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.
RyanBlack said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know, I’ve heard these (unfortunate) comments as well. I wonder why there isn’t a more vocal response against such statements?
 
RyanBlack said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve been looking around for a report, a blurb, a reaction from interested parties that have submitted formal recommendations earlier this year. Or, best of all, a quote from Pope Francis stating that this is how it is and this is how it will now be. This would be fantastic news if it can be substantiated, I hope that it is.

For everyone else to look at- there is one other thing on the topic that I thought would be interesting to read. catholicexchange.com/married-clergy-monastic-celibacy-eastern-balance
It outlines the idea of a balance between married clergy and monastic celibacy- along with the whole apparatus that allows for married priests to be ordained and trained, the link takes you through a fairly detailed argument for bringing an authentically Eastern tradition of monasticism to North America, outlining its importance in setting apart those priests who are celibate and who may go on to become bishops. The author (who has a fascinating background all of his own) puts some emphasis on how every traditional, historical, apostolic expression of the Christian faith upholds celibacy as an essential part of its heritage, but if a married priesthood is fully permitted, where will the witness to apostolic celibacy come from? He argues that Eastern monasticism is the historical source of that witness, and it should be a priority here in North America right alongside the idea of a fully permitted married priesthood. It’s well thought out, I won’t quote mine it here but it’s something that I’ll be keeping in my back pocket because it’s an important part of the rest of the story when it comes to Byzantine tradition and the priesthood.
 
badnewsbarrett said:
I’ve been looking around for a report, a blurb, a reaction from interested parties that have submitted formal recommendations earlier this year. Or, best of all, a quote from Pope Francis stating that this is how it is and this is how it will now be. This would be fantastic news if it can be substantiated, I hope that it is.

For everyone else to look at- there is one other thing on the topic that I thought would be interesting to read. catholicexchange.com/married-clergy-monastic-celibacy-eastern-balance
It outlines the idea of a balance between married clergy and monastic celibacy- along with the whole apparatus that allows for married priests to be ordained and trained, the link takes you through a fairly detailed argument for bringing an authentically Eastern tradition of monasticism to North America, outlining its importance in setting apart those priests who are celibate and who may go on to become bishops. The author (who has a fascinating background all of his own) puts some emphasis on how every traditional, historical, apostolic expression of the Christian faith upholds celibacy as an essential part of its heritage, but if a married priesthood is fully permitted, where will the witness to apostolic celibacy come from? He argues that Eastern monasticism is the historical source of that witness, and it should be a priority here in North America right alongside the idea of a fully permitted married priesthood. It’s well thought out, I won’t quote mine it here but it’s something that I’ll be keeping in my back pocket because it’s an important part of the rest of the story when it comes to Byzantine tradition and the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I assure you it’s true. It was first told to me by the deacon at my parish, who heard it from the bishop. My pastor confirmed it, as did two other priests.
 
dzheremi said:
Well, they’re not **truly **autocephalous
Click to expand...
(boldface added)

I’ve been thinking about this comment, and I think you may be onto something. I don’t mean just the fact that we aren’t autocephalous, but also the fact that many people seem to tell us (without saying so explicitly) that we are autocephalous.
 
Maybe some people think that because you are to be sui juris churches, then that means that you are autocephalous? It would make sense to make that connection (heck, Wikipedia, font of all modern knowledge, says that the equivalent Greek term to the Latin sui juris would be autocephalous), but we see in practice what this does and does not mean. From the Orthodox side, I do not recognize the relationship of the various Eastern Catholic churches to Rome as being analogous to the relationship of the various particular Orthodox churches to one another. I don’t really feel comfortable getting into specific examples, but suffice it to say that if the topic of the OP were posted in an Orthodox environment, the thread would not have lasted nearly as long. A simple “But we already do that” would suffice.
 
For those who voted “no”, what are your good reasons for restricting Eastern Catholics from practicing what is a legitimate aspect of our tradition?
 
Welcome to the EC section of CAF. 🙂
badnewsbarrett said:
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…

…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.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Eastern Churches here, not Eastern rites.
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.
Click to expand...
What are those unique needs? The Orthodox have not separated their monastics and celibate men from married seminarians for their formation.
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.
Click to expand...
I think you’re quite correct that many priests’ wives are the daughters of priests, although the wife of the OCA priest, and the wife of one of the two Greek priests in the parishes I often go to are not daughters of priests. It’s clear that being the daughter of a priest does potentially provide significant “training”. Fr Tom Loya brought up this issue in one of his Light of the East radio programs several years ago.

What “systematic, far-reaching education”, or formal training and education do you think the wives would be helped by receiving?
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.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not sure what you think should be provided, and not aware of the Orthodox having some special training for married seminarians and their wives. It is apparent that Orthodox training in the US is not a duplicate of that in countries of origin. We live in quite different cultures.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Others have already indicated that our bishops have been ordaining married men. I certainly didn’t have the least impression from Bishop Gerald that he had any impediment to the ordinations he’s done. He spoke about it in passing during lunch or dinner at a recent retreat where I was eating at his table.

