Married Priest?

[rinnie]

I don’t support caricatures of each others’ traditions by any means. However - to be fair - how do you suppose it makes Easterns and Orientals feel every time a Latin asks “how would a married man be able to keep his focus on both the Lord and his wife?” Should I call that “anti-Eastern,” as it certainly has insulting connotations for the Eastern and Oriental. Or perhaps it is simply because you don’t properly understand our Tradition and need some explanation?

Give the writer of the piece presented by Father deacon Diak the benefit of the doubt. Calling the Western position “legalism” isn’t automatically “anti-Latin.” Simply put, relatively speaking (relative to the Eastern/Oriental understanding, that is), the RULE of celibacy IS juridical and seemingly legalistic. Simply explain your position without accusing us of being “anti-Latin.”

Blessings,
Marduk

I guess the same way they ask us why our Priests can’t be married. I don’t think anyone is saying either is right or wrong. What I think people need to understand is that in order to be a Priest God calls them in different ways. That is why there are different rites. I myself just think that if a Priest is not married he has more time for the Church. I insult people with that statement and I do not know why. It is just common sense. But to say that my Priest is better at doing Gods work then yours because he is not married, now I can see why you would be insulted, and would never say that. But I think we should all concentrate on what that Priest is teaching us. Not what road he felt God wanted him to take. Did the Apostles teach the same thing, rather married or not!

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I’m a “cradle Oriental” and of course I am not against marries priests…But even so, I’m not thrilled with the idea that a married priest’s wife and family should be supported by the diocese (or eparchy, etc).

In most Catholic parishes of the Latin rite, especially large ones, there are paid employees (e.g. parish administrators, directors of religious education, youth ministers, etc.) who are part of the laity; in many cases, married men and women with families. Some of these paid employees are also permanent deacons. While their salaries are modest, they are nevertheless the source of income to provide for their families. If the Church can paid an adequate salary to these men and women, why can’t they provide the same to a married priest?

I, for one, see the benefit of priestly celibacy. However, due to the shortage of priests and the fact that many married Anglican priests converts are being dispensed to remain married and receive ordination in the Catholic Church, I can see how a change of disciple is possible in the future. For many years, there were no married deacons in the Latin rite, but that discipline changed back to the ancient tradition because of an evident need.

 

[mardukm]

I guess the same way they ask us why our Priests can’t be married. I don’t think anyone is saying either is right or wrong. What I think people need to understand is that in order to be a Priest God calls them in different ways. That is why there are different rites. I myself just think that if a Priest is not married he has more time for the Church. I insult people with that statement and I do not know why. It is just common sense. But to say that my Priest is better at doing Gods work then yours because he is not married, now I can see why you would be insulted, and would never say that. But I think we should all concentrate on what that Priest is teaching us. Not what road he felt God wanted him to take. Did the Apostles teach the same thing, rather married or not!

Good post.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ungcsertez]

In most Catholic parishes of the Latin rite, especially large ones, there are paid employees (e.g. parish administrators, directors of religious education, youth ministers, etc.) who are part of the laity; in many cases, married men and women with families. Some of these paid employees are also permanent deacons. While their salaries are modest, they are nevertheless the source of income to provide for their families. If the Church can paid an adequate salary to these men and women, why can’t they provide the same to a married priest?

I, for one, see the benefit of priestly celibacy. However, due to the shortage of priests and the fact that many married Anglican priests converts are being dispensed to remain married and receive ordination in the Catholic Church, I can see how a change of disciple is possible in the future. For many years, there were no married deacons in the Latin rite, but that discipline changed back to the ancient tradition because of an evident need.

I was referring specifically about the restoration of married priests in Eastern and Oriential-Eastern Churches in the U.S. and not about the introduction of married priests in the Latin Particular Church.

U-C

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I was referring specifically about the restoration of married priests in Eastern and Oriential-Eastern Churches in the U.S. and not about the introduction of married priests in the Latin Particular Church.

