Married Priests: From West to East

[friardchips]

Why are you asking for a canon? What is relevant is actually the papal rescript? Surely you know the process, the norms, and procedures that govern the actual enactment and application of this provision for an ordinand of the provision, whether through one of the Ordinariates or not, since you are attempting to discuss it.

You are wrong on many points in this thread, as they relate to the Anglican Use Provision with which I am intimately acquainted since it came into existence at the very beginning of the 1980s, thanks to Saint John Paul II and the well loved Cardinal Seper of blessed memory.

From the beginning of the provision, priests who had been Anglican and received into full communion with the Roman Church, with their wives, children, and even their congregations, were ordained and incardinated into dioceses which, by that fact, had married priests. There are married Roman Catholic priests of the Anglican Use serving in many dioceses. They preserve elements of their liturgy, including Mass and the Divine Office, in a book created by the Holy See: The Book of Divine Worship. Their Anglican patrimony is a precious treasure and Rome extols that fact.

Of more recent gift, thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, are the Ordinariates and Anglicanorum coetibus.

I will have more to say about all of this later.

These are called ‘special dispensations’. As already explained.

 

[friardchips]

Now I can believe you, or I can believe quotations from these early saints. Not a tough choice, unless you can give me quotes from the early saints saying that the Apostles did not practice continence after they began their ministry.

Having had the distinct honour and privilege of working with Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christians as well as Eastern Catholics and married priests who have participated in the pastoral provision and those who have not – I find the comment about revering many saints but none of them married priests offensive in the extreme.

Of course many of the great saints of the apostolic and sub-apostolic Church and into the patristic era were married as well as in Holy Orders. This is offensive to their memory and their identity. It is also offensive to those in the eras beyond the patristic era and would be offensive to those down to our own time, from whom there will certainly be candidates for beatification and canonisation. As a Latin Rite priest, I also find this a reprehensible comment that is not expressive of the mind of the Church, which is both East and West.

I was quoting from the encyclical. If you don’t wish to partake of it then please take it up with your superiors.

There are of course holy men and women from the eastern churches. This is not the point that was originally made with the use of speaking about saints.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“Saints in the Roman Catholic Church who experienced that mystical union with the Merciful Heart of our Lord would not have attained such a state of intimate sanctity from extra grace had their attention, and heart, been divided.”

This statement also is not at all correct and does not reflect Mystical Theology in the Roman Catholic tradition, as is clearly seen in the mystical life and experiences of

• Saint Bridget of Sweden, one of the greatest mystics of the 14th or any century, wife for 28 years and mother of eight children who was the foundress of the Bridgettine Order and entrusted by Jesus with special work for the benefit of His Church in a profoundly dark epoch.
• Blessed Anna Maria Taigi whose mystical gifts are among the greatest the Church has seen, in spite of being wife and mother. Certain of the visions she had are unequaled in the annals of mystical theology.
• Saint Margaret of Cortona
• To say nothing of María Concepción Cabrera Arias de Armida who, in the midst of her life as wife and mother, seems to have attained a state in the mystical life beyond and above the transforming union and mystical marriage. Her cause for beatification is advancing.

 

[friardchips]

Yes Roman Catholic Churches do have married priests and have for decades. The Ordinariates are ROMAN Catholic. Both pastoral provision and ordinariate clergy are Roman Catholic with the qualifier of Anglican Use. The pastoral provision is historically older and larger than the Ordinariates.

The Ordinariates came about more than 25 years after the pastoral provision. We have also had Lutheran and Methodist ministers admitted to the Church and ordained as Roman Catholic priests under a grant commensurate with the pastoral provision.

This is all distinct from the Eastern Catholic Churches which have had a married priesthood throughout their priesthood.

I do not need to have information about it regurgitated to me…I lived through through these eras.

Yes, the Ordinariate are Roman Catholic. However, when they are married clergy these occurrences still come under ‘special dispensations’.

