Eastern Catholic bishops make ad limina visit

[DadDave]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) - While their numbers are small and their material resources are few, members of the Eastern Catholic churches in the United States have much to offer the country in terms of their fidelity to Christ despite persecution and their deeply religious cultures, said Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches.

Eastern Catholics "are a bridge" supporting Catholics in their homelands with prayers, advocacy and financial support while at the same time enriching the United States with their cultural and religious identity, Cardinal Sandri told U.S. bishops from the Chaldean, Ruthenian, Maronite, Ukrainian, Armenian, Melkite, Syriac and Romanian Catholic churches.

The cardinal met with the 14 bishops May 15 to discuss a wide variety of common concerns at the beginning of the bishops' "ad limina" visits to the Vatican. Earlier in the morning, the cardinal was the main celebrant and homilist at a Mass with the bishops in St. Peter's Basilica.

The heads of every diocese or eparchy -- as the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions are known -- send detailed reports on their dioceses to the Vatican before the "ad limina" visits.

Summarizing what was common in the reports of the Eastern Catholic dioceses, Cardinal Sandri said, "Your territories are enormous, and your communities often find themselves far from each other. Some of the eparchies are young and still in need of adequate structures." Many of the dioceses -- some of which cover the entire United States or even the United States and Canada -- have few financial resources and the situation has been "exacerbated by the economic crisis," the cardinal said.

The arrival of new immigrants, many fleeing persecution in places like Iraq, have increased the size of several of the Eastern churches, like the Chaldean Catholic Church. But the cardinal said other Eastern churches, whose membership is composed largely of people who have been in the United States for several generations, "are experiencing a dramatic fall" in their numbers.

"You are not immune to the same corrosive effect on morals and family life as are your fellow Latin Catholics," Cardinal Sandri said.

All the churches are hurting for clergy, he said. Even those that have a relatively high proportion of clergy to faithful are stretched by the great distances those priests must travel to minister to the faithful. And in the case of Eastern Catholics in particular, many parishes rely on Latin priests with bi-ritual faculties to keep their churches open.

** The cardinal urged care in helping young people discern their vocation, “maintaining formation programs, integrating immigrant priests (and) embracing celibacy in respect of the ecclesial context” of the United States where mandatory celibacy is the general rule for priests. A sticking point that caused the largest mass conversion to Orthodoxy in centuries and is still a major bone of contention between Eastern Catholics in the New World and Rome.**

During his homily at the morning Mass with the bishops at the tomb of St. Peter, Cardinal Sandri said, "Many people today have come to doubt that there is still holiness or honesty in the church and in the clergy. We must prove them wrong. We can be a true community of saints who shine as models of chastity and charity before a culture in great need of this witness."

The Eastern Catholic bishops formed the last group of bishops from the United States making their visits "ad limina apostolorum" (to the threshold of the apostles) to pray at the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul, to meet with Pope Benedict XVI and to visit Vatican officials to discuss issues of common concern.

As they did with the other groups, seminarians from the Pontifical North American College served as lectors, cantors and servers at the Eastern bishops' Mass, but they were joined by Eastern-rite seminarians studying at the Pontifical Russicum College.

Cardinal Sandri told the bishops that sometimes they might feel like the first apostles who, after having spent time with Jesus, were sent out on mission "into a hostile world."

"You, dear Eastern bishops, as representatives of the diverse Eastern churches in the Catholic Church, are living symbols of the apostles who set out in all directions from Jerusalem to establish Christian communities. Like them you have encountered opposition, indifference and ignorance along the way," he said.

Jesus knew the challenges his disciples would face, which is why he promised them the Holy Spirit, the cardinal said.

He urged the Eastern Catholic bishops to join their Latin-right counterparts in the United States to "fight against the rising tide of religious intolerance. May your courage and confidence convince the multitudes that without God there is no peace, no prosperity, no salvation."

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Need any of us Eastern Catholics, in particular the Ruthenians, say anything in response?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This nonsense just makes me sick.

 

[mardukm]

I support the removal of this policy of enforcing celibacy, especially in the non-Latin Churches. When I read the portion highlighted by the OP, I too felt frustrated. I felt like the Cardinal was speaking with forked tongue - on the one hand speaking out against religious intolerance and ignorance, then saying that priestly celibacy is mandatory, a policy reflecting the same religious intolerance and ignorance (of non-Latin Catholic tradition) in the early 20th century that caused many to leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church.

