Attacks Against Married Clergy, Please Respond

[CDB1718]

Please help me to formulate a response to the article that claims mandatory celibacy is required for Catholic priests.

Original: wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/February-2014/Why-I-Don-t-Want-Priests-to-Marry.aspx

Commentary: stsophiaukrainian.cc/resources/marriedclergy/

Ukraine, you might know, is in the middle of a revolution. The people are protesting the government’s tyranny and corruption. The Ukrainian government is responding by torturing and killing the citizens in a scorched earth policy. Numerous images of fearless priests standing between the government soldiers and the citizens, holding nothing but the cross of Christ as they call for peace, have gone viral. These images capture the manly and fatherly call of the shepherd willing to lay down his life for his flock.

The majority of the Ukrainian Catholic priests are young and married as they come from a life-filled and fruitful church, built on the blood of the martyrs. Patriarch Sviatoslav, the head of the largest Eastern Catholic Church, gave clear directions to his priests on how they’re to conduct themselves amid this revolution.

Ours is a church that has always had both celibate and married men ordained to the priesthood, a tradition whose continuance the UGCC assured when they entered reunion with Rome. His Beatitude Sviatoslav affirmed their presence on the Maidan and their call for peace, saying, “The calling of each priest, in all frightening circumstances – is not to abandon his flock and to be with them. ‘The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ‘ (Jn 10:11). Setting aside all fear, a priest is called ‘to be a witness to Christ and His truth.’ ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mt 24:35).”

In the mean time, Fr. Robert Barron’s popular Roman Catholic catechetical and evangelization ministry Word on Fire published a photo of one of these fearless Ukrainian priests as an accompaniment to the specious argument that a mandatory celibate priesthood is supposedly “non-negotiable” for Catholics.

As a reason given to defend this novel assertion, the blog explains: “To give a dire example, in the case of a catastrophe, I would want my priest to be at the front of the lines leading his flock to shelter. If the priest had a biological family of his own, he would first think of their safety before his flock as the natural instinct would drive his protector reaction towards sheltering his own.” They accompanied this assertion with the image of a Ukrainian priest who is most likely married as their model, on a day when married priests are literally standing between their flocks and death and many faithful lost their lives.

 

[Miserissima]

Fr. Barron is not speaking about the ECs and should be reminded of the other Churches.

To build the subsequent commentary on that is divisive, insulting, and Irelandising at its best.

What are quotes from a Western/Latin/Roman perspective support married priesthood? That would be a good foundation.

 

[Miserissima]

Fr. Barron is not speaking about the ECs and should be reminded of the other Churches.

To build the subsequent commentary on that is divisive, insulting, and Irelandising at its best.

What are quotes from a Western/Latin/Roman perspective support married priesthood? That would be a good foundation.

Oh my…you can tell I posted before I had my morning coffee.

The WoF author needs a bit of education and should have the facts presented succinctly, perhaps directly drawing from the commentary. I don’t think he knew about the pic he used.

I’m asking you to be gentle in correction, because add I sometimes do, he is displaying ignorance. He needs the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentionally insulting folks. He did open specifically with, " The Roman Catholic tradition," and because he did so, his writing should stay in that framework.

However, I see why one would take umbrage because the author doesn’t seem to recognize the validity of a married priesthood. He also used a photo of a priest who is most likely married.

I don’t believe the author was making an outright attack on married clergy among all Churches. He is obviously ignorant of the facts and I would ask that any correction be charitable.

I wouldn’t lead with, “If married priests aren’t good leaders, why did they set up a prayer tent in the middle of the fighting?”

 

[maryj]

If I remember correctly, didn’t word on fire retract this story and apologize profusely for this?

 

[MorEphrem]

Please help me to formulate a response to the article that claims mandatory celibacy is required for Catholic priests.

No, I will not help you formulate teachings against the Church. Even in Western context there are exceptions and the diatribe against holy married clergy is simply baseless. I’ve had Latin friends make all types of unqualified statements like they’re less devote and worse priests simply because they’re married without having anecdotal or any type of recorded proof.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please help me to formulate a response to the article that claims mandatory celibacy is required for Catholic priests.

