The desire to be a married priest would not be considered a legitimate reason to change one’s canonical status from the Roman Church to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, let alone be ordained in an Eastern Catholic Church (which would require that one first change one’s canonical status - not always an easy process). Add to that the fact that married priests are not the norm among the Eastern Catholic Churches in the West and the difficulties increase! I think the process of changing one’s canonical status from Rome to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches itself would more-or-less effectively “weed out” those who are becoming Eastern for the sake of pursuing the married priesthood. The priestly formation process couple with the desires of one’s spouse would likely complete the “weeding out” process. Bear in mind that the bishop does not have the authority to ordain a man against the wishes of that man’s wife. I’ve heard it joked that a man’s wife is his vocation director!With the occasional talk on married Priests we see, and keeping in mind that the Eastern Rites have married Priests while the Western ones do not, this question comes to mind. I would think it tempting for some Latin Rite Catholics to switch to the Eastern Rite, to become ordained.
Is that a licit pursuit? I.e., how does the Church view that?
Being called while being married may, in fact, be more common than we suspect. But again, if the wife is not on board then an ordination will not/cannot take place. The free will of the wife certainly comes into play. In many respects, the husband’s call to the priesthood would be just as much a vocational calling for the wife as it would be for the husband. If she is not willing to respond to that calling, then the husband cannot pursue it further. I’m not saying that this is how it normally goes, and hence we don’t have a surplus of married priests. I’m just presenting this as a possible scenario.Thank you, excellent and very complete answer.
I knew that there had to be some explanation why this doesn’t seem to occur more often. I.e., I’ve heard of some Catholics becoming Eastern Rite, and some of those men becoming Priest, but not many.
It does sort of make me wonder if we assume that being called while being married is common (and I’m not saying it is or isn’t) why that doesn’t express itself in a bit of a surplus in Eastern Rite Priests in North America (assuming that it doesn’t).
The prohibition really only applied to the Ruthenians because at the time it was written up only Ruthenians had immegrated to the U.S. The Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians have been ordaining married men in the U.S. for years (although it’s not been publicly broadcast). One “workaround” was that they would send their candidates back to the perspective mother country and have him ordained there, then brought back to the U.S. “on (permanent) mission.” The initial reason behind the ban on ordaining married men in the U.S. was the potential for scandal that it would cause our Roman Catholic counterparts - a nonsensical excuse, in my opinion, that is easily corrected by educating the faithful.For Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S. to ordain married men was prohibited for like a century (it started with the Ruthenian rite in the late 1800s, and was extended to all Eastern rites in 1929, and to many other countries). Pope Francis lifted the prohibition about a year ago. I don’t know all the reasons that went into the ban, but I suppose it would have discouraged the loophole abuse you mention. I also know that Eastern Catholics have been treated very poorly in the U.S., and are still largely unknown and/or misunderstood. Hopefully that is changing.
The faculty has been granted in jurisdictions, but the Congregation for Oriental Churches still reserves for itself the decision to ordain a married man where Eastern-Catholic faithful are entrusted to the care of a Latin bishop or bishops’ conference.For Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S. to ordain married men was prohibited for like a century (it started with the Ruthenian rite in the late 1800s, and was extended to all Eastern rites in 1929, and to many other countries). Pope Francis lifted the prohibition about a year ago. I don’t know all the reasons that went into the ban, but I suppose it would have discouraged the loophole abuse you mention. I also know that Eastern Catholics have been treated very poorly in the U.S., and are still largely unknown and/or misunderstood. Hopefully that is changing.
Not anti-biblical, but since there are various bishops, the canonical practice has varied with them. For the Latin Church it became the practice for priests not to married at the time of their ordination. Canonical exceptions are made today for the Latin Church.My dear Catholic brothers and sisters,
as an Eastern Orthodox bishop I can confirm that during the whole millenium (until 1054) that West and East were in full unity, we always ordained married men into diaconate and priesthood, and do it till this day. Some 80% of our priests are married. The first four hundred years we also elected married priests for episcopate and ordained them to be bishops, even patriarchs.
As West was in full unity with us for a thousand years, it couldnot have been anti-biblical or anti-canonical, could it?
May our Most Holy Theotokos protect you, dear Catholic brothers and sisters.
In Christ,
Vladyka Gavrilo
May the Lord bless your Grace.My dear Catholic brothers and sisters,
as an Eastern Orthodox bishop I can confirm that during the whole millenium (until 1054) that West and East were in full unity, we always ordained married men into diaconate and priesthood, and do it till this day. Some 80% of our priests are married. The first four hundred years we also elected married priests for episcopate and ordained them to be bishops, even patriarchs.
