Eastern Catholic bishops make ad limina visit

[Hesychios]

A sympathetic granting of dispensations on a case by case basis would solve the problem.

Dispensations should not be necessary at all.

 

[RyanBlack]

A sympathetic granting of dispensations on a case by case basis would solve the problem.

No, it would perpetuate the problem. It should not be necessary to seek a dispensation to follow a legitimate tradition of one’s own church.

 

[DadDave]

I re-read the article again and I get out of it… Basically “because you’re in America where latins are the vast majority and all(relatively speaking) Latins are celibate then you need to be celibate too”. Does this go the other way too that any Latins in a predominantly Eastern country should have the flexibility to be married? (The answer is NO they currently do not have that option.)
I’ve tried to see the RC-side of things and I just can’t seem to understand the rationale. The ECC are <1% of the total Catholic population. Most Catholics don’t even know they exist. Perhaps this Rome’s way of driving EC’s back to Orthodox Churches?

If you believe in this sort of thing: it is rumored that more and more Italians are being are being elevated to Cardinal to ensure that the next Pope will be Italian… And we know how Italy feels about EC’s already…

 

[djrakowski]

I’ve tried to see the RC-side of things and I just can’t seem to understand the rationale. The ECC are <1% of the total Catholic population. Most Catholics don’t even know they exist.** Perhaps this Rome’s way of driving EC’s back to Orthodox Churches?**

I don’t understand it, either, and I have no idea why Rome would want to drive ECs to Orthodoxy when the popes have spoken quite clearly on the need for the Church to breathe with both lungs.

It makes even less sense in light of the Anglican Ordinariate!

 

[dcointin]

In charity I would like to suggest that the cardinal in question was simply not speaking with a mind toward the problem of celibacy in the eastern Catholic Churches. I’m sure that if he realized the way his words would sound, given the historical background of the issue, he would have revised or not spoken them altogether. It would be unfair to take a few misspoken words as proof of Rome’s lack of understanding or concern for them. I also agree with those that suggested that Rome is responding to a broad attack on what is seen as traditional Catholicism by emphasizing long standing traditions. I do agree however that clerical celibacy must be seen in a very different light because it is not a part of holy tradition, but is a discipline that even the west has not always adhered to.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In charity I would like to suggest that the cardinal in question was simply not speaking with a mind toward the problem of celibacy in the eastern Catholic Churches. I’m sure that if he realized the way his words would sound, given the historical background of the issue, he would have revised or not spoken them altogether. It would be unfair to take a few misspoken words as proof of Rome’s lack of understanding or concern for them. I also agree with those that suggested that Rome is responding to a broad attack on what is seen as traditional Catholicism by emphasizing long standing traditions. I do agree however that clerical celibacy must be seen in a very different light because it is not a part of holy tradition, but is a discipline that even the west has not always adhered to.

I do agree with you, and genuinely do want to believe there was a “point behind the point”, so to speak, but it regrettably did not come across. Again, in this age of instance access, words need to be measured carefully.

The ad limina visits are supposed to be focused on the status of the eparchies and sui juris Churches entrusted to the attending bishops. Why then interject a comment about a universal concern? The speech was otherwise encouraging, yet this single point sticks out prominently in the broad context of the overall address.

We have no way of knowing (unless our bishops provide feedback to us on their ad limina visit, on this subject in particular), so charity is warranted at the moment, although history would suggest otherwise.

Please also be aware that in 1999, +Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory had attempted to provide for married clergy at the sole discretion of the synod of American Ruthenian bishops, while attempting to promulgate the norms of particular law for the Ruthenian Church sui juris in 1999. At the 11th hour, that request was denied, even after the text of the norms had been agreed including the permissive language. It was then “agreed” that the approval of Rome would be necessary, and “understood” that such approval would not be unreasonably withheld. Since then, only one ordination has taken place - a married deacon of some maturity (with grown children), in the Eparchy of Parma. There have been no admissions of married or intended candidates in the Byzantine-Ruthenian seminary.

This “added emphasis” via comment in the good Cardinal’s opening address thus may suggest to some in Ruthenian circles that even the current “gentlemen’s agreement”, which has yielded only one ordination of a married deacon in nearly 13 years, signals a reversal of agreed-upon policy.

