www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West answering celibacy

Joseph,
I believe there is much to discuss on this fact.

Yes, celibacy is not a disease, but it is also not dogmatic. Many of the arguments made by Latin Catholics to support celibacy attempt to raise it to the level of dogma.

As for you comment "I believe that any attempt--perceived for real--to stamp out mandatory celebacy in the West by Easterners is uncharitable and below you."

Please show where any Easterner has called for the end of priestly celibacy in the West. We haven't. We are calling for a return to our traditions and for those who feel the need to confront the West's ideas of priestly celibacy, it is becuase of what I stated above, that somehow priestly celibacy is dogmatic and anything less is just not right.


See, you do it right here. If priestly celibacy is because Jesus was celibate, then whey does the east have married ones?

Priests in our churches are also asked to be counselors, confessors, directors and some even celebrate daily liturgies.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Either celibacy or marriage is a requirement for ordination, as the Word of God (scripture) states repeatedly. The man must have firmly chosen and committed to one PRIOR to ordination.

A married man may always choose celibacy if his wife leaves him or dies, but a celibate may never canonically choose marriage.

Thus the requirement for celibacy in the West has been approached from the wrong perspective.

Instead of saying to all seminary applicants, "you are called to be a priest and therefore you are called to be celibate," they should be addressing only those called to be celibate and saying, "you are called to be celibate and therefore you MAY be called to be ordained."

Then they would really have a shortage of parish priests, but probably far fewer scandals.

The choice of marriage or celibacy must precede the selection for ordination.

In Christ,
Andrew

Does it really matter what they want?

They knew going into the priesthood that they would have to be celibate. It is the law of the Latin Church.

I do not think God would call men to be priests who could not live up to the laws of the Latin Church.

I am for upholding the tradtions of our churches. That would be a married priesthood for us and a celibate priesthood for the Latin Church.

As I am against Latinizations in the Byzantine Church, I am also against Byzantinizations of the Latin Church.

Those who want to see the restoration of a married priesthood in the byzantine churches are the traditionalists (or conservatives) where as those who want to change to a married priesthood in the latin church tend to be the progressives (liberals) who also want priestesses, abortion, homosexual marriage, birth control, and other such nonsense.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Blessed Hieromartyr Emilian/Omelan Kowch
(1884-1944), in a booklet entitled "Chomu
nashi vid nas utikayut'?" ("Why those ours escape
from us?", i.e. "Why Greek-Catholics leave their
Church for the Latin one or other denominations?"), written in Polish jail and published in 1931, promoted option for celibate
priesthood, being himself a married priest with
six children. Bl. Emilian came from the priestly
family, was married to a priest's daughter, his
brothers were married priests, his sisters were
priests' wives, his two sons became priests
(one married and another celibate)...

Of course, Bl. Emilian's option was absolutely
non-ideological, but pragmatical. He found married priests unavailable to adequately serve
their people in the "new times". So his
views should be interpreted within the context of
inter-war Halychyna, with many changes in social
structure after WW1, influence of sects and communists, repressive policy of the Polish government, difficult economic situation of church structures and so on. Bl. Emilian was
not a hypocrite - he was ordained BEFORE the First War, in a different world. However, one
of his arguments sounds a bit personal: after
description of tragic fate of priests' wives,
especially in village parishes, he writes that
every responsible man, who loves a woman, would
certainly not want her to have such a ruined
life... Did he feel a bit guilty?

Sincerely,
deacon Peter

PS. This booklet in now reprinted in "SOPRYCHASTYA" (Ukrainian version of COMMUNIO),
in all four issues of 2003.

Dear David,

But the traditions of East and West are not parallel on this issue.

The Eastern Churches have always had both married and celibate clergy.

The Western (Latin) Church had married and celibate clergy for one thousand years or more but now ordains only celibate men.

So the question should be: Is the Latin Church being true to her own tradition?

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,
What tradition? The Latins have lost there tradition, at least here in Brazil. To be honest with you, I'm afraid to go to a Latin mass, for me it's always some kind of shock or unbelievable suprise. No two masses are the same. God forgive me but there are masses down here that look more like a musical or talent show more than anything else.
Lauro

Andrew,
I believe that the Latin Church embraced the celibate priesthood sometime in the 4th century or earlier, I do not believe that they had a married priesthood for 1000 years.

Let me ask this, is it right for us to even ask the question "Is the Latin Church being true to her own tradition?" when we have yet to restore our own tradition fully?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear DavidB:

You are correct.

I believe the earliest enactment in the Western Church on the subject of celibacy was at the Council of Elvira (Spain), held between 295 A.D. and 302 A.D., in its Canon XXXIII.

It imposed celibacy upon the three higher orders of the clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Married clergy who, at the time of the enactment, continued to live with their wives and begot children were to be deposed.

This would seem to have been the beginning of the divergence in this matter between East and West.

AmdG

Dear David,

There are a number of things the Western Church did which constitute a divergence from universal Catholic practice of the first millennium.

