www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Czech married Latin priests to become Byzantine

Friends,

I found the Vatican's handling of this situation to be far better than expected. For a little bit of background, during the communist persecution numerous married men were secretely ordained as Latin priests. Now that the Church has come out from under this oppression, there was much question as to what would happen to these married priests. Popular wisdom said that they would be laicized. But no: the Vatican, showing a refreshing degree of sensitivity, is giving these men the option to continue in the ministry as Byzantine priests.

"On September 16, 1997, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, communicated to the Apostolic Nunciature (Protocol no. 115/190) that the Holy Father had regularized the juridical position of 22 Latin married priests, also secretly ordained, authorizing them to pass over to the Byzantine Slavic Rite as full members of the Exarchate for the faithful of that rite, resident in the Czech Republic. Of those priests, 18 were ordained "sub conditione" in the Premonstratene Abbey of Zeliv the following October 22; another was ordained some time afterwards: these are now carrying out pastoral service according to the norms and jurisdiction of the Catholic Oriental Churches, in that Exarchate where they are incardinated."

For the full story, visit:
http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/documents/CDF_ordenations.html

Things are getting better! Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Sinner Anthony

Dear Anthony:

It is good to see you on the forum again. Send me an email aand let me know how things are going.

In response to your post, I'm going to have to play the devil's advocate here. I do not share your positive appraisal of this situation. I think it reflects badly on the Vatican and shows a great deal of insensitivity towards the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Latin Church in the Czech Republic has twenty two married Latin priests it doesn't know what to do with so it gives these men the option of remaining priests if they pass over to the "Byzantine Slavic rite" or if they remain in the Latin Church functioning only as deacons. (I remember reading that second part elsewhere.) They are also requiring conditional reordination.

This is a slap in the face of these men, who under the communist persecution, risked imprisonment and possibly there lives by accepting ordination. I am sure the Vatican was quite aware of these priest all along. However, now that the Iron Curtain has fallen, they are no longer needed and are a possible source of problems. "The Czechs have married priests, why can't we?" all the other Latins will ask. Or this is what the Vatican fears.

Where does the Curia get off allowing these priests to "pass over" to the Byzantine Church? Last time I checked, both Codes of Canon Law require the assent of both the releasing and accepting Hierarchs. How much say did the Exarch of Prague have to say about this? I don't know, but I am certainly curious. How does one sui iuris church just decide it will dump its priests into another?

What kind of message does this send to the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Two years ago the Curia was having a fit because married Ukrainian priests are serving in Peremysl, one of the oldest Ukrainian eparchies.(Though now in Poland) Now, because it is a convenient fix, these discarded Czech priests can "pass over" to the Byzantine Church.

How familiar are these men with the Byzantine Church. Do they embrace and love our spirituality and traditions? Or, do they simply want to remain priests and are willing to do anything to remain so? Will they Latinize the Exarchy of Prague?

In our own Metropolia (with a shortage of priests) we must seek Rome's permission to ordain a married man, but for an exarchy of 8000 they'll infuse 22 men because it suits the needs of the Latins. I wonder if 22 married men from that exarchy (or any other in predominantly Latin territory) presented themselves for ordination how quick Rome would have approved.

The whole situation looks pretty crappy from the information presented. With all that said, I withhold final judgement until all information is on the table. Perhaps these men fell in love with the Byzantine Church and will serve her well.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon-candidate

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 02-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 02-25-2000).]

Well, I'll give my two cents. From the big picture standpoint it seems less than ideal situation, but as all parties seem to agree, the situation here is accepted as exceptional and not precedent setting. Obviously very personal, pastoral considerations are present here and a certain respect for affected individual's privacy is a factor.

