www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Hefty Dose of Economy

Question: Would it be possible for the Metropolitan Archbishop to grant extraordinary permission to his celibate clergy to get married if married priests were finally allowed in this country?

St. Paul states that it is better to marry than to sin. Would the new arcbishop's reign be an opportunity to allow those priests with girlfriends to come out of the closet and sanctify their relationships in the context of marriage? I'm not saying that I know of any priests who have love-ins, but hypothetically speaking if there were any such relationships.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Edwin,

A very good (pastoral) question!

In addition, I know a number of RC priests who left the active ministry to get married. They tell me that they belong to an organization consisting of more than 70,000 such priests who constantly send petitions to Rome to allow them to return to active ministry.

Rome has consistently turned them down, which I think is rather unfair and unrealistic, given the whole vocations and lack of priests issue.

In a parish near me, RC neighbours complained loudly that an RC priest, just out of prison and rehabilitation for child molestation, has been "reintegrated" into the parish.

What is so wrong with having a wife in the bonds of Holy Matrimony (and one's arms)?

Were these priests not being honest with themselves when they chose to marry, knowing what that would imply for their ministry?

Alex

Alex,

You raise a good point. It's like saying "Married Men Need Not Apply - - - but we will take you if you subscribe to a different lifestyle."

Priest shortage? Just like poverty, it is indirectly contrived by institutions and governing bodies trying to maintain medieval rules and regulations. Our society is a society of Lost Souls. Let's face it, celibacy don't mean cr*p to most folks. But eventually, and it is happening now, the sad reality that old wine doesn't do well in new wineskins will find their way into the thinking-caps of those in decision-making positions. Here is the problem: first, there are still many more priests accustomed to the old way of thinking who are reluctant to change; second, those who prefer the boys club mentality (akin to the petty rules and king of the hill mentality of all-boy academies); third, there may be fear of competition or an 'us-versus-them' mentality between celibate priests and married priests; fourth, the lack of funds may force a wave of married priest to become nothing but 'assistants' and/or 'float-priests' at best because you ain't gonna take a real priest's job away from him.

I don't think so, because that raises an issue not of canonical discipline, but of sacramental integrity -- that is, it is not an issue of a canonical dispensation as much as it is an issue of what the nature of the mystery/sacrament of ordination is.

Neither the Latin nor the Byzantine tradition regarding ordination permits any kind of marriage to take place following the ordination of the male party. The reason is not strictly canonical, but has to do with the understanding of the meaning of the ordination sacrament -- it is the final step of commitment to God, such that commitments to others can be made only before, and not after, that commitment. In order to allow ordained priests to marry, the entire idea of the sacrament of ordination would have to be re-thought -- and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Personally, I question the impact of any such move on the state of ordinations. It would not encourage ordinations -- because that's an issue relating to the canonical discipline prior to ordination. If the argument is that it would retain priests who otherwise would be leaving due to their desire to get married, I think that this factor, while certainly pastorally important, is not in itself a reason to change the way that the sacrament itself is understood -- my $0.02.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I (and, even more importantly, the Church)agrees with you.

But,accepting back into active ministry priests who have married will definitely make an impact in terms of more priests since this would bring back over 70,000 such priests in North America and an even greater number in Europe.

And this would slow down the rate of priests leaving active ministry to get married at some point in their lives.

The Church certainly is empowered to allow this as Edwin has said, in terms of economy.

(Perhaps the RC Church could excuse them for being "invincibly ignorant" when they decided to get married as opposed to just "morally weak?")

The RC Church is already receiving numbers of Anglican, Lutheran, Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic married clergy. Even those with valid orders in the eyes of the RC Church don't always marry before ordination either.

The norm certainly is for marriage before ordination.

I don't see this happening soon either. With fewer and fewer priests, perhaps the pressures will become overwhelming one day. How many "Eucharistic Ministers" can we have, after all?

I also find this business of a lack of vocations difficult to swallow when so many good priests are prevented from exercising their ministry because they decided to live piously in the sight of God as married men.

Perhaps a revamped theology of that mysterious and obviously dangerous "things" we call "women" is called for?