But the paragraph immediately following the portion highlighted by the OP seems to indicate something else. So to be fair, I propose the following:

I theorize that the sex-abuse scandal has reinforced the supporters of celibacy within the Latin Church since the secular media (and even some in religious quarters) have demonized celibacy as the primary cause of the sex-abuse scandal. I think the Latin Church is trying to recover - in their eyes - the sanctity and honor of the celibate priesthood in the wake of the sex-abuse scandal, and the Cardinal is asking his Eastern brethren for help.

I don’t think this is an issue of Latin practice versus non-Latin tradition at this point (or it should not be). The honor of the state of celibacy within the priesthood itself is at stake.

Well, that is one alternative on how to view the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Is that Bobby McFerrin I hear in the background? …

 

[mardukm]

Is that Bobby McFerrin I hear in the background? …

We should always be concerned about the preservation of our traditions.

What I am saying is that we shouldn’t have to see this emphasis on celibacy as a purposeful attack on the non-Latin Churches. The emphasis on celibacy could be for reasons other than “putting down the non-Latin Traditions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Seamus_L]

That’s a very good point you bring up Marduk.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

We should always be concerned about the preservation of our traditions.

What I am saying is that we shouldn’t have to see this emphasis on celibacy as a purposeful attack on the non-Latin Churches. The emphasis on celibacy could be for reasons other than “putting down the non-Latin Traditions.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m no expert, but one thing that it could be is that to the great many Latin Catholics (of whom I am one), many of us are possibly not aware of the tradition of married priests in the Eastern Churches, or even of their existence . One way to read it would be, for the sake of the people you are with, don’t “scandalize” them, but follow them insofar as you can. [EDIT: that is, since to us it is a foreign practice and one that for us has been a battle in our history, such as with the protestants, to have a married Catholic Priest seems unfathomable. Again, not to pardon ignorance, but was isn’t there something in the Bible about, like, not eating pork in a group of Jews, for example? That may be convoluted, but do you see where I’m going?] Another [EDIT: but linked] possible meaning I thought of has to do with what Mardukm was writing. Perhaps having Catholic married priests at a time when the Latin tradition is being attacked from outside can be seen to provide a disunified front?

Again, just musings, and I don’t mean anything in a bad way

-J. S. S. P.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Where was the concern when the Anglican Ordinariate was established?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Where was the concern when the Anglican Ordinariate was established?

A fair question.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

A fair question.

It seems that we missed a great opportunity for catechesis …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ByzCathCantor,

I think brother Hesychios addressed this in another thread a while back. The Anglican Ordinariate is actually under the same policy. The permission for married priests is for converts only.

Please understand that I do not support the policy of mandatory celibacy at all.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where was the concern when the Anglican Ordinariate was established?

 

[mardukm]

It seems that we missed a great opportunity for catechesis …

Agreed. Catechesis of the laity is the best possible solution to overcome the policy of enforced celibacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Agreed. Catechesis of the laity is the best possible solution to overcome the policy of enforced celibacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Pardon me I really don’t know, but is celibacy mandatory for even the Eastern Churches in the U.S.?

 

[mardukm]

Pardon me I really don’t know, but is celibacy mandatory for even the Eastern Churches in the U.S.?

Yes. In territories that are primarily or historically Latin, that is the case. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis by the local Episcopal Conference. I think Canada is generally the most accepting of married non-Latin Catholic priests.

I would be interested to know, if someone has the answer:
Currently, I think the Ethiopian Catholic Church is the only sui juris Church wherein the Latins are under the care of the non-Latin hierarchy. I wonder if Latin priests serving there may enter the priesthood as married candidates.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jwinch2]

Yes. In territories that are primarily or historically Latin, that is the case. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis by the local Episcopal Conference. I think Canada is generally the most accepting of married non-Latin Catholic priests.

Blessings,
Marduk

Which, if you read Anglicanorum Coetibus, is very similar to what it says about future priests in the Anglican Ordinariate.
Article VI:

…the Anglican Ordinary will only admit celibate men to the order of presbyter. …He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

As you noted above, the policy is actually pretty much the same.

Having said that, the Anglican Ordinariate is a variation of the Roman Rite, so it makes some sense that similar disciplines would be expected. The Eastern Churches are obviously not variations of the Roman Rite, so I have no idea why the same discipline would be expected.

Peace,

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think brother Hesychios addressed this in another thread a while back. The Anglican Ordinariate is actually under the same policy. The permission for married priests is for converts only.

