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

Dear David,

Are you continuing to refuse to recognize the points being made here by our Brothers in Christ?

How can celibacy be a discipline in the West when it regularly accepts married Protestant clergy for ordination as RC priests?

The view of some pro-mandatory celibacy Western authors to see in this or that Roman Church legislation in the early centuries of the Western Church as being a universal imposition of mandatory celibacy is something that requires further proof.

For example, even though Pope Urban VIII declared that Rome alone may beatify saints, this did not prevent Italian bishops from continuing to beatify their diocesan Servants of God for years afterwards - and Rome today acknowledges the cult of these Blesseds beatified after Urban's decree and lists them in the Roman Universal calendar.

But there is plenty of evidence to show that Western priests were married later than the dates you give.

It is just that some authors refuse to acknowledge that they were sexually active.

And of course they weren't!

Alex

No I do not, what I refuse to recognize is their bias that our ways are better.

It is just this fact, that the west has accepted married protestant clergy (I do not agree with the word you chose to use, "regularly", as each requires a disposition from Rome), that proves it is a discipline. As with all laws/diciplines there are exceptions and legal ways around them.

So becuase the west uses Extraordianry Ministers of Holy Communion, should we do so? Should this become the norm?

You, and others, call for the restoration of our traditions but here you are not calling for the west to throw out theirs and I still see no good reason to do so.

Seems you refuse to recognize my call to live our traditions to their fullness. So please do not get upset when I refuse to recognize your traditions.

Celibacy by itself has little or no value unless it is tied to poverty/simplicity of life and a definitive lifestyle (like monastic life). Without the ascetism and prayer life of the monastery, a celibate becomes simply a fussy old bachelor living as he wishes. For a celibate to point to the Kingdom, he must show by everything he does that without the existence of God his life would not make sense at all, in fact it would be silly! A true celibate is he who centers his entire life around the Lord and prayer and who gets by without many material things: clothes, nice cars, memberships in country clubs, swimming pools, golf clubs, fine dining, drinking the best wines and the like---this kind of lifestyle does NOT point to the Kingdom, but only shows a man who has given up much and is spending his time 'paying himself back' for the 'sacrifice'! His Christian witness is meaningless. He would be better off married and sacrificing for his wife and family.

Celibacy without obedience and poverty is usually a way of life of a selfish man and his own choosing. It does NOT speak to the world in which we live and it does NOT say anything positive to those to whom he ministers.

Celibacy in the end is a unique and special vocation that may or may not come with the priesthood---but if it IS given then the 'signs' of its authenticity are unmistakable! Sadly, I see little of those in today's celibacy.

In His Holy Name,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Dear Brother David,

I don't get upset when you don't wish to follow my traditions! (You sound upset in general - are you O.K.?)

I'm not insisting you do 100 prostrations every night, am I?

"Regularly" is a word that is appropriate because Rome "regularly" approves the ordination of former married Protestant clergy of the Anglican, Lutheran, Old Catholic, Methodist and even Pentecostal traditions.

The point is that how can celibacy be a norm for the West when it can be broken so "regularly" by Rome or whomever?

And the point is that the West once had a regular married clergy - it is a tradition in the West, even though it has gone away from it.

We in the East also have traditions that we no longer observe - but could return to if there was a movement to restore them.

With married Latin deacons and married former Protestant clergy who are now RC priests and thousands of married Latin clergy who cannot now exercise their priesthood but who are clamouring to return to it in a Church where there is a severe clergy shortage (which precipitated the "Extra ministers of Communion" or whatever they are called) - is it not inevitable before the time will come to the Latin West when the floodgates finally break down in this respect?

Time is not on the side of mandatory celibacy in the Latin Church any longer.

It is time for the Vatican and its "Old Boys' Club" to acknowledge reality.

Alex

Bless, Venerable Father Archimandrite!

You have an uncanny way of putting your finger on things - but that is why you are an Archimandrite and I am barely a layman!!

I grew up in a house of married priests. My idea of a fun afternoon was baking Prosphora with my grandfather, Fr. John! Or counting the pennies from Sunday's collection. Or else organizing his intentions for the Divine Liturgy for him.

I didn't know why my friends thought I was, well, "different."

My grandfather punctuated his day with the Divine Horologion. That memory has stayed with me which is also why I love the Horologion - I was happy to learn that we layfolk can say it too!