Two minor technical points: one, the Czech Exarchate is not a sui iuris Church as the Pittsburgh Metropolia and the Presov Eparchy are. Second, the persons in question, while Latins, were ordained for the Eastern Church.
A rigid application of the canonical rights of the Latin and Byzantine Churches would allow the Latin Church to walk away from the situation and leave it as the Exarchate's problem since, as was pointed out, both Codes of Canon Law require the assent of both the releasing and accepting Hierarchs. However, pastoral considerations won out and the Exarch of Prague has fully assented to the proposed resolution.

I do think the matter has been handled in a way that is insensitive to the men, who under the communist persecution, risked imprisonment and possibly their lives by accepting ordination (as was said). And I think the Vatican has an unwarranted fear of a very defensible relaxation of a legitimate discipline.

Lastly, to the question as to what message does this send to the Orthodox is an interesting one. About half of them have left Orthodoxy for Catholicism since the downfall of communism. A majority of the laity of the Prague Exarchate are ex-Orthodox.

Mr. Lance, Deacon-Candidate,

You wrote: �The Latin Church in the Czech Republic has about fifty or so married priests it doesn't know what to do with so it gives these men the option of remaining priests if they pass over to the "Byzantine Slavic rite" or if they remain in the Latin Church functioning only as deacons. (I remember reading that second part elsewhere.) They are also requiring conditional reordination.�


Elias: Please re-read the article a bit closer. The issue is the determination of the validity of the priests� ordinations in the Czech Republic. The article states,

�In reality, based on research done on each case, priestly ordination was not always conferred in a valid manner; perhaps in some cases it may have been, but there remained serious doubts about this, especially in the case of ordinations carried out by Bishop Felix Maria Davidek.

Elias: The problem was that each ordination was carried out in an �invalid� way, especially by Bishop Felix Davidek. The article doesn�t state why this bishop in particular, but I would assume that Bishop Felix didn�t follow protocol / canon law. The article also states,

�As to the matter of the married Bishops, the delicacy of their position lead the Holy Father to follow a well-motivated prudential norm: in fact, it is well-known that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, both of Latin and of Oriental rite, as well as the most ancient tradition of those Oriental Churches not in communion with it, absolutely do not admit the compatibility of the married state with the episcopal office.�

Elias: In the gulags of Communism, our church had bishops secretly ordained, but they were CELIBATE! Canon law was still followed. Bishop Felix ordained married men to the episcopacy via a questionable method. The article defines what �sub conditione� means. It means simply that if an ordination was done via possible invalid ways (thus making the ordinations invalid, that is, never done), then �sub conditione� ordination corrects that invalidness. If the ordination was already �valid� then sub conditione ordination doesn�t do squat. The church has the right to do this. Are you questioning how the church handles ordinations? Obviously, you don�t have to deal with ordinations considered possibly invalid. We are told that some fify �celibate� Latin priests accepted the papal decision for ordination sub contione,

�A large part of the celibate priests who were ordained secretly -- some fifty in all -- accepted the Pope's decision on ordination "sub conditione" and they have been inserted into pastoral ministry by their respective diocesan Bishops.�

Elias: Nothing is mentioned whether that pastoral ministry is the diaconate as you say. We need more documentation here before blowing more steam. Why would they be put into the diaconate if they are celibate? The conditional ordination is only questioning priestly ordination of these celibate men. If their ordinations were valid from the get-go, then it is uncanonical to return these priests to the order of deacon. Impossible. Period. As for the married men, their ordinations ran counter to the Latin practice of celibacy as the norm. Their ordinations too were �regularized,� that is, made valid. The Pope is not mentioned mandating their change to the Byzantine Rite. It only states,

�� authorizing them to pass over to the Byzantine Slavic Rite as full members of the Exarchate for the faithful of that rite, resident in the Czech Republic.�

Elias: There was no protest from the married men who went Byzantine. They accepted the ordination sub conditione and took pastoral duties in the Exarchate of the Byzantine Church as full-fledged priests. The article states,

�Of those priests, 18 were ordained "sub conditione" in the Premonstratene Abbey of Zeliv the following October 22; another was ordained some time afterwards: these are now carrying out pastoral service according to the norms and jurisdiction of the Catholic Oriental Churches, in that Exarchate where they are incardinated.

