www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Married Clergy

Christ is in our midst!!

StuartK:

While this may be the ideal, it hasn't been possible in this country since the advent of the Great Society coupled with the expansion of the Vietnam War where the currency was so devalued that it was no longer possible. It took 15 years to wring the inflation out of the economy to bring reality back to that sort of ideal.

My profession has a unique way of compensating. The pay of a man who does not own his own firm is based on 60% of what it takes to support a family of 4--one employer told me if I wanted a family I should have chosen another way to make a living. Since my wife did not work while our children were small, we did without many things for many years and depended on family help to feed ourselves. Every employer assumed that a spouse would be supplementing income and every employer refused promised raises when he had an employee in the corner: "you have a wife who doesn't work; you have no room to negotiate."

My father worked for the postal service before it became unionized and the compensation became enough to support a family. So he worked two part-time jobs to keep us together and bought himself an early grave in the process.

So you'll forgive me if I am not in step with Catholic social teaching.

On the other hand, if this be the case (the ideal of a man supporting the family with his income alone), why would an employer pay a woman an amount equal to a man doing the same work? By this reasoning, the woman is making supplemental income. And we know that that is not the case in many instances.

We're moving a bit off topic, so I won't post further.

BOB

Whether this was off topic or not, this is one of the most honest and realistic posts I have read on this forum.

Being married and raising children has become a very difficult economic reality. Fortunately, because Orthodox priests are generally married, they realize this reality themselves, and that is why the application of 'eikonomia' is given to the faithful in matters of family planning. I do not know any priest who has more than four children, and I know quite a few that have just two. I know alot of Orthodox priests who get paid a full time salary from their parish (the norm in the Greek Archdiocese), but whose wives work.

Alice

"While this may be the ideal, it hasn't been possible in this country since the advent of the Great Society coupled with the expansion of the Vietnam War where the currency was so devalued that it was no longer possible. It took 15 years to wring the inflation out of the economy to bring reality back to that sort of ideal."

This is true, in secular society, but who is to say the Church must follow the lead of secular society. While it is true that no secular business could legally justify paying married men more than single men (let alone women), no other business could get away with reserving jobs exclusively for men simply because they are men. Here, the Church has the opportunity to practice what it preaches.

"My profession has a unique way of compensating. The pay of a man who does not own his own firm is based on 60% of what it takes to support a family of 4--one employer told me if I wanted a family I should have chosen another way to make a living."

I'm pretty sure the funeral industry would have a hard time justifying that approach, were it ever taken to court. After all, it amounts to collusion in fixing the wages of employees.

"On the other hand, if this be the case (the ideal of a man supporting the family with his icnome alone), why would an employer pay a woman an amount equal to a man doing the same work? By this reasoning, the woman is making supplemental income. And we know that that is not the case in many instances"

A number of reasons suggest themselves. The woman might be a widow. She might have been abandoned by her husband. Her husband might be disabled. In any case, she would then be the primary support of her family, and thus would qualify for a "living wage".

I'll also point out (again) that in the Byzantine Tradition, celibate priests ought to be monastics living under monastic rule, which usually includes a vow of poverty that secular priests do not make.

"Being married and raising children has become a very difficult economic reality."

Tell me about it.

"Fortunately, because Orthodox priests are generally married, they realize this reality themselves, and that is why the application of 'eikonomia' is given to the faithful in matters of family planning. "

So, in practice, do the Catholic clergy--the approaches differ only in regard to what means are acceptable. In my opinion, the Catholic approach focuses too much on means, and not enough on intent; i.e., it is sinful to enter marriage without the intention of having children, whether you choose "natural" or "artificial" means of family limitation (and leaving abortion aside). The Catholic Church's blanket opposition to artificial methods probably has much to do with its understanding of the "purpose" of marriage, which is equally "unitive" and "procreative", whereas the Orthodox perspective sees marriage mainly in sacramental terms as a typos of Christ's relationship to the Church. For the Latin Church, marriage is, at a fundamental level, "for" having children, hence all marital relations must be open to procreation. In the Orthodox understanding, children are the "fruit" of marriage, not the reason for marriage.

