Eastern priests and celibacy

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear brother Mardukm

In the Catholic tradition there are four different levels of being priests or religious. The most important is the **diocesan parish priest **who lives alone and interacts with the community on a daily basis, keeping the community alive and cohesive, by celebrating Mass, offering the sacraments, ie baptizing the children, marrying couples, hearing confession, anointing the sick and burying the dead. In second place and no less important are the religious members of active orders who live in community with other celibate members of his order and serve the people in different ways in the fields of education, social services etc. They do not get to keep the money they earn through their work. It goes to the community and their needs are met by the community. The **members of the contemplative orders **, the monks and brothers, also live celibate lives in monasteries as a community without interacting with the outside world. Only some members are given the specific task of interacting with the outside world. They spend most of their time in prayer, study and do work that helps to support themselves. The last group are hermits. They live alone and not as a community (community life plays no significant role) although they may be part of a community which meet at certain intervals for specific purposes. The desert fathers in the early centuries of Christianity were pretty much on their own.

It goes to show there are different ways of living the religious life, each one called to a different way of life based on their personality and spiritual inclinations.

However it must be said that many are of the opinion that diocesan parish priests who live alone among lay people and continuously in contact with them, may find celibacy the greatest challenge because they do not have a community of celibate priests like themselves to support them on a daily basis. The human need for companionship and community is very strong. If one doesn’t have family, people tend to search out a community of like minded individuals in one way or another. Religious orders and monasteries are communities of like minded priests/brothers. But the lone parish priest, living fully among lay non-celibate people, is without that kind of daily support of like minded people. Even Jesus had a group of twelve disciples with Him everyday with whom He spent time as a community, when He was not preaching to or healing the masses.

 

[SedesDomi]

Dear Brother Marduk

I’m not quite sure whether I fully understand your question, but I’m going to try to answer.

I think what Marduk is asking is: why did the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara not make priestly celibacy mandatory until they entered into communion with Rome? Why didn’t they do it before, since they were in a culture that valued celibacy?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

I think what Marduk is asking is: why did the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara not make priestly celibacy mandatory until they entered into communion with Rome? Why didn’t they do it before, since they were in a culture that valued celibacy?

In Hinduism, the temple priest is a married man. Only sannyasis are celibate and do not live in the community. Hinduism therefore has both aspects. A celibate Christian priest could be looked upon as a celibate sannyasi who returns to serve as a temple priest, even though they usually don’t. However in Buddhism, as it developed to a religion with temples and worship of Buddha, the priest had extensive training before being beginning temple duties in some cases. He was mostly celibate but he could also choose marriage. Buddhism has a strong tradition of monastic life.

 

[EricBrooks]

In part, because a great many Eastern Catholic Churches were Orthodox Churches that came into union after quinisext, and were permitted to retain the practice.

I understand that. But my question was about why Eastern Catholics are allowed to persevere in this discipline, based on various patristic sources that suggest that it was the some form of either celibacy or continence was originally the universal practice (i.e. a priest would either have to be unmarried, or would have to stop having sex if he was married).

I am aware that the discipline of celibacy is something that happens somewhat later in the latin Church, but my question pertains to a suggestion that, based on patristic teaching, even those Eastern Catholics (as well as married Lutherans and ANglicans whobecome Latin priests) should have to live in continence.

 

[EricBrooks]

It’s not an issue even in the West since several married Lutherans and Episcopalians have been accepted as Latin priests (which were mostly handled by then Cardinal Ratzinger). While indeed this is an exception to the current practice, it cannot be said that there is an absolute ban even in the Latin Church.

I think there is a sometimes serious misunderstanding about chastity, continence and celibacy. You might be interested in an article by a hieromonk of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church that begins here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4619904&postcount=67