 

[dcointin]

Please also be aware that in 1999, +Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory had attempted to provide for married clergy at the sole discretion of the synod of American Ruthenian bishops, while attempting to promulgate the norms of particular law for the Ruthenian Church sui juris in 1999. At the 11th hour, that request was denied, even after the text of the norms had been agreed including the permissive language. It was then “agreed” that the approval of Rome would be necessary, and “understood” that such approval would not be unreasonably withheld. Since then, only one ordination has taken place - a married deacon of some maturity (with grown children), in the Eparchy of Parma. There have been no admissions of married or intended candidates in the Byzantine-Ruthenian seminary.

This “added emphasis” via comment in the good Cardinal’s opening address thus may suggest to some in Ruthenian circles that even the current “gentlemen’s agreement”, which has yielded only one ordination of a married deacon in nearly 13 years, signals a reversal of agreed-upon policy.

I had no idea that situation was that bad. Is it the same with other sui-uris churches as well?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I had no idea that situation was that bad. Is it the same with other sui-uris churches as well?

I don’t really know with certainty, so I’d hate to comment without verifiable specifics, However, I would add that Sayedna Samra of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, as recently as November 2011, has spoken publicly of his intention to begin forming married candidates for the priesthood. It is possible the good Cardinal’s comments were made with that in mind, in which case it might have been best to have covered that privately with Sayedna Samra (as opposed to shocking the majority of the Eastern Catholic world, and likely awakening suspicions of our Orthodox brethren in the context of ecumenical dialogue).

 

[Byz_Guy]

I don’t really know with certainty, so I’d hate to comment without verifiable specifics, However, I would add that Sayedna Samra of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, as recently as November 2011, has spoken publicly of his intention to begin forming married candidates for the priesthood. It is possible the good Cardinal’s comments were made with that in mind, in which case it might have been best to have covered that privately with Sayedna Samra (as opposed to shocking the majority of the Eastern Catholic world, and likely awakening suspicions of our Orthodox brethren in the context of ecumenical dialogue).

This sort of stuff needs to be out in the open, instead of keeping it under wraps. In this time of ecumenical dialogue, things need to be transparent. If Rome wants to enforce celibacy on the Eastern Catholic Churches and also court the Orthodox, it needs to do so openly and be ready to explain the contradiction.

 

[AlOtto]

Makes you stop and wonder…the Byzantine Catholic bishops shout it’s our tradition when it comes to a married priesthood. What about it being “our tradition” when it comes to a properly celebrated Liturgy, or the celebration of the services other then Liturgy…how about supporting a monastic presence along with the married priesthood?

Maybe if the bishops supported some of our other traditions Rome might just sit up and listen.

Just sayin!

 

[5Loaves]

When it comes to this subject,** my money is on Sayedna Samra**. I have little doubt he will continue with plans to properly prepare and ordain married candidates to the priesthood.

Melkite Catholic Church to Ordain Married Men to the Priesthood in the US (Catholic Online - 13 Nov 2011)

I expressed basically the same sentiment on another forum.

Joan Lewis’ blog, Joan’s Rome points out today was the Feast of the Ascension on the Latin Church calendar, and thus a holiday with no new coverage.

Today was one of the more special days of my life! At least half of the day was spent with the Eastern rite bishops of the U.S who are here on their ad limina visit. I interviewed three of them at the North American College this morning and this afternoon I attended a Maronite liturgy at St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls. It is 10:30 p.m. and too late to start writing a blog…I’ll bring you up to date with further info and photos and news from Rome tomorrow. Today was, of course, a holiday in the Vatican as it is Ascension Thursday. The only Vatican news was the announcement of a press conference.

Those interviews will likely air on her weekly “Vatican Insider” radio programs which airs Saturdays 9:30AM and 9:30PM Eastern time on EWTN radio and is archived.

I emailed her saying we’re eager to know more following the deeply disturbing quote from Cardinal Sandri re “embracing celibacy in respect of the ecclesial context of the United States”.

 

[dvdjs]

Thus, the response should be the further suppression of traditions of a portion of the faithful that represents but a sliver of Catholicism (but, of course, the entirety of Orthodoxy).