Please understand that I do not support the policy of mandatory celibacy at all.

Thank you, dear brother. I do recall the thread and understand the policy applicable to the Anglican Ordinariate.

Nonetheless, it seems almost absurd to expound upon the issue of celebacy of US clergy especially given this recent, very public example.

Speaking of my own Ruthenian Church, with our new Metropolitan making his first ad limina visit in this capacity after his recent enthronement, it is simply heartbreaking that the celebacy issue is so emphasized, There are far greater challenges before us to preserve this Church, which ironically was first mortally wounded in the US in the early 20th century by this very subject matter. A greater sensitivty would thus be warranted, especially with regards to comments made publicly, which are bound to end up posted in forums like this without delay.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Which, if you read Anglicanorum Coetibus, is very similar to what it says about future priests in the Anglican Ordinariate.

As you noted above, the policy is actually pretty much the same.

Having said that, the Anglican Ordinariate is a variation of the Roman Rite, so it makes some sense that similar disciplines would be expected. The Eastern Churches are obviously not variations of the Roman Rite, so I have no idea why the same discipline would be expected.

Precisely!

 

[mardukm]

Thank you, dear brother. I do recall the thread and understand the policy applicable to the Anglican Ordinariate.

Nonetheless, it seems almost absurd to expound upon the issue of celebacy of US clergy especially given this recent, very public example.

Speaking of my own Ruthenian Church, with our new Metropolitan making his first ad limina visit in this capacity after his recent enthronement, it is simply heartbreaking that the celebacy issue is so emphasized, There are far greater challenges before us to preserve this Church, which ironically was first mortally wounded in the US in the early 20th century by this very subject matter. A greater sensitivty would thus be warranted, especially with regards to comments made publicly, which are bound to end up posted in forums like this without delay.

Completely agreed, brother. As noted, my initial impression was that the Cardinal was speaking with forked tongue. I can imagine that many will also have the same impression.

I wish he had made at least some comment appreciating the difficult and unique situation regarding the celibacy issue that is experienced by the non-Latin Churches in the U.S. If he is asking for help from our hierarchs to overcome the prejudice against celibate clergy (and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) because of the sex-abuse scandal, he should have expressed it more humbly, instead of insisting that it is a rule.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Having said that, the Anglican Ordinariate is a variation of the Roman Rite, so it makes some sense that similar disciplines would be expected. The Eastern Churches are obviously not variations of the Roman Rite, so I have no idea why the same discipline would be expected.

I think that answer lies in the notion of the preservation of tradition. It cannot be denied that the Church has always worked under the concept of territoriality. The idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is a relatively new concept within the Catholic Church.

In the first millenium, when Christians of a different Tradition moved to a new territorial jurisdiction, that Christian or group of Christians would either adopt the local traditions, or - if enough Christians from the migrant tradition exist - the local hierarch (bishop or head bishop) could provide for the maintenance of that “foreign” tradition with their own priests, but never a new bishop. There was always the understanding that the priests, even of that “foreign” rite, were under the omophor of the local bishop or head bishop.

The “New World” presented both opportunities and problems for the Churches. That we have bishops in the traditional Latin territories is due to the solicitude of past Popes. But that we have bishops is not the norm according to Tradition. Traditionally speaking, non-Latins in the U.S. should be under the omophor of Latin bishops, and the Latin bishops would provide for our needs with priests who serve in our particular Rite. But now that most non-Latins have their own bishops in the traditional Latin territories, they have a right to insist on the preservation of their own traditions (I use third-person “they” here, my Eastern/Oriental brethren, only because my Coptic Catholic Church in the U.S does not have its own hierarchy).

Traditionally speaking, the U.S. is regarded as the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin Church, and the rules of their Episcopal Conference apply, no matter how hard it is for non-Latins to accept. It is commonly believed that Episcopal Conferences don’t have jurisdictional capacity, unlike the formal Synod of non-Latin Churches. But that is not true. Episcopal Conferences may not have AS MUCH jurisdictional powers as formal Synods, but they certainly do have some. And there’s the problem. We recognize that Episcopal Conferences do not have AS MUCH jurisdictional powers as Synods, so how much can the rules of an Episcopal Conference apply to the members of sui juris Churches with their own Synods?

As noted, those in the “New World” live in a situation that is still rather new relative to the existence of the Church (personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions). There are still a lot of kinks that need to be worked out (what an understatement!). But whatever the solution is, it cannot have anything to do with the breaking of the unity of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk