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

All:

The following is a dialog from the "Ask the Expert" at the EWTN website. Mr. Keating insists that a married clergy is a late development in the East and is wrong. I don't know the history but I thought that St. Peter had a wife? And that married men were ordained as priests in both East and West from the start although those who became monks stayed single? Comments from the priests and theologians so I can refute this guy?

Please read backward from bottom up to follow in the proper order. The original is a question & answer I found at the ewtn site and the res is e-mail I exchanged with him.
-------------
At 11:14 AM 9/21/98 EST, Karl Keating wrote:
Sorry, but you're wrong. The tradition of a married priesthood started late, even in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Fr. Cochini makes this quite clear. I suggest you read his book and not dismiss it out of hand.

KK
-----
At 12:20 PM 9/18/98 PDT, Pete wrote:
Mr. Keating,

The tradition of ordaining married men to the presbyterate has been the constant tradition of the Byzantines since the Church was founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ. The decision by the suri iuris Byzantine Catholic
Church in America to again allow married men to be ordained simply undoes the mandatory celibacy laws forced upon us in 1929 by ignorant Roman Catholic bishops earlier in this century.

I don't know the Fr. Cochini book but if it says anything different it is clearly wrong. If you need clarification on this please contact a priest of the Byzantine Catholic Church. You can find e-mail links on
the seminary web page at www.byzcath.org. [byzcath.org.]
Pete
-----
Answer by Karl Keating on 08-24-1998:

I think it's a mistake, since the ancient tradition, in both East and West, was unmarried clergy, as proved in Fr. Cochini's book on priestly celibacy.
KK
Karl Keating
Catholic Answers
www.catholic.com [catholic.com]
-----
Question on 08-24-1998 (From someone else):

Mr. Keating, The hierarchs of the Ruthenian Catholic Church recently decided that they would admit married men into the priesthood. What is your reaction to this decision?
-----

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I find it distressing that an "expert" can simply dismiss married clergy as wrong. Every other organized religion in the world enjoys a married clergy, and has survived through the ages. The Catholic Church in general should be on the same page as the rest of the world and allow for a married clergy. I am very happy to see that the Ruthenian Church will eventually have the married clergy available once again, and hope that seminarians and those in discernment will choose to be both married and ordained.

As for Mr. Keating, I hope he has the humility to admit he is mistaken on this issue.

To be honest, I don't give much credence to EWTN, as I find it to be more of a Roman Catholic nostalgia channel, and not much else, but I digress.

St. Gregory Nazianzen (born about 325 ad)was the son of a bishop. Both his parents, Gregory and Nonna, are counted as saints of the universal Church. Noone has ever claimed this situation to be unusual, certainly none of Gregory's contemporaries did.

Of course, it may be that St. Gregory the younger was born before the ordination of his father to the priesthood, and that after this ordination, the elder renounced carnal relations with St. Nonna. But this is speculative. Certainly the son never mentions this in his funeral oration on his father's death, an oration delvered in the presence of his mother who he praises for her wifely support of the deceased bishop right up until his death.

monk Maximos, sinner

I'm not too sure of the facts behind this issue, but I offer this tidbit. Debates of this kind can get frustrating, particularly when one party knows the facts but cannot convince the other party. Maybe, though, it would be better if each held his own opinion. Ignorance is never justified; however, it is equally unjustifiable to enter into a debate over something that has no bearing on our relationship with God. Whether a married clergy was allowed or not has no bearing on Byzantine (or Roman for that matter) Catholicism today. If married clergy is now allowed, does it matter if it was/n't allowed centuries ago? We should live by the present. Also, Christ did bless those who practiced celibacy for the kingdom of God. If the Church allows married clergy, Blessed be God forever! Still more blessed, though, will the celibate priest be. Again, these are just my thoughts. May God Bless us all and grant us peace!

Dear Ann,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

While I support your basic point (that God's will must be discerned for us today in a spirit of humility and prayer), I have to disagree about whether what we did "centuries ago" matters or not. History is intensely important to Christianity. The Church exists only because of an event "centuries ago", an event to which we are linked by an historical tradition. The mystery of the Incarnation of God in time has made history--like it or not :-)--a vehicle of divine revelation. We do not live in a vacuum. We live in a Church, formed and guided by generations of saints whose example and teachings we must know and revere.