Brendan, could we call on you for your input here as well?

Alex

"Perhaps a revamped theology of that mysterious and obviously dangerous "things" we call "women" is called for?

Brendan, could we call on you for your input here as well?"

Briefly, it seems possible that the office of the diaconate will be re-opened to women sometime in the future in the Eastern Churches, at least. I'm not sure that the Western Church has the stomach for that, given the many loud voices that are clamoring for ordination of women to the priesthood, and fears that such a move regarding the diaconate would be misinterpreted (even though the Latin diaconate, at present, is "permanent").

Beyond that, I don't see any apostolic church ordaining women to the priesthood at any time in the future.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Forgive my bad grammar in the portion of my previous post you quoted.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about ordaining women at all, just a revamped theology that sees them as "good" rather than as "sources of temptation" (although the latter, within a sacramental context, is fun too!).

With such a revamped theology, and perhaps even the idea of marrying those women and, yes, living with them won't be so horrendous to those who believe that celibacy is a holier state for the priesthood.

I believe in imposing hands on women, but what I have in mind (within the bonds of matrimony) has nothing whatsoever to do with ordination . . .

Alex

Brendan,

The Orthodox Church has permitted their priests to remarry. Anything is possible with the economy.

The problem, Brendan, is that the Latin Church and willing Greek Catholics allowed us to get into this fine kettle of fish.

Since ordination is the final frontier of the sacraments, do you think it is being honored by those clerics who have ladies on the side? or men?

I've often thought one of the practical downsides to the Roman Church (and the Byzantine Catholic Churches in the US) changing the discipline on clerical celibacy is that the many current priests, including those recently ordained who relatively recently gave up girlfriends/fianc�es, would resent the position they're in, big time.

The trouble is, once the dam bursts and you allow a bunch of exceptions allowing priests to get married, when if ever can you restore the Orthodox discipline*?

In addition, I know a number of RC priests who left the active ministry to get married. They tell me that they belong to an organization consisting of more than 70,000 such priests who constantly send petitions to Rome to allow them to return to active ministry.

I can't speak for your acquaintances but such groups are usually dissenters of the Amchurch variety (or its Canadian opposite number) who don't give a flip about either dogma or the traditional discipline regarding clerical marriage (the Orthodox discipline). They want priests to be able to marry (and divorce and remarry) like Protestant ministers.

Still, economy is real and a good thing. I have no problem really with exceptions granted to laicized priests who have married in the Church, like the man who runs the Totus Tuus site — yes, a laicized priest, happily in his second, Catholic marriage and a father and stepfather, who has repented and is now small-o orthodox.

Can't see it happening, practically, though — the resentment and backlash from the Roman clerical old boys' club is probably too strong.

In parts of Europe, former deserter priests (who didn't go through laicization) have been reinstated when they asked to return, but they had to end their marriages, which unlike the case above were uncanonical (done before a civil official, etc.) anyway.

In a parish near me, RC neighbours complained loudly that an RC priest, just out of prison and rehabilitation for child molestation, has been "reintegrated" into the parish.

Apples and oranges, really. There was a child-molestation scandal here that involved a married Protestant minister. Celibacy doesn't cause p�dophilia — Fr Andrew Greeley, a notorious dissenter otherwise**, has been honest and a gentleman about that, admitting the two issues are not related and refraining from using such sex scandals to bash celibacy.

Your neighbors are reacting understandably, considering the recidivism of child molesters — a New Jersey murder caused that state to enact the US's first, dubiously constitutional "Megan's Law', which tells communities when a convicted but released sex offender moves into the area, and requires the offender to register with the police, even though he has served his sentence and traditionally would be completely free. I haven't got the answer to this legal conundrum.

What is so wrong with having a wife in the bonds of Holy Matrimony (and one's arms)?

Nothing.

*Which Rome already applies with its deacons and former Anglican clergy who are ordained priests.

