D
dvdjs
Guest
What “decision” are you talking about? Who has proposed “imposing” anything? What change are you talking about?
- Status
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
Fair enough.Perhaps a married priesthood is not essential in and of itself. However, it is perceived by many Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox alike) to be apart of their tradition. Note I say “tradition” and not “Tradition”. Again, married priesthood may not be essential, but it certainly seems important.
One could also make the argument that if it is not a dogmatic issue, then why the continual need for approval for the ordination of married men to the diaconate and priesthood? This could go in circles, and it has for centuries know (and probably a centuries’ worth of posts here on CAF
). Of course, this goes all the way back to why celibacy was imposed in the first place; whether anybody likes it or not, that does factor into the situation. Of course different discussion, different thread, as they say.That, I admit, was poorly phrased on my part. I mean in the general sense. Whenever this issue is brought up officially (ordination of married men for the Eastern Churches outside their traditional territory), there seems to be tons of mixed signals given at every turn. You have “return to your authentic heritage” and then around the corner “it would be prudent, for the sake of not causing scandal, to not ordain married men”. I need not point out specific instances; plenty have been discussed hither and thither. And these instances are not difficult to find at all. Again, what scandal would be caused, in this day and age, of ordaining married men to the diaconate and priesthood of the Eastern Churches?
That I do not know, for I am not in position to even begin to understand the intricacies that is ecclesial politics within the Catholic Church. And as for the “many”, I also do not know. And I fully realize this does damage to my creditably for saying what I have. However, from an outsider’s point of view, it would seem there is impeding going on.
I suppose when it comes down to it, I just do not see why there is any need for “permission” or “approval” in order for married men in the Eastern Churches to be ordained. It has precedence in tradition, it is not sinful, and I see no reason it could be a cause of scandal at this point and time.
My :twocents:, anyways.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
OK, so the basic theme of the “con” argument here is “why make such a big deal of this”?
Good question. What many are wondering is why some in Rome and elsewhere continue to make a big deal of it. This truly is the root of the controversy.
And “no risk”, it is said? Well let’s see - perhaps one of the most prominent Ruthenian Catholic presbyters, with his own weekly radio show / podcast and more than occasional appearances on EWTN, sends an open letter to a Metropolitan enthroned but a month ago. He bypasses his own bishop, who by the way is the only one of the standing Ruthenian hierarchs who has had the temerity to ordain a married American born and educated man, to send a message about a policy statement that many advocate should be made once and for all by a standing Ruthenian Catholic prelate, who happens to be head of the only sui juris Eastern Catholic Church in the U.S. and supposedly is “accountable” directly to the Pope.
Surely no risk at all in that scenario, both personal (reputational and otherwise) and now to the new Metropolitan, who is basically put on the spot. You don’t think that there is now some expectation that the Metropolitan address this letter, or at least the subject matter?
The Ruthenian Church America, in particular, is in need of strong, confident leadership. Many are waiting to see if it will come from the new Metropolitan William. We pray it does. Fr Loya has now served up as current and relevant the most controversial subject in the history of the relationship between the Byzantine-Ruthenian and Latin Churches. There certainly can be no denying this much, whether one thinks serving it up in this manner and at this time is risky or not.
Good question. What many are wondering is why some in Rome and elsewhere continue to make a big deal of it. This truly is the root of the controversy.
And “no risk”, it is said? Well let’s see - perhaps one of the most prominent Ruthenian Catholic presbyters, with his own weekly radio show / podcast and more than occasional appearances on EWTN, sends an open letter to a Metropolitan enthroned but a month ago. He bypasses his own bishop, who by the way is the only one of the standing Ruthenian hierarchs who has had the temerity to ordain a married American born and educated man, to send a message about a policy statement that many advocate should be made once and for all by a standing Ruthenian Catholic prelate, who happens to be head of the only sui juris Eastern Catholic Church in the U.S. and supposedly is “accountable” directly to the Pope.
Surely no risk at all in that scenario, both personal (reputational and otherwise) and now to the new Metropolitan, who is basically put on the spot. You don’t think that there is now some expectation that the Metropolitan address this letter, or at least the subject matter?
The Ruthenian Church America, in particular, is in need of strong, confident leadership. Many are waiting to see if it will come from the new Metropolitan William. We pray it does. Fr Loya has now served up as current and relevant the most controversial subject in the history of the relationship between the Byzantine-Ruthenian and Latin Churches. There certainly can be no denying this much, whether one thinks serving it up in this manner and at this time is risky or not.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
dvdjs,
I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I think I agree with what you’re saying, more or less, but I’m not quite sure. So to sum up your point are you saying that since the issue of married vs. celibate clergy is a matter of discipline, not dogma, that we shouldn’t be making such a stink about the words of the Cardinal prefect for the Congregation of the Eastern Churches? Are you saying that we ought instead to simply live our own lives and traditions within the Catholic Church without deference to Rome?