Elias: As for those priests and bishops refusing ordination sub conditione, their cases are more difficult because they consider these sub conditione ordinations as a sign that the Holy See �lacks faith.� The article continues,

�Some of the Bishops and priests secretly ordained have not accepted the norms approved by the Holy Father. For these priests, the principle motive for the refusal was the ordination "sub conditione," which they held to be a lack of faith on the part of the Holy See, because they were firmly convinced that they were validly ordained. Alongside this, there were also psychological reasons, which must be respected, even if they cannot be accepted.�

And further,

�As was explained to them by their own Bishops, and also the Apostolic Nuncio, who had several conversations with some of these priests, the ordination "sub conditione" does signifies neither distrust nor an obstacle to their acceptance as priests.�

Elias: The meaning of ordination sub conditione is elaborated here,

�Being ordained "sub conditione" means that if their previous ordination was valid, the second ordination ("subject to condition") would not have any effect, given that they were already priests; if, on the other hand, the secretly-received ordination were not valid, they, being newly ordained, would be certain in conscience that they were really priests.�

Elias: The big beef is between those priests and bishops who do not accept the conditional ordinations and the Holy See. We don�t know the whole story, Lance, on their reasons for refusal. Who really is this Bishop Felix? We only know bits and pieces; not enough to rip the Vatican to shreads. Get a grip!!! Here is the Vatican�s concerns,

�Given the doubts that remain about the underground consecrations and ordinations of certain bishops and priests, there remain doubts about the validity of their Masses and the sacraments they administer (especially Confession). A consecration or ordination subject to condition would have precisely the purpose of removing these doubts about the validity of such Eucharistic and sacramental activities. This meaning was explained at length to the interested parties. Every declaration that affirms the contrary does not correspond to the truth.�

Elias: Do you suggest that those having responsibilities for our spiritual welfare (bishops) not be concerned about following proper protocol in your reception of Orders only to have it annulled later?


You wrote in haste: �This is a slap in the face of these men, who under the communist persecution, risked imprisonment and possibly there lives by accepting ordination. I am sure the Vatican was quite aware of these priest all along. However, now that the Iron Curtain has fallen, they are no longer needed and are a possible source of problems. "The Czechs have married priests, why can't we?" all the other Latins will ask. Or this is what the Vatican fears.�

Elias: You forgot to mention the married men who were consecrated bishops! Would the Orthodox accept them too?

You wrote: �Where does the Curia get off allowing these priests to "pass over" to the Byzantine Church? Last time I checked, both Codes of Canon Law require the assent of both the releasing and accepting Hierarchs. How much say did the Exarch of Prague have to say about this? I don't know, but I am certainly curious. How does one sui iuris church just decide it will dump its priests into another?�

Elias: Calm down. Cool your jets. Have a stiff drink. The Pope is only doing his job as the head of his church. He has that right, you know. The Pope is only dealing with ordinations considered possible invalid. The men �passing over� to the Byzantine Church also accepted ordinations sub conditione. Ask them why they switched rites. Since their ordinations by Bishop Felix were questionable, the head of the Roman Church has the right to intervene in correcting possible invalid ordinations. The Pope could have sent them packing as lay men but he didn�t. They are still serving as priests.

�How familiar are these men with the Byzantine Church. Do they embrace and love our spirituality and traditions? Or, do they simply want to remain priests and are willing to do anything to remain so? Will they Latinize the Exarchy of Prague?�

Elias: Probably more familiar than our priests and deacons who were educated in Latin seminaries here in this �free� country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You wrote: �In our own Metropolia (with a shortage of priests) we must seek Rome's permission to ordain a married man, but for an exarchy of 8000 they'll infuse 22 men because it suits the needs of the Latins.�

Elias: Actually, they will suit the needs of the Byzantine Catholic Church!!! Such a wonderful witness in the Republic of Czech. Now they will have to deal with us there too. Smile.

