Adopting Eastern Rite Marriage for Priests

[DominvsVobiscvm]

J_Chrysostomos:

Good article. It presents a case on why it may be preferable for a priest to be celibate. But it nowhere says why, counter to the Bible, the Eastern Churches, and the early Church, that celibacy should be mandatory. This is my question - I’m not wishing to be a pain about this. If we have to agree to disagree, so be it.

For the same reason why anything in the Church is mandatory.

Because celibacy is a preferred state for a cleric (for any man, really), the Latin Church chooses to select men for her clergy among those who wish to remain celibate for the sake of the kingdom.

All the reasons for celibacy apply for why the Latin Church has decided to make it required.

We might as well ask why the Church requires abstention from meat on Fridays in Lent, or why she requires a specific liturgical form to be followed, etc.

Am I making sense?

 

[Paul_W]

stephenthomas:

p.s. is it true that if you commit to the so-called permanent diaconate in the latin church that even if (god-forbid) your wife should pass away, you would still not be permitted to seek priestly ordination? if this is true, mokey, and you believe you have a call to priesthood, then you should be careful about jumping in the roman diaconate too soon.

Just the opposite. A deacon whose wife dies cannot remarry, the implication being that they ought to at least consider becoming a priest.

 

[Brendan]

I’m in the Deaconate program in the Archdiocese of Detroit.

This was discussed heavily during my informal discernment. There was very much consensus, at least among my Spiritual Director, my wife and myself, that I would seek presbyterial ordination should my wife die before I (and, of course, after I raise the kids to an appropriate age, if necessary).

 

[Catholic2003]

Paul W:

stephenthomas:

p.s. is it true that if you commit to the so-called permanent diaconate in the latin church that even if (god-forbid) your wife should pass away, you would still not be permitted to seek priestly ordination? if this is true, mokey, and you believe you have a call to priesthood, then you should be careful about jumping in the roman diaconate too soon.

Just the opposite. A deacon whose wife dies cannot remarry, the implication being that they ought to at least consider becoming a priest.

Actually, it is quite true. This is from the Directory for the ministry and life of permanent deacons:

1. The specific vocation to the permanent Diaconate presupposes the stability of this Order. Hence ordination to the Priesthood of non-married or widowed deacons must always be a very rare exception, and only for special and grave reasons. The decision of admission to the Order of Presbyters rests with the diocesan bishop, unless impediments exist which are reserved to the Holy See. Given the exceptional nature of such cases, the diocesan bishop should consult the Congregation for Catholic Education with regard to the intellectual and theological preparation of the candidate, and also the Congregation for the Clergy concerning the programme of priestly formation and the aptitude of the candidate to the priestly ministry.

A permanent deacon whose wife dies might just as well apply for exceptional permission to remarry as apply for exceptional permission to be admitted to the priesthood.

 

[Brendan]

The decision of admission to the Order of Presbyters rests with the diocesan bishop, unless impediments exist which are reserved to the Holy See.

That is the case for every applicant to the priesthood, deacon or otherwise.

Given the exceptional nature of such cases, the diocesan bishop should consult the Congregation for Catholic Education with regard to the intellectual and theological preparation of the candidate, and also the Congregation for the Clergy concerning the programme of priestly formation and the aptitude of the candidate to the priestly ministry.

That is most likely very true.

The necessary presbyterial instruction for a deacon would have to differ greatly from other types of seminarians.

The deacon, first of all, is already in Holy Orders, has recieved instruction and experience in Homilietics and Parish Ministry. But would be substantially behind other canidates in Philosophy, Latin, Greek and in-depth Scripture.

I myself will come out of the deaconate program with a BA in ‘Deaconal Studies’. The priests come out of their program with an M.Div. There is a big difference in the preparation

It would pretty much mean a customized, individualised program the seminary would have to develop and it would most likely through the Seminary academic advisors into a real tizzy

 

[Catholic2003]

Brendan:

The decision of admission to the Order of Presbyters rests with the diocesan bishop, unless impediments exist which are reserved to the Holy See.

That is the case for every applicant to the priesthood, deacon or otherwise.

Yes, but the difference is that the diocesan bishop will be applying the standard of “special and grave reasons” for a “very rare exception” instead of the usual standard for priesthood.

 

[wet-rat]

J_Chrysostomos:

I’m sure I’m just asking for it here, so make note that I do this in love and in sincere desire to know an answer. Please clear these passages up for me if you would…

{passages}

Maybe my understanding of these passages is faulty (and I’m open to correction if offered in a gentle spirit), but it seems to me that, while the apostle says that he feels single life is preferable, he goes on to go against those who would mandate it.

…

(Note: I have no problem with celibate priests. It’s mandatory celibacy I question) Does marriage and the physical union somehow make someone unworthy to be a priest?