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I think I agree with what you’re saying, more or less, but I’m not quite sure. So to sum up your point are you saying that since the issue of married vs. celibate clergy is a matter of discipline, not dogma, that we shouldn’t be making such a stink about the words of the Cardinal prefect for the Congregation of the Eastern Churches? Are you saying that we ought instead to simply live our own lives and traditions within the Catholic Church without deference to Rome?
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Well, it is not so clear just how big a deal was made - except in response. People are reacting to a fragment of a sentence reported in some news accounts. The Pope made remarks that echoed the same underlying theme about the significance of the consecrated life but didn’t say a word about priestly celibacy.
I would agree that the behavior had all of the impropriety that you mention. I agree that he has moved this particular issues to the front burner, inflamed it, and threw it toward the new metropolitan in a public manner.
The Ruthenian Church America, in particular, is in need of strong, confident leadership. Many are waiting to see if it will come from the new Metropolitan William. We pray it does.
It sure does and I pray for this as well. And sadly, Fr. Loya has undercut the metropolitan. Can he move forward while avoiding the appearance that he is subject to manipulation? Can he work dispassionately and deliberately without appearing to shrink at the public challenge of his priest? Not clear how this letter would help our church?
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
As I mentioned before, I think the bigger issue here is not so much a married vs a celibate clergy, but whether or not Rome has the authority to impose mandatory celibacy as a prerequisite for the priesthood among Eastern Catholics in the United States (and by extension throughout the rest of the “diaspora”). This question is what elevates the matter from the level of discipline to dogma because it makes the whole situation a matter of ecclesiology. Essentially, can the Pope (in this case through one of his Congregations) interfere in the life of a sui iuris Church without that Church requesting such interference?
I think in general we Easterners here at CAF would say, no! We are sui iuris Churches. We are governed by our own Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and/or Bishops along with their Synods. If we want to ordain married men to the priesthood, as has been our custom for over two millennia, then by golly we’ll bloody ordain married men. We shouldn’t need to apologize to Rome about it. If Rome doesn’t like it, then that’s their business, not ours. Likewise, if the bishops think it for the best that we refrain for the time being from ordaining married men to the priesthood, again that’s our business and Rome ought to have no say.
Rome gave us “permission” to restore our authentic heritage and traditions (as if we needed that permission). The least Rome could do is not make any fuss about it when we choose to restore those customs and traditions that we have held dear throughout our 2,012 year history. If the head of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches has a problem with that, then maybe the Congregation needs a new head; or better yet, maybe the Congregation should be abolished in deference to the rightful authority of our Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, and their Synods.
I think in general we Easterners here at CAF would say, no! We are sui iuris Churches. We are governed by our own Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and/or Bishops along with their Synods. If we want to ordain married men to the priesthood, as has been our custom for over two millennia, then by golly we’ll bloody ordain married men. We shouldn’t need to apologize to Rome about it. If Rome doesn’t like it, then that’s their business, not ours. Likewise, if the bishops think it for the best that we refrain for the time being from ordaining married men to the priesthood, again that’s our business and Rome ought to have no say.
Rome gave us “permission” to restore our authentic heritage and traditions (as if we needed that permission). The least Rome could do is not make any fuss about it when we choose to restore those customs and traditions that we have held dear throughout our 2,012 year history. If the head of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches has a problem with that, then maybe the Congregation needs a new head; or better yet, maybe the Congregation should be abolished in deference to the rightful authority of our Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, and their Synods.
D
dvdjs
Guest
More or less.dvdjs,
I want to make sure I understand you correctly. I think I agree with what you’re saying, more or less, but I’m not quite sure. So to sum up your point are you saying that since the issue of married vs. celibate clergy is a matter of discipline, not dogma, that we shouldn’t be making such a stink about the words of the Cardinal prefect for the Congregation of the Eastern Churches? Are you saying that we ought instead to simply live our own lives and traditions within the Catholic Church without deference to Rome?
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
We are in a relationship with Rome, and as in any relationship there will be moments that may require deference and even sacrifice. They will always require maturity, rather than sophomoric, in-your-face posturing. However…
If we are to show leadership, if we are to get beyond this nagging inferiority complex, then we really have to end the nonsense of reacting to every word that comes out of Rome as though it were the most import thing ever said, and far more important that our very own words. We need to stop reacting to whatever it is that is coming from Rome, and start assuming responsibility for ourselves.