My grandfather spent three years suffering illness in a chronic care facility.

When he died, after 70 years as a priest, my aunt complained out loud about how God could do this to one of His good servants.

At this, the (Catholic) nurse stepped up and said, "Oh no, madam, you have it wrong! This man brought so many back to the Church when he was here. When they saw him suffering in silence like that they asked who he was. When I told them he was a priest, they later repented and asked to go to confession and receive Holy Communion, they asked for rosaries etc."

The married priest looks after two parishes. His own parish and the parish which is his family.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Yes, in a way you could say that I am upset, just as I get upset when Latins act as though their traditions are superior.

I have two arguments on this.

First, please define regular. When I look it up I see two of the definitions that fit what you are trying to say....

regular:
3 a : ORDERLY, METHODICAL <regular habits> b : recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed or uniform intervals <a regular income> <a regular churchgoer>
4 a : constituted, conducted, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline

Now, I do not think this is occuring at fixed intervals, but I do think it is "done in conformity with established discipline" as the bishop who wishes to ordain such a man must seek and recieve a disposition from Rome to do so.

Second, I believe that this is really just happening in America. Now if this is true, can something that is occuring in one National Church be called regular for the Worldwide Church? I don't think so.


This is an argument I have heard before and I will answer it as I have answered it then....

Give me a date where the Church was perfect and we will return all of our traditions to how it was done then.

Should we go back to the days where after confessing we would don sack cloths and put ashes on our faces and stand at the entrance to the church begging forgiveness of all who enter?

I see you totally ingore my comments about the role of the priest and how it is seen in the Latin Church.

As for those Latin priests who violated their vows/promises, if the Latin Church does decide to allow married priests, I hope that they do not reinstate these men, as they entered into the priesthood knowing the requirements and violated their vows/promises.

More than just diocesean priests have left to get married, religious priests have done so to.... Should they be allowed to return to their orders as married men?

This is your opinion, one not shared by the Holy Father.

I would also add, it is an opinion shared by those who what to see priestesses.

I would also add that I am offended by your "Old Boys' Club" comment. That was uncalled for and please enlighten me as to how allowing married priests would change this?

Bishops are still celibate.....


David, the Byzantine Catholic

ps I would like to add a personal perspective, this is how I feel, it may not be the intent but it is how I feel.

All this talk about the married clergy and the lengths you (and others) go to defend it, make me feel as though I am a freak, that there is something wrong.....

As I feel called to the celibate priesthood. (this may add to your perceiving me as being upset)

Dear David,

Yes, I agree that there are those in the Latin church who want married priests as a way to bring in their liberalizing agendas.

But the fact that there are those who do should not mean that married priests in the Latin Church would be a bad thing OR that their presence means that the Latin Church will be going "to the dogs."

There is the argument that mandatory celibacy has created "hiding places" for pedophiles. There are laity who believe, yes, wrongly, that mandatory celibacy "breeds" pedophilism as a perverted outlet for repressed sexual expression - so say a number of my Latin friends with whom, by the way, I strenuously disagree with.

I think many laity in North America would welcome a married Latin priesthood - and, rightly or wrongly, it would do much to ameliorate the tense situation that now exists between families and their parish priests for specific reasons.

But let's return to the point that IF celibacy was an unbreakable rule and tradition of the Latin West then why are married Protestant clergy accepted as RC priests?

Whatever officious route they take, they are accepted and enthusiastically so by bishops who need their services.

Canada has taken to importing celibate priests from the Third World. And that is fine, but it doesn't ameliorate the situation of a priest shortage overall and in North America and Europe.

When our Latin Cardinal allowed for a married diaconate program in Toronto, our local seminary was FILLED to the brim with candidates, all of whom were married.

Married priests are not always the answer to a priestly shortage in the Eastern Catholic Churches for various reasons.

But they would certainly seem to be in the Latin Church.

As for those who left the Latin priesthood because they could not continue to live a lie - I think the Church has the power of the keys to forgive them and accept them back.

I know a number of such priests and met one on my honeymoon in Greece - he married the parish secretary.

When we visited Orthodox monasteries, he always identified himself as a "Roman priest" which is what he will always be in God's eyes.

When we knelt to pray before the shrines, he prayed with tears.

