www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Panel recommends ending married priest ban for american ECs

The problem is that unless you are "in the know" ... you'd never know it happened. That was a deliberate choice and no amount of explaining will make it or the mentality behind it okay.

When a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox christian (or even a member of that very Church such as myself) look at that official bulletin and read about what looks like, for all intents and purposes, more celibate priests filling the Ruthenian ranks, the actual facts are of no consequence. The damage is already done.

Whether you will admit it was done deliberately is up to you. I hope when anybody chronicles my life to date, they will feel that my wife and kids are worth a sentence or two.

Amen.

Long term, yes. Shorter term, I'm not so sure.

As a lifelong Roman Catholic (who may soon canonically be headed East), my own personal concern over the matter is that the faith of many Roman Catholics in the United States is weak as it is. Our "central ecclesial culture" (sense of who we are as Catholics) is equally so. And, finally, celibate priesthood is just as ingrained in the Western psyche as married priesthood is in the East.

So, when it comes to something like mandatory celibacy for priests (something that everyone recognizes to be a unique gift, but also challenging vocation to live out), there is an overemphasis on the "critical importance" thereof in the West. And the problem is that, given the nature of things at present (in the West), as delineated above, remove that one particular "sure foundation" of people's faith with a sudden "We have married priests parade" by the East, and you're bound to send the universal ship that is the Church through a great deal of potentially harmful turbulence that could have otherwise been mitigated by "easing into" the reality of a married priesthood instead. (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7)

Does that make sense?

Self-deleted.

If the perceived health of the Roman Church has priority over the spiritual well-being Eastern Churches, then yes.

Which it obviously does in the Catholic communion. Damaging to ecumenism in the short and long term, which is exactly why panels and commissions are imploring both lungs of the Catholic Church to cut it out already.

It might make sense if the Latin Church didn't already have more married priests via Anglicans and others than the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Latin Church's problems can no longer dictate what we do or we will disappear. If you feel they should perhaps you shouldn't go East. My Church went through harmful turbulence because of the Latin Church that saw over half the people leave. The Latin Church has turbulence of its own to deal with because rather than deal with the diversity that is the Catholic Church the keep hiding behind "Our people might be scandalized." I got news for them, married priest won't scandalize the people. Will it make it harder to sell mandatory celibacy? Yes, but too bad.

It's not a matter of "preferring" one over the other. It's a matter of the stronger of the brothers putting up with a little offense from the weaker for the good of all, per a couple of exhortations from the apostle Paul.


To be clear, I do view it as a problem that the East has not been able to practice its patrimony in totality for the past many decades. That injunction should never have happened. But concrete history being what it is...*shrug*...Contrary to impulse, sometimes it's better to ease into a solution, rather than execute it all at once.

This may be true in terms of total numbers. But "per capita", married priests are still extremely rare in the Roman Church. (In the U.S. anyway.)


Agreed on the whole that Roman Church issues are Roman Church issues and not something the East should have to worry about. With a small caveat that we are all members of the one same Body of Christ and, thus, occasionally, some issue might present itself that needs a little solidarity.


A saying from Dr. Phil comes to mind here...

"You can either be right, or you can get what you want."

If your contention is that Rome was wrong to impose the injunction in the first place and must now reverse course en toto and do so "yesterday"...Technically speaking, you're in the right. However, if it's the good of the Body of Christ that you desire, Fr. Deacon, with respect, I would suggest that easing into this transition (as the Church is now doing) is a more efficacious way to do things.

I may be wrong...But that's how I perceive the "big picture" at this point.

Peace be with you.

Your rationalization contradicts the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation's stated recommendation.

You are yet to explain how this benefits the good of "all." Your examples to date only refer to North American Roman Catholicism. In what way do their governing interests represent "all"?


The The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is impulsive? How many more decades of "easing" do you suggest at the expense of the Byzantine Catholic faithful?

