www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Can East and West Coexist With Married Priests?

Outstanding married priests with delighful families presently serve the Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes in Wilkes-Barre, Edwardsville, Hanover and Plymouth PA.
Also, St. Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Scranton PA had an absolutely wonderful married priest with a loveable wife and six good children from 1952 to 1979 when he retired. The rectory was truly the parishioners' home too as everyone was welcome to visit.

This is a very complex issue. In my personal opinion. Celibacy is a gift, it is a vocation, however not all are called, and it is not sacramentally required for the priesthood. The Latin Rite however only ordains those who they have discerned to have this calling. The problem has been many in the seminary who believed they had this calling, ended up later changing their minds, or continued in the priesthood trying to suppress their true feelings. I do believe it is easier to be a priest as a celibate. One trend i am noticing however, that in relationship to the Catholic Church, if you break the rules, and want back in, the Church will make you a concession. In example, married episcopal, and lutheran priests, pastors who ask for ordination, are allowed to be married. In other words. There has to be some kind of consistency in the Church. For those born into the Latin Church and want to be a priest, they are required to take the vow of celibacy, but if a married anglican priest wants to be a catholic priest he is allowed? Something wrong with that.

I write this as a cradle Latin-rite Catholic who worships at an Anglican Use parish with two married priests of orthodox Catholic Faith and as a man who once considered a vocation to the sacred priesthood but who now believes God wants him to be a good Catholic husband and father, among other things, instead.

The priesthood, in addition to celibacy, is also a gift...not an entitlement. Therefore it is not a matter of strict fairness but of charity to allow married former Protestants to become priests. Instead, the fact that the Church permits exceptions to the rule is evidence of her great desire to see all Christ's faithful united in one flock. The theory behind allowing these ordinations, as far as the Anglicans are concerned, to proceed is to make it easier for congregations of former Anglicans to come into unity with the Catholic church, since the priest they had as Anglicans would be the same one they have as Catholics. In reality, nowadays many, if not most, former Anglican priests are becoming Catholics w/o their congregations, and vice versa.

It is just like the case of the good thief: in the Gospels Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a person is born again of water and spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God, but in the case of the repentant thief, Jesus tells him that "this very day you [the thief] will be with me [Jesus] in paradise". Protestants object that this is evidence that birth of "water and spirit" cannot be baptism, and that baptism cannot be necessary for salvation since Jesus didn't require the thief to be baptized, but Catholics say that this is evidence of God's charity in a special instance (a condemned criminal expressing remorse). And this concerns doctrinal affairs (i.e., baptism) by divine command, not disciplinary ones set by the Church. So, what I am coming at is this: if Jesus can set aside divine law in a certain instance, cannot the Church set aside disciplinary measures (to be sure, based on the eunuch statement in the Gospels as well as St. Paul's preference that all would be like him) in certain instances?

We should also consider that it is not really possible to do much with a divinity degree outside the church anyway, so I am speculating (this is pure speculation on my part, grounded in no facts at all, but a reasonable one, I humbly submit) that the Church is permitting this to occur so as to ensure that these former Anglican priests have some livelihood from which to make a living, which then would be another example of the Church's pastoral concern for her children.

Finally, as far as "breaking the rules", and then being allowed to "come back in", we must remember that before entering the Catholic Church they were never bound by our rules. We should also remember the Church recognizes that other Christian communities have the right to govern according to their own rules, and that once again, celibacy is not a doctrinal matter but a disciplinary one, so therefore it follows that if another Christian group permits married priests, then there is no violation of divine law by that fact alone, absent other factors (women's ordinations).

Many years,

Paul R. Viola

(My sincere apologies for the lengthy post.)

Just an update:

Since I wrote the article referred to in the first post in this thread I have greatly expanded it and have noted new developments.

I have reposted the article with the updates and thought it might be of interest to some Forum members.

The updated article can be read here:

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/repost-can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests-2/

Thing is, Dave, there is no ban. The fact that not one but many Eastern Catholic jurisdictions have ordained married men in North America, Australia and Western Europe, and the Congregation for the Clergy has done nothing to stop the practice--neither sanctioning the ordaining bishop nor disciplining the priests in question--indicates that the ban is a dead letter, except when Eastern Catholic bishops choose to hide behind it for their own reasons. The tendency to elevate the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church as representative of ALL Eastern Catholic jurisdictions is misleading. They may have been the largest, back in the day, but that day is long gone, and rather than being the leading jurisdiction, they are now a lagging indicator. It seems rather silly, in light of the ordination of married men by the Ukrainians, Melkites and Romanians, to say that the Ruthenian Church is the norm.

All the more so as married priests from Europe are 'popping' up across their Eparchy. Question: How does a married BCC priest advise a young man from his American parish who has a vocation, but doesn't view celibacy as a 'gift?' Answer: He buys him a ticket to Johnstown.

DMD,

Sorry, but I do not get the reference.

Manuel

Yeah, but I did.

Saw the Boys From Presov this evening. It was truly remarkable. I started to lose it when they got to the Lenten hymns, and was gushing by Pascha. Jack asked how many would like to serve as priests in America, and then he asked the audience how many would want them to serve as priests in American, and ever hand went up. Then he said that the seminarians would have to ask their girlfriends if they also wanted to come to American, "Because they all have girlfriends and will all be married priests", and everyone applauded. Like the Duke of Plaza Toro, the bishops lead their regiments from behind, instead of in the fore-O!

Stuart,

The article isn't just about "the Ban," which some jurisdictions feel is still an issue. It actually documents the changes going on with respect to ordinations of married men, especially in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

It is also about problems such as in Italy and Western Europe with married Eastern Catholic priests serving in traditionally Latin Rite countries.

I was careful to speak about different jurisdictions, so I don't understand your claim that I am "misleading" by 'elevating the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church as representative of ALL Eastern Catholic jurisdictions.' I even differentiate them from other jurisdictions in an analysis at the end of the article.



Stuart, your continued disrespect for Bishops is tiring to read and is not worthy of any response.

I have great respect for my own new bishop. And I have tremendous respect for quite a number of Eastern Catholic and Orthodox bishops (do you want a list?). I respect the office of the bishop in general, but the persons holding the office have to earn individual respect through their words and deeds.

I happen to feel--and I believe history will judge me correct--that throughout its history the Ruthenian Catholic Church in this country has been very badly served by its hierarchy. Am I to ignore that history? Should I ignore the 2000 year history of the Catholic Orthodox Church, during which time innumerable bad men have worn the episcopal crown along side those who have been good and saintly (not to mention those who were merely mediocre and trying to do their best)?

Stuart,

I agree with you in general principles here. I'm just saying there's a time and place for making one's observations about Bishops. I don't think this Forum is the place to do so.

A Latin bishop once remarked to me that, after they make you a bishop, you will never again eat a bad meal nor hear the truth about yourself again. I have not observed that much difference in the Eastern episcopate.

If not this forum then where?

Well, that was my point. I was hoping prurient interest would cause some of Their Graces to turn their eyes hither and have the scales fall away. Probably a vain hope, I know, but someone has to try.

Johnstown is the home of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Seminary of Christ the Savior of ACROD. From its founding in 1940 through the present, it has been a haven to many young Greek Catholic men torn between their vocations, torn between their beliefs about the meaning of the Unions and the state of the Ruthenian Greek Catholics in the western Hemisphere who had to make a difficult choice between obedience to a man-imposed condition (i.e. celibacy) and the teaching of the Eastern Church (united with Rome or Orthodox.) I am sure that offhand many of you can name several dozen such men whose gifts were lost to the BCC as a result but who served their people and through them, our Lord, as a priest for decades.