Please pray for me.
monk Maximos, sinner

Br. Maximos:

You are absolutely right in correcting that horrendous fault of mine. I am too general. Yes, history itself is vital to our faith! In a nutshell, this is all I was trying to say: When we stand before the awesome and terrible judgement seat of Christ our Lord after death, will this issue of a married clergy, whether it is traditional or recent, be relevant? Will debate over this issue help us in our struggle for personal sanctification? Will it aid us in attaining our goal of eternal life? Or will it only cause bitterness and dissension, thereby hindering at once the growth of charity in our hearts and our entrance into eternal life? By the way, these thoughts are based on that wonderful saying of St. Paul, "say only the things men need to hear, things that will really help them." (Sorry, I don't know the location of the quote)

God's will be done!

God Bless You!

Hello!

This is my first time to this forum. I am Roman Catholic. It seems great!

My question to everyone is: If the Byzantine Church is under the Pope and is just as valid as the Roman Catholic Church, why does the Catholic Church make such a big fuss about "no married priests?"

Thanks and God bless!

Gina

Dear Gina, I think there are many reasons for such policy. Perhaps the most important in Western Diaspora is fear towards possible "scandalization" of Latin celibate priest as well as seminarians going to be such celibates? However, strange things occur sometimes. For instance, in a book containing talks with Cardinal Ratzinger he says about married priests in Eastern non-Catholic Churches, but immediately adds that "Orthodox have a concept on priesthood different from the Catholic one" or something like this. He does not mention Eastern CATHOLIC Churches and their practice, solemnly recogized by Rome. Isn't it strange? Yours in Christ, Peter

of course, the catholic church does have married priests. the acceptance of converts who were episcopalian priests and their ordiantion with families is well known. recenlty i saw 3 deacons who were to be ordained as priests, all over 60; but it seems??? they and their wives had to take vows of celibacy. so, we ahve the episcopalians, we ahve these celibate married preists, we ahve the eastern church, it seeems that peter's idea abouto scandaal is the only really valid one?

Christ is risen!

Taken in the context of the larger church, the argument for "scandal" seems a specious one. I ask you which causes more scandal, a married clergy, or the neverending parade of illicit affairs, pedophilia and homosexual harrassment committed by a very few aberrant priests, which brings disgrace upon the entire order of the priesthood?

Not that I believe allowing (again) a married priesthood would eliminate these problems; every church in every age has had to deal with impious priests - only now our "global village" has gotten alot smaller, and the electronic media in particular allow the gossip to spread like wildfire on the Nebraska prairie.

A celibate priesthood, from what I understand, is not mandated by dogma; just church law which is subject to change. It would be bucking a thousand years of tradition in the Roman church, but doubtless people would adapt in time.

As to married priests in the Byzantine church, that IS our tradition AND our canonical right! If the Makah Indians can reclaim their traditional practice of hunting whales (a right guaranteed to them by treaty with the federal gov't), why's it taking so long for the Byzantine Catholic Church to reassert ITS rights?

Stirring the pot,

CAPTL
sinner

The Church, rightfully, still values the holiness of the monastic life. It sets this example of total devotion to God before people, not with the expetation that more than a few will fully follow it, but has inspiration and example of prayer life.

Monasticism is very central to Byzantine spirituality. The most common saints are monastics, references to them is constant, the Liturgy in many ways reflects the timelessness of monastic life. It is very much in the middle of things, a large unavoidable monument, in a way, and always present in our bishops. The priests and laity respond to it as best fits their individual situation.

The Latin Church is different, but equally valid. Rather than this big "monument" in the middle of things, it is a more gradual slope. The western church has monks, but also religious orders of the active aposolate with various degrees of monastic observance. The secular priesthood, the end of this gradual slope, bears some of the elements of monasticism such as celibacy.

In many ways this is way a restoration of the married priesthood in the North American Byzantine Church needs to be part of a discussion on the establishment of monatic communities in North America as well.

Some remarks: 1)CAPTL, I fully agree with you; in my first post I tried only to describe views of certain LATIN circles, not mine. Note, please, that I wrote about "scandalizing" - not scandalizing as a real issue. 2)Dear Professor Shaw, No one can be simultaneusly married and celibate. In Ukrainian we have our term for celibacy, it sounds "bezzhennist'" (in Polish "bezzenstwo") which means "state of a man who has no wife". In other words, "celibate" means "unmarried", so it is impossible to be a "married celibate" ("married unmarried"). Priests you mention could be only forced (?) to take a vow of sexual abstinence, which is (as Fr. Victor Pospishil wrote in his book "Eastern Catholic Canon Law Acccording to the New Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches") a kind of covered influence of Manichean ideas. Such practice, however, was condemned by the Fifth-Sixth Council "in Trullo" (in Latin "Quinisexta"). warmest greeetings in Christ, Peter