And to seemingly use one’s position to augment a winning outcome on a matter comes across as elitist. This forum is surely a platform that allows free discussion between equal members of the Catholic Church. I have seen many tactics before used in argument online. It begins with provocative arguments doing down a certain aspect of a person’s or group of people’s belief, and then when objectively (and sincerely) opposed, those who initially made the provocative remarks then act surprised when there is stern opposition, and claim such opposition is unjust and turn it round to make it look as if the person opposing the initial aggressive remarks against their belief or church or whatever was the one who started it all.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was quoting from the encyclical. If you don’t wish to partake of it then please take it up with your superiors.

There are of course holy men and women from the eastern churches. This is not the point that was originally made with the use of speaking about saints.

Before retiring, please be advised that I taught these documents. I have more than “partaken of them.”

Now: your comment before addressing my “wish to partake” makes no sense. Encyclical? What encyclical are you speaking of?

The document you linked to is not an encyclical. It is actually the decree of Vatican II, ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM. It is the council’s treatment of the Eastern Churches; it was approved by the Council Fathers on a vote of 2,110 to 39 and it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964 together with several other decrees.

Is this conciliar document what you are calling an encyclical or are you attempting to refer to or have linked to something else, please?

 

[friardchips]

“Saints in the Roman Catholic Church who experienced that mystical union with the Merciful Heart of our Lord would not have attained such a state of intimate sanctity from extra grace had their attention, and heart, been divided.”

This statement also is not at all correct and does not reflect Mystical Theology in the Roman Catholic tradition, as is clearly seen in the mystical life and experiences of

In your book apparently. Look at the encyclical.

• Saint Bridget of Sweden, one of the greatest mystics of the 14th or any century, wife for 28 years and mother of eight children who was the foundress of the Bridgettine Order and entrusted by Jesus with special work for the benefit of His Church in a profoundly dark epoch.

She would not have been able to join or start an Order if she were not a widower - as I have already plainly said in black and white - or was still sharing conjugal relations with her husband. It is quite clear that if one is a widower then this detracts from the married state because otherwise people would not be able to remarry when widowed in the RCC.

• Blessed Anna Maria Taigi whose mystical gifts are among the greatest the Church has seen, in spite of being wife and mother. Certain of the visions she had are unequaled in the annals of mystical theology.

Was she widowed? And there are different gifts given to many. Lots of laity have gifts and are given mystical insight. The point which you seem intent on refuting is what is written in the encyclical, in that the virginal state allows a far deeper union. And it does by its very expression. People can still be holy and receive visions. Most Christian do. But I am talking about the St. Faustinas of this world and the St. Augustines and the St. Francis’.
For example, when St. Rita was married she was not allowed to enter a convent but she was still saintly or holy and in literal communication with our Creator, but it wasn’t until after her marriage that she was able to enter into a convent (with some difficulty for the fact that she’d been married) and received the Stigmata.

• Saint Margaret of Cortona
• To say nothing of María Concepción Cabrera Arias de Armida who, in the midst of her life as wife and mother, seems to have attained a state in the mystical life beyond and above the transforming union and mystical marriage. Her cause for beatification is advancing.

This is still not the norm. It might have been that she turned down religious life and that this was her calling. I have no issue with the fact that people can be holy and married, and I have no problem understanding that holy men and women can come from the eastern church either. But I do recognise that the norm is that holiness is more naturally attained when living in the religious life. The encyclical says this - Pope Paul VI quoted St. Paul - or it may have been another papal document - who I also quoted earlier, where he says that it is more difficult for a person to be as fully trained on the mind of the Creator when he has a wife to think about too. Sure, both spouses can be devout, or one of them can be exceptionally holy to attain such a union with the Creator, but there will still be distractions. A life of celibacy allows for a greater living out of the love one has for the Creator if gifted with extra grace. if this were not the case, then the history of religious Orders would be one filled with married people, but they are not. Are they.

Why do think it is that holy Orders consist of chastity. You are taking this dialogue into the realms of the ridiculous if you cannot see my points.