I am more and more convinced every day that the Eastern Catholic experiment is not only a failure, but an unredeemable obstacle to Christian unity. This conversation, no matter how it ends, is but one of many sad examples.

How?


For the sake of "the greater good" may have been a better way to put it.



Not as far as I know, no. The impulsivity to which I allude was a reference to those who would suggest that a wrong has been committed and it's time to right it in full and IMMEDIATELY. Sometimes said course of action is appropriate and other times it only adds to the harm to reverse course instantly.


As few as possible. Note that this process has already been underway for a good 15 years now. (Which, admittedly, for the Church, is the blink of an eye. But...) If I thought the Church could "get away with" demolishing all vestiges of the former ban today, I'd be all for it...


If you're an Orthodox Christian who does not recognize the historical primacy of the See of Rome, then that perspective sort of goes without saying, yes. If you're an Orthodox Christian who does recognize the primacy of the See of Rome, things should look quite different at this point.

I figured you read the link that this thread is based on.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-099.cfm



That is exactly what the NAOCTC appeals to. What good do you have in mind greater than the unity of Christ's Church?



How could undoing the harm done to Byzantine Catholics add to the harm it has suffered?


By "Church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, as you've yet to demonstrate how the Universal Church would be harmed by an action that theologians and ecumenists agree would heal a very significant rift.


I'm a Ruthenian Catholic that is in search of a church that has a healthy understanding of itself without the need to apologize for its patrimony. If I lived close enough to a Melkite church I would be Melkite. As it is, it will likely be the Orthodox Church.

I did. Which is why I'm confused as to what you're getting at. I've said (more than once, I believe) in this thread that it is a good idea for the East to return completely to its former practices in the U.S. (and everywhere else, for that matter).

My only beef is with the idea that it absolutely has to happen "yesterday." I didn't see anywhere in the statement where the commission urged an "immediate" overturning of the ban. It appears that all they said was that it should happen.




See above.


Again, the problem does not lie in undoing the harm, it potentially lies in trying to undo it too quickly. (Think, for example, of the lack of wisdom present in trying to yank an object someone has been impaled with out of them when the object has a barbed hook on it. The object needs to come out, certainly. But removing it slowly and carefully, rather than swiftly, is the more prudential move.) And this, not necessarily to Byzantines as much as to their brother and sister Romans.




Which is precisely the direction we're headed in now. And also ironic as one of the things that struck me about my local Ruthenian (Catholic) Church was precisely its very solid sense of identity as Byzantine Catholics.


Brother, are you falling into the trap of attempting to find the "perfect Church"? (Intended to be a rhetorical question, but respond if you'd like.)

"And this, not necessarily to Byzantines as much as to their brother and sister Romans."

I appreciate your honesty, but disagree that we need to or should subordinate our spiritual health and the cause of ecumenism for the sake of Roman sensitivities.

That you suggest it only reaffirms my belief that the Eastern Catholic experiment is a non-starter and detrimental to the healing of the rift in Christendom, per Christ's hope and prayer for us all. Uniates playing second fiddle will never yield anything positive, no matter how you try to justify it. History bears that out, either you ignore it or are ignorant of it.

I already outlined my need in a church, criterion met by multiple jurisdictions. Perfection has nothing to do with it.

Guys, guys . . .

You should all learn from the UGCC in this and other matters.

"It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission!"

There - now this thread can be closed

Alex

I will probably be kicked off for saying this, but how can anyone say that the Ruthenian Church has a "very solid sense of identity as Byzantine Catholics" when it prohibits it's own liturgy and replaces it with one that is far more sensible to Roman Catholic sensibilities? You can go and read the threads here and in his book where Father Petras says the Ruthenian liturgy is not appropriate for Ruthenians in America and must be changed. I support the return of a married clergy. But without the real Byzantine liturgy there is little hope for the Ruthenian church. No sense staying where Byzantine life and liturgy isn't just not wanted but actually prohibited. The Greek Catholic people are the best in the world. But the uniate experiment is a colossal failure.