As West was in full unity with us for a thousand years, it couldnot have been anti-biblical or anti-canonical, could it?
May our Most Holy Theotokos protect you, dear Catholic brothers and sisters.
In Christ,
Vladyka Gavrilo
Did not answer my question. Did not the 24 hour abstinence come into effect because of Canon 13 at the Council of Quinisext? Before that time, were not all priests, both East and West, expected to maintain perfect sexual continence? The East and the West both ordained married men to the priesthood, but there was never tolerance for a sexually active priesthood that I can see. Clerical continence was the norm both in the East and the West. This is attested to by Origen, Eusebius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Ancyra, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Gregory the Illuminator, St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius, and St. John Chrysostom - all Easterners. There are Eastern saints who wrote about the perfect sexual continence of the Apostles, after the Apostle’s commissioning by Christ.Well, from what I remember from my studies, Canon Three of the Council in Trullo speaks about the need to make “pure and blameless ministers, worthy of the spiritual sacrifice of the Great God”. But, I also remember that the interpretation in the East was always “the celibate priesthood of the West and the married priesthood of the East do not contradict each other”. Also, it has been our holy tradition fro the past 2,000 years that married priests must not indulge in marital sex 24 hours before serving the Divine Liturgy. Now, depending on how often they serve…
Also, it is a simple fact that many married priests serve for years and during that time quite a few children of theirs are born. As no bishop makes any fuss of it, we tend to believe the continency, or rather fasting from marital life, has been properly kept, always 24 hours before the Divine Liturgy, plus every Friday not-withstanding.
We also had a few married bishops, and we eventually ruled them canonical, but stopped it as soon as we could. I remember the Roman Catholic Church had a few married bishops in the 20th century as well…
Anyway, personal opinion: our Lord does not care. Or else he would have hand-picked twelve young virgin boys along the lines of St. John Evangelist rather than married mature men along the lines of St. Peter.
In Christ,
+Gavrilo
Thank you for your posts Dear Vladyka, I have learned so much.Well, from what I remember from my studies, Canon Three of the Council in Trullo speaks about the need to make “pure and blameless ministers, worthy of the spiritual sacrifice of the Great God”. But, I also remember that the interpretation in the East was always “the celibate priesthood of the West and the married priesthood of the East do not contradict each other”. Also, it has been our holy tradition fro the past 2,000 years that married priests must not indulge in marital sex 24 hours before serving the Divine Liturgy. Now, depending on how often they serve…
Also, it is a simple fact that many married priests serve for years and during that time quite a few children of theirs are born. As no bishop makes any fuss of it, we tend to believe the continency, or rather fasting from marital life, has been properly kept, always 24 hours before the Divine Liturgy, plus every Friday not-withstanding.
We also had a few married bishops, and we eventually ruled them canonical, but stopped it as soon as we could. the Roman Catholic Church had a few married bishops in the 20th century as well…
Anyway, personal opinion: our Lord does not care. Or else he would have hand-picked twelve young virgin boys along the lines of St. John Evangelist rather than married mature men along the lines of St. Peter.
In Christ,
+Gavrilo
I think that canon 10 of Ancyra which stipulates that a deacon under certain circumstances may marry after ordination presents challenges for the view that absolute continence was required of clergy who were married prior to ordination. Had continence been understood as a universal norm, it would be hard to understand why a deacon should ever be permitted to marry since absolute continence would preclude the possibility of either consummating the marriage or of fulfilling one of the purposes of marriage which is to beget new life.Did not answer my question. Did not the 24 hour abstinence come into effect because of Canon 13 at the Council of Quinisext? Before that time, were not all priests, both East and West, expected to maintain perfect sexual continence? The East and the West both ordained married men to the priesthood, but there was never tolerance for a sexually active priesthood that I can see. Clerical continence was the norm both in the East and the West. This is attested to by Origen, Eusebius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Ancyra, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Gregory the Illuminator, St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius, and St. John Chrysostom - all Easterners. There are Eastern saints who wrote about the perfect sexual continence of the Apostles, after the Apostle’s commissioning by Christ.
This semmingly changed for the Eastern priesthood at Trullo in the seventh century.
And Deacon, let us not forget, is a major order, not minor.I think that canon 10 of Ancyra which stipulates that a deacon under certain circumstances may marry after ordination presents challenges for the view that absolute continence was required of clergy who were married prior to ordination. Had continence been understood as a universal norm, it would be hard to understand why a deacon should ever be permitted to marry since absolute continence would preclude the possibility of either consummating the marriage or of fulfilling one of the purposes of marriage which is to beget new life.