 

[oliver927]

This is not correct. That Saint Peter was accompanied by his wife to Rome is part of the story of the Church’s earliest days and that is cherished to this very day by those who are not just of the Church of Rome but of the local church of the Diocese of Rome where these things are part of the lived experience of the community, it is part of the history we hear and read…it is glimpsed in the art work in the City. No less than Clement of Alexandria, and other venerable sources, relate that Peter and his wife were martyred on the same day and speak to us of their lives. We can visit the places associated with them and walk in their footsteps…and we do.

This is new and interesting information to me. Can you please point me in the direction of some online resources where I can learn more about this? (please do not take this as me challenging this information or trying to assert that it is false. I truly am interesting in learning more about this.)

 

[friardchips]

Before retiring, please be advised that I taught these documents. I have more than “partaken of them.”

Now: your comment before addressing my “wish to partake” makes no sense. Encyclical? What encyclical are you speaking of?

The document you linked to is not an encyclical. It is actually the decree of Vatican II, ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM. It is the council’s treatment of the Eastern Churches; it was approved by the Council Fathers on a vote of 2,110 to 39 and it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964 together with several other decrees.

Is this conciliar document what you are calling an encyclical or are you attempting to refer to or have linked to something else, please?

The one you listed there is one that speaks of the respect we are told hold for each other’s churches but also to love our own. We are “sister churches”, or so I remember the document saying.

The encyclical is the one I posted from Pope Paul VI.

Not to mention Canon Law. I could probably find a reference to back u what I’m saying here. I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick as to why I posted. This is evident in that you quote me thus taking my comments out of the context and therefore not keeping to the purpose they were written (maybe not deliberately).

 

[friardchips]

This is new and interesting information to me. Can you please point me in the direction of some online resources where I can learn more about this? (please do not take this as me challenging this information or trying to assert that it is false. I truly am interesting in learning more about this.)

Likewise.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, the Ordinariate are Roman Catholic. However, when they are married clergy these occurrences still come under ‘special dispensations’.

And to seemingly use one’s position to augment a winning outcome on a matter comes across as elitist. This forum is surely a platform that allows free discussion between equal members of the Catholic Church. I have seen many tactics before used in argument online. It begins with provocative arguments doing down a certain aspect of a person’s or group of people’s belief, and then when objectively (and sincerely) opposed, those who initially made the provocative remarks then act surprised when there is stern opposition, and claim such opposition is unjust and turn it round to make it look as if the person opposing the initial aggressive remarks against their belief or church or whatever was the one who started it all.

I do not accept your definition of elitist. I am not an elitist. I am simply a priest. Neither do I accept your definition of equality. I am a priest. I am not the equal of a bishop and I never will be; we are a hierarchical institution by divine constitution. I was, however, ordained as a “co-worker with Order of Bishops” as articulated in Lumen Gentium. The bishop has the apostolic gift, also as articulated in Lumen Gentium. The bishops, as a college, are the guardians of the deposit of the faith…the theologian’s role is to assist them in the fulfillment of their sacred tasks, most especially as teachers.

When I taught, I never employed the Socratic method…as a teacher, I gave lectures and guided my students until the moment when they were examined and found to be master of theology. On that happy day, when they were adequately formed to be teachers themselves, they would occupy the teaching chair and bring along another generation in this sacred science and its corollary: the teaching of history.

I have not made a provocative remark; I just joined this conversation a few hours ago when I saw what was being said. Those of the East were doing quite well…others made statements that were problematic. Thus, I have responded to a number of erroneous remarks and I have corrected errors of fact or errors of supposition that, frankly, one of my beginning should have been able to dispatch.

Certain matters were quite easy to address since I lived through the grant of the pastoral provision from virtually its inception. There are not many of us left who can say that. It is a history I know, not because I read it in a book but because I was there.

 

[friardchips]

Is this conciliar document what you are calling an encyclical or are you attempting to refer to or have linked to something else, please?

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html

• this is the encyclical to which I was referring last. I have already referred to this in posts 131 and 132 to back up the points I was attempting to make.

 

[Duane1966]

Now I can believe you, or I can believe quotations from these early saints. Not a tough choice, unless you can give me quotes from the early saints saying that the Apostles did not practice continence after they began their ministry.

