Married Priests: From West to East

[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.
*

You have confused topic, all in all. It is obvious that when people are very holy in their married lives, they could have been living the celibate religious lifestyle instead, and would have had more time to concentrate on holy things. To discern one’s vocation is important and not all saints would have had spiritual directors. Sometimes, circumstances maybe stopped them from pursuing leaps into such unknowns. I’m not saying that they should have been this or that but certainly when saints who have been married are in deep communion with the Creator, they seem to be elevated above the sanctity of the other Spouse, and so we know that there is the potential to go beyond the “norm”. It is therefore logical to assume that such saints who were holy before they joined their respective Orders were in receipt of extra grace at the Creator’s discretion for a purpose - possibly to aspire to a religious state of being - and had they not been married would have lived just as holy if not holier lives as religious, and yet, had they become religious to start with we could fairly assume that they would not have looked back to ever getting married.

Have you please got the link which states that St. Peter is thought to have taken his wife to Rome where they were martyred together?

 

[friardchips]

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.

Yet, this proves nothing when it comes to St. Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 7, which puts everything we have both said into the correct perspective, which you have so far only distorted by writing the above post that is completely out of context with what we were discussing. We all know what is above (though you have written nicely).

“Lurkers” (I was taught this phrase) just read St. Paul - Corinthians 1:7

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

And exactly which eastern bishops are doing that?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.)

Hi Oliver. Sorry. Your comment was temporarily lost to me and I didn’t realize it was addressed to me.

The stories of Saint Peter and his wife and his daughter, Saint Petronilla, being together in Rome are part of the lore (I use that word in the sense of stories handed down and kept alive in Rome). There is an altar in Saint Peter’s with a magnificent painting depicting them. They are memorialized in other places in the oldest strata of Christian Rome.

So much is this a cherished and enduring story that centuries after their martyrdom, France, whose king, Clovis, is baptized thereby making France to be considered as a nation to be the Church’s eldest daughter, it is placed precisely under the patronage of Saint Petronilla, Saint Peter’s daughter, who died as a martyr in ancient Rome.

The Mamertine prison, the pavement of the imperial forum…so many places in the historic centre of the City are associated with them. It is like the witness of Pancrazio, Agnese, and Tarcisio. These were young children who died as martyrs and their stories are so cherished by Romans…they remain dearly part of the landscape and their witness and presence is very alive in the Eternal City because their witness was so vibrant. It echoes