First, I do not see or accept any claim about the absence of Orthodoxy in the Latin church. So let’s talk about Eastern traditions. Second let’s think about what are the essentials of that tradition. There is much on the to do list to advance the restoration of fundamental traditions and praxis. Much. But I see a married priesthood as, at best, low on the list. It simply is not an *essential *feature. Celibacy is esteemed in the East; marriage is not required. Any hint that there is something lacking about the priesthood of an unmarried man misses the mark.

Faithful who see the ongoing erosion of their own religious heritage should further martyr themselves in the interests of the broader Church, for a perceived social good (that is, a celibate priesthood will be a successful defense and counter to the trends which date back decades), lest they be branded as unenlightened, wounded souls, unwilling to stand in solidarity with the Catholic Church (despite the witness of many recent martyrs and those who did remain faithful to the Byzantine Catholic Church and did not flee to Orthodoxy, as many did).

First, one would have out of the loop from 1950 to 1990 to see an “ongoing” erosion. There have been enormous strides in reversing the erosive trends of the previous forty years. Second, any choice to work synergistically with our co-religionists, while at the same time going about our business - a business which, in case you haven’t noticed, does include the incardination of married men of married priests, consistent with the special norms, in growing numbers - is poorly characterized as erosion. Finally, “Martyrdom” is overplayed; I don’t think that it can correctly be said that the survival of the BCC depends on having some diametric change in the marital status of our priests. Sacrifice? Perhaps. I don’t see that as a bad thing. It is a question of priority. I think that priorities are arguable, but that had not been the argument at all, prior to my post. That is too bad.

 

[dvdjs]

Makes you stop and wonder…the Byzantine Catholic bishops shout it’s our tradition when it comes to a married priesthood. What about it being “our tradition” when it comes to a properly celebrated Liturgy, or the celebration of the services other then Liturgy…how about supporting a monastic presence along with the married priesthood?

For some reason the issue of celibacy seems to be something of a sine qua non among many. As dcointin rightly points out, however, this is a matter of discipline - perhaps part of tradition, but not part of Tradition. We have so much work to do - and much of that work is work that we ourselves actually can do. Like facilitating the regular celebration of vespers and matins - something that strikes me as far more important to us all than whether or not the celebrant is married.

 

[dvdjs]

I had no idea that situation was that bad. Is it the same with other sui-uris churches as well?

Mileage, methods, and perspectives vary.
Some particular churches here have been ordaining many married men, some none at all. Some have married priests that were ordained abroad. Some have many married priests, some have few.

I also think that there are some hierarchies that may have some reluctance on this. Many EO churches seem very happy to ordain young men, with young families, working full time at secular jobs while serving a parish - we haven’t had a “tradition” like that for centuries. I am not sure that that is something we would want to restore.

 

[Byz_Guy]

This letter is making the rounds from Fr. Thomas Loya:

Subject: Timely request from our Church in America

Christ is Ascended!

Archbishop William,

I take this opportunity of your still being in Italy, and therefore, in or near Rome, to make a formal request to you. My request is actually meant for all of the Eastern Catholic Bishops from North America, but most particularly to you as the ranking prelate of my own Church, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh.

The remarks by Cardinal Sandri in his homily to the Eastern Catholic bishops of America have filtered back and are reverberating through the clergy and laity of our Churches in America, as well as the Orthodox Churches. In a similar way that the Health and Human Services controversey in America finds the issue of contraception itself being expressive of a deeper and fundamental issue of religious liberty, so too the remarks by Cardinal Sandri for the Eastern Catholic Churches to “embrace celibacy in respect to ecclesial context” are reflective of a deeper and more fundamental attitude from Rome and the Latin Rite that simply can no longer go unanswered by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In addition to being chillingly reminiscent of the demeaning attitude of the Latin Rite bishops toward the Eastern Catholic Churches during the beginning of the last century in America, the Cardinal’s remarks about celibacy seem to confirm what so many Eastern Catholics in America have suspected for too long: Rome and the Latin Rite see the Eastern Catholic Churches in America as essentially inconsequential, perhaps even in the way of ecumenism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches.