You wrote: �� I withhold final judgement until all information is on the table.�

Elias: You ALREADY made a final judgement in the confines of your Kangaroo Court mind. I do agree with you that we need more information before taking our mood swings public.

You wrote: �Perhaps these men fell in love with the Byzantine Church and will serve her well.�

Elias: There�s always hope. Now� as for those studying for the ministry in THIS country, well�. I have some hope there too.


Elias

Elias:

Reread my post. I do not question or have a problem with the conditional reordination of these priests. As you state, this is the Pope's right.

I do question the transfer of twenty-two married priests from the Latin Church to the Byzantine Church.(I amended the original post. I thought the fifty priests included the twenty married ones, it does not.) As I stated before, Are they doing this because it is the only way they can continue functioning as priests? If so, this could certainly produce latinization in the Exarchy of Prague.

The article leads one to believe the transfer to the Byzantine Church was an initiative orchestrated by the Curia, not by the Exarch of Prague or the priests themselves. If this is true, there is good reason for concern and a certain amount of righteous indignation.

I freely admit I do not know all the facts. Therefore, I reserve judgement till all the facts are known and despite the emotion in my proir post I have not formed a "kangaroo court" and judged this case. I do not appreciate your characterization. For someone who thinks that the icon screen in St. Nicholas' Chapel isn't Byzantine enough, I would have thought you would have had the same concerns about the effects of this decision on the Byzantine Church.

Again I ask, What message does this send? The Curia seems somewhat inconsistent. They want to kick eight married Byzantine priests out of Poland who are serving in the traditional territory of the Archeparchy of Peremysl, but twenty-two can serve in an Exarchy in territory never before part of the Byzantine Church.

On the surface, it seems alot like the resurgence of the old Latin superiority complex. They don't want Eastern married priests serving in "Latin" territory until they have twenty-two married priests they feel are an embarassment or scandal to the Latin Church. The solution: Let them pass over to the "Byzantine-Slavic rite." When the Church was being persecuted these men were good enough to serve the Latin Church, now they are not. I can't be the only one who sees the problem with this.

Kurt did well to point out the deeply personal and pastoral issues that had to be addressed in this situation. However, the canonical and ecumenical implications of this situation cannot be ignored. What do the Orthodox think of this?

And since you brought it up, when the Ukrainian Catholic Church came up from the underground they also had a couple of married men ordained bishops. And no, I can't provide documentation. You'll just have to trust me. However, they are only allowed to function as priests. Yet, given the circumstances, I don't see why Canon Law couldn't be relaxed so they could function as auxillary bishops.

In Christ,
Lance Weakland, deacon-candidate

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 02-26-2000).]

I know nothing of this case, but it reminds me of the unilateral action whereby the Vatican authorized latin religious priests to become bi-ritual in other churches without any permission or involvement of the other church. So, religious chose to become bi-ritual and popped up competent to serve as priests in the other churh, that is Eastern Churches. Eastern bishops had no say in this, as far as I can discover. The intention may have been good, to help the Eastern churches where priests were scarce; but can you imagine an Eastern priest deciding that he was to become bi-ritual in the latin rite and not getting the approval of that bishop? Yes, this does smack of that elitism of the Roman church.

I'm with Lance on this one. Folks talk about the "Byzantine Rite" as if it were just a collection of ritual practices, just like the Latin Rite. The problem with this simplistic approach is that it neglects the VERY real reality that each sui-juris Church is a community with its own lifestyle as well as its liturgical rituals. We do what we do because our grandparents did it, and their grandparents did it also, all the way back to the Apostles. Any schmuck can come along and memorize the rituals, but that doesn't make him a part of the community and its lifestyle.