This quote is mine.

Having had the distinct honour and privilege of working with Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christians as well as Eastern Catholics and married priests who have participated in the pastoral provision and those who have not – I find the comment about revering many saints but none of them married priests offensive in the extreme.

I have not read every post, but there is nothing wrong in asking for quotes from saints of the early Church, and valuing those quotes over comments made by present day posters, with no quotations from any source. Notice that I did not stipulate whether the quotes come from married saints or celibate saints, only that they come from before Trullo. All saints should be revered, and I place no higher value on one over the other, simply on the basis if one happened to be married and the other celibate.

If you read that quote of mine from above, and somehow draw the conclusion from that statement, that the poster of that statement does not revere married saints, then that is horrible deductive reasoning.

 

[oliver927]

These are called ‘special dispensations’. As already explained.

I am having trouble understanding the point here. Yes, it is the norm that married men are not ordained priests in the Latin church. Yes, the Latin church can and does make exceptions, grants special permission or ‘special dispensations’ and accepts married men into the priesthood. Are not these two equally priests? While the married priest may not be able to become a Bishop, there are many celibate priests who will never become a Bishop. I agree with you that we should accept the rules of each church, west or east, but it seems to me that one of the rules of the west is that married men can be priests even if it is not the norm. I have never seen an asterisk next to a married Roman Catholic priests name some how denoting that he is different.

 

[friardchips]

I do not accept your definition of elitist. I am not an elitist. I am simply a priest. Neither do I accept your definition of equality. I am a priest. I am not the equal of a bishop and I never will be; we are a hierarchical institution by divine constitution. I was, however, ordained as a “co-worker with Order of Bishops” as articulated in Lumen Gentium. The bishop has the apostolic gift, also as articulated in Lumen Gentium. The bishops, as a college, are the guardians of the deposit of the faith…the theologian’s role is to assist them in the fulfillment of their sacred tasks, most especially as teachers.

Well then, I’ll begin by addressing you with Fr. The ‘higher up’ people progress in the Church, Fr, surely the more they are to realise they are the servants of the Church. And I don’t call letting down the guard as ‘guarding’ anything. The only person that seems to be doing that here is me - guarding the sanctity of the chaste life: what I would be hoping a priest might do, in fact. Because a person is appointed does not make them authoritative unless they serve in the way their position demands. There are all sorts of heresies out there and one needs to revere the divine state in order to serve. IMO. It is all very well having lots of experience and education and lofty position but it is the Creator who elevates via His grace when we humble ourselves. People can get very filled up in the mind and miss the point. Surely as a priest you understand, that our Lord’s life as a single man was our absolute. And that His most Holy Mother is the Immaculate Conception who lived and remained a Virgin and that she moulds us to be like her Son. I know this is not only possible for unmarried people but this is still a bar that is not to be lowered. IMO. There are different vocations with different charisms and it is as simple as that. I can say that as a RC because I believe it to be true because I love the Holy Mother Church. I don’t go around telling eastern churches what to do so why should bishops from the eastern church try and impose their will on us. This document: ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM implies as such.

 

[friardchips]

I am having trouble understanding the point here. Yes, it is the norm that married men are not ordained priests in the Latin church. Yes, the Latin church can and does make exceptions, grants special permission or ‘special dispensations’ and accepts married men into the priesthood. Are not these two equally priests? While the married priest may not be able to become a Bishop, there are many celibate priests who will never become a Bishop. I agree with you that we should accept the rules of each church, west or east, but it seems to me that one of the rules of the west is that married men can be priests even if it is not the norm. I have never seen an asterisk next to a married Roman Catholic priests name some how denoting that he is different.

I am going to have to back peddle. I posted as a reaction to people flagrantly abusing their rights as eastern church members by saying vulgarly and insensitively that married clergy might as well be the case in the RCC. I don’t deny that married priests in the RCC are RC. The reason why I am saying it is not the norm, is to draw one to reflect on the beauty of the sacrifice the priest makes when he gives up EVERYTHING, for the Creator. And this must be recognised because it has always been for the most part. Maybe the early church could prove otherwise via research. I don’t know. Not my field. But I then quoted a canon law erm…bloke, from a website that said, just because there are married clergy via people in transit from other branches of the Christian religion, “does not mean the floodgates are open” to this being the norm.