Sorry, but if the Latin Church were to forgive these married priests and receive them back, it would show itself to be more Christ-like and not less so.

And it would also show itself to be less hypocritical when it accepts married Protestant clergy.

The argument of "invincible ignorance" in favour of the married Protestant candidates over the married Latin priests is one that should have gone the way of the dinosaur years ago.

We don't agree here, and that is fine, I'm not out to change your views, which I respect.

But I think that sometimes pastoral considerations outweigh others.

And the Church of Rome agrees each and every time it allows a married Protestant minister to get ordained as an RC priest.

Before long, this will have the effect of getting RC parishes used to seeing married priests.

And that will be more than half the battle regarding the acceptance of a regular married Latin priesthood.

Our married priests tend to be bastions of conservative religious orthodoxy.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj himself argued in favour of a married Latin priesthood at the Vatican II Council.

He said that while he was formerly in favour of mandatory celibacy (as rector of the seminary, he tried to get my father to sign a document saying my father would never get married), his stay in Siberia under the Soviets changed his views.

He said that married priests had the support of their families in defending the faith and suffering for it.

He said that, in his experience, celibate priests tended to break more easily under the Soviets and even denied the faith.

His words, noted in the Toronto Star in the early seventies when I was at St Michael's College School, not mine.

Alex

Alex,
I will just comment on a few things.

But first, I am not against the Latin Church changing their discipline and allowing married priests.

What I am against is us weighing in on the issue. It is not our place to tell others what they should or should not do as far as discipline goes.

Your not a Latin Catholic, you should not tell Latin Catholics what they should do.

It is only correct to disagree with this as the percentage of priests who did this sort of thing was not much different than the percentage who do so in the general population.

I will add what happened in most cases was not pedophilia, as pedophilia is sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child and what occurred mostly happened with older children.

Thats an opinion I do not share.

But its not an unbreakable rule, it is a discipline and this discipline has within it the rules for granting a disposition from it.

You act as though there are thousands and thousands of cases of this, I do not think it is as wide spread as you state. Do you have numbers? Do you have numbers of how many were rejected?

This importing is as it should be. The Church is a Worldwide body. It was mentioned on EWTN radio that the church has always had "vocation crisises" in it, one place will be in "crisis" while another is booming. We take from where they have excess and help those that need it... Heck, there are dioceses in the USA that are booming.

A vocation to the diaconate differs from a vocation to the priesthood.

Wrong, the denominations that have married ministers are hurting just as much as the Latin Church is.... This priestly shortage is just in North America... You speak as though the North American Church is THE Church. It isn't and we must recognize this.

I see you also pick and choose which of my arguments to address and which to ignore.

Please why avoid the difference in how the Latin Church views the role of the priest. I believe it is more in line with how we view our monastics, which are celibate.

You also left out what to do with the religious priest who left to marry.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

This is the kind of issue which I generally avoid, because it's a losing proposition. Neither side is likely to change the minds of the other and, consequently, it's an exercise in frustration and a waste of time and effort to enter the fray. But, a few things that have been said have bothered me enough to put in my two cents worth. What follows is my personal opinion and, as I chose several decades ago to be canonically translated to the Melkite Church, my opinion is of little consequence to the Latin Church (not that it necessarily would have been had I remained within it; I wasn't being considered for the cardinalate).

I believe that the Latin Church should seriously consider having both a married and celibate priesthood.

I also believe that it is not our place to demand or even argue that Rome change its stance on priestly celibacy (we don't and haven't liked it when they did it to us; why should we feel entitled to do it to them).

I do not believe that a married priesthood would eliminate the vocation crisis in the Latin Church (there are vocation crises in our Churches and in many other denominations, all of the latter of which have married clergy; it's a phenomenon of times in which selfishness and an unwillingness to serve the needs of God or others is very prevalent in society as a whole).

I do not believe that a married priesthood would eliminate the danger of child sexual abuse by priests (we have married clergy, as do other denominations; there continue to be instances of child sexual abuse in all such Churches, the numbers are smaller than in the Latin Church, but so are we and all of those other denominations).

I do not believe that a married priesthood would eliminate the likelihood of homosexual priests, for those who choose to believe that those are a risk to them or the Church (homosexuals are as proportionately prevalent in any profession as they are in society as a whole; they are unlikely to exclude the priesthood as a career choice because married men are being ordained, unless one plans to make marriage mandatory).