Let me jump to another context: the instructions from Rome on restoring traditions that are often mentioned here make me cringe. Not because I disagree with the instructions, but because I have little interest in Rome’s opinion on our praxis, and wish that we could get to the point of making such decisions in our church - for better or worse - without reference to the opinion of Rome.
I feel the same way on celibacy in our priesthood. After a century of working things out we have sufficient latitude to do what we want to do. What we want to do, however, requires some serious prudential judgment. We may among ourselves even have some disagreement on what is best for the church - both universal and particular - on these matters. It would be smart to allow that to be worked out without byzantine intrigue. And to me, I have no enthusiasm for anything that hints of picking a path just to exhibit how very not inferior we are, or, conversely, to show how excellent we are at Eastern LARPing. Such things remind me too much of all of my stupid behavior as a teenager.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Good. I can see we are in fundamental agreement, but perhaps coming at it from two different perspectives. But it all basically boils down to the fact that we ought to have the courage to be ourselves without apology and without always looking over our shoulder for the approval or disapproval of our older brother.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Ahhhh, but these issues are bilateral or multilateral. If church X and church Y are having difficulties in their interaction, can church X appeal to Rome without prior approval of church Y? That is the relevant question about primacy. We are not here alone and that is why these things come up.
I think it imprudent to extrapolate every remark in a homily to its extreme limit. A simple response to the Cardinal. Thank you for noting our sacrifice. You know that that sacrifice has included some accommodation of celibacy in the diaspora. We are glad about the progress that has been made on that point. However, you also make an excellent point about the significance of celibacy in contemporary culture. We will always remember that as we go about our work.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Absolutely. All of the hub-bub is nothing other than “looking over our shoulder for the approval or disapproval of our older brother.” And instead of spending bandwidth talking about what others need to be doing, we could occupy ourselves with what we can change about ourselves.Good. I can see we are in fundamental agreement, but perhaps coming at it from two different perspectives. But it all basically boils down to the fact that we ought to have the courage to be ourselves without apology and without always looking over our shoulder for the approval or disapproval of our older brother.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No disrespect intended to his Eminence, but he owes his appointment to Rome. It is because of a decision in Rome and from Rome that he is, in fact, the Metropolitan. He can also be removed through a similar process.
He is in a very uncomfortable position because if he says what really needs to be said many in Rome will take him to be ungrateful for the opportunity he was given, to serve the Ruthenian Catholic church in America at the behest of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope/Patriarch of Rome and his own patriarch. [It might be noted that this line of bishops does not derive from Orthodox bishops, Bishop Skurla’s own Episcopal lineage is traceable through Bishop Elko to Cardinal Tisserant himself. The Ruthenian hierarchy may look different, but it is an extension of the Latin church, after all.]
Father Loya comes from a long line of married priests. His own grandfather (and those before him) was a married priest and his father could not be a priest because of Cum Data Fuerit.
Father Loya has a celibate priest cousin in the Augustinian religious order and another cousin who married a man who became an Orthodox priest. Priestly families give and give to the church. They keep giving generation after generation, they sacrifice their personal selves and (to some major extent) their own opportunity to thrive in commerce, all for the good of God’s holy little community, the church. Then they inspire other’s, including their own children, to do the same by setting an example worth believing in.
I cannot speak for him but I can tell you from personal conversations with him in the past that father Loya knows the rich contribution priestly families (with children, if God wills it) have made and can continue to make to the life of God’s holy church. He is fighting the good fight.
M
Mickey
Guest
I am wondering: If the Ruthenian Catholic Church “lives its own life and traditions” and begins ordaining married men to the priesthood…what would be the reaction from Rome?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Unfortunately, I must say that in reality the Supreme Pontiff can do whatever he wants in this matter with the diaspora church.
Obviously, they do not want to lean too heavily and alarm the population, but the right to do so will never be unilaterally relinquished, and no potential new precedents will be allowed to interfere with some future Pontiff’s rights in this matter.
The fact is, the Supreme Pontiff actually has the right to dissolve the entire apparatus, it is reserved to him to erect new dioceses and to suppress them, it is reserved to him to elevate and transfer bishops within the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. He can literally set the terms (and if he feels it necessary, shut the whole thing down).
To the extent that the Congregation of the Eastern Churches has any authority at all, it is entirely delegated to them from the Petrine ministry of the Pope at Rome. In other words, when Cardinal Sandri speaks officially as prefect of the Congregation, he speaks with the authority of Peter. Archbishop William does not, Archbishop Nicholas does not, neither does any other Eastern Catholic bishop in north America. That’s just the hard reality of the church as constituted.