**He's hard to suss. Sometimes he is way off base; other times he writes beautifully about aspects of the faith and has at least a sentimental, sociological/cultural affinity for traditionalist trappings.

http://oldworldrus.com

Brendan's post is correct. Both the Eastern and Western Churches have consistently held that marriage after Holy Orders is not possible. There are different reasons given by East and West for this, and the integrity of mysteries is only part of the answer.

I am far more comfortable answering this from a Latin perspective, and so will essay that.

From the Latin standpoint there are certain "requirements" for the reception of the sacraments. For example, only an unbaptized person may be baptized. Baptism is an "impediment" to the reception of baptism. The same is true of confirmation/chrismation -- this is a one-time event.

Marriage, although it may be celebrated multiple times (permitted in the West, tolerated in the East), may not be celebrated by a person who is currently marriage. That is, marriage itself is an impediment to marriage.

Finally, Holy Orders has always required the total surrender of self to God. This is why the wife of a candidate for ordination must give her permission or the ordination cannot take place. From an Eastern perspective, if the Matushka-to-be decides that her husband will spend to much time serving his people, then she can say no and the bishop will not ordain him. My wife had to give her permission in writing before my bishop would ordain me.

Holy Orders, as the full surrender of self to God, is an impediment to marriage which would require reclaiming part of that self in order to give it to the wife. Note that the reverse is not true, however. Because marriage is a covenant relationship, it is always open to expanded sharing in the form of God and service to the people of God -- which is actually an aspect of marriage itself.

To grant permission for one in orders to be married is possible (there are widowed deacons who have been given permission to remarry), but it has serious ramifications for the priesthood. First and foremost, of course, is the promise/vow of celibacy that is made to God by the candidate for ordination. This is a pretty serious thing to start dinking with.

Just some semi-coherent thoughts...

Edward, deacon and sinner

Neither the Latin nor the Byzantine tradition regarding ordination permits any kind of marriage to take place following the ordination of the male party. The reason is not strictly canonical, but has to do with the understanding of the meaning of the ordination sacrament -- it is the final step of commitment to God, such that commitments to others can be made only before, and not after, that commitment. In order to allow ordained priests to marry, the entire idea of the sacrament of ordination would have to be re-thought -- and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Good point, Brendan. But even in our Churches can't a bishop use economy to allow a widowed priest to remarry? (Rare.)

How many "Eucharistic Ministers" can we have, after all?

Zero's a good number.

(Sorry, Angela, but there are other, better ways to do it — more men as deacons and in minor orders.)

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Serge,

Khrystos Razhdayetsia!

Slavite Yoho!

In the Orthodox Church, there would be no problem since this isn't a problem there.

In the RC Church, some canonical provision could be made. For example, if the change is ever made allowing married priests to return to active ministry, then perhaps a 'grace period' (no pun intended) could be applied. I'm not a moral theologian, so I don't really know. All I know is that precious few moral theologians ever get canonized as saints . . .

As for priests giving up their girlfriends, I think we're assuming a lot here. Usually, from what I've heard, the priest develops a relationship some years afterwards. One way of preventing this is, of course, moving priests around parishes every so often (could the issue of keeping priests celibate be another thread?).

In some cultures, such as in Latin America, one's manhood is defined by one's sexual activity and relationship(s). In Brazil and Argentina, celibate Ukrainian Basilian and other priests are often drafted into the RC Church due to their priestly losses to women. As Edwin has pointed out, other priests live with women not in wedlock and parishioners say nothing about the situation or about the "priest's woman." (Hopefully, this thread won't turn into a Graham Greene novel.)

The thousands of priests who have left the Church to marry have nothing whatever to do with "dissent" or the Amchurch.

They are, for the most part, desirous of returning to their active Ministry in the Church which has been stopped due to this one aspect in their lives, their inability to continue to live a lie without the support of their wives. They obey the Church's laws in every respect.

Some of them do go on to forget about it all or else to join Orthodox or Protestant groups.

But they do send in an annual petition to Rome to change the rules and Rome annually denies the petition.

We must also remember that many RC priests have problems with legitimately ordained Byzantine Catholic clergy - and always have.

One Byz. Catholic married priest who teaches theology was going to concelebrate with an Eastern Basilian priest.

