Eastern Bishop Says that Married Priests not the Answer to Vocations Shortage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Volodymyr_988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lubomyr Cardinal Husar:
“Abolishing celibacy is not a solution in itself,” he said.
Click to expand...
I find it remarkable that he could have said such a thing.

Surely he must have been misquoted!

I don’t know anyone, anywhere who has ever suggested abolishing celibacy, especially since his church and the Orthodox mother church of Kyiv values clerical celibacy very highly. And the UGCC does not have mandatory clerical celibacy, so I somewhat doubt he meant abolishing the mandatory aspect of clerical celbacy. That issue is more likely one the Syro-Malabar church would be concerned about (since they indeed do mandate celbacy for their candidates) and they don’t seem to have any problems over vocations that I am aware of.

I just don’t understand why this was mentioned at all in such a short edited piece. It sounds like a translation problem.
Lubomyr Cardinal Husar:
"The quality of the priest does not depend on whether or not he is married.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree!
Lubomyr Cardinal Husar:
This has been our experience, and I think people are wrong if they think the vocations problem can be resolved by ordaining married persons. It will not ensure a large number of vocations.
Click to expand...
This is also true, there are no guarantees. I think that this is the gist of what the Cardinal had to say.

What we have been dealing with, and what countries like Poland and Ukraine are experiencing to an increasing extent since their liberations, is a new culture which does not encourage or value the clerical state as greatly as before. Families increasingly do not encourage their own young men to pursue this life, married or not, and the pool of qualified candidates continues to shrink.

Even married priests lose their vocations some times, as great a help it might be it is no guarantee of success.

Cardinal Husar is sending a clear message here, we must not be content with some “silver bullet” like a married priesthood and figure the problem is solved, the vocations problem is a huge obstacle for our churches to overcome.

I remember a few years ago, when my Eastern Catholic priest was one of the youngest in the diocese (there was only one younger at the time). He was pushing fifty.

Yet this was a church that had a 350 to 1 laity to priest ratio, achieved under Cum Data Fuerit! So we know that, at least in his day, adequate and strong vocations were possible to acheive even under mandatory celibacy.

It seems that the good Cardinal is implying, if not outright stating, that even with celibacy as an option rather than a precondition, there is a growing vocations problem.

Now if anyone, like the editors at Catholic News, want to turn this into evidence against the married priesthood, I really doubt that Cardinal Husar himself would agree.

Michael
 
In Parma we could ordain all of our deacons to the priesthood tomorrow… and make it known that we will accept converts who are priests from elsewhere today, and the situation on the ground tomorrow would not be all that different save for more spectacular concelebration of the Eucharist, and a chance for priests to divy up “funeral duty”.

In the BCC, I am more worried about the “laity crisis”. Death and defection far exceeding baptisms and conversions in many places is a bigger concern of mine. As it stands now, our bishop will ordain married men. He has, and this is a known quantity. His phone is not exactly ringing off the hook with guys who - along with their wives - are as willing to take that route as we once thought. Back when it was largely proscribed, it was easy to talk about what one WOULD do. Before the fall of the USSR, I knew several folks who were “ready to move back once our homeland is free”. Almost 20 years later, none of them have put their homes up for sale yet.

Married clergy - which I support - only “solves” a few challenges while making room for new challenges. Clerical divorce is rather ugly, family life can be strained, and models of bi-vocational priesthood sometimes reveal other new challenges altogether. Essentially the married Orthodox priests I know in smaller parishes are working two full time jobs as family men.

Ultimately being realistic and not idealizing any one solution as leading us to the “Land of Mikl & Honey” is very wise.
 
Hesychios said:
I find it remarkable that he could have said such a thing.

Surely he must have been misquoted!
Click to expand...
Why? You youself go on to offer a most plausible explination for what was likely the sense of purpose for this interview and these quotes:
Hesychios said:
Cardinal Husar is sending a clear message here, we must not be content with some “silver bullet” like a married priesthood and figure the problem is solved, the vocations problem is a huge obstacle for our churches to overcome…

It seems that the good Cardinal is implying, if not outright stating, that even with celibacy as an option rather than a precondition, there is a growing vocations problem.
Click to expand...
Hesychios said:
Now if anyone, like the editors at Catholic News, want to turn this into evidence against the married priesthood, I really doubt that Cardinal Husar himself would agree.
Click to expand...
Why refocus in a defense against what wasn’t said? This is a Catholic publication read largely by Catholics that are overwhelmingly - yes, we all know of the pastoral provision - dealing with priestly celibacy.

If I had to guess or speculate, this is in no way an attack on the Eastern practice of a married presbyterate. IT rather seems to be a case of turning to a man with intimate experience of the matter (as a member of a priestly family, and a bishop over same) who can knowledgably disabuse folks who are wrongly of the thinking that the grass is so much greener.

Personally I think that the model of the married presbyterate in the East - were it adopted by the Latins - would prove to be a disaster here in America and other places. Not because the Eastern practics is bad or in deficient, but because we here have not cultivated it as an institution with an ideal.

The most pious Latin married men I know - many of whom are demonstrating an openess to life and have a van full of kids to prove it - would likely be your best and least interested candidates. The issues facing marriage and family life being what they are here in the States, it would be a good long time before even our Eastern bishops would return (if they ever did) to a model of ordaining apple-cheeked, newly-married fresh out of seminary 20somethings.

The model has worked decently for the Romans, and I believe is showing signs of vitality once again. Seminary populations in some areas that cultivate their vocations in fashions that were abandoned for a few decades are growing. Some sems are expanding, more than a few have double what they did a decade ago. Simply put, the “need” there isn’t so great that the old ideal with be abandoned for a new one with new challenges, because the challenges to what is in place aren’t tougher to overcome then what they have now.Tough as it may be to “fix” that car, it is still the more viable solution than trading it in.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Why? You youself go on to offer a most plausible explination for what was likely the sense of purpose for this interview and these quotes:

Why refocus in a defense against what wasn’t said? This is a Catholic publication read largely by Catholics that are overwhelmingly - yes, we all know of the pastoral provision - dealing with priestly celibacy.
Click to expand...
Simple,

I believe Michaels first sentences were being sarcastic! And his entire post is an endorsement of Cardinal Lumbars words. 🙂

No need to be defensive, I believe Michael was responding to the tone of the OP, whose thread title and post implied that somehow the Cardinals words were offensive to those of us who praise the married priesthood, and those who think his words are a sure fire endorsement of celibacy only.

This truly is something both Orthodox and Catholic can agree on, let’s not make it an issue.

Peace and God Bless!
 
"Lubomyr Cardinal Husar:
“Abolishing celibacy is not a solution in itself,” he said.
Click to expand...
40.png
ME:
I find it remarkable that he could have said such a thing.

Surely he must have been misquoted!
Click to expand...
ASimpleSinner said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because it is impossible to abolish celibacy, he knows this.

We are born celibate. Monks are celibate. The eastern church honors and admires it’s celibate clergy.

We need celibate clergy to elevate to bishops.

I suggested that perhaps there was a translation problem 😦

Michael
 
Hesychios said:
    • Because it is impossible to abolish celibacy, he knows this.
We are born celibate. Monks are celibate. The eastern church honors and admires it’s celibate clergy.

We need celibate clergy to elevate to bishops.

I suggested that perhaps there was a translation problem 😦

Michael
Click to expand...
The implication was clear that he was referring to Latin standards of presbyteral celibacy.

IT isn’t exactly correct to say or assume that chastity and celibacy are one in the same, however well related they are. I don’t think he mispoke anymore than I would describe an infant as a celibate. The term seemed clear enough - he was speaking of a vowed state.
 
I think that it is mostly Protestants who disagree with this. I believe that the Orthodox would understand that Celibacy has always been the tradition of the Western Church, and accept it. Hey, St. Paul was celibate.
 
St. Paul was also a bishop.:ehh:

I for one am for married priests, but I know that in some circumstances it would become a strain on the funds of the parish. That is, unless the priest also has a day job. That’s becoming more and more common for the married priest.
 
holdencaulfield said:
I think that it is mostly Protestants who disagree with this. I believe that the Orthodox would understand that Celibacy has always been the tradition of the Western Church, and accept it. Hey, St. Paul was celibate.
Click to expand...
Celibacy actually has not always been the tradition of the Western Church.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
St. Paul was also a bishop.:ehh:

I for one am for married priests, but I know that in some circumstances it would become a strain on the funds of the parish. That is, unless the priest also has a day job. That’s becoming more and more common for the married priest.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the Eastern Catholic clergy being married, however married clergy is incompatible with the Roman Catholic Church. This has always been the teaching, and although it is not dogma or doctrine, it can and should not be changed. I’m sure the Council of Trent made some Infallible statement about this as well.
 
No, as far as I know, Trent did not. The issue was addressed some where in the middle ages.
 
Lateran II (1139)
Code: 
 Canon VI: We also decree that those who in the subdiaconate and higher orders have contracted marriage or have concubines, be deprived of their office and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they indulge in marriage and in impurities.
Canon VII: Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban, and Paschal, we command that no one attend the masses of those who are known to have wives or concubines. But that the law of continence and purity, so pleasing to God, may become more general among persons constituted in sacred orders, we decree that bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks, and professed clerics (conversi) who, transgressing the holy precept, have dared to contract marriage, shall be separated. For a union of this kind which has been contracted in violation of the ecclesiastical law, we do not regard as matrimony. Those who have been separated from each other, shall do penance commensurate with such excesses.
Click to expand...
Trent (1545-63) Canon X
If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
This seems to be a slowly developing discipline that has reverted. Deacons (who are above the abolished Subdeaconate) are now allowed to be chosen from the married ranks.
 
His Beatitude’s point is that we don’t need to have married men to solve the vocations problem. We need holy men to become priests, whether they are married or not is irrelevant.
 
@Hesychios:

This isn’t a personal attack, I’m just wondering. Your Eastern Orthodox, why do you enjoy contributing to these forums. Your posts are good, I’m just wondering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top