I believe that a very significant impediment to having married men ordained in the US, EC or Orthodox, is the late age at which Americans tend to marry now. I currently know several Orthodox men who have not been ordained to the deaconate because they want to marry. I’ve known others who never started seminary because they felt until they found a spouse why even try.

The crushing level of student loans is another impediment for a handful of young friends of mine who feel called to the priesthood, and I think they would be wonderful priests. Single or married. student debt is a huge problem. In the case of debt these men whom I’m aware of happen to be mostly Latin Church Catholics, one EC, tho I don’t know why it wouldn’t be an issue for EC and Orthodox men as well. (It’s a problem for women who feel called to religious life and aren’t free to do so due to student loans. Student loans now outstrip mortgages in the US.)
 
RyanBlack said:
For those who voted “no”, what are your good reasons for restricting Eastern Catholics from practicing what is a legitimate aspect of our tradition?
Click to expand...
Not your question, but I couldn’t vote for either of those two options. I think the first is inaccurate and the second I don’t agree with. 🙂
 
dzheremi said:
Maybe some people think that because you are to be sui juris churches, then that means that you are autocephalous?
Click to expand...
Yes. I have no doubt that you are right about that.
dzheremi said:
It would make sense to make that connection (heck, Wikipedia, font of all modern knowledge, says that the equivalent Greek term to the Latin sui juris would be autocephalous), but we see in practice what this does and does not mean. From the Orthodox side, I do not recognize the relationship of the various Eastern Catholic churches to Rome as being analogous to the relationship of the various particular Orthodox churches to one another.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, at least with respect to the Orthodox Churches that are autocephalous. (If you’re including the autonomous Orthodox Churches, like the Church of Sinai and the Church of Finland, then I’m uncertain whether I agree or not.)
 
badnewsbarrett said:
… 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?
…
Click to expand...
No I did not think they were further along. Bishop Andrew Pataki tried to get freedom to ordain married priests approved when he submitted the particular canon laws for the Byzantine Catholic Church USA, and Rome said no. I thought a bishop could not be married.

The Ruthenian Catholic Church is the only Metropolitan church established in the USA.

CCEO 758
3. The particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed in admitting married men to sacred orders.

Ruthenian Particular Law Canon 758 §3
§1. Married men, after completion of the formation prescribed by law, can be admitted to the order of deacon
§2. Concerning the admission of married men to the order of the presbyterate, the special norms issued by the Apostolic See are to be observed, unless dispensations are granted by the same See in individual cases.

byzcath.org/index.php?opt…sk=view&id=334
 
Ummm… the Eastern Catholic Churches already ordain married men to the priesthood.
 
TarkanAttila said:
Ummm… the Eastern Catholic Churches already ordain married men to the priesthood.
wynd;12188600:
Not in the USA, which is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, this thread began with the article about the Maronites now ordaining married men in the US. So we add them to the Melkites who have done so, and the Byzantine/Ruthenians who have. I don’t know if the UGCC has been ordaining married men here. We Russians haven’t had any in the pipe line that I’m aware of. It’s been a while since I had contact with any Assyrian/Chaldeans here, it’s a combined parish, but last time I did the guy I was in touch with was bemoaning not being able to find a spouse so he couldn’t move ahead with his hopes to be ordained. Again, the shortage of married men in this country seeking ordination is surely a problem. The guys in Europe are getting married younger and ready to move ahead.
 
5Loaves said:
Well, this thread began with the article about the Maronites now ordaining married men in the US.
…
Click to expand...
Good point. And of course, it’s all complicated by the fact that the term “Eastern Catholic” sometimes means Greek and Oriental Catholics inclusively, but sometimes means Greek Catholics only.
 
For the present, I believe it could cause even more confusion in the church, particularly in the US.
 
Seamus_L said:
For the present, I believe it could cause even more confusion in the church, particularly in the US.
Click to expand...
The rights of the Eastern Churches to live out our legitimate, authentic traditions should not be denied on the basis of problems within the Latin Church.
 
RyanBlack said:
The rights of the Eastern Churches to live out our legitimate, authentic traditions should not be denied on the basis of problems within the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
You know I never really understood why celibacy in the priesthood was integral to the Latin Rite. Yes, it’s a good practise, good house rules, very practical. But it is only a sin for a married man to become a priest in the Latin Rite - as a rule - because the Church will not allow it.

I agree other churches should not be used as pawns in the Roman Church’s politics. I am indifferent to clerical celibacy as a philosophical position; it has reasons to be done and to be denied. But while I affirm the East’s right to their traditions, I also affirm Rome’s right to hers.

A lot of people are pushing for the Roman Church to abandon clerical celibacy. If the Pope does not wish to abandon it, so be it, and screw the world. Support from the Eastern Catholics would be nice. But the Pope shouldn’t push them around on such an issue as was never even a doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top