I really thought this had been taken care of already, but surprise!

  • Thread starter Thread starter badnewsbarrett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

badnewsbarrett

Guest
I was previously aware of a few things pertaining to Eastern Catholicism, one of them being that most of the Eastern rites allow for married priests, although most bishops have a monastic background and all of them are celibate. I also knew that since the early part of the 20th century, there were certain countries made up of immigrants wherein the less-recent immigrants (primarily Catholics of the Latin Rite) sought to restrict and generally meddle in the priesthood details of the more-recent immigrants (specifically Eastern Catholics). I was aware of the fact that some of the previously-adhered-to restrictions are no longer enforced, for example a married priest from another country is now permitted to take his family with him to a Catholic parish in the United States and continue here as he was there. But what I did not know…

What I did not know is that Eastern Catholics still cannot freely ordain married priests in the United States in a way that is unrestricted. True, they technically can ordain married priests, but only if they get special permission, only very recently, and so far only for a handful of the Eastern rites. This came to my attention when I found out that on February 27 of this very year, 2014, Fr. Wissam Akiki became the first Maronite Catholic to be ordained as a married Catholic priest in the United States since the initial restrictions began in the 1930s. ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/first-married-man-ordained-priest-us-maronite-catholic-church

This current practice has a number of effects. First, if you’re wondering (as I am) where an Eastern Catholic would find formal training specific to his unique needs as a married priest, that’s not likely to happen in the United States. It’s a good thing that Akiki got some of his education in Lebanon. Second, since there are so few married Catholic priests being ordained in the US on a case-by-case basis, this undercuts any possibility of systematic, far-reaching education for women who might want to know how to go about being the wife of a Catholic priest. Traditionally (for example, back in Lebanon) it’s been especially common for the daughters or granddaughters of married priests to wind up marrying a priest, but it also helps if there is some formal training and education aside from growing up next to personal experience. It also helps if there is more than just a handful of married priests with families to look at. Third, since there are so few married priests being ordained in the United States, there’s no real reason to construct the necessary training apparatus that’s necessary in order to give married priests and their wives the best possible preparation for doing their jobs well. This is detrimental to the quality of the married priesthood and besides that, the interference that continues at this very late date adds up to an effect whereby the entirety of the priest-training apparatus that exists and is used in these emigrant-sending countries is not completely duplicated in the United States. It unnecessarily amplifies the “us/them” mentality when it comes to immigrants and natives- or, more appropriately, immigrants and less recent immigrants.

So this is one of the things that will continue to be on the plate of Pope Francis for the foreseeable future. He will continue to field requests for special permission to ordain married priests in the United States, and he will also field requests for these Eastern churches to freely ordain married priests without needing to ask permission. For the record, Australia has already rectified this problem- in Australia, which is also very much a country of immigrants, Eastern Catholics are free to ordain as many married priests as they choose without needing to ask permission on a case-by-case basis and it has been this way in Australia for about 20 years now.

In the United States of America, on the other hand, Eastern Catholics can technically ordain married priests here- but they still cannot do so freely, and again, only a handful of rites have begun to obtain permission to ordain even a handful of married priests. In the case of the Maronites, so far it’s just one.

I really thought this was taken care of already. I assumed that the situation in the US was already the way it is in Australia. So let me ask you guys two questions. Question one- is this a surprise to you as well, did you also think that the US was already a bit further ahead of the curve? And question two- given the chance to voice your own personal opinion (which I gladly offer you right now), do you think that Pope Francis should allow Eastern Catholics in the United States to freely ordain married bishops without restrictions and without needing to ask permission? Or do you have some kind of reason to think that shouldn’t happen, as it already has in Australia?

Actually, I think I will turn this into a poll for that second question.
 
do you think that Pope Francis should allow Eastern Catholics in the United States to freely ordain married bishops without restrictions and without needing to ask permission? Or do you have some kind of reason to think that shouldn’t happen, as it already has in Australia?

Actually, I think I will turn this into a poll for that second question.
I think you have a typo here. Bishops cannot be married, period. Not in the Eastern Catholic Churches, not in the Orthodox Churches, not in the Latin Churches.

A Bishop cannot be married.
 
The fact that they have to ask permission to begin with is a scandal and an outrage. It’s patronizing and condescending. The Eastern Catholic bishops should tell the curia to go pound sand and mind their own business. The Latin Church has zero right to try and dictate these things to other Churches. They should ignore them completely.
 
Well, they’re not truly autocephalous, Seraphim, so it’s not terribly surprising that they don’t do that. According to at least some interpretations of what it means to be in communion with Rome (most importantly, Rome’s own interpretation, as you can see by looking at Florence, Vatican I, etc.), if they told Rome to go take a walk they wouldn’t be able to be legitimately “Catholic”. I don’t get it either, but it is what it is…until it isn’t, I suppose (re: ACROD in your communion, Malankara Orthodox in mine, etc).
 
Well, they’re not truly autocephalous, Seraphim, so it’s not terribly surprising that they don’t do that. According to at least some interpretations of what it means to be in communion with Rome (most importantly, Rome’s own interpretation, as you can see by looking at Florence, Vatican I, etc.), if they told Rome to go take a walk they wouldn’t be able to be legitimately “Catholic”. I don’t get it either, but it is what it is…until it isn’t, I suppose (re: ACROD in your communion, Malankara Orthodox in mine, etc).
Yes but no ACROD bishop requires permission from Constantinople to ordain a priest.
 