It is entitled to do that.

But all that means is NOT that married Western priests constitute a betrayal of Western tradition, but that there is a greater freedom to have both celibates and married clerics in the West.

Besides, since when is the RC Church saying "no" to Anglican, Lutheran and Old Catholic married clergy who become RC and ask to be ordained as RC priests?

Has something changed in 2004?

So Rome is itself ordaining former married Protestant clergy.

Are you saying that this destruction of the cast-in-stone Western law of celibacy is being conducted by Rome?

Alex

Dear Amado,

That book whose author I've forgotten says differently . . .

Married Latin priests were around for some centuries after that.

But, according to the author, those married Latin priests had a definite "hands off" policy toward their wives.

And, of course, I believe him . . .

Alex

Andrew,

not true. Since the restoration of the so-called "permanent diaconate", married men have been ordained. Or are you suggesting deacons are not "real" clerics?

Also consider the recent ordinations of Episcopalian and Lutheran minsters as married Roman priests. Ordained by Roman bishops (albeit with dispensation from the Holy See) but indeed married.

These men now number in the 100s so it simply can't be said that the Roman Church has a prohibition on married clergy, as within her own ranks she is slowly but actively ordaining married men.

Joseph,

"Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy"-Possibly the worst, most unhistoric, biased piece of fantasy on the subject I have had the misfortune to read. That said I think a couple of things merit discussing.

Fullness of sign-Actually I can see this particular point. However, it is probably the least effective for the Latin Church since it regularly opts for the less full sign. Communion by Host only. Baptism by affusion rather than immersion. Confirmation delayed.

Also it is practicle-This one always baffles me. Many married priests balance family and church perfectly. In fact it is often the married priests who are the most traditional and serve a fuller range of services compared to their celibate counterparts. On the other hand, being celibate and without a family is no guarantee of commitment. Many celibate priests have been quite occupied with their own interests and pursuits to the detriment of their parishes.

Don't want to introduce mandatory celiabcy into the East-Too late, mandatory celibacy was forced unto the Syro-Malabar Church, the Syro-Malankar Church, and all Eastern Churches in America although the last is finally reversing although not because of Curial help.

I don't believe that it has caused the so-called priest shortage-It depends. For the Rusyn and Ukrainian Catholic Churches in America it has been disastrous. I would wager SS Cyril and Methodius has provided ACROD as many priests as Christ the Savior. On the otherhand, the Syro-Malabar Church proportionally has more vocations than anyone East or West. The point isn't does it cause shortages, the point is is it the right thing now? If one Latin Catholic married man has been turned away that God has called it is the wrong thing. The fact that converting Anglican priests may be ordained means the Latin Church recognizes the possibility. I also don't buy the arguement God doesn't call married men to the Latin priesthood. How would the Latin Church realize that God now wants married men ordained if they don't make their call known? An apparition? Besides, we in the East gave your way a try, why don't you guy try ours?

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree with father Deacon Lance. A priest's competence is never related to their marrital status. In our celebacy optional Montreal deanery of the UGCC a priest was always judged on his performance as a pastor, not if he 'was' or 'was not' married.

When I was young they (parents) told us that the reason bishops could not wed was because they had to travel to visit all of their parishes. If they had wives (and children) they would have to be away from them often for lengthy periods of time. This of course was not good for a number of obvious reasons - just ask any travelling salesman or executive.

My parents also told us that it was good to have a mix (or rotation of) celibate and married priests because their life experiences would be different and as such they could provide varied perspectives on the Christian faith. The more perspectives you bring to the table the more souls you are likely to save.

Does anybody have a more scholarly view on these two points ?

PS: Will the new USA UGCC Metropolitan who is Canadian born, raised, and educated be more flexible on the celibacy issue as are most hierarchs from the 'Great White North' ?

Fr Deacon Lance,
I think you make the mistake of looking at the Latin Church though Byzantine Glasses.

I believe that the role of the priest, as seen in the west, differs a bit as seen in the east, does it not?

Is this not why we call our monastics father where the west does not? And lets not forget that all monastics are celibate.

Your argument, "I also don't buy the arguement God doesn't call married men to the Latin priesthood. How would the Latin Church realize that God now wants married men ordained if they don't make their call known?"

Is a false argument. It is the Church, in the office of the Bishop, who determines a call, is it not? If the Church sets a discipline, I do not think God would work against it.

As a side note, this argument you make, I have seen used by those who what to see women ordained to the priesthood. Just replace the words "married men" with "women".

You also say, "Besides, we in the East gave your way a try, why don't you guy try ours?"

This is also false and now you are doing what was done to us. You are trying to make our way THE WAY to do things.

We each have our traditions and we must live them to their fullness.

Diak,
The Ordination of married ministers from outside of the Church is really only a phenomenon in America, where there are a whole bunch of other things that are just done here.

It is a good argument but I would add that these men were born outside of the Church and I think that has something to do with it.

Fr Deacon John,
My point was that priestly celibacy has been the law since early in the fourth century.