I do not believe that a married priesthood would lead to a call for a female priesthood (we have married clergy, I hear little or no demand in the Eastern Churches for a female priesthood; you can argue that our cultures are sufficiently chauvenistic that it wouldn't happen, if that's the reason why, it's a sad commentary on us as a people).

Lastly, I feel compelled to comment on a few of the statements made above - some of these are on one side of the argument, some on the other, but they were those I found most lacking in logic:

David,

Ought we to be so vain that we would believe that God does His decision-making on the basis of the laws of the Latin Church? If that were so, then we should be obliged to believe that the laws of the Church are all divinely inspired and ought to be considered dogmatic.

Andrew,

Even if it were for a thousand years (and not the shorter time that David and Amado suggest, and with which I concur), if that first thousand years constituted a tradition, does not the thousand years since constitute a new tradition?

Diak,

I don't think that these ordinations can be considered to eliminate the prohibition. Altho they may be in the 100s, they still constitute a small and (with all due respect for the clergy involved) relatively insignificant percentage of the Latin priesthood. They are the exception to the norm, their status acquired under dispensation, as you note. The whole nature of dispensation is to allow something that is otherwise prohibited to occur; it does not make the prohibition any less that, it only serves to make it not an absolute prohibition.

David,

This argument sets the wisdom of the Church - in the person of a single Bishop - or, more likely, the diocesan vocations director or seminary rector - above that of God. The bishop - or whoever - merely makes a judgement as to whether, in his fallible, human opinion a candidate exhibits a call. In the case of the current thinking within the Latin Church, exhibiting a call necessitates that there be present an external sign - celibacy; no one is looking beyond that. The rule is man-made. And, if one firmly believes that God, in His wisdom, has absolutely determined that celibacy ought to be the rule in the Latin Church, why do we consider that He sees differently what ought to be the rule in the Eastern Churches?

There's more, but I gave up reading. I'd have to say that I generally find myself agreeing with what Alex has written and I'm confused by David's post immediately above, because some of it seems at odds with what he wrote previously.

But, as to non-secular clergy who left and married, bring them back and use their talents in whatever secular priestly role for which they are best suited. I've met a hell of a lot of great now-married, former priests who are presently social workers, teachers, etc and hail from the ranks of the religious orders. Many of them would love to continue those careers in a priestly capacity and have the opportunity to serve a parish's liturgical needs at the same time - sounds like a potential win-win situation to me.

Many years,

Neil

Dear David,

I generally agree with what you say, or else have no real problem with it and will leave it at that.

As for us telling the Latins that they should or should not married priests, let us remember that the Latin theology of the priesthood, even today, INSISTS that celibacy belongs to the character of the priesthood.

That married priests are tolerated, i.e. Protestant clergy converts, does not alter this - it is because of their "invincible ignorance." In other words, if they "knew better" and they didn't since they were Protestants, they would have remained celibate.

And this Latin mandatory celibacy perspective has been imposed on us - and still is either directly by Rome or indirectly by Rome-grown and selected Eastern Catholic bishops. That is how it is in the UGCC - perhaps the experience of other Churches is different.

The Eastern Churches are NOT telling the West to do anything it doesn't want to do.

But we have our theology of the Priesthood which is also a Patristic one based on ancient Apostolic tradition - and that means it isn't just for our local Churches but for the entire Church.

We know that there are those called to the celibate vocation - and that is respected, to be sure, everywhere.

But the issue of "mandatory celibacy" is something we fundamentally disagree with as being against the Scriptures and Tradition, including the Tradition under which the Western Church operated under for a very long time before it mandated clerical celibacy.

The West has, in fact, two traditions, and not one consistent one in this respect (as in some others).

Is its tradition of mandatory celibacy one to which it is bound? If it believes itself to be, of course.

But then why ordain married priests or else have loop-holes by which they can be ordained? If celibacy is characteristic of the Latin theology of the priesthood, shouldn't married Protestant clergy be denied RC ordination because their married state provides an insurmountable impediment to this?

Clearly, the Latin Church will tolerate married priests and sees justification in so doing on the basis of its FORMER tradition of married priests.

As for such traditions, the Latin Church will change and pick and choose at will. Ultimately, for the Latin Church, when it comes to Tradition, it is the Pope who is the one who decides what it is.