While my previous post referred to the Latin rite, it can also apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was not so much about the pros or cons of having married priests within the Church, but rather on the issue of whether they “should be supported by the diocese (or eparchy, etc)” or “not” as stated by malphono. I believe that being a priest in a parish (e.g. pastor, parochial vicar, etc.) is a job in itself and should be remunerated as other “employees” of the parish. The same applies to dioceses and (possibly) eparchies.

Ungcsertez:

Most married priests in several American Orthodox jurisdictions do this everyday [work a secular job] due to high costs of living here in 21th Century America.

Many priests are employed outside a parish/diocese with jobs (e.g. university professors, military chaplains, etc.) that are compatible with their vocation and also provide the means to support a family.

 

[wmlillie]

Well look deeper.

It is not the Lord’s will that a worker does not get paid, or the Lord’s will that families live in abject poverty. Sit in on some finance meetings and far from being a matter of “keep[ing] the status quo with the RCC here in Armerica” we are too dirt poor and short on members in most places to support a priest and his family (and the priest and his family have a RIGHT to be supported).

I am no insider, but I am familiar with the situation of more than one Orthodox priest who made inquiries about joining us and one of the concerns about giving some of these men faculties is that we simply cannot afford to pay them and provide benifits for families if they are incardinated and given faculties as priests. A darn shame it comes down to that, but we DO have an Code of Canon Law that frames the rights of a priest to (1) be supported and (2) denies him the right to waive this right. Just like you can’t write to the governor of your state and tell him or her that "it is OK, you will work for less than min wage in your state… One priest I know personally who is NOT asking for pay (he has a secular job) faces the problem that once he is incardinated as a priest, our eparchy CANNOT afford to pay insurance and a family supporting wage for him. The Orthodox in America simply do not operate under these constraints.

I agree that this plays a large part in it, and feel that we need to look to the worker priest model for married clergy. BTW, if it only comes down to money, how does the UGCC afford to have so many married priests?

 

[chrisb]

I believe if Latin Catholics look deeper into their own tradition they will see that the reason for a celibate Priesthood stems from a fundamentally different view of the pursuit of Holiness in the West which seems to be at odds with the East who view the Parish Priest as a kind of intermediary between the Laity and the religious (i.e. Monastics and Bishops).

In the West, it appears that the Priesthood is ‘on par’ with the same expectations as that of any other religious. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the East who appear to see Monastics as superior to Lay and Priestly Vocations and so don’t expect them to adhere to the same rigorous spiritual disciplines (celibacy).

I’ve been reading an old Catholic book The Spiritual Life published in 1929 that really illuminates this call of holiness, especially, to those of the Priesthood. This is also why, in the West, Priests can and are often called to be Bishops which you don’t see in the East because Bishops are always called from Monastics.

This is not simply a difference in discipline but a fundamental difference in the way both East and West view the very vocation of the Priesthood. I think, in modern times, the Roman Catholic Church has begun to move away from this view because you don’t see this brought up in Catholic circles anymore but if you reference books which predate Vatican II the argument is presented as a fundamental difference between the East and West.

 

[mardukm]

I believe if Latin Catholics look deeper into their own tradition they will see that the reason for a celibate Priesthood stems from a fundamentally different view of the pursuit of Holiness in the West which seems to be at odds with the East who view the Parish Priest as a kind of intermediary between the Laity and the religious (i.e. Monastics and Bishops).

In the West, it appears that the Priesthood is ‘on par’ with the same expectations as that of any other religious. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the East who appear to see Monastics as superior to Lay and Priestly Vocations and so don’t expect them to adhere to the same rigorous spiritual disciplines (celibacy).

I’ve been reading an old Catholic book The Spiritual Life published in 1929 that really illuminates this call of holiness, especially, to those of the Priesthood. This is also why, in the West, Priests can and are often called to be Bishops which you don’t see in the East because Bishops are always called from Monastics.

This is not simply a difference in discipline but a fundamental difference in the way both East and West view the very vocation of the Priesthood. I think, in modern times, the Roman Catholic Church has begun to move away from this view because you don’t see this brought up in Catholic circles anymore but if you reference books which predate Vatican II the argument is presented as a fundamental difference between the East and West.