Essentially the Cardinal’s remarks send the message that the Latin Rite Church is the ‘real’ Church, superior to the Eastern Catholic Churches and therefore the Eastern Catholic Churches could be ordered to compromise themselves in deference to the Latin Rite Church, the ‘real’ Church. To us in America the Cardinal’s remarks reflected a paternalistic attitude toward the Eastern Catholic Churches in America. Rome seems to see our Churches in America as simply a diaspora having little value other than ethnic customs and the degree to which we can support our Churches in their homelands.

Archbishop William, my request to you, as the ranking prelate of my Church and especially, if it is still possible while you are in Italy at this time, to meet again with Cardinal Sandri, on behalf of your Church back in America, regarding his remarks and the reaction to his remarks reverberating through the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches in America at this time. Our Ruthenian Church in particular needs to establish a better and more consistent dialogue with Rome so as to present a more accurate picture of the real gift and evangelical power of the Eastern Catholic Churches in America. The Eastern Catholic Churches, and in particular the Ruthenian Church, are actually in a position to indeed supply what is lacking in the whole Church in America and to confront secular society with type of vocabulary and spirituality that we alone can bring to the war on secularism and moral relativism. It seems that Rome understands none of this about us.

For the good of the whole Church and for the good of souls, it is time for our Ruthenian Church in particular stop acting like co-dependent children of Rome. It does not really serve Rome, the whole Church or the people of God for the Ruthenian Church (or any Eastern Catholic Church) to assume a position of weakness and inferiority helplessly waiting for what to many of us is essentially a ‘phantom’ indivdivual or department in Rome, with so little understanding of our Churches, to singularly decide the fate of our Churches in America. Surely we should have more pride in our Church than this and more regard for the memory of our members who, during Communist oppression, shed their blood out of loyalty to the Pope of Rome.

Thank you for consideration of my request,
–Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.,MA.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

For some reason the issue of celibacy seems to be something of a sine qua non among many. As dcointin rightly points out, however, this is a matter of discipline - perhaps part of tradition, but not part of Tradition. We have so much work to do - and much of that work is work that we ourselves actually can do. Like facilitating the regular celebration of vespers and matins - something that strikes me as far more important to us all than whether or not the celebrant is married.

DVDJS,

While I completely agree with you that mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is a small “t” tradition and not part of Tradition, and I also agree that there are other more important reforms that need to take place within the Churches of the East before we really tackle the issue of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, I believe that the "t"radition itself is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether or not Rome itself has the authority to impose that tradition on us. Such a question brings ecclesiology into the situation and thus elevates it to the level of a large “T” Tradition.

I think it would be a different matter altogether if the local bishops met in synod and decided that the best thing for the Church in our current time and peculiar context was to impose mandatory celibacy as a prerequisite for the priesthood. But this is not what’s happening here. Here we have a Latin Cardinal of a Roman Congregation telling us to embrace a discipline that is part of the Latin tradition. Rome has already put up an impediment to the exercise of our own particular discipline of a married clergy. This is an impediment that our local bishops, well at least Bishop Samra and Bishop Botean, have been working to have revoked; if not through writings and petitions, then by actions.

I, for one, am all for celibacy within the Eastern tradition, but only in accordance with that tradition. Celibacy has always been viewed by us as a special gift from God that is not for everybody. Usually those who choose a celibate life are monastics, although a celibate parish clergy does exist and is encouraged. But the norm in our tradition has been to have a married parish clergy, both priests and deacons. So at best we can say that the Cardinal’s words were simply unnecessary, the East already embraces celibacy according to its own tradition and discipline. At worst we can see the Cardinal trying to impose Latin discipline onto the East. I certainly hope that that is not the case.

 

[dvdjs]

DVDJS,

While I completely agree with you that mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is a small “t” tradition and not part of Tradition, and I also agree that there are other more important reforms that need to take place within the Churches of the East before we really tackle the issue of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, I believe that the "t"radition itself is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether or not Rome itself has the authority to impose that tradition on us. Such a question brings ecclesiology into the situation and thus elevates it to the level of a large “T” Tradition.