By taking these Latin Church priests who were ordained to serve underground while the Communists were killing the clergy--or helping them 'disappear', and then sending them off to us Byzantines is a travesty of the Union. These married men presented themselves to the service of the people of God and they risked their lives -literally-- for that service.

And now they're being told: "thanks for your service" but go somewhere else where you won't cause us a problem. These men were good enough to celebrate the sacraments when there was persecution; but now that the persecution is over, "you're outta here!". That stinks.

And once again, the Eastern communities are being 'used' as a convenient dumping ground to provide a 'place' for these valiant men.

That stinks. These men are being forced to jump into communities with lifestyles different from their own. With different disciplines --like the fasting, the extended services, the unique community traditions, the 'mystical' theological approach to salvation, and the REAL interfamilial ties that constitute our Byzantine Churches, -- these men are forced to leave 'their own' and come to serve others. While good Christian love and kindness might provide these men with the impetus to serve God's people of whatever tradition, the question is: Why should they have to? It does violence to these men; and it does harm to the communities they are sent to serve. All for the sake of following the 'rules'.

As for a married man being consecrated to the rank of bishop, I am recalled of St. Peter, who was a bishop (is there anyone who would deny this) and who was also married (his wife is mentioned in the Bible--of all places!).

So what's the big deal? Is there something "wrong" or "unclean" about a man loving a woman, promising to love and honor her, and still serving the community as a bishop? Sure, it's been a tradition for many, many centuries and based upon the ideal that a bishop must dedicate himself 100% to the community and therefore cannot devote himself to his family.

Perhaps it's time that we rethought this. Families in the 'developed' world don't survive on subsistence farming in the 21st century, so perhaps a bishop COULD have a wife and kids and still serve the people of God very well without a serious problem. And as for the Czech bishops who are married, has anyone thought about asking God's people whom they served if they have a problem with their episcopal overseers? Can't the power-brokers just leave these men to continue to serve God's people without getting caught up in jots and tittles?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
Folks talk about the "Byzantine Rite" as if it were just a collection of ritual practices, just like the Latin Rite. The problem with this simplistic approach is that it neglects the VERY real reality that each sui-juris Church is a community with its own lifestyle as well as its liturgical rituals. We do what we do because our grandparents did it, and their grandparents did it also, all the way back to the Apostles. Any schmuck can come along and memorize the rituals, but that doesn't make him a part of the community and its lifestyle.

I will comment on this in the "East-West" forum.

Dear Friends,
I must agree that the placement of the 22 Roman Catholic married priests is highly questionable. I wonder just how free the Exarch of Prague to accept or reject these priests. It has to cause an extensive latinization of the Prague Exarchate.

Since we are in a great need of priests, perhaps our hierarchs could ask His Grace of Prague to release these priests to the USA. We can, at least, send them to our seminary and try to form them as Byzantine clergy.

This does not bode well for our Byzantine Churches. We are more than learning a ritual, will Rome never learn? It is Rome's problem. They should solve it involve their own Church.
Peace brothers and sisters
Fr. Bryan

>>>I must agree that the placement of the 22 Roman Catholic married priests is highly questionable. I wonder just how free the Exarch of Prague
to accept or reject these priests. It has to cause an extensive latinization of the Prague Exarchate.

Since we are in a great need of priests, perhaps our hierarchs could ask His Grace of Prague to release these priests to the USA. We can, at
least, send them to our seminary and try to form them as Byzantine clergy.

This does not bode well for our Byzantine Churches. We are more than learning a ritual, will Rome never learn? It is Rome's problem. They
should solve it involve their own Church.
Peace brothers and sisters<<<

Excuse me, but I must havwe missed something. I was under the impression that these married men, always intended to minister to the Greek Catholic faithful in Czecheslovakia, had been ordained into the Latin Church because the Greek Catholic Church was illegal in Czechesolvakia. The situation with regard to the Greek Catholic Church having changed, there is no reason to maintain the figleaf of their Latin ordination any longer, and these priests should revert to their proper sui juris Church. I reiterate: these men were never intended to be Latin priests, but Byzantine priests, and their incorporation into the Latin Church was a necessary subtrafuge at a time when the Byzantine Church was in desperate need of priests. Don't make more of this than it deserves.

Dr. John wrote:

>>>As for a married man being consecrated to the rank of bishop, I am recalled of St. Peter, who was a bishop (is there anyone who would deny this) and who
was also married (his wife is mentioned in the Bible--of all places!).<<<

Dr. John knows full well that married bishops were common in the Patristic Church, and that some of the most important of the Fathers were married bishops. But he also knows that the practice caused a number of pastoral and administrative difficulties as time went on, and the Church, as is entirely appropriate, met in concilliar fashion to devise rules governing the orders. There were many reasons why the Quinisextunct Council in Trullo legislated a celibate (indeed, a monastic) episcopate. On a practical level, there was nepotism and the problem of alienation of Church properties--an abuse of authority. On a pastoral and theological level, the bishop is meant to be both the father of his people, and an examplar of Christian virtue. For various reasons, the Church in the seventh century looked to monastics as providing the best pool of candidates for the episcopacy, to the extent that even today, non-monastic priests in the Orthodox Church must take monastic vows before becoming bishops. The reasons for maintaining the discipline of celibate bishops are complex and multidimensional, but the bottom-line reason is that it works, and it works well. The Byzantine systems of a married secular (parish) clergy and a celibate monastic and episcopal clergy maintains a dynamic tension between humanism and rigorism that is absent in systems which go one way or the other. Indeed, without both, Byzantine Christianity is seriously deformed--as I think the experience of both the Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in the new world has shown.

Stuart,

You are mistaken. These men were Latin Catholics ordained to serve the Latin Church in the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia. It is important to remember that while the Greek Catholic Church was outlawed, the Roman Catholic Church was also persecuted and severely hampered even if allowed a nominal existence.

Also, the severity of persecution also varied from region to region. The Roman Church enjoyed more freedom in Slovakia than in the Czech Republic. The government did allow a limited number of ordinations in Slovakia, but refused to grant permission in the Czech Republic, necessitating the underground ordinations.

The Greek Catholic Church was also confined largely to Slovakia. The present population of the Exarchy of Prague is 8000, and this figure is due to a sizable influx of Ukrainian Catholic immigrants to Prague after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The point being that the Greek Catholic Church in the Czech Republic was and is very small.

In regards to the status of the married bishops, I do not question the wisdom of the early Church. The reasoning you gave is valid, however this is the same reasoning the Latin Church used to disallow ordaining married men to the presbyterate. The Canons, while needed, are not written in stone like the Decalogue. The Church should be more flexible in the interpretation and application of Canons that may lose force due to context and circumstance.

These men, once ordained, are priests or bishops forever, regardless of what role the Church allows them to function. These men risked imprisonment and death to serve their Church. Yes, it was an irregularity for the Latin Church to ordain married men to the presbyterate and episcopate. (Ukrainians also for the latter) However, the situation for the Church was also irregular. The Church in these areas did the best they could given the circumstances. Could not the Church just say this is what occured and let these men continue in their ministry, while at the same time maintaining this is an exception and does not signal an abandonment of the Canons?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon-candidate

To Lance,

�Reread my post. I do not question or have a problem with the conditional reordination of these priests. As you state, this is the Pope's right.�

Elias: Good.

