their functions. Leave all the complex stuff to those who might be Canons or Bishops (ie celibates). It takes 6 or 7 years at least to become a Latin Rite celibate priest, I am sure that kinda training is unnecessary for the chaps I am taking about. I always remember that line in the Catechism of the Council or Trent telling priest not to bother mentioning various things because it will only confuse the laity when they really needn't worry about the issue.

Do you mean having two classes of priests ?

a ) Those who have the full 6 or 7 year Seminary training - 2 years philosophy and 4 years of Theology [ with if wished 1or 2 years of a specialised area such as Canon Law or Patristics ]

b ) Those who have sufficient training/education to manage to say Mass [ speaking in Latin terms here ] , preach , celebrate the Sacraments .

I have a feeling that this was done in the past and the results led to problems .

One area where problems come to mind is that of Confession - surely a Confessor needs the full 6/7 year Seminary education so they are really capable of spiritual guidance .

I think that this is a very good point. If the Church was ever able to follow the Biblical model (at least as St. Paul articulates it) the development of the ministry of is fundamentally rooted in how a man pastors his own household - his own domestic church. From there, the path to presbyter grows in stages according to the advance of orders, with ever expanding responsibilities. The growth is organic and local. The notion that a priest needs to be equipped to be a speculative theologian is absurd, and yet so much of the present seminary system (at least on the Latin side) seems bent on turning out such folks. A priest needs to know the liturgy (obviously...at least to some!), kerygmatic and catechetical theology, Sacred Scripture and the guidance of the church in the areas of moral teaching. This "knowledge" must be more than just notional, but must be actualized and witnessed to by the local church. (Otherwise, how does one explain our "axios" at ordination? - at least in the East) Each man who is a candidate for ordination should enter into a relationship of apprenticeship under his bishop and a senior priest. Pastoral praxis is more caught than taught. It is a "learn by doing" sort of thing. (Fathering a family is tremendous in this regard. It is one of the reasons why I think the ordination of young, newly married 20-somethings contradicts the wisdom of Paul's exhortation to Timothy.)

Such a change to an apprenticeship model for ministry means a change in the understanding of the role of local clergy, especially more senior clergy. It cannot just be about fulfilling their own ministry. A key dimension to that ministry is cultivating future vocations, growing future leaders, thus creating an organic ministerial pipeline in the local church. The bishop obviously has a pivotal role in this, since he is ultimately the pastor of the local church. But some of this can also be delegated to senior priests.

It was interesting to read the proposal of Bishop Nicholas Samra regarding a unified seminary for all Byzantine jurisdictions. While I do not disagree in principle with the idea of pooling resources across the various jurisdictions to support the formation of priests, I somehow wonder if the seminary system itself as it is designed today (central location, four years away), while beneficial in many respects, is really one of the last vestiges of Latinization that needs to be seriously reconsidered and possibly reconfigured in favor of a pastoral model of formation...organic, pastoral and familial...IOW, one that is really more in keeping with the praxis of the early Church. (Sort of an "un-seminary"!)

In my own work in international leadership development in both Asia and Europe, I have found that there are three factors that contribute to the formation of successful leaders: learning events (classroom training), on the job assignments and support/coaching/mentoring by a more senior leader. Of these three factors, the factor that has the highest percentage of impact in terms of overall leadership development is on the job assignments (60-70%). Coaching and mentoring represents about 20-30%, and learning events (classroom training) is only about 10-20%. What does this teach us? The classroom is not the principal milieu for leadership formation - it is the "field" with the guidance of another leader. I believe that this is especially transferrable to the formation of priests. The seminary has unfortunately become primarily an academic exercise for some. I'm all for the intellectual formation of priests, BTW. And I do not mean to say that other dimensions of formation are neither offered nor encouraged. But do we as Easterners not profess that the liturgy is the matrix of both our spiritual lives and theological formation? Does that not indicate as well that the local church has primacy of place in the formation process? Is removing priestly candidates from their local church for four years ideal? where is the formative value of the local church and clergy in all of this?

I certainly do not believe that I have all the answers in this regard. But I do know that the "seminary system" - principally the fruit of Trent - has both its share of blessings and difficulties. As it relates to sourcing future candidates, very clearly the seminary system is more conducive to younger celibates than to older, married candidates. I do not mean to disparage younger, celibate priests, but an experienced, older (mid 30's-60's) married man of virtue to my mind is a far better candidate to consider for pastoral work. But to tap into this pool of candidates, are we going to ask these men to "fit" into the seminary system, or is there a better way? Can and should there be opportunities to form true "tentmakers" who practice a profession and also serve the needs of the local church?