I think it would be a different matter altogether if the local bishops met in synod and decided that the best thing for the Church in our current time and peculiar context was to impose mandatory celibacy as a prerequisite for the priesthood. But this is not what’s happening here. Here we have a Latin Cardinal of a Roman Congregation telling us to embrace a discipline that is part of the Latin tradition. Rome has already put up an impediment to the exercise of our own particular discipline of a married clergy. This is an impediment that our local bishops, well at least Bishop Samra and Bishop Botean, have been working to have revoked; if not through writings and petitions, then by actions.

I, for one, am all for celibacy within the Eastern tradition, but only in accordance with that tradition. Celibacy has always been viewed by us as a special gift from God that is not for everybody. Usually those who choose a celibate life are monastics, although a celibate parish clergy does exist and is encouraged. But the norm in our tradition has been to have a married parish clergy, both priests and deacons. So at best we can say that the Cardinal’s words were simply unnecessary, the East already embraces celibacy according to its own tradition and discipline. At worst we can see the Cardinal trying to impose Latin discipline onto the East. I certainly hope that that is not the case.

 

[dvdjs]

While I completely agree with you that mandatory celibacy for the priesthood is a small “t” tradition and not part of Tradition, and I also agree that there are other more important reforms that need to take place within the Churches of the East before we really tackle the issue of mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, I believe that the "t"radition itself is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether or not Rome itself has the authority to impose that tradition on us. Such a question brings ecclesiology into the situation and thus elevates it to the level of a large “T” Tradition

.

I agree with all that you say here. There are two issues, however, that should not be glossed over.

The first, that tends to be overlooked, is the issue of the interplay of churches in the same territory. This is not a problem in old homelands where a modus vivendi had been worked out over centuries. It is far more complicated when the interplay begins suddenly, such as in the aftermath of large-scale immigration. That was the situation a century ago in America, and is the situation currently in Italy.

Our ecclesiology - hammered out as part of the American experience and codified at VII is, IMO, reasonable - we allow, after a decent interval, for overlapping territories governed by hierarchs who are independent apart from oversight of interactions by Rome. In generally the oversight is, if anything, too light-handed, IMO. The alternative - local churches acting to assert their independence without respect of one another - is poor.

The second point is in response to your question: Does Rome have the ability to impose the tradition of celibacy on us? I say this is a moot question. The Cardinal certainly has the right to exhort action that he thinks is in the best interest of the universal church. But what is being imposed? I am willing to bet that since the promulgation of the CCEO, the Eastern bishops have ordained as many men as they wanted to. It is by no means clear from the Cardinal’s statement that that has changed.

But the norm in our tradition has been to have a married parish clergy, both priests and deacons. So at best we can say that the Cardinal’s words were simply unnecessary … At worst we can see the Cardinal trying to impose Latin discipline onto the East. I certainly hope that that is not the case.

The Cardinal spoke in a context, that is timely and arguably urgent. Eastern churches have a mission that includes addressing the fundamental issues of our times. We are not and cannot simply be an enclave that provides a refuge from these issues, or a ghetto, either of ethnicity or tradition, that sees its responsibilities as limited only to the tribe. Our role is bigger than that. And I hope that that was the crux of the the deeper message, and that it will not fall on deaf ears. Evidently, it was not unnecessary.

 

[5Loaves]

Here is HH Benedict XVI’s discorso following the final* ad limina* visits of Bishops of Regions XIV and XV, with XV being the US Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches’ bishops.

If this was already posted my apologies. I don’t see it posted yet.

As Joan Lewis noted in her blog and interview today on Vatican Radio this was the first ever ad limina visit where the US Eastern and Oriental Bishops came as a group. In past ad limina visits the US EC/OC bishops came to Rome individually with the Latin Church bishops of a Latin Church ecclesiastical region.

This is a very welcome change which I have not seen noted elsewhere.

 

[Caspar]

Where was the concern when the Anglican Ordinariate was established?

Seems quite different to me. In some cases former male Anglican ministers can become Catholic priests of the Latin Rite within the Anglican Ordinariate. There is a finite time for that. When new priests are formed within the Catholic Church they’ll have to abide by the law of the land in the Latin Rite.