St. Paul clearly says that some men are called to celibacy and some are called to the married life. Thus there are two sets of men from which to draw: CELIBATE and MARRIED

It is also clear that the priesthood is a vocation. Thus the call comes from outside of the called. A man is called by both God and the Church to be a priest.

Because the man is called by both God and the Church, it is within the allowable prudential judgement of the church to call men from either the CELIBATE or MARRIED sets, or both.

The needs of the Church are temporal. So at certain times in history a celibacy restriction is appropriate. It was not appropriate to call men from only the CELIBATE set in the days of the early Church. Later, it was deemed appropriate to enforce a celibacy restriction in the Latin Church. Perhaps someday conditions will require a drawing from both sets.

Ordination is not a universal right. Man must be called to that.

 

[stephenthomas]

wet-rat wins in my books for the best answer.

i think it is kinda nutty to say that every man (and woman) is ideally celibate. a wise old monk, upon being asked by yours truly about this whole thing of celibacy being the highest vocation said: when medieval theologians figured they had answered every other question, and had nothing left to do, they decided to rank the various callings.

although probably not an historically accurate statement, it points out the relative unimportance of knowing the objective rankings for each vocation, and the absolute importance of knowing subjectively what the Most Holy Trinity is calling you, personally, to do with your life.

so if you are married and you believe God is calling you to the presbyterate, you gotta go East.

 

[mystified]

Deacons who are widowers.

Have been meaning to ask this of a deacon-friend of many years.

He, and another friend, were both seminarians but for some reason left the seminary before reaching the diaconate. One was quickly accepted into the permanent deacon program when it was approved, while the other man did not apply.

I notice that young, new priests assigned to our parish have often gone to these married men with grown children for “professional” advice.

With our mindset in the Western Church, I wonder if married priests would really be accepted. I once met a married-with-children Maronite priest from the Middle East who said American Catholics had difficulty acknowledging his clerical state. And, as recently as last Sunday, I noticed that parishioners tended to not be certain about how to approach a fully vested deacon, Some addressed him as “Father”; he told me he has pretty much given up trying to correct this. Of course, his daughters have always called hin father, and there’s a new famliy generation calling him “grandpa”.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

while very ancient, it is not the most ancient. and the latin pratice of trying to impose celibacy is far more ancient than the actual practice of priestly celibacy. but i do agree, it is very unlikely to change in the near future.

perhaps, mokey, you should attend a church that practices the most ancient tradition of allowing ordination to married men. check out the rite, the spirituality, and see if the “call” gets any clearer.

There is not disagreement about whether the ancient Church ordained married men (it most certainly did), but there seems to remain some disagreement as to whether those men were ever allowed to be anything other than continent before the Quinisext Council. In other words, the idea that a married cleric can enjoy the marital embrace may indeed be less ancient.

Good article. It presents a case on why it may be preferable for a priest to be celibate. But it nowhere says why, counter to the Bible, the Eastern Churches, and the early Church, that celibacy should be mandatory. This is my question - I’m not wishing to be a pain about this. If we have to agree to disagree, so be it.

As has been said, the choice to draw only from celibates has born great fruit for the Latin Church. On top of this we have Paul’s counsel that it is harder for married men to devote themselves completely to serving God. No it is not absolutely necessary, we’ve just found it to work best, and that over a very long period of time.

wet-rat wins in my books for the best answer.

i think it is kinda nutty to say that every man (and woman) is ideally celibate. a wise old monk, upon being asked by yours truly about this whole thing of celibacy being the highest vocation said: when medieval theologians figured they had answered every other question, and had nothing left to do, they decided to rank the various callings.

although probably not an historically accurate statement, it points out the relative unimportance of knowing the objective rankings for each vocation, and the absolute importance of knowing subjectively what the Most Holy Trinity is calling you, personally, to do with your life.

I wouldn’t call it nutty if I were an Easterner, because the Desert Fathers were resolute in believing the celibate life (which they led) to be the highest form of life, the call to perfection. No churchman can undo Christ and Paul, and no apostolic Church has ever claimed, to my knowledge, that the celibate life is anything other than a higher calling than married life. The mistake isn’t in ranking the vocations, it’s in assuming that a higher calling automatically makes one holier - there are some married individuals who are more holy than some monks or nuns, even though the monks and nuns have the higher calling.

 

[Aramis]

I the Byzantine tradition, “Father” is appropriate for ALL clerics, tho’ “Father Deacon” for deacons, “Reverend Father” for priests, and “Father Bishop” for bishops tend to be considered the more correct modes.

In any case, very few people have called my dad “Father” (him being a roman deacon), most using “Deacon”, “Deacon Jim” or just “Jim”.

Then again, we’ve had permanent roman deacons in Anchorage since the late 1970’s.