My strong reactions to those who seemingly didn’t respect the reasons for chastity in the RCC were demonstrating MY feelings on the matter, which can to some degree be backed up as being okay. I don’t think some of my comments would be used by bishops! But still, these are my heartfelt beliefs and in venting them was demonstrating in my weak way that some people really care about our Church - as I do for the Universal Catholic Church too - and all the wonderful array which shines forth from her.

It is a mistake for people to try and undermine the RCC because it makes them look bad. We are told that we are different ‘churches’ under the Catholic banner, not just different ‘rites’ and this means there are spiritual practices and expressions of faith that people should be sensitive towards when approaching the topic from an outside perspective.

If we are all “sister churches” then the respect should go both ways and I’ll make no bones about my love for the RCC if faced with insensitive remarks by those who are of a different 'church.

This post is also for Don R.

Thanks both.

 

[oliver927]

The reason why I am saying it is not the norm, is to draw one to reflect on the beauty of the sacrifice the priest makes when he gives up EVERYTHING, for the Creator.

I am a Roman Catholic so maybe I should not try to speak for any Eastern Catholics but I do not get the impression that they have an issue with celibate priests. They have them too, mostly Religious instead of Diocesan(I think this is may not be the correct term), from what I understand and I don’t think they think less of them.

…just because there are married clergy via people in transit from other branches of the Christian religion, “does not mean the floodgates are open” to this being the norm.

I did not get the impression from the posts that the Eastern Catholic posters here want that for our Church or are trying to impose that. I only remember one post that I took to be on the negative side of the rule that Roman Catholic priests are normally celibate and that was not from an Eastern Catholic poster.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In your book apparently. Look at the encyclical.

It is not “my” book. It’s theology.

She would not have been able to join or start an Order if she were not a widower - as I have already plainly said in black and white - or was still sharing conjugal relations with her husband. It is quite clear that if one is a widower then this detracts from the married state because otherwise people would not be able to remarry when widowed in the RCC. *

*You do not stay with a position long enough to articulate a progression of thought. Your statement was about mystical gifts as they relate to a life of virginity or continence – and here I have to supply the language for you – and that relationship to the advanced states of the mystical life touching upon and including the transforming union. This is aside from the charism of founding an Order, which is now being conflated with the life of Bridget. Bridget’s mystical life was highly present when she was married and when she was in the midst of birthing her eight children. **

Was she widowed? And there are different gifts given to many. Lots of laity have gifts and are given mystical insight. The point which you seem intent on refuting is what is written in the encyclical, in that the virginal state allows a far deeper union. And it does by its very expression. People can still be holy and receive visions. Most Christian do. But I am talking about the St. Faustinas of this world and the St. Augustines and the St. Francis’.

Your use of language is so imprecise as to be unhelpful to me in what thought you are attempting to convey. I will let you compare & contrast the infused intellectual gifts of Augustine, a non virgin & father of an out of wedlock child, to Aquinas, a virgin. Or the degree of transforming union between Bridget, who was mother of 8 children, and Catherine of Siena, a virgin. Both experienced the mystical grace of being brides of Christ. You’re not asking me, as a theologian, a question – you have posited an argument. As with one of my students…you’ve made the argument, please explain your thesis.

For example, when St. Rita was married she was not allowed to enter a convent but she was still saintly or holy and in literal communication with our Creator, but it wasn’t until after her marriage that she was able to enter into a convent (with some difficulty for the fact that she’d been married) and received the Stigmata.

Your comment, again, makes no sense. Rita, of course, did not live in a cloistered convent because she was a married woman & a mother. She had a different vocation. After the death of her husband & sons, she was called to another vocation. She did not receive the stigmata but the wounding with a thorn projected from the crown of thorns. Both in marriage & Religious Life, she was the recipient of the mystical state – not transient mystical graces. There is a theological distinction.