Thank you for the article. It was beautiful, but did not really address my question. The criticism I encountered would apply equally to married clergy who became latin priests from the Lutheran and Anglican sects just as much as it would apply to Eastern Churches, though in the former case the historical question about the council of quinisext would not apply. It would also apply to married Deacons in the modern Latin rite. Perhaps I should have stated the broader question in a different forum, but I was concerned first of all with the historical question as to how the Eastern Churches originally accepted this practice in a council that was never accepted as valid by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps I phrased it badly. I do occasionally attend a Ukrainian Church, was actually drawn to Catholicism mainly by Eastern spiritual writers (though I eventually joined a more traditional Latin parish), and am not as ignorant of Eastern tradition and spirituality as you might suppose. But I do not know a whole lot about the history of celibacy in the east, and my question was about a number of patristic texts that suggest that the original practice was that all clergy would either have to be celibate or live in continence. Such texts include St Jerome explaining that Peter, though married, had no relations with his wife once he became an Apostle, John Chrysostom trying someone for having a child after he was ordained, at much else. I don’t know a lot about this, but so far I’ve seen a lot of texts suggesting that this was the universal practice in the East as well as the West, and no evidence to the contrary. There may be some very good evidence to the contrary, but there’s at least some evidence that the practice of married clergy who still have children after ordination (perhaps having periodic continence relative to the celebration of the mysteries) was propogated by a false council.

You are quite right that this would be problematic in many (though somewhat different) ways for the Latin Church, and I thank you for this observation. But it doesn’t answer my question, which really has more to do with what may have been the universal practice in the early Church than with what any Church does now.

 

[Aramis]

As I recall, most of the patristic texts in favor of celibacy are of western origin; St. John Chrysostum being a major exception.

But, given the Catholic Understanding of the purposes of Marriage (and the Orthodox as well), asking priests who were married prior to ordination to remain continent full-time is incompatible with genuine Christian marriage.

I can find no requirement for continence in the ecumenical councils’ canons through the fourth; I do not recall any such instruction from the Apostolic Constitutions, either, but have not checked the AC tonight. If such were in fact the law of the church, rather than strong advice of the authors, one would think it something that would be in the canons.

 

[JohnVIII]

As I recall, most of the patristic texts in favor of celibacy are of western origin; St. John Chrysostum being a major exception.

But, given the Catholic Understanding of the purposes of Marriage (and the Orthodox as well), asking priests who were married prior to ordination to remain continent full-time is incompatible with genuine Christian marriage.

I can find no requirement for continence in the ecumenical councils’ canons through the fourth; I do not recall any such instruction from the Apostolic Constitutions, either, but have not checked the AC tonight. If such were in fact the law of the church, rather than strong advice of the authors, one would think it something that would be in the canons.

Celibacy as a spiritual aid is greater that humility or obedience in my opinion. According to the “Acts pf St. Peter” it was the reason Peter was crucified up-side-down.

As for the canons, consider canon 30 of the 6th Ecumenical Council:

Wishing to do everything for the edification of the Church, we have decided to make concessions to priests in Barbarian churches, so that if they are seeking to circumvent Apostolic Canon V by expelling their wife, on the pretext of reverence, and to do what is beyond the limits set by it, by coming to a private agreement with their spouses to abstain from intercourse with each other. We decree that priests shall cohabit with these wives no more, in any manner whatsoever, so as to afford us thereby positive proof that they are carrying out their promise. We make this concession to them, not for any other reason, but because of the pusillanimity of their thought, and the bizarre character of their ideas of morality, and the unsettled state of their mind.

As I read it “the bizarre character of their ideas of morality” must be the idea of living with a wife that you never have intercourse with.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

St. Paphnutios:

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=236
newadvent.org/cathen/11457a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paphnutius_of_Thebes

He took a prominent, perhaps a decisive, part in the debate at the First Œcumenical Council on the subject of the celibacy of the clergy. It seems that most of the bishops present were disposed to follow the precedent of the Council of Elvira (can. xxxiii) prohibiting conjugal relations to those bishops, priests, deacons, and, according to Sozomen, sub-deacons, who were married before ordination. Paphnutius earnestly entreated his fellow-bishops not to impose this obligation on the orders of the clergy concerned. He proposed, in accordance “with the ancient tradition of the Church”, that only those who were celibates at the time of ordination should continue to observe continence, but, on the other hand, that “none should be separated from her, to whom, while yet unordained, he had been united”. The greatveneration in which he was held, and the well known fact that he had himself observed the strictest chastity all his life, gave weight to his proposal, which was unanimously adopted. The council left it to the discretion of the married clergy to continue or discontinue their marital relations. Paphnutius was present at the Synod of Tyre (335).