I guess my last line wasn’t understood. Neither ACROD nor the Malankara Orthodox Church require any outside authority to ordain priests, but they did both begin when a certain segment of a preexisting church refused to submit to claimed Latin authority over them (over the Rusyns in America in the case of ACROD, or the Syriacs in India following the Coonan Cross Oath in the case of the MOC).
 
Pope Francis recently removed the restriction in the Americas. It is no longer necessary for Eastern bishops to seek permission on a case-by-case basis.
 
Well, they’re not truly autocephalous, Seraphim, so it’s not terribly surprising that they don’t do that.
In that case, people should stop holding them up as a model of Catholic/Orthodox unity. (Probably preaching to the choir here…)
 
I think you have a typo here. Bishops cannot be married, period. Not in the Eastern Catholic Churches, not in the Orthodox Churches, not in the Latin Churches.

A Bishop cannot be married.
But… widowers can be consecrated bishops. At least in the EO church.
 
In that case, people should stop holding them up as a model of Catholic/Orthodox unity. (Probably preaching to the choir here…)
I agree. Does anyone think Moscow or Constantinople would unite with a Church in which there is even the theoretical possibility that they could be submitted to the requirement that they seek permission to ordain priests or consecrate bishops? That’s not going to happen.
 
In that case, people should stop holding them up as a model of Catholic/Orthodox unity. (Probably preaching to the choir here…)
I’m not sure if this was directed at me or just quoted me, but yeah, I agree. The Eastern Catholic churches are not a model for unity that any Orthodox person would want to follow. I think even some Eastern Catholics on this board recognize this, for whatever that’s worth (I know Peter J has written about that before, and maybe others too).

Unity is only on the basis of shared faith, not in isolation from ecclesiology but most definitely including it.
 
Pope Francis recently removed the restriction in the Americas. It is no longer necessary for Eastern bishops to seek permission on a case-by-case basis.
Do you have a citation for this? Thanks!
 
I’m not sure if this was directed at me or just quoted me, but yeah, I agree. The Eastern Catholic churches are not a model for unity that any Orthodox person would want to follow. I think even some Eastern Catholics on this board recognize this, for whatever that’s worth (I know Peter J has written about that before, and maybe others too).
Yes, I think I said “ECism is not a model for Catholic-Orthodox reunion [any more than Western-Rite Orthodoxy is].” (Or maybe I’ve said both on different occasions.)

Granted, I’m opening another jar of worms by mentioning Western-Rite Orthodox, but sometimes it is necessary to do so because some “ECism is not a model for Catholic-Orthodox reunion” type statements make it sound likes there’s something sinister going on in ECism (like we’re out to get you guys 😉 😊).
 
Pope Francis recently removed the restriction in the Americas. It is no longer necessary for Eastern bishops to seek permission on a case-by-case basis.
How recent was that? I can’t seem to find anything online about it.
 
How recent was that? I can’t seem to find anything online about it.
There is no actual restriction. The 1920s restriction only applied to the Ruthenians, the fact that some other EC churches restricted themselves, citing the Ruthenian restriction only belies the latinized mentality of some of the hierarchy.
The others went onto ordain those who were worthy, as they felt like, sometimes taking them overseas just to appease sentimentalities and to give the newly ordained a grand tour of the motherland. The motherland is now the good ol USofA.

Ordinations have been going on in Canada without as much as a “anaxios” for centuries, no restrictions.
 
There is no actual restriction. The 1920s restriction only applied to the Ruthenians, the fact that some other EC churches restricted themselves, citing the Ruthenian restriction only belies the latinized mentality of some of the hierarchy.
The others went onto ordain those who were worthy, as they felt like, sometimes taking them overseas just to appease sentimentalities and to give the newly ordained a grand tour of the motherland. The motherland is now the good ol USofA.

Ordinations have been going on in Canada without as much as a “anaxios” for centuries, no restrictions.
It also came to be the mentality of Rome that Cum Data Fuerit applied to all the Eastern Churches, as can be seen with the current prefect of the Oriental Congregation.
 
It also came to be the mentality of Rome that Cum Data Fuerit applied to all the Eastern Churches, as can be seen with the current prefect of the Oriental Congregation.
Continuing the “latinized mentality” trend… who asked the Oriental Congregation anyway? They would only respond if someone queried them, from the Eastern side, why bother asking when it doesn’t apply? Are they going to laicize a legitimate priest, causing a greater scandal than any perceived one due to his wife?
 
Continuing the “latinized mentality” trend… who asked the Oriental Congregation anyway? They would only respond if someone queried them, from the Eastern side, why bother asking when it doesn’t apply? Are they going to laicize a legitimate priest, causing a greater scandal than any perceived one due to his wife?
I’m specifically talking about public remarks made by Cardinal Sandri, in which he instructed the Eastern bishops in the Americas that they should embrace priestly celibacy in the “ecclesiastical context” of America. I don’t think you can just assume that these remarks were made in response to a question from the Eastern side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top