After some uneasiness, the Basilian Father turned to him to ask, "Did you sleep with your wife last night?"

As for the child molesting issue I raised, yes it is apples and oranges.

One point that can be made is that child molesters do often feel they can "hide" their condition in certain states of life, such as the RC priesthood, but it doesn't work out for them.

The two issues are related insofar as parishioners are often amazed that the Church seems to be better predisposed to child molesting priests who have been charged and sentenced so as to allow them back into the Church, and yet is so totally against married priests (whether in the Byzantine or RC Churches).

Married priests as a whole tend to be a very conservative theological animal.

The priests I knew who furthered a "reformist" and other agendas when I was growing up were all celibate.

Today, most of them are married, but they have left the Church for good.

Alex

"The Orthodox Church has permitted their priests to remarry. Anything is possible with the economy."

Yes, but economy should be used sparingly, and when there is a risk of misinterpretation or misunderstanding it probably ought not be used. Therefore, it's possible, but in my opinion at least, not advisable here.

"Since ordination is the final frontier of the sacraments, do you think it is being honored by those clerics who have ladies on the side? or men?"

No, but that is sin that must be repented of -- not something that we want to "cover" by allowing these illegitimate extramarital relationships to be legitimized through marriage. Every case is different, and some cases may be good candidates for an exercise of economy, but as a general matter I don't think the best pastoral approach is to excuse the sin, in effect, by claiming that the sin only happened because you couldn't get married before you were ordained.

"But even in our Churches can't a bishop use economy to allow a widowed priest to remarry? (Rare.)"

Yes. I think on a case by case basis there may be good candidates for the exercise of economy - but not on a bright-line basis, essentially saying that these illicit relationships are "caused" by the discipline of celibacy.

Brendan

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Deacon (with Anastasios' permission, of course),

I go back to Edwin's point that economy can and will be applied in serious situations by the Church entrusted with the Keys by Christ.

As for the Priesthood, the point is that RC thought holds that celibacy is part and parcel of the priestly character, period. The Pope himself has affirmed this publicly.

This is why the RC church is against married priests for themselves and for us.

Where married Protestant clergy are allowed to get ordained as Catholic priests with their wives, this is done also by economy since they have come from a situation of "invincible ignorance." The RC Church is not establishing permission for others to get married before, after or during ordination, ever.

Yes, we have always consistently followed the rule of marriage before ordination. But this was established at a time when a law forbidding marriage to all clerical candidates, period, wasn't around. I don't know if that makes any difference, but perhaps it should.

And, yes, Rome agreed to allow us our married clergy at the time of the Unia.

But Rome has modified its perspective on this and especially when it comes to Byzantine Catholic priests living in close proximity with RC clergy in North America and elsewhere.

The theology of all this can and perhaps should develop. To say otherwise is to clothe it with an aura of "infallibility" that it simply does not have, nor would the Church wish it to have.

Finally, even the revered Orthodox Church has taken away the ancient apostolic right of married priests to become bishops, leaving monks as the sole pool for episcopal candidates.

As Meyendorff (+eternal memory!) has said, this could be changed during an Ecumenical Council (whenever that will occur, and hopefully in this Millennium).

So even the Holy Orthodox Church has allowed "crypto-celibacy" attitudes to enter its thinking and practice (e.g. the rule forbidding Priests to sleep with their wives the night prior to serving the Divine Liturgy or even sleeping in the same room with them - what intolerable nonsense!).

Alex

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Alex wrote: "After some uneasiness, the Basilian Father turned to him to ask, "Did you sleep with your wife last night?""

Shame on that priest! Do priests ask every communicant who comes to taste and see how good the Lord is whether they committed some sexual transgression the night before? Shame, shame, shame! Does the same priest ask other celibate priests whether they did Johnny the night before too? or their girlfriend? I'm not trying to be sick but a celebrant (if he is not the priest's confessor/spiritual director) should not be concerned about bedroom affairs of others or assume extra-curricular activities off the margins. This shameful priest has bad bed-side manners (no pun intended).

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]