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

When the Metropolitan visited our church one of the founders (an older gentleman) had this back and forth after Vespers.

Parishioner: So, when are you going to start making some of these married guys or deacons priests?

Metropolitan Basil: Well, you know they have to get the right training. We can't just ordain them.

Parishioner: Well, to me if you don't have enough priests and a lot of the ones you do have are old you have to do something. I mean when are we going to get a priest?

Metropolitan Basil: There's really nothing I can do.

And in his homily during that same visit...

Metropolitan Basil (in talking about us not having a priest): You know sometimes I look up and ask God why he is doing this to me. What am I supposed to learn from this? ... You may think that the bishops have the power to fix it, but we don't have enough priests and, you know, someone has to want to come down here.


So from those two moments I sort of understood that moving outside the comfortable standard method of formation is not going to happen any time soon. The priest to parish ratio is not good. The seminary is not full. Where the diaconate might help in sustaining parishes in difficult positions or assisting in missionary efforts there is no will to move beyond a once every four years cycle. It's a tough time for the Church.

"You know sometimes I look up and ask God why he is doing this to me. What am I supposed to learn from this? ... You may think that the bishops have the power to fix it, but we don't have enough priests and, you know, someone has to want to come down here."

Such a cop-out. A bishop is meant to lead, and if he won't lead, let him take the cowl and become a monk, where he can do some good for the world.

This topic is a great source of frustration for me. I would love to be a priest. I have about five years of theological training. I would need only about two semesters of additional academic formation (a course in Slavonic, a course in the history of the Eastern Churches, a couple of courses in Eastern liturgy, a couple of courses in canon law, and maybe a course or two in pastoral care). I have no doubt that there are others who would be willing to serve who, like me, would need only about a year of additional academic formation. So it's difficult for me to understand how getting potential priests trained is really that big of an obstacle.

Ryan

You're right on the money. With distance learning today and so many other ways of getting the content to men, there really is no excuse.

During the Middle Ages, it's my understanding that men were ordained as "Mass priests." With very rudimentary training in how to serve the Liturgy, they were ordained. They might not be able to hear confessions or counsel, but they could serve the Liturgy, baptize, witness marriages, and anoint the sick. In fact, I've read that the situation is similar to Greece today. Perhaps Father Anthony could speak to this. I believe that many priests go to priest school to learn to serve the services and it's often laymen with university degrees who preach or may later become bishops. I think of St. Nektarios, for example.

I wonder what they're really waiting for--no priests at all and all the people left as sheep without shepherds?

BOB

"I wonder what they're really waiting for--no priests at all and all the people left as sheep without shepherds?"

In the Ruthenian Church, at least, it's a race: will we run out of priests before the priests run out of people? In the latter case, at least, there will be great relief in some corners of the clergy that the pesky laity is no longer questioning the wisdom of liturgical reform.

Lots of good points have been made.

I will firstly note agreement with Metropolitan Basil, to a large extent. The issue with "right training" (if those were his exact words) is not so much the schooling. Distance education can certainly be a part of that. Seminary education provides something beyond that in that it allows one to be formed into the community of the eparchy as a member of clergy (there is a better way to put that but I can't think of it at the moment). There is also the formation of being formed in the correct and regular celebration of all the Divine Services (Vespers, Matins, the Hours and Divine Liturgy) [and I'm purposely putting aside the myriad problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy and other Revised Services for the purpose of this discussion]. But the larger part here is evaluation and discernment. While not being the only place that these can occur properly, the seminary is the best place for these to take place.

In the past I have recommended to a few of the bishops that they consider speaking with some of the older, now retired men of the Church who had attended and maybe completed seminary but then chose marriage (perhaps as long as 30-35 years ago). A married man who retires in his early to mid 60s is not going to be able or want to serve as a full time pastor for many years (if at all) but if he really does have a vocation to the priesthood he might very well offer 10, 15 or more years of service as something ranging from a supply priest to an assistant pastor. Such a married priest could serve as a worthy role model to younger priests, as well as mentor.