There are more questions here than answers, but I believe they are worth asking.

God bless!

In ICXC,

Gordo

I would be very grateful if Happy Latin would give us an overview of how he thinks that his, for-want-of-a-better-phrase ,"lower " class of priests should be trained .

I do remain concerned about this.

I do know that in the RC Church 'late vocations' may well have a much reduced Seminary Education , one I knew went to the Beda in Rome for 4 years , financing it all himself , but then he was a retired General Practioner with many years of life skills behind him. I suspect that this is not the sort of Candidate that Happy Latin was meaning

Let me only add that if the hierarchs consolidate and have a single seminary, I hope that they consider the need for a Distance Learning program (for all the ordos - minor orders to major), just for the reasons I mentioned...

An example:

www.holyapostles.edu [holyapostles.edu]

God bless,

Gordo

PS: I just want to clarify that I am not in any way saying that I agree fully with Happy Latin's apparent distinction - lower caste married's and upper caste celibates. And while priesthood is pastoral, not all priests should be pastors. Some, whether celibate or married, are called to be scholars and academics, exercising their priestly mission in a university type setting. Some are called to serve in monastic settings - to be hidden like leaven in a monastery or as a poustinik. The vast majority, however, should serve in a local parish.

If a return to married clergy in the west can be coupled with a return to orthodoxy then I would have no problems and would actually encourage the idea. Since modernists have clustered it with other issues, perhaps the solution is to change people's associations of the married clergy. I did not mean to say the practice was dangerous, I just ment that it could turn out dangerous if not approached from the right way. Judging by the west's performance in the last 40 years, I do not really know how well they would be able to transition to married clergy without modernists assuming too much about it. It sounds like a very complex issue that really begins with a return to orthodoxy.

I would argue the exact opposite. As venereable and praiseworthy a tradition of regularly ordaining married men to the priesthood is, the pastoral needs of the faithful, and their spiritual wellbeing should be placed foremost. I believe that a married priesthood in the West would scandalize the faithful, and lead more people to believe (erroneously) that the Catholic Church has "changed its teaching." Most of us on this forum know that celibacy regulations are disciplinary, and not doctrinal teachings of the Church. However, the average layman does not know the difference. For example, I know that many people who gave up the Church after traditional absinence from meat on Fridays was done away with. To them, this purely disciplinary aspect of Church teaching was confused with a doctrinal teaching, and in the eyes of these people, the Church lost all credibility because it changed things they allways belived were set in stone. Married clergy in the West has been the norm for 1,000 years and should remain so, so as not to rock the boat, scandalize the faithful, and drive them to heretical and schismatic sects.

Perhaps the change could be considered a catechetical moment?

That said, I think the issue as to why the Latin faithful would be scandalized has more to do with how this issue has been defined for the laity. Celibacy has been elevated to the level of doctrine in the mind of some, and I think that this is a fundamental distortion of Church tradition.

Nevertheless, the Latin Church has committed itself to a certain course as it has every right to do. Ordination of married men is reserved to convert clergy from certain ecclesial communities. Meanwhile, I hope that the Eastern Catholic churches overflow with married priests.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I do too... so long as they are supported by parishes and they provide for a pastoral need. If the bishops wanted to, they could go down to Zanesville, OH, and work with the Coming Home Network which assists protestant and other non-Catholic clergyman enter the Catholic Church and make the transition... And from there they could get 10+ guys a year to put through formation that already have much seminary training and pastoral experience... The question is, who would they serve?

As it stands right now, we have a glut of priests that are only "spread thin" by the commitment to keep a a dozen parishes that are no longer all that sustainable open - and within driving distance of another parish that is doing OK. Looking at the Cleveland area, if those parishes got merged (good luck attempting that) we would have some priests to spare.

We are really experiencing a "laity crsis" more than anything.

Simple Sinner,

Interesting idea...tapping into the Coming Home Network.

Except for the fact that the view of Rome is that all Protestants are incipient Latin Catholics.

Plus I'm curious if such issues cut across all jurisdictions.

Then we have the example of Father Tom Loya who was sent to Illinois to three dying parishes and helped to build perhaps one of the four greatest Eastern Catholic parishes in the United States. Someone should do a case study on his pastoral work and identify why it was so successful. God grant him many years!