H
Hesychios
Guest
They should try it.
Just keep doing it as often as they feel necessary, or do like the Ukrainians used to do and train the married or engaged men at Ss Cyril and Methodios seminary and then send the to Europe for ordination. Just keep doing it and ignore complaints from any direction. Ultimately they will win because Rome would not risk the scandal of removing a Ruthenian bishop for that reason, it would be too newsworthy and ‘cause scandal’ among the Latin faithful.
They won’t though. The Ruthenian bishops are bred to obedience (an admirable quality in itself) and will not assert themselves in such a way.
M
Mickey
Guest
Is there an unspoken directive from Rome to the Ruthenian bishops that states:
“Even though your tradition allows for the ordination of married men to the priesthood…you will not do so?”
H
Hesychios
Guest
Archbishop Judson wanted ‘permission’ to ordain married men written into the by-laws/canons of the particular church. Rome refused this. Instead they are to ask permission to ordain any married man on a case-by-case basis. They have only ever allowed one since the total prohibition ended, and now there is this speech from Cardinal Sandri, which seems to say that the the bishops should not even want to ordain married men, if they know what’s good for them. That makes the whole thing so alarming.
First he mentions that some Eastern catholic parishes depend on the Latin church for help, then he says: “**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.”
**He is telling these bishops that they should preferentially ordain men who will make a commitment to celibacy or import ordained men who already do (and steer potential vocations to renounce marriage), after reminding them that they need the cooperation of Latin church so they better pony up and do what the Latin church wants them to do. *.
To quote a snippet from the letter in the original post: "To us in America the Cardinal’s remarks reflected a paternalistic attitude toward the Eastern Catholic Churches in America. "
Cardinal Sandri is not speaking as an impartial representative of some Petrine ministry of the universal church. He is speaking to a captive audience as a Latin churchman putting the squeeze on.
BTW, seemingly overlooked here, Cardinal Sandri also mentioned that the older EC churches are going through a demographic collapse, or as he says “are experiencing a dramatic fall” in their numbers.
Which he then implies the reason, as he says …
Code:
"You are not immune to the same corrosive effect on morals and family life as are your fellow Latin Catholics,"
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
It was quoted, one would both hope and presume accurately.
Truth be told, I think people are reacting largely because they expect no reaction from their own leadership, and no change in the status quo - a virtual bar against married priesthood, at least in the Ruthenian Church.
Hesychios rightly points out Fr Loya’s family history. There are a few other similar, present day examples, as well.
For my part, I may be certainly be an oddity for a Ruthenian of my generation, but:
- I grew up in a parish served by a married priest with family, and this family was very much an integral part of our spiritual lives.
- I was recently in a parish that had a married priest (without children) assigned as pastor. I enjoyed my relationship with this priest and our Pani very much, as did my children.
- My youngest son was initiated by a retired priest, filling in for our regular pastor, who himself was the son of priest. He is one of the dearest people I have ever met, and IMHO a true priest. I will always consider it a special blessing that he received our son into the Church.
To some, this issue may simply be a matter of right or wrong, subservience or self governance, East vs West. To me, I have lived the experience and have found it to be an important part of our heritage with real benefits to our pastoral and spiritual lives.
I also view this as a litmus test subject of great importance in the context of the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue.
Yet, I do not see my own Ruthenian Church asserting itself and moving forward with accepting married candidates in any meaningful way, and each mention from Rome, however innocuous or inconsequential, seemingly becomes another step backward on this particular subject. This, too, is likely why many are reacting unfavorably.
Let’s be honest - the Ruthenian Church is going nowhere on this subject. That is not to say that other Eastern Catholic Churches in the U.S. are not attempting to do so, but as the only sui juris Church in the U.S., I would dare say the actions of our hierarchs can and do effect the ability of other hierarchs to assert themselves in similar matters, especially in the eyes of those yet opposed in the Latin Church. It seems appropriate on many levels that leadership on this issue should come from the Ruthenian Church. May +Metropolitan Judson be remembered forever, and for his attempt to lay the foundation for the restoration of this aspect of discipline.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Perhaps it is indeed impossible to practice the Orthodox faith within the Catholic communion.
M
Mickey
Guest
So Rome is basically saying not to even bother asking permission because you will be denied.
Truly, Fr Thomas’ letter is relevant and courageous.
C
countertenor
Guest
My family and I feel that more and more each day.
- Status