The East has had the same, consistent tradition with respect to married priests and hasn't changed it - changes came with the various Unias when Eastern Catholic Churches were obliged to submit to Roman discipline in this respect - and often in contravention of the articles of union they originally signed with Rome.

There are benefits too to having a married clergy and I see no problem sharing these with our Latin brothers who ALREADY allow for married priests via a "back-door" policy.

I grew up in a married priestly family and I know the tremendous sources of support that a priest can obtain from his family in his daily work. I know that many in the parish love to approach the Presbytera to discuss things with her that they would NEVER discuss with Father. There are many benefits and our Latin brothers shouldn't get their noses out of whack when we share these with them.

And I think that the rule here should have to do more with pastoral considerations rather than with "traditions" or "historic legislation" and the like.

The fact is the Latin Church is being forced by circumstances to allow married clergy. It is doing so kicking and screaming, but I think that is less the case now than was previously.

Our tradition of married priests isn't, I'll reiterate, just for the East.

It was once universally shared, and for a long time, with the West when we were united as one Church of Christ.

Yes, the Latin Church can change and the years since it has changed has the force of a kind of law, to be sure.

But the fact that the Latin CHurch has changed before means that it can change again.

As for Easterners, we resist change to the last breath!

And sometimes I am grateful for that attitude!

God bless !

Alex

Dear Neil,

Just a note to say "kudos" to your point on the priests who left to get married.

They are still priests both sacramentally and in their orientation. Once a priest always a priest and they need to find ways to exercise their apostolic energies, one way or another.

What I found to be a great tragedy is in how the United Church of Canada (like your United Churches of Christ) adopted a resolution to allow married RC priests to serve as ministers with it.

They affirmed that the education of these priests is greater than anything they could give them and as long as they are a member of a United Church parish for one year, they will immediately be accepted as ministers in charge of parishes, if they so wish.

I know of several who have done this and this has been confirmed to me by a bishop.

God bless,

Alex

Neil,
I am only replying to this portion of your post...

I may reply to the rest as time permits, but then again I may not.

As for you being confused by my last post.

We have had this confusion before, that is you have been confused by my posts before.

It has to do with your reading into it and your assuming that you know what I think.

There is only one way to clear up confusion, that is for you to ask questions so that I can clarify what I mean.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear David,

Well, I know we have the utmost esteem and respect for one another, nomatter what!

And, as a married man, I can honestly say that there are times when the idea of mandatory celibacy seems awfully tempting . . .

Alex

Alex,
I have great respect for you also.

That is why I wrote you an email asking for your advice, but... either you gave me the wrong email or you chose to ignore it.

All I am trying to say, is that we do not want others telling us what to do, we should refrain from telling them what to do.

It doesn't matter that they have told us and maybe they still are telling us.... Two wrongs do not make a right.... (but three lefts do)

I want to go on to say that it is not our place to say who is being called to the priesthood. That is not our place. This has been entrusted to the bishops and if they say they aren't (even by setting a discipline) then who are we to say that they are wrong? To go on and say, as Neil did, that it is really the diocesan vocations director or seminary rector who make the decision is wrong, as it is the bishop who makes the final decision, he make take the advice of others but it is his decision. To say that I am placeing them above God is very egotistical, are you not now claiming to know the mind of God?

The Church is God institution on earth, all of it, not just the theology. The laws of the Church are part of the Church, while these can change we must work within them at this time and currently the law of the Latin Church says that priests must be celibate. I will say it one more time, it is the Church who calls and this is done so by the Bishops.

I also want you to keep in mind that I am just speaking about the Latin Church and all I am doing is defending their right to determine their own disciplines. If they choose to change it, then good for them, that is their right.

I think I have said enough here. I will just reply to questions that are asked of me in order to clarify my stand on this.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear David,

Actually, when I was canonically penanced from here, the Administrator cancelled my e-mail privileges - at my prompting.

You see, I have an infantile habit of getting into a snit and then messing up my e-mail info here.

The Administrator just had enough of it one day and removed my ability to control it . . .

If he would like to reinstate it, I won't protest . . .

I apologise and as much as I would like to say it was the Administrator's fault, it was my fault!

You can e-mail me, if you wish at: alex@unicorne.org

Alex