If Ryan were to ask my advice I'd tell him that if he really believes he has a vocation (and his wife, family, friends, and spiritual father all come to that same conclusion independently) I'd say the road ahead is to ask the Metropolitan about the possibility of doing what it takes to be ordained a priest. And then to keep on asking. [Knock and keep on knocking. Not rushing to welcome you with open arms can be part of determining if you are serious enough to ask a second, third or twentieth time.]

If I were Metropolitan Basil and saw a possibility of Ryan as priest I'd say: "If you were ordained you could be sent anywhere but your home parish. You would be willing to pick up and move at that point. Are you committed enough to pick up and move to Pittsburgh? You'd need to spend 2 years at the seminary. But we are poor and don't have lots of money so you'd need to work somewhere to feed your wife and family at this point. And since I don't know you very well yet you might have to spend several years there until I think you are ready. But there is no guarantee and, indeed, it may turn out that you are not called to be a priest. Or maybe you find you are called to be a deacon, or a layman. Are you willing?"

But I am neither individual and cannot (and don't want) to speak for either. [I am happy to keep my own shoes!] So take my words for just things to consider.

I'm waiting for the Metropolitan to let me answer "YES!" to these questions too. Someday, I'll trust the Spirit will take care of things.

I have to say I am no great fan of the seminary system, which really emerged in the 16th and 17th century as a response to the Reformation. Whatever its value back then, it was confined to the Latin Church. In the East, the training of parish clergy was very much on the learn by doing method. As Sister Joan Roccasalvo wrote in The Plainchant Tradition of the Southeastern Rus' (p.17), "prior to the Union of Brest, the Rusin clergy, considered no different from the peasants among whom they worked, lived. . .as the subjects of the local landlords. . . The training of a priest was vested in one of three people, and may thus be described:"


Roccasalvo continues: "This descriptive account reveals the informal, unsophisticated method of training a young man for the priesthood. Yet, despite their serfdom, future priests received meticulous training in matters of liturgy, even though this learning did not take place from books, but by means of an oral tradition transmitted from one generation to another"

That works for me. I have become deeply suspicious of a seminary system that is essentially opaque, run by coteries of "experts" unaccountable, in practical terms, to just about anybody, and using a variety of pseudo-scientific techniques both to select and then retain the most malleable candidates imaginable--who then receive, in most cases, what amounts to a rather inferior education. In fact, the closest secular analogy I can find is Ed School, the quality of whose product is well known to all who have children in public schools.

At this point, I believe the salvation of the Eastern Churches may very well depend on abandoning the seminary system, which was always a latinization in any case, and return to the "primitive, unsophisticated methods" of the past. Those who wish to receive higher theological education can always go to specialist academies, or better still, to monastic institutions, or such instruction.

This approach would attract many well qualified men, both young men in the beginning of their careers, and older men at the end of theirs. Just as school systems have realized the need for alternative methods of accreditation that take into account the real requirements of teaching in a modern school, the Church needs to consider alternative avenues for the selection and formation of presbyters and deacons, that takes into account the real requirements of ministering to people in the modern parish. Where, by the way, the priest and the cantor are not necessarily the only people who know how to read--a fact I sometimes think needs to be hammered home to some clerics.

While I'm in full rant, I think it also time we ditched the notion of sacerdotal ministry being a "vocation" or "calling"--an attitude which has caused no end of mischief over the centuries. In the time of John Chrysostom, and for several centuries at least thereafter, ordained ministry was not seen as a vocation or charism, but a ministry of service to which a man was called by the people of his parish. Chrysostom, in fact, was leery of men who "wanted" to be priests; he said priesthood was "a burden from which a sensible man would flee", and that too many men who wanted to be priests wanted to be so for all the wrong reasons. He, himself was a good example: he saw his vocation as monasticism (just as most of us see our vocation as marriage), and had to be dragged to the altar for ordination, a most unwilling bride.