I agree with most of what you say, except I don’t see it as being “at odds.” Monastics have a different calling than priests. Monastics are exemplars of holiness and perfection - that is the way they are “superior” to priests., On the other hand, priests are called to service and are par excellence as our tactile intermediaries before the throne of God. Why this would make them “at odds” does not register with me.

The Spirit gives his gifts as He wills for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Monastics and priests have different callings in the body of Christ, though sometimes they overlap. In any case, I don’t see anything “at odds” between the Latin focus on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental focus on the other.

Can you explain your view that about being “at odds” a bit more?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rinnie]

I agree with most of what you say, except I don’t see it as being “at odds.” Monastics have a different calling than priests. Monastics are exemplars of holiness and perfection - that is the way they are “superior” to priests., On the other hand, priests are called to service and are par excellence as our tactile intermediaries before the throne of God. Why this would make them “at odds” does not register with me.

The Spirit gives his gifts as He wills for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Monastics and priests have different callings in the body of Christ, though sometimes they overlap. In any case, I don’t see anything “at odds” between the Latin focus on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental focus on the other.

Can you explain your view that about being “at odds” a bit more?

Blessings,
Marduk

See I am with you on this. I mean I am RC. Yes my priest is not married. But even if yours is. As long as your Priest and my Priest teach us the true fullness of the Faith, why should we care if they marry or not. Now I do not think my Priest should choose to be RC is he wants a family. He should obey the rite. But as far as us, we both have the fullness of the faith, I am like you. Why worry about the other stuff, I am sure when we meet God he is not going to say hey, was your Priest married or not. He is going to say what were you taught and did your obey! Now dumb question. sorry I don’t know. is there Priests in your Church that choose NOT to Marry?

 

[chrisb]

I agree with most of what you say, except I don’t see it as being “at odds.” Monastics have a different calling than priests.

I guess what I would say is that the Classic Catholic view is that regardless of calling, Laity, Clergy, Secular Priesthood or Monastic Order the call to holiness is viewed the same. Maybe that has changed in the modern Catholic Church. It does appear so but if you read The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology by The Very Reverend A. Tanquerey, S.S. D.D. you would see what I mean. Progress may well vary but the call is the same regardless of vocation. In our modern world we seen to expect less from the laity and priestly and you clearly don’t get that impression from Catholic texts on the subject from 100 years ago.

Monastics are exemplars of holiness and perfection - that is the way they are “superior” to priests., On the other hand, priests are called to service and are par excellence as our tactile intermediaries before the throne of God. Why this would make them “at odds” does not register with me.

To argue one is more advanced in the pursuit of perfection simply because one is a Monastic is a presumption. Yes we have a long history of Saintly Monastics in both Eastern and Western Traditions but the sacrifice and service to others may well serve the Laity and the Priestly along the way of Perfection just as silence and solitude humbles the monastic.

When I speak about the two views being ‘at odds’ I am speaking of the presumption that the Laity and the Priestly are not expected to pursue holiness to a lessor degree merely because they are ‘not’ monastics.

The Spirit gives his gifts as He wills for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Monastics and priests have different callings in the body of Christ, though sometimes they overlap. In any case, I don’t see anything “at odds” between the Latin focus on the one hand, and the Eastern/Oriental focus on the other.

I still see a confusion of the call to holiness and perfection and one’s vocation. In the Classic Catholic view on the matter ‘all’ vocations are equality called to a life of holiness and a persuit of perfection. Your view seems to argue that just because one operates ‘in the world’ that that somehow exempts one from this calling of holiness. That is simply not true from the Classic Catholic perspective. This kind of confusion lead to an exodus of priestly and religious from seminaries and religious orders after Vatican II. This Call to Holiness was lost and replaced with a kind of celebratory humanism which completely missed the point of Vatican II documents on the Laity’s equality with the Priestly and Religious. The equality spoken was in reference to their shared responsibility to a life of holiness. Yet it was interpreted by many clergy that worldly vocations were somehow easier paths to sancity. This is where many Traditionalists claim the ‘Smoke’ entered into the mind of the Church. So understand that the Classic Catholic view is that ‘all’ vocations are equality called to a life of holiness and only vocation, if done well, will guide the Faithful to a deeper relationship with Our Lord and Saviour but through differing ‘means’ but clearly a dedicated clerical vocation has advantages in this endeavor but that shouldn’t be at the expense of our shared call to sanctification as Christians.