 

[Deacon_Lance]

Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, the pope’s legate, tried to foist mandatory celibacy on Eastern priests at Nicea and this was rejected by the Council Fathers at the urging of St Paphnutios, a Coptic monk by the way. Modern propagandists attempt to insist perpetual continence after ordination was the norm everywhere until the Trullan Council allowed it in the East. If married priests continuing in marital relations was not the ancient practice in the East, Hosius of Cordoba would not have been trying to impose it at Nicea. This is clearly one of the earliest differences between East and West. Very early the West favored mandatory celibacy for those ordained subdeaon and up, the East required it only of bishops. It is a matter of discipline not faith, and the West for the sake of good relations would do well to leave the East alone about the matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[SedesDomi]

Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, the pope’s legate, tried to foist mandatory celibacy on Eastern priests at Nicea and this was rejected by the Council Fathers at the urging of St Paphnutios, a Coptic monk by the way. Modern propagandists attempt to insist perpetual continence after ordination was the norm everywhere until the Trullan Council allowed it in the East. If married priests continuing in marital relations was not the ancient practice in the East, Hosius of Cordoba would not have been trying to impose it at Nicea. This is clearly one of the earliest differences between East and West. Very early the West favored mandatory celibacy for those ordained subdeaon and up, the East required it only of bishops. It is a matter of discipline not faith, and the West for the sake of good relations would do well to leave the East alone about the matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What cultural differences would lead the West to be so celibacy-centric?

 

[bradwill911]

Not sure if this answers your question, but I think it is relevant to the discussion: catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Looking at the CCC, we read:

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

1599 In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of God’s kingdom and the service of men.

 

[Aramis]

One should be made aware that, historically, little-to-no distinction between widower-monastic and celibate monastic priests has been made in the Byzantine churches.

Byzantine married deacons and priests were, and somtimes still are, expected to become monastics upon being widowed. Once they are monastics, they are eligible for elevation to the episcopacy; while now fairly rare, it’s still not unheard of.

 

[Jimzz12]

This isn’t an accusation, but an honest question. I don’t know much about the history of priestly celibacy, but I found a couple of these facts odd.

The present practice, as far as I know, is celibacy in the West and marriage in the east (except for bishops).

1 Timothy speaks of bishops having wives, but Jerome and other Fathers explain that clergy were expected to live in continence after ordination. We know that the West later adopted the practice of celibacy, but it seems that there’s some good reason to suppose that even in the east clergy were expected to be continent if married. The primary sources in favor of this view are available in the wikipedia article on priestly celibacy and many other places, so I won’t reproduce them here. The most notable fact, though, may be that the Council of Carthage commanded that all clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) abstain from conjugal intercourse.

Apparently in the council of Quinisext the decree from the Council of Carthage is reinterpreted not to mean perpetual abstinence, but only set periods of abstinence relative to the celebration of the Liturgy. The Catholic Church never accepted the Council of Quinisext, but it’s my understanding that Eastern Catholics have followed the Orthodox in this practice. If the Catholic Church does not accept Quinisext, why should Eastern Catholics follow the innovation of this council?

I really don’t have a strong opinion about this. I just encountered this argument for the first time. I feel like I may be missing something, and am hoping that someone here knows more.

The law of the Church is a married man can become ordained but an ordained man may never marry after the sacrament of ordination. Different rites have different disciplines on that issue, but the law is absolute and forver on the order in which married men can be ordained but single ordained men may never marry.

 

[Aramis]

The law of the Church is a married man can become ordained but an ordained man may never marry after the sacrament of ordination. Different rites have different disciplines on that issue, but the law is absolute and forver on the order in which married men can be ordained but single ordained men may never marry.

For an ordained man to marry requires a papal dispensation from vows; such dispensation also generally results in laicization as well.

My cousin, Rev. Thos. Borkowski, was laicized and later married within the church. He happens to have been the priest who baptized me, as well.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If I recall correctly the last Patriarch of Russia Alexi II was married, he later came to an agreement with his wife to live “as brother and sister” before becoming a full monastic.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Aramis]

Traditional russian praxis requires the wife to enter a nunnery in such cases.

I have no idea if that was the case with HH Alexi II… in any way.

That was the traditional Russian “Annulment”… several Tsars ditched their wives that way, and were permitted to re-marry.

 

[SyroMalankara]

No, in fact, after their separation and subsequent ecclesiastical divorce, she married another man.