Original: wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/February-2014/Why-I-Don-t-Want-Priests-to-Marry.aspx

Commentary: stsophiaukrainian.cc/resources/marriedclergy/

During times of crisis people deeply involved in the trauma may react emotionally to any unintended slight. Historically, there has always been a difference betweern East and West in regard to married clergy. The West had, as you know, an unhappy experience with married clergy dating back before the Reformation. That is why we have celebate clergy, except for the well known exceptions allowed by Canon Law and spcial privilege.

I am sure the Word on Fire ministry meant no slight to the different experience the East has had in respect to its married clergy, which seems to have been a more happy experience than that of the West.

I think the comments should be viewed as reinforcing the practice in the West rather than as criticising the East. I did notice that the first link you posted was that of an image of Blessed Fr. Miguel Pro, martyr of the Mexican Revolution. The West has always felt, for itself, that the celebate priesthood was preferrable.

Here is anothe picture of Blessed Miguel Pro, your link did not mention the important fact of his identity and that he was a priest of the Roman Catholic Rite and that he was celebate. Let’s all calm down. romancatholicvocations.blogspot.com/2007/12/heroes-of-sacrifice-martyr-priests-of.html

Linus2nd

 

[ByzCath08]

I read the article and just shook my head. Typical western writer who completely ignores the rich history of the east and focuses on a discipline that many latin catholics believe makes for better/holier priests.

Since moving to the East, I’ve taken to not worrying much about what is happening in the western church and worrying more about working out my own salvation in the east. You will never change these peoples beliefs, even if you try to educate them on the east.

 

[Brendan]

In addition, the article is about the inability of priests to enter into marriage, which is prohibited in both East and West.

Given the title of the article “Why I Don’t Want Priests to Marry”, I would think that any Catholic (or Orthodox) would rightly object if their parish priest attempted to marry.

 

[Miserissima]

In addition, the article is about the inability of priests to enter into marriage, which is prohibited in both East and West.

Given the title of the article “Why I Don’t Want Priests to Marry”, I would think that any Catholic (or Orthodox) would rightly object if their parish priest attempted to marry.

I know of two RC priests who were married…but it was because they converted from the Episcopalian faith, were found to have valid ordinations, were already married, and continue
to serve as clergy.

 

[Brendan]

I know of two RC priests who were married…but it was because they converted from the Episcopalian faith, were found to have valid ordinations, were already married, and continue
to serve as clergy.

Yes married men can be admitted to the Holy Orders. But men in Holy Orders cannot enter in Matrimony.

Married men can become priests, but Priests cannot enter into Marriage, thus the title of the article and it’s major premise is correct in both East and West.

 

[Vico]

Please help me to formulate a response to the article that claims mandatory celibacy is required for Catholic priests.

Original: wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/February-2014/Why-I-Don-t-Want-Priests-to-Marry.aspx

Commentary: stsophiaukrainian.cc/resources/marriedclergy/

To ponder:

• The is no Divine law against receiving Holy Orders after Matrimony.
• St. Peter was married.
• The Latin Church first ruled against reception of Holy Orders after matrimony at Lateran 1139 A.D.
• Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. rejected a ban of married clergy:

"Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm that the Synod of Nicaea, as well as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to pass a law respecting celibacy. …
Paphnutius declared with a loud voice, “that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honourable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency: in this way (by not prohibiting married intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her married intercourse). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only a reader or cantor).”

orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2125.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Interesting thread. I meant to comment yesterday and never got around to it. Now the thread seems to be over, but regardless I’ll say I found it interesting how he was protected, so to speak, by the fact that he said “I don’t want priests to marry” and not “I don’t want married priests.”

 

[Brendan]

Interesting thread. I meant to comment yesterday and never got around to it. Now the thread seems to be over, but regardless I’ll say I found it interesting how he was protected, so to speak, by the fact that he said “I don’t want priests to marry” and not “I don’t want married priests.”

I wouldn’t say ‘protected’, as that Holy Orders as an impediment to Marriage is true in all Canonical Churches.

It would be quite safe to say that Pope Francis, +Bartholomew and Pope Tawadros and every other Patriarch, East or West, could all sit in a room and agree wholeheartedly with the statement “I don’t want my priests to marry”

 

[CDB1718]

Interesting thread. I meant to comment yesterday and never got around to it. Now the thread seems to be over, but regardless I’ll say I found it interesting how he was protected, so to speak, by the fact that he said “I don’t want priests to marry” and not “I don’t want married priests.”

I hope it isn’t over.

A well-formed response is still needed to educate people who think “I don’t want priests to marry” is the same statement as “I don’t want married priests,” as he seemed to state. And to explain how they can defend celibate priests without tearing down marriage and married clergy. And to explain how married clergy is not in the same category as women priests or homosexual marriages, which is the category he seemed to group it in.

Their isolation from the east is what allows them to grow from a fine tradition to being outright wrong in its defense. They still need our witness.

 

[Peter_J]

I hope it isn’t over.

To be honest, I won’t be at all surprised if the thread gets a second wind. It seems to me a very rich topic for discussion.

 

[Vico]

I hope it isn’t over.

A well-formed response is still needed to educate people who think “I don’t want priests to marry” is the same statement as “I don’t want married priests,” as he seemed to state. And to explain how they can defend celibate priests without tearing down marriage and married clergy. And to explain how married clergy is not in the same category as women priests or homosexual marriages, which is the category he seemed to group it in.

Their isolation from the east is what allows them to grow from a fine tradition to being outright wrong in its defense. They still need our witness.

In 1993, Crescenzio Sepe, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy quoted a Patriarch of Moscow, emphasizing that “The West is not mystical enough to tolerate the marriage of its clergy without degenerating.” Of course, the eastern Catholic churches have a mystical tradition. (Converting married priests were first allowed in recent times in 1980.) The full quote is below:Then again, the comparison with the married priests of some Oriental Churches does not seem to be a valid one, for here we have an ancient institution and not one established for reasons of expediency. It must also be said that, actually in those Churches, be they Catholic or Orthodox, the law of celibacy for the priesthood is recommended and held in high regard. This, for example is what a Russian Orthodox bishop of the Patriarcliate of Moscow had to say on the subject in the immediate post-conciliar period:

«For us Orthodox, the priesthood is a sacred function. For this reason we are convinced that you, Westerners, you Latins, are not on the right path where you allow the question of ecclesiastical celibacy to be debated in public, in the forum of public opinion. In our Oriental tradition, it has been possible to authorize the ordination of a handful of married men, as in any case you have done and go on doing in certain regions. But take care: in the West, if you separate the priesthood from celibacy, a very swift decadence will set in. The West is not mystical enough to tolerate the marriage of its clergy without degenerating. The Church of Rome (and this is to her glory) has preserved this ecclesiastical ascesis for a whole millennium. Beware of compromising it…»
​

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_revel_en.html

 

[MattofTexas]

There ARE married men ordained to the priesthood in the Latin rite as well, such as in the Personal Ordinatiate of the Chair of St. Peter (Episcopalian Ordinariate).

 

[5Loaves]

There ARE married men ordained to the priesthood in the Latin rite as well, such as in the Personal Ordinatiate of the Chair of St. Peter (Episcopalian Ordinariate).

In fact, it’s a scandal that there are more married priests in the Latin Church in the US than we have in our Eastern Catholic Churches here.

 

[Aramis]

I know of two RC priests who were married…but it was because they converted from the Episcopalian faith, were found to have valid ordinations, were already married, and continue
to serve as clergy.

I know a former methodist who’s now a Roman Rite priest. Rev. Fr. Scott Medlock, Archdiocese of Anchorage.

The 1980 Pastoral Provision allows for married protestant ministers to be ordained Roman Rite priests.

The recent Apostolic instruction Anglicanorum Coetibus also allows for married men to be admitted to the priesthood if raised within the Anglican Use - doesn’t guarantee the privilege will be granted, but allows for such men to apply to seminary, and to be ordained priests of the Roman church for the Anglican Ordinariate on a case by case basis.

 

[dixieagle]

In fact, it’s a scandal that there are more married priests in the Latin Church in the US than we have in our Eastern Catholic Churches here.

So true, and sad.