Ultimately we are Christians first and foremost… laity, priests, and monastics secondly. Vocations shouldn’t exempt us from the first call in all it’s fullness. That is the Classic Catholic view. It appears that the modern Church has begun to embrace your view that vocations have some kind of inherient sacred value in and of themselves which distinguishs the depth of our Christian calling and yet argues to a certain kind of spiritual equality. I don’t think this is the truth of our Faith and I certainly could be wrong in my interpretation of our argument as well as flawed in my own understanding of the Classic Catholic view on this matter but I believe I am representing it fairly.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So a married priest would have to work a secular job, and maybe his Pani too would work outside the church? Most married priests in several American Orthodox jurisdictions do this everyday due to high costs of living here in 21th Century America.

And this is far from ideal. The priests doing just that - working 9-to-5ers with working wives are doing tremendous work in their “free time”… But this is not a model that I am especially excited to embrace.

As a result of our union, at least doors are opened with our connection to Latin Catholics. I am familiar with one married priest who offers Mass (Latin Rite) several days a week in a Latin Diocese for the two-fold benifit of helping to serve where there is need and the monetary consideration that is offered to him as a laborer most certainly earning his wage in the vinyard. This is just one possibility, of course…

If we could only go back to the 17th-18th-19th Century Austria-Hungary when the state supported the married Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests’ households. “Those were the days my friend” indeed!

U-C

Those were the days… but the days are most certainly in the past.

If we plan now for the future (something we have not always done well, if we did at all) I could envision the endowments we set up today could support the priests that serve us tomorrow. If each parish got 10 households to earmark and commit to a weekly contribution of $15 for a total of $150 a week (combined)/$7,800 per year… In 25 years, with an average growth rate of 11%, an endowment of just under a million dollars could be achieved for a pastorate.

Going on an average of drawing 5% off of the Million (let’s round up!) that could provide an annual salary of $50K a year, which could be more or could be less, and made up by the parish… (25 years from now, with inflation, that may not be all that generous of compensation)…

Episcopalians have been setting up and living off of endowments for YEARS. Take this down, and take it to the bank (you don’t hear it often from me!) this is one area where we could REALLY stand to learn from the Episcopalians!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I agree that this plays a large part in it, and feel that we need to look to the worker priest model for married clergy. BTW, if it only comes down to money, how does the UGCC afford to have so many married priests?

That is worth examining… There could be several reasons, and it would be worth exploring.

I am aware of the sad, sad situation in the Chicago Eparchy of the UGCC where a priest with four young (minors) children was killed when hit by a car while riding his bike… It goes without saying, the Eparchy IS responsible for his widow and children. Financial planning for things like that is ESSENTIAL. Eparchies CANNOT fall short and leave folks dependent on them holding the bag.

We need to start financial planning YESTERDAY.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I guess what I would say is that the Classic Catholic view is that regardless of calling, Laity, Clergy, Secular Priesthood or Monastic Order the call to holiness is viewed the same. Maybe that has changed in the modern Catholic Church. It does appear so but if you read The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology by The Very Reverend A. Tanquerey, S.S. D.D. you would see what I mean. Progress may well vary but the call is the same regardless of vocation. In our modern world we seen to expect less from the laity and priestly and you clearly don’t get that impression from Catholic texts on the subject from 100 years ago.

To argue one is more advanced in the pursuit of perfection simply because one is a Monastic is a presumption. Yes we have a long history of Saintly Monastics in both Eastern and Western Traditions but the sacrifice and service to others may well serve the Laity and the Priestly along the way of Perfection just as silence and solitude humbles the monastic.