Also, there is a fundamental difference in pastoral approaches, in which the Latin Church demands adherence to an absolute standard, while the Orthodox Church holds up an ideal, and then makes allowances for human weakness. That is, the ideal situation is for married couples to accept as many children as God grants to them. Making a concession to human weakness (i.e., material necessity), the Church accepts that couples may, after prayerful discernment, choose to limit the number or control the spacing of their children. It then would encourage them to use "natural means", but also understanding that, for a variety of reasons, this may not be suitable for all couples, accepts that some may choose artificial methods (provided these are not abortifactant). The Church sets a high standard, and encourages the faithful to strive to achieve it, but recognizes that not all may be able to do so, at least initially.

This strikes me as more pastorally prudent than the Latin approach (as it did a number of Eastern Catholic theologians, notably Archbishop Joseph Raya (see his "Crowning--The Christian Marriage). As he liked to say, "The Church suggests, it does not impose". Also, one should never make a law one cannot possibly enforce, for it only encourages contempt for the law and for the authority that promulgates it.

I should also mention that, until the 19th century at least, the Catholic Church was opposed to any form of family planning, including so-called natural methods. Accepting that family limitation was becoming something of a necessity in Catholic Europe was a major concession on its part.

This is an absolutely BRILLIANT post. Thank you...

This was especially insightful and educational:


In Christ,
Alice

StuartK:

Christ is in our midst!!

People don't usually last long enough to put this together and then act on it by making a case of it. The average tenure in the profession is seven years--most last far less. Of my class in school, half finished the internship year and only five of us were actively practicing after five years. I'm rather unique in being as many years as I have worked--I've had a very good set of circumstances and some very supportive mentor/employers together with some of the worst.

But I do keep my contacts active and have learned of people who have worked for 30 years and only reached 30K with no retirement benefits and half their healthcare insurance. Sadly that is more the norm than the exception.

But the point is not me. I go back to the issue of compensating a man less if he is not married and I see that as fundamentally unjust.

BOB

StuartK:



Come on. The Church cannot raise women to the priesthood so that argument falls short.



And what is that? Justifying an injustice? I still cannot understand discrimination on the basis of marriage in the instance when both priests would be serving in a parish and the non-married is not monastic.

BOB

YRC

"Come on. The Church cannot raise women to the priesthood so that argument falls short. "

No, it is precisely my point. The Church can, with regard to its clergy, set standards and behave in a manner that is not permitted of secular organizations. It can discriminate on the basis of sex, of age, of marital status--and all of this is protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

"And what is that? Justifying an injustice? "

"I still cannot understand discrimination on the basis of marriage in the instance when both priests would be serving in a parish and the non-married is not monastic."

One man can get by on $15,000 plus tips. One man, one women and even one child cannot. Also, consider that the Pani shares in her husband's ministry--she has as great a role in the parish, within her sphere, as he does. If she is working outside the home, she cannot fulfill that mission.

The Church is not, and never has been, egalitarian.

Why is it an injustice? The Church has an ideal, it exhorts private enterprise to strive to meet that ideal, and what better way is there to do so than by walking the walk itself? The Church believes that a family should be capable of living on one income. The income that requires for a single male is not that required for a married man with children.

The Church is big on talk and small on walk when it comes to paying a living wage. They certainly don't pay it to their own employees.

Fr. Deacon Lance (son of a Catholic School teacher)

I personally think that we live in an age where we really realy lack sence of simplicity and we really really lack sense of trusting Our Lord.

It goes in all directions:
1- about the married priests, some do make about sch a complicated issue while it is just the way things were before... I perosonally think that the Roman Catholic have issues wit married priests because they want to show off like pride issue(i appologize if it sounds rude, but i am really sad when thy always hit me with the we are better and Jesus was not married...). I think it is as well as a defence of why they don't have preisthood calls a lot and they like to balme it on marriage, which is not right in my humble opinion..