�I do question the transfer of twenty-two married priests from the Latin Church to the Byzantine Church.(I amended the original post. I thought the fifty priests included the twenty married ones, it does not.) As I stated before, Are they doing this because it is the only way they can continue functioning as priests? If so, this could certainly produce latinization in the Exarchy of Prague.�

Elias: Conjecture can�t be the basis of your decision. The fact that these 22 Latin priests accepted the transfer leads me to believe that there was something there which made it easier for such a thing to occur � maybe in their heart. They DID receive conditional ordination too, that part which you just stated you have no problem with either. There is no documentation of �protest� on their part unless you know intimately the details of this case. Were they really Byzantine priests during a time when their church was illegal? The only protest regarding these priests being Byzantinized comes from those who (1) aren�t involved, (2) don�t have all of the facts, and (3) are upset about a lot of things totally unrelated to this particular case. Those who are protesting are those celibate Latin priests who didn�t accept conditional ordination. I still don�t know who this Bishop Felix is. His intent and actions must be considered too. He might have done the Byzantine Church a favor by ordaining them clandestine priests and under the umbrella of the Roman Church for additional protection.

�The article leads one to believe the transfer to the Byzantine Church was an initiative orchestrated by the Curia, not by the Exarch of Prague or the priests themselves. If this is true, there is good reason for concern and a certain amount of righteous indignation.�

Elias: You mean it leads YOU to believe. It is your interpretation which is based on scanty information. Anything can be taken out of context. Your term �orchestrated� hints of conspiracy theory. Maybe I am taking your words out of context too? Your words �If this is true�� implies wishful thinking despite the fact that those who were transferred did so willingly. These priests must speak for themselves. You are not their attorney or jury.

�I freely admit I do not know all the facts.�

Elias: But you have a definite verdict.

�Therefore, I reserve judgement till all the facts are known and despite the emotion in my proir post I have not formed a "kangaroo court" and judged this case. I do not appreciate your characterization.�

Elias: I apologize. Your emotional post does a better job characterizing your judgement better than me.

�For someone who thinks that the icon screen in St. Nicholas' Chapel isn't Byzantine enough, I would have thought you would have had the same concerns about the effects of this decision on the Byzantine Church.�

Elias: What does the icon screen at this chapel have to do with this case or my characterization of your emotional post?

�Again I ask, What message does this send? The Curia seems somewhat inconsistent. They want to kick eight married Byzantine priests out of Poland who are serving in the traditional territory of the Archeparchy of Peremysl,��

Elias: Is this the doing of the Curia or the initiative of Polish Roman Catholic bishops? Celibacy was enforced on American clergy too at the instigation of American Roman Catholic bishops. The words of Vatican II does not jive with early American RC practice.

�� but twenty-two can serve in an Exarchy in territory never before part of the Byzantine Church.�

Elias: Here is a different case. The one ordaining married men to the priesthood and the episcopate WAS a Roman Catholic bishop!!!

�On the surface, it seems alot like the resurgence of the old Latin superiority complex. They don't want Eastern married priests serving in "Latin" territory until they have twenty-two married priests they feel are an embarassment or scandal to the Latin Church. The solution: Let them pass over to the "Byzantine-Slavic rite."

Elias: On the surface? Are you conjecturing again? You must remember that the practice in the Roman Church is celibacy � or did you forget? I know the Roman Church forgets this when they accept former �married� Episcopalian priests into the Church, but are all cases the same? The wave of former Episcopalian priests coming to the Roman Church was after their Church began ordaining women. To this date the allowance for married Roman Catholic men to become priests is still NOT the norm. The Roman Church can decide in which cases it wants to practice �economia� as much as the Eastern Church. In some cases Rome can say �No.� Allowing married Protestant clergy to become RC priests also seems unfair to those cradle Catholics who can�t be married priests. It�s not a matter of being fair. Its economia at work.

�When the Church was being persecuted these men were good enough to serve the Latin Church, now they are not. I can't be the only one who sees the problem with this.�

Elias: The persons of the priests were not the problem but the seemingly questionable validity of their ordinations by Bishop Felix. You have not even given an inkling into the possibility that this bishop was possibly acting uncanonical. You haven�t cited canon law, protocol in dealing with �underground� ordinations, or fully determined why the married priests were �passed over� to the Byzantines AND why these 22 priests accepted conditional ordination, regularization, and transfer to the Byzantine Rite without any documentation to their protest. The article dealt with the problem Rome was having with those who were protesting conditional ordination. The Eastern Church Congregation can decide �for� the Eastern Catholic Churches because the Byzantine Catholic Churches are somewhat �subject� to it. Our bishops STILL can not ordain a married man in the United States without getting permission from Rome.