When I speak about the two views being ‘at odds’ I am speaking of the presumption that the Laity and the Priestly are not expected to pursue holiness to a lessor degree merely because they are ‘not’ monastics.

I still see a confusion of the call to holiness and perfection and one’s vocation. In the Classic Catholic view on the matter ‘all’ vocations are equality called to a life of holiness and a persuit of perfection. Your view seems to argue that just because one operates ‘in the world’ that that somehow exempts one from this calling of holiness. That is simply not true from the Classic Catholic perspective. This kind of confusion lead to an exodus of priestly and religious from seminaries and religious orders after Vatican II. This Call to Holiness was lost and replaced with a kind of celebratory humanism which completely missed the point of Vatican II documents on the Laity’s equality with the Priestly and Religious. The equality spoken was in reference to their shared responsibility to a life of holiness. Yet it was interpreted by many clergy that worldly vocations were somehow easier paths to sancity. This is where many Traditionalists claim the ‘Smoke’ entered into the mind of the Church. So understand that the Classic Catholic view is that ‘all’ vocations are equality called to a life of holiness and only vocation, if done well, will guide the Faithful to a deeper relationship with Our Lord and Saviour but through differing ‘means’ but clearly a dedicated clerical vocation has advantages in this endeavor but that shouldn’t be at the expense of our shared call to sanctification as Christians.

Ultimately we are Christians first and foremost… laity, priests, and monastics secondly. Vocations shouldn’t exempt us from the first call in all it’s fullness. That is the Classic Catholic view. It appears that the modern Church has begun to embrace your view that vocations have some kind of inherient sacred value in and of themselves which distinguishs the depth of our Christian calling and yet argues to a certain kind of spiritual equality. I don’t think this is the truth of our Faith and I certainly could be wrong in my interpretation of our argument as well as flawed in my own understanding of the Classic Catholic view on this matter but I believe I am representing it fairly.

So are you saying in the Orthodox Church that the laity and priests are called to be evil?

Oh Jimmy, you shouldn’t really be breaking every commandment in the book - but since your not monastic, we never expected you to try - go with God’s blessing.

 

[Diak]

Why is it that some Eastern Catholics(including the bishop author of that article) sometimes feel the need to attack the Latin tradition in order to support their own this is sad. I think this comes from an inferiority complex which started centuries ago, when the Latin Church as a whole was alot more self-confident…

“Catholic 101” will have to make a much better case that there is actually an “attack” by the article (written by a Romanian Catholic hieromonk, by the way, and not a bishop), much less any credible defense for a purported “inferioity complex”.

The article is an excellent expose of the Eastern approach, and in no way degrades or attacks the Latin practice. It is a pity that a good article educating the traditional Eastern Catholic approach is looked at in such a negative way. It is certainly not an example of “inferiority complex” but rather a positive statement about the authentic received practices and spiritual tradition of several Catholic particular ritual churches.

To respond to Simple Sinner’s good post above, the Eparchy of St. Nicholas is providing for Pani Dobrodivka Christina and the family of the late Fr. Pavlo Hayda (vichnaya pamyat!!!), and an educational fund was also established by the Eparchy for their longer-term concerns.

And as to “how” the UGCC supports married clergy, most will have to have supplemental employment as do many Orthodox clergy. Some are in hospital work, teachers, some of them have wives with professional jobs, etc.
FDRLB

 

[ASimpleSinner]

To respond to Simple Sinner’s good post above, the Eparchy of St. Nicholas is providing for Pani Dobrodivka Christina and the family of the late Fr. Pavlo Hayda (vichnaya pamyat!!!), and an educational fund was also established by the Eparchy for their longer-term concerns.

To clarify, I was aware that they were providing for her and the children, and hope no one thought I was implying they were not provided for. In fact, as Father Deacon points out, they are.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I agree that this plays a large part in it, and feel that we need to look to the worker priest model for married clergy. BTW, if it only comes down to money, how does the UGCC afford to have so many married priests?

As I think I wrote before, the married priest I know made a killing in the 90s during the tech bubble.