This is still not the norm. It might have been that she turned down religious life and that this was her calling. I have no issue with the fact that people can be holy and married, and I have no problem understanding that holy men and women can come from the eastern church either. But I do recognise that the norm is that holiness is more naturally attained when living in the religious life.

This has been clarified by the conciliar document Lumen Gentium, Chapter 5: The Universal Call to Holiness.

The encyclical says this - Pope Paul VI quoted St. Paul - or it may have been another papal document - who I also quoted earlier, where he says that it is more difficult for a person to be as fully trained on the mind of the Creator when he has a wife to think about too. Sure, both spouses can be devout, or one of them can be exceptionally holy to attain such a union with the Creator, but there will still be distractions. A life of celibacy allows for a greater living out of the love one has for the Creator if gifted with extra grace. if this were not the case, then the history of religious Orders would be one filled with married people, but they are not. Are they.

Blessed Anna Maria Taigi was married throughout the period of her mystical union with the Trinity which in no way impeded her conjugal life. After her death, her husband became a priest.

Why do think it is that holy Orders consist of chastity. You are taking this dialogue into the realms of the ridiculous if you cannot see my points.

*In what sense do you contend that “holy Orders consist of chastity”? If, philosophically, you mean consist at the level of what constitutes their substance and you are referring to celibacy or perfect continence, I don’t understand the statement that “holy Orders consists of chastity,” if you are talking about the sacrament. If you’re talking of an institute of consecrated life, that’s different…but you have to specify what concept you are talking about.

Chastity is intrinsic to Religious Life by the vow of chastity with the vows of poverty and obedience (for Religious Orders that are post monastic; monastic vows are obedience, stability & conversion of manners. The latter vow subsumes chastity) This is because Religious Life is the living of the Evangelical Counsels. That is different from the sacred ministry, as such. East and West agree on this.

Holy Orders, if you are expressing the sacrament, have a solemn promise of celibacy in the West – but permanent deacons who are married are exempt, married Latin Rite priests are exempt and the married clergy of the Eastern Churches are exempt.

It is not me who is being absurd. You’re loosely using language to address concepts that require much more precision when attempting to discuss them.
*

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am having trouble understanding the point here. Yes, it is the norm that married men are not ordained priests in the Latin church. Yes, the Latin church can and does make exceptions, grants special permission or ‘special dispensations’ and accepts married men into the priesthood. Are not these two equally priests? While the married priest may not be able to become a Bishop, there are many celibate priests who will never become a Bishop. I agree with you that we should accept the rules of each church, west or east, but it seems to me that one of the rules of the west is that married men can be priests even if it is not the norm. I have never seen an asterisk next to a married Roman Catholic priests name some how denoting that he is different.

Thank you for this comment! You are indeed correct. There can be, at times, a perception that a married priest is “less” in Roman Catholicism – but this is a perception that is diminishing. What I have found more, as a priest, are laity who express reservations about a pastoral provision priest out of a sense of misguided loyalty to priests – as though we who are celibate must be disturbed by them. As I said, I have worked with these men since the pastoral provision was first enacted…more than 30 years ago. They are a joy to me as are their wives and families with whom I have socialised. And they are priests identical to me in every way – except they are married with families. They are, in many ways, more like me than Religious who have an entirely unique vocation, as Religious, that they live while living their priesthood.

The other comment your post invites is to underscore that there is one diaconate in the Church. Some are transitional deacons on their way to priesthood and are normally celibate (the exception, of course, being the pastoral provision clergy) while the vast majority of deacons are permanent deacons, who are married. Both are equally deacons. One category is not “more” or “better” than the other. Neither gets an asterisk beside their name. And neither should be treated differently from the other…married or celibate, transitional or permanent.

At the rate things are going, we will reach a point in places where the number of married clergy will outnumber the celibate clergy, when one properly counts all the deacons and the priests collectively as “clergy”.