My own sense is that he knows how to "tap" into the charisms of the laity and to give them the support and guidance and freedom to do what needs to be done. He also inspires through vision and is a deeply spiritual man who has the courage to listen to his people and extract the good even from suggestions that are less than perfect or fully formulated. From every course on leadership that I have taken and from my years of consulting, that is just the right mix for success.

In ICXC,

Gordo

It is possible to argue that, for example, Anglicans and Lutherans are "incipient Roman Catholics" (nice term, that!). But Baptists and other Protestant groups which simply do not have much of a tradition of any sort of regulated liturgical worship are another matter.

One might even argue that Methodists are incipient Greek-Catholics - because John Wesley had a Greek bishop ordain some priests for them when they split off from the Anglicans!

Fr. Serge

I wasn't really trying to initiate a discussion as to whether or not ex-Prot.'s can become Greek Catholics... The point was - to use an extreme example - that the possibility for ordaining scores of men exists...

And then whom would they serve?

One of my favorite Orthodox theologians, Metropolitan John Zizoulas, talks about the Pentecostal outpouring upon the Church (not just the individual candidate) at every ordination. As we see in Acts 2, there is much evangelical fruit that can come from such outpourings! It is therefore a question of: do we only ordain for our current needs or do we "anticipate" the Holy Spirit and ordain the numbers for we need for growth? I vote for the latter.

Being a priest or deacon is not just a call to serve the converted, but rather to be apostles to those who have never heard or seen the glory of the Gospel in its catholic fulness. North America is a vast mission field...not unlike the rest of the world! Whom will the Lord call and send? I hope and pray for many more!

Finally, I will also remind you of the Lord's words concerning the need for laborers in the vineyard. We all know how fatigued our priests can get. How much less of a burden might there be if they have several co-laborers with them in a parish?

I say: ordaining large numbers of priests and deacons is vital to our survival and pivotal to our mission as a Church. Come Holy Spirit!

They say that necessity is the mother of ordination...

but I think like you, ebed, and the necessity of serving the flock is not at all the same as serving in apostolic ministry.

Two divergent views of ministry; one evangelical in nature, the other exclusively pastoral in nature.

Why can't we have both? Ask our bishops! I'm convinced they don't think like the rest of us at all.

1. I've said it since I was 12, and someone touched on it above: "There is no shortage of priests; just an overabundance of false Catholics." We have have hundreds of people filling pews and going to Communion, yet dozens in line for confessions--if a parish is lucky. Polls show that, for example, over 90% of US Catholics say contraception is OK.

2. Archbishop Curtiss of Omaha has said outright that there is no shortage of priests: liberal bishops intentionally put good priests in "administrative" and "teaching" jobs so they can justify giving "pastoral administrator" jobs to divorced women and liberal nuns. He also talks about the intentional rejection of good candidates because of their orthodoxy.

3. Deacons can be married, and the restoratino of the diaconate by Vatican II was meant to help the priest shortage *that was already underway well before the council*. Has that helped? No.

4. Ordination has always been considered an impediment to marriage. However, ironically, the Vatican will allow Latin deacons to remarry if they meet certain conditions of necessity (for example, the deacon has young children and is widowed), and get case-by-case approval from the bishop. However, the result of this exception is that bishops pre-screen deacon candidates for these "conditions". So, if you're a Roman Catholic father with 8+ kids, you're not likely to be considered for the diaconate unless your kids are already out of the house. if you're an RC who''s contracepted and has 2 kids, you're all set for the diaconate.

5. I think that the main reason why mandatory celibacy will be lifted--if it ever is--will be none other than _The Theology of the Body_. The main reason for celibacy was anccient rules about fasting from marital relations before Communion (it was also a reason for the infrequent Communion of laity). From what I've read, a married priest in the first 1000 years of the Church had to coordinate his sacramental life and his sex life, or just practice complete continence, anyway.

Those fasting requirements were lifted a long time ago. If celibacy is lifted, it's because JPII has finally opened up a new level of theological appreciation for human sexuality which has been suggested by many before him (he specifically gave credit to Dietrich von Hildebrand and C. S. Lewis for inspiring "the theology of the body"), and even having its roots in Scripture and such ascetic-minded theologians as St. Augustine, but has existed only in a very germinal state until now.