�Kurt did well to point out the deeply personal and pastoral issues that had to be addressed in this situation. However, the canonical and ecumenical implications of this situation cannot be ignored. What do the Orthodox think of this?�

Elias: I would like to know why these priests personally accepted conditional ordination (without protest) and accepted reassignment in another church with different pastoral customs. How do you know whether these priests were actually "Latin" priests from the get-go?

�And since you brought it up, when the Ukrainian Catholic Church came up from the underground they also had a couple of married men ordained bishops. And no, I can't provide documentation. You'll just have to trust me.�

Elias: Trust depends upon credibility. Hearsay doesn�t buy anything.

�However, they are only allowed to function as priests. Yet, given the circumstances, I don't see why Canon Law couldn't be relaxed so they could function as auxillary bishops.�

Elias: Who ordained these married men bishops? Who returned them to the presbyterate? Maybe they should receive everyone�s wrath too?


Elias



[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 02-28-2000).]

Lance,

You wrote:

"The Greek Catholic Church was also confined largely to Slovakia. The present population of the Exarchy of Prague is 8000, and this figure is due to a sizable influx of Ukrainian Catholic immigrants to Prague after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The point being that the Greek Catholic Church in the Czech Republic was and is very small."


How do you know this? Do you understand the true condition of the Prague Exarchy?

BTW, how many people actually make up the Greek Catholic Church in Greece? State law mandates their maximum population at 3,000 (Freedom of religion, eh?). Their 'official' census per the Greek Catholics have them under this number. Do these numbers reflect reality? What would happen if the Greek Catholic Church publishes a number over 3,000? What then? Do you want to invite trouble when publishing 'official' numbers don't benefit you?

And did the Ukrainian Church (Catholic or Orthodox) volunteer census information freely under Communism?

Elias

Elias:

What is it you want me to say? I have said from the beginning I do not know all the facts. I am simply offering my opionion based upon my observations. However, my knowledge of this matter is not confined only to the article Anthony refered us to.

Despite my English last name, some of my ancestors were Slovak Byzantine Catholics from Bardejov, Slovakia; so I have follwed the events of the Church in the Czech and Slovak Republics for quite sometime.

Nothing I have ever read concerning these underground priests suggested they were originally Greek Catholic. If they are not, my criticisms are valid. It is one thing to have biritual faculties and offer assistance, it is another to transfer sui iuris Churches. The latter supposes the embracing of a different spirituality, something which I question in the case of twenty-two men offered the choice of: (1)transfer to the Byzantine Church and remain priests or (2)stay in the Latin Church and be downgraded.

My reference to the icon screen should be obvious. If you feel an icon screen (that allows the altar to be viewed) is harmful to Byzantine spirituality, why wouldn't you feel twenty-two men who are possibly becoming Byzantine only so they can continue functioning as priests are harmful? I already stated I do not know the hearts of these men. I pray they serve our Church well. They are in it now, for better or worse.

I got my statistical information from the Exarchy's website.

In Christ,
Lance

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 02-28-2000).]

Dear friends,

Despite the apparent difficulties involved, I still continue to see this development as a positive thing. Living at a University where most students consider married priests a grave evil, any development that acknowledges the legitimacy of a married priesthood I view as a step in the right direction.

By allowing these married priests to become Byzantine, the Vatican says, at least by inferrence, that there IS a place for married priests in the Catholic Church: in the "Byzantine rite." While this is not an ideal solution, it is a major step forward in my judgement.

The sinner Anthony