D
dvdjs
Guest
I don’t think that this is true, at least not in a substantive way.
Italian Catholic Episcopal Conference Vetoes Married Priests
- Status
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Well, of course, opinions will vary. However, I think that the post to which I was replying is absurd. In fact, absurd isn’t strong enough of a word. What reason is there to believe that the Orthodox Church, which has done so little in the way of changing or accommodating itself to modernity, will eventually “give in to the culture”? The Orthodox Church places great value on tradition-I would say at least to the sam extent as the Catholic Church. Now as to the part about becoming increasingly irrelevant-well that’s a danger all Christians face in a world that has chosen to become increasingly secularly and less mindful of God. However, I certainly don’t think that the Orthodox tradition of married priests is in any way whatsoever related to accommodating to a culture that is hostile towards the Church (it dates to a time when there were married priests throughout the Church). Nor do I think that a married clergy is in any way related to a decrease in relevancy that might occur in the future.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
This is ridiculous. Where there is lack of catechesis concerning the reason why only males can be priests, there is a likelihood of hearing the claim that it is unfair that only men can be priests–regardless of whether there is a tradition of a married priesthood. All the proof that is needed is the fact that there are Roman Catholics who demand that the priesthood be opened to women, in spite of the Roman tradition of a celibate priesthood. On the other hand, it has been my experience in both Othodox and Eastern Catholic circles (where there is a tradition of married priests), one hardly ever hears of talk about why women can’t be priests.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I agree that there is no direct relation. The issue is this: what happens when a tradition is transplanted and comes into contact with another, different tradition. A tradition may have a clear meaning in its own context, but it can imply something very different in another. How to deal with the stresses that can emerge from this inter-cultural contact is the only issue that is still significant. AFAIK only time and growing familiarity can relieve the stress. That is a lesson that all should have learned from our experiences of a century ago.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I am not sure that there is, proportionately, more talk of women clergy in the RCC than in Eastern churches. I think that there is more discussion of a female diaconate in Eastern Orthodoxy than there is in the CC.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
The discussion I hear about a diaconate in Eastern Othodoxy concerns that of restoring an ancient order (which, as best as I can discern, is one that is different from the order of deacon with which we are currently familiar, and is one that would not involve assisting at the altar). Furthermore, I hear virtually no talk among the Orthodox of women priests.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The discussion includes a discussion of what that ancient order was. Apparently it involved Holy Orders, and communion in the altar area: they were ordained clergy. I think that this order will be revived before there is much discussion of female priests.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi brother David,
I don’t disagree. It does make sense in some ways. The banning of married priests in the west has made the practice seem exotic to modern RC. However, that is a situation they have created for themselves. I don’t think all of those advocating for a married priesthood in the western church are actually also ‘progressive’ in that sense, but they will be excoriated by their opponents for being just that.
I think those who favored communion in both kinds were similarly counted among the progressives in days gone by, yet today it is rather common in the Latin Catholic church. They survived the transition quite well, I think.
I feel bad for the RC, because it seems so much like it is at war with itself, and when we read these things from one poster or another they sound like cries of desperation.
However, I think they need to face their demons straightforwardly and honestly. Instead of making the EC give up their married priests the Latin Catholic church can make it a teaching moment, and a healing moment. Those tradition-minded RC who also would not be averse to a married priesthood would not have to feel alienated and marginalized either.
Let me be clear, I am not here advocating a return to optional celibacy in the Latin church. It is an issue they alone have to deal with. I just think they have to be fair with their co-religionists and keep their angst from alienating the members of other Sui Iuris churches.
Prayers for you, and your Carmelite family, in this Lenten season my brother,
Michael
D
dvdjs
Guest
What? If anyone thinks that this the news here is about the Latin Catholic Church making the EC give up their married priests, then they are very much misinformed. Perhaps if people would do a little homework before reacting…
H
Hesychios
Guest
N
notredame_999
Guest
I actually agree with the ruling. If you have eastern churches and latin churches existing side by side, one with a married priesthood and the other with a celibate one, I could see a lot of latin rite catholics switching rites so their son’s could become married priests.