The lives of the Fathers are replete with similar stories, and we should seriously ponder their implications. Perhaps an individual is not the right person to determine whether he is or is not "called" to the priesthood. Perhaps it is our job, as members of the Church, to identify those "perfect laymen" who ought to be priests, and to nag, wheedle and otherwise compel them to follow through. Certainly this is a far more active role for the laity than passively "praying for vocations"--a tactic which has not worked so far, which either means our prayers are not all that sincere or efficacious, or perhaps (more likely) that God helps those who help themselves--and that we should do more to identify, encourage and support the men we think ought to be priests.

And that may mean demanding more from our bishops on this score as well: instead of erecting obstacles and wallowing in self-pity, maybe they should use the power and authority of their office to open more channels by which men may enter the ministry. I would include in this not just explicitly opening ordination to married men, but also seeking out mature men to take on the priesthood as their second careers. I wouldn't turn up my nose at men from Europe, whether married or celibate, who wish to come to this country to serve. After all, this is missionary territory, and we need missionaries.

But, mind you, I am not holding my breath.

I might note that I volunteered to help devise and support a distance education system for free. It's what I got a masters in and part of what I do professionally. For 3 years I was told "We're nowhere near being ready to do that."

So then I asked about making the catechist program distance education based as the current system requires us to fly up to Pittsburgh every few months - no help in flight costs, boarding, or travel to and from the program location. I got a similar response on readiness. On asking about using another eparchy's online program I was told that they weren't sure about "accepting" its courses toward the archeparchial program and didn't like the program. I won't even get into what the chancery had to say about the St. Stephen's Course.

But I digress... married clergy are not a last ditch solution. They are a return to the authentic practice and big-T Tradition of our Church. I agree with what Fr. Loya (speaking on Light of the East Radio a few weeks back) that there is a cultural aspect to married clergy that must be acknowledged, but involving the wives in training can only be helpful. Have I missed an alternate "solution" to the shortage somewhere in the thread? Having heard from the Metropolitan himself what he thinks about importing priests from the old country, that solution is firmly off the table.

Both Parma and Passaic have married priests from Europe serving and more are likely to follow as the situation becomes more dire. Seek out those bishops. A layman is not bound to a particular bishop. If you really feel called and are indeed unwelcome in the Ruthenian Church there are other Byzantine Catholic Churches in the United States and Canada that do ordain married men. Explore those possibilities. When someone closes a door the Lord often opens another. Sometimes just to annoy the one who closed the first door.

And you are correct, a married clergy is a restoration of our legitimate tradition. I believe that the Ruthenian Church will remain unhealthy without it (though not as unhealthy as it is without correct Liturgy). The issues (education, just wage, etc.) are all very real. None are insurmountable. Allowing them to be is a cop out and, imho, a sign of lack of faith in the Lord to provide.

Stuart raises some very good points. I don't reject them but I also realize that they are just not going to be allowed. Even if the cost in not allowing them is the loss of the Church.

A friend of mine also champions something of the old method. He makes one very good point. Asking the people in a parish to pick deacons and priests and monastics would help very much in ruling out those who should not be deacons and priests and monastics. The faithful know a stable, mature person when they see one worshiping alongside them and cutting the grass with them. They also know the unstable, immature one and can speak (if they would be listened to).

I can sympathize with Stuart's point about "sacerdotal ministry". But only so far. I'd say some definitely have vocations to the priesthood, to the monastic life just like others have vocations to be the CEO of a company, or a school teacher, or a doctor or a construction worker. Or, or that matter, single or married. I agree that someone who really, really, really, really wants to be a priest must be examined carefully. St. John Chrysostom was and is right in all that he said.

But it is fun to consider:

"Hey, Bob, you going to be here the first Sunday in August?"