2-about the money the priest get... The Chruch is not a company!
I recall a passage in te Bible that talks about justice: the worker of the first hour getting payed as the worker of the last hour! and as well i recall form St John easter homily, about who fasted and who didint are called to rejoice... The Chruch was never to be put in our human standards of justice! It is notabout fair and equal... Justice is not fairness, jutice sees each case, fairness equalize... Thank God that He is Jsust not fair... or else we shall all vanish... Who can fairly stand beofre Him?!

3- I need a lesson from the saints' simplicty on living, i think if we learn that, the money will be enough for us to give half of it to the poor... I have never in my life and from expreince seen anyone trusting God and is hungry... I am so many times blinded by what we think is a need, like for example television... we all think we must have it, 2 years till now we live without a tv and we are very very well informed very very fine and we have more time to read our bibles..

anyway, please forgive me.

"Fr. Deacon Lance (son of a Catholic School teacher)"

I can remember a time when everyone would assume your mother was a nun. Maybe that's part of the problem--the Church still thinks all parochial school teachers are in religious orders. Perhaps there would be more money to pay a living wage, if the Latin Church was better able to prune its payroll of salaried positions that ought to be filled by volunteers, and if more people stopped thinking their "obligation" was fulfilled by dropping a buck in the collection plate.

As I said, various Protestant denominations manage to pay their pastors, Jews pay their rabbis quite generously, the Orthodox attempt to do so, and Catholics seem to assume that the Church is rich and ought to be able to pay--forgetting in the process (a) that the Church's wealth, for the most part, is not liquid; and (b) it got that way through the donations of the faithful.

When one of our priests was seriously ill and having trouble meeting expenses, the men's club floated the motion to make a cash donation for that purpose. To my surprise (I had only been a member of the Church for about a year), there was serious opposition to the idea, expressed by one grizzled old member as "This is the bishop's responsibility--let him take care of it". I did not attend future Men's Club meetings.

As a former Catholic School teacher and the spouse of a current Catholic school teacher, my observations are that they seem to want to pay all teachers like they are all celibates!

Start,

I think you offer rich insight here into some of the pastoral tendencies of East and West.

At the same time, I think you run the risk of creating a division between the allegorical and eschatalogical meanings of the typos or sign of Christ's union with His Church and its tropological or moral meaning. This statement in particular creates something of a false dichotomy:


If I plant a vineyard, are the grapes the purpose of my vineyard or are they simply the fruit of my labor? Well, would one not say it is both?

Our Lord's reference to "the beginning" is enough to answer this. At the head of creation and in the midst of man and woman's covenant communion God gives the command to be fruitful and multiply. The unitive and the procreative are united in God's original design of marriage.

Returning to the sign, we could say is the increase of spiritual offspring the purpose of Christ's union with His Bride, the Church or is it the fruit of that union? Once again, it is not a question of either/or, but both/and. In order for this sacramental sign to bear fruit in our married lives, we must conform our behavior to its moral implications, hence the idea that every act of union be at least open to the possibility of God creating life.

Two further points:

1. Oikonomia (a compound of oikos = household and nomos = law) as it pertains to any "dispensation" by apostolic authority does not dispense from the requirements of faith or the moral law but rather from the Church's particular law and discipline. It is an abuse of the notion of oikonomia to assume that it dispenses from the moral law.

2. Despite their continuing deep love for Archbishop Raya (which I share), there were many at Madonna House who were deeply upset with him because of this book, so much so they would not display it on their shelves (you will not it is only published by Alleluia Press, and not Madonna House Publications). To my mind it represents one of the flaws in what is most decidedly an excellent work on the Theology of Crowning.

Catholic teaching and praxis, especially as expounded by Pope John Paul II and His "theology of the body" I believe respects the full meaning of the sign, the typos and the tropos. It bears repeating that Orthodoxy was for centuries in agreement with Catholicism in this regard.

I highly recommend some of the wonderful presentations of Fr. Tom Loya on this topic.