To be perfectly honest I might even explore that option if I was married.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I lived in one of the most progressive dioceses in the United States and I have to say that those there calling for married priests also are calling for women priests. I am speaking from experience. Yes it is only one diocese but I think it does lend to my argument.Hi brother David,
I don’t disagree. It does make sense in some ways. The banning of married priests in the west has made the practice seem exotic to modern RC. However, that is a situation they have created for themselves. I don’t think all of those advocating for a married priesthood in the western church are actually also ‘progressive’ in that sense, but they will be excoriated by their opponents for being just that.
I think those who favored communion in both kinds were similarly counted among the progressives in days gone by, yet today it is rather common in the Latin Catholic church. They survived the transition quite well, I think.
I agree with you.
Thank you and prayers for you and your family during Great Lent.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Who are you quoting? As I pointed out earlier, what was said in effect was:
Come to Italy and establish your own parishes in your own rite and language subject to your own bishops. Married clergy will be accommodated by special norms rather than a general waiver of them (as stipulated by the Australian bishops) - in view of conditions at this time. There are Romanian Greek Catholic parishes served by Romanian priests from Oradea Mare. I could not find information on them all but at some are married.
This is progress. And in time, if the Romanians stay in Italy, I suspect that there will be RGC eparchies in Italy and most RGC priests will be married. This is how things are working out in the US - but the time frame will be faster there, in nlight of prior experience here.
What would happen in the East? Are there Xeno Orthodox eparchies in Greece or in Russia? Is there a structure to fix the uncanonical mess in the US? The problem is more subtle that people here allow. But progress is being made, at least in the Catholic communion.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Its the same thing that happened here in the United States in the early 20th century. The argument (confusion among the laity) is exactly the same argument. So I guess us restoring our married priesthood in the United States is wrong also dvdjs?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I do not see many families making the switch so that their children could be married priests.
The Italian Bishops did not use this as an excuse either.
It is just another push of a latinization.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And can you tell us how these “special norms” are reconciled with the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches?
Canon 373 - Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.
Canon 758 - §1. To be ordained licitly the following are required:
** 1°** chrismation with holy myron;
** 2°** both the morals and the physical and psychological qualities in harmony with receiving a sacred order;
** 3°** the age prescribed by law;
** 4°** the required knowledge;
** 5°** reception of the lower orders according to the norm of particular law of each Church sui iuris;
** 6°** observation of the interstices prescribed by particular law.
** §2.** It is furthermore required that the candidate not be impeded according to the norm of can. 762.
** §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.
So how are the Italian bishops upholding the honor of the tradition of the Eastern Churches (Canon 373)?
And as you can see by Canon 758 §1 6° the Eastern Church is to follow its particular law and only Rome (758 §3) can set special norms. No where in the Code do I see that Episcopal Conferences can set such.
N
notredame_999
Guest
Brother David, a lot of latin posters here on CAF have said that they prefer a married priest to a celibate one. A lot of this has to do with confession. Do you understand the fear of these Italian Bishops that a good number of their laity will switch rites because they prefer listening to and confessing to a married priest?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
This is not a fear of the Italian bishops as they have not stated such. They stated the confusion the laity would have as their reason.
There is more to being an Eastern Catholic than just wanting a married secular priesthood. There is a love the the Eastern Rite and its theology which most Roman Catholics do not have as they are drawn to Western theology and its Rite.
This is a non-issue.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Do you understand that whenever bishops in the Roman Catholic Church stand in the way of Eastern Catholics living out our tradition in its fullness (including the right to ordain to the priesthood married men), they are acting against their own particular Church’s teaching (as articulated in the Second Vatican Council and by recent popes)? Pope John Paul II spoke about the special mission Eastern Catholics have of showing the Orthodox how they can live out their faith fully, while being in communion with Rome. When Roman bishops oppose a married priesthood among Eastern Catholics, they stand in the way of reunification, and they do a serious injustice do Eastern Catholics. I guess its easier to trample on our traditions and our rights to live according to our own traditions than it is for them to catechize their own flock.
N
notredame_999
Guest
Was this issue ever addressed or agreed upon when the eastern churches started to come back to Rome many centuries ago? Or was it a non-issue because there was little to no immigration of eastern catholics living in latin dioceses (exception maybe being Poland)?
- Status