 

[friardchips]

*In what sense do you contend that “holy Orders consist of chastity”? If, philosophically, you mean consist at the level of what constitutes their substance and you are referring to celibacy or perfect continence, I don’t understand the statement that “holy Orders consists of chastity,” if you are talking about the sacrament. If you’re talking of an institute of consecrated life, that’s different…but you have to specify what concept you are talking about.

Chastity is intrinsic to Religious Life by the vow of chastity with the vows of poverty and obedience (for Religious Orders that are post monastic; monastic vows are obedience, stability & conversion of manners. The latter vow subsumes chastity) This is because Religious Life is the living of the Evangelical Counsels. That is different from the sacred ministry, as such. East and West agree on this.

Holy Orders, if you are expressing the sacrament, have a solemn promise of celibacy in the West – but permanent deacons who are married are exempt, married Latin Rite priests are exempt and the married clergy of the Eastern Churches are exempt.

It is not me who is being absurd. You’re loosely using language* to address concepts that require much more precision when attempting to discuss them.

Yes, maybe I am using language loosely. But I’m trying to make a point of the fact that the chaste life has a reason for being. I am not using it in terms of saying simply: there is the vow of chastity. I am looking into the reasons why. And if so, then this will also carry over into why it is that priests do not marry (or one or a few of the reasons).

(I am not talking about deacons. They are ordained ministers but are not priests so this has nothing to do with anything on this thread).

It is not so much that my outlook is imprecise but rather that you are over complicating things. All we have to do to agree is understand that the state of celibacy is a holy calling not based upon what church has in common with another but why being celibate and chaste is a holy calling. Simple. That is enough - simple and straightforward openness to the Holy Sprit combined with a reverential attitude for all which is holy.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

One last comment and I wish to retire from this thread – and hopefully the Bishop will return to continue what started as a perfectly delightful and thoughtful conversation!

Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have a tremendous regard for monasticism. It is a gift to the Church from the East. It unites us. Saint Benedict, the Patriarch of Western Monasticism (men and women), was born in 480 and wrote an incredible Rule, which he termed a rule for beginners. For those more progressed, there was, he said, “The Rule of Our Holy Father Basil.” A beautiful tribute to the matrix in the East from whence monasticism emerged (men and women)…the desert fathers with Saint Paul the First Hermit and Saint Antony Abbot and Saint Pachomius.

Monasticism bore great fruit in the West in the beginning and is an enduring presence, thanks to the Benedictines, Cistercians, Trappists, and others. Monasticism was historically the expression of Religious Life in the West for centuries until the advent of the Canons and eventually the mendicant movement…the friars.

The evangelical counsels (perfect chastity, poverty and obedience) are the gifts of Jesus to His Church and they are the shared patrimony of East and West. Consecrated virginity was of great import to East and West. Happily, since Vatican II, we have finally the restoration of both Consecrated Virgins and Consecrated Hermits as canonical realities in the West.

Those called to become “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom” certainly experience a unique call to a unique way of living the “Universal Call to Holiness”. Their intimacy is with the Three Divine Persons just as their being generative is of a spiritual nature, fathers and mothers to whose who are spiritual children. We are called to be uniquely for the Lord.

But the gifts of the mystical life are God’s to give, as He wills. There are married people who have, who do, and who will attain the heights of the mystical life – while there are those who are called to consecrated virginity or a life of solitude and not have those gifts.

The vocation where we most advance in holiness is the vocation to which God has individually called us. Saint Thomas More as husband and father, as lawyer, government official and martyr attained the height of sanctity and at court that he did not find to be his path when he tried his vocation in the most austere of religious houses: the Carthusians.

The Universal Call to Holiness reminds us that the first vocation is shared: to be a saint. To “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”. The particular vocation (be it wife and mother or cloistered nun…be it husband and father or monk or priest or deacon or some combination thereof even) is the path by which we reach our first vocation. And it is along that path – and no other – that we will find the graces and the gifts that God gives us to reach that first vocation. Sainthood. Some may involve the heights of the mystical life – in any state of life – or the heroic life of asceticism – in any state of life.