"Yeah, Mike, our vacation is the last week of August. Why?"

"The bishop is coming."

"Again? He was just here after Christmas. What's he coming again for?"

"An ordination. We're getting a new deacon who's then going to be ordained a priest after a year."

"Really? Who?"

"Ummm.... Well.... Is that new sticharion you got at Pascha to serve in the altar clean?"

"Well, I guess so. Why?"

"Well, ummm, we're having an orarion made to match your sticharion."

"What! What are you saying?"

"Well, ummm.... I guess I'm saying you, Bob, are getting ordained to the deaconate this year and then the priesthood next year. We think you are called to serve and we need to you serve. You're mature and stable. So's your wife. Your kids are mostly great and little older now. And your job is solid. You love Liturgy and serving and almost have everything memorized. We need you to step back from the community stuff you do and serve the Church as a deacon, then as a priest."

"Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!"

"I might note that I volunteered to help devise and support a distance education system for free. It's what I got a masters in and part of what I do professionally. For 3 years I was told "We're nowhere near being ready to do that."

If there is one thing I learned during twelve years in the Ruthenian Church, it is initiative from the laity is viewed with great suspicion and is strongly discouraged. There are more than a few people on this forum who have experienced the wrath of the hierarchy by coming forward with suggestions. You got off lightly.

As I posted above, among clerics "of a certain age", there seems to be a strong assumption that they (and possibly the cantor) are the only people in the parish who can read. Someone else put it to me in a slightly different form: "They always have to be the smartest people in the room".

Some day, one of them will say, "Why don't we use distance learning techniques for [catechist training, diaconal formation, whatever]? And we'll all say, "What a great idea! We're so glad you thought of it", and it will come to pass.

The luddite attitudes of the Metropolia contrast badly with the ways in which many Orthodox jurisdictions have adopted new technology. Chalk it up to all those Evangelicals they have been recruiting for the past two or three decades. They not only have distance learning programs, they have web radio stations that are outstanding, a plethora of official web sites that put ours to shame. Almost all of these were designed, developed and run by the laity, with the active and enthusiastic encouragement of their hierarchies.

Where is the Greek Catholic Ancient Faith Radio? Where is the Greek Catholic Orthodox Christian Network? These are powerful tools of outreach and spiritual formation. When Protestants ask me what we believe, when they ask what our liturgy is like, I turn them to these sources, because we have nothing to compare, and, frankly, what we do have usually embarrasses me (though there are some shining exceptions at the parish level).

"Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!"

It seems they picked the right man.

Sure. Should I send the stichar to the cleaners?

BOB

Stuart:

Christ is in our midst!!

While this might be a tempting thought, it may also be a source of new problems.

I think of the permanent deacon froim outside our diocese who came into a funeral home where I worked some years ago. He "baptised" a dead child in the casket while he was there for the funeral. He told the parents it was never too late. He got water all over the place and made a mess. I don't know what kind of training he had, but he didn't seem to know the basics IMHO.

So I'd have to go with John and others who support some sort of seminary system, even if it meant several weekends or a couple week summer period added to distance education. And it might also be something that has to be more years than the tightly packed seminary formation period.

Another consideration that the congregation calling a man who they think might be a good leader--outside of the traditional seminary system--might be that it could lead to a congregationalism mentality. The priest is the bishop's delegate in a particular place. The danger that could arise from a congregation calling one of their own is that they might be drifting away fromt heir bishop and having one of their own with more loyalty to the group than to the bishop undermines what the Catholic/Orthodox Church is about at its core. This type of call system might have worked in the past when the Church was much smaller and the bishop didn't live far away form the congregation--he may have known the potential ordinand or known of him or at leat know people who knew him. That's part of the way everything is done, whether in the secular or Church world: a man goes recommended by people who are known and trusted or whose credentials introduce them as being able to be trusted. Unfortunately not every man who might have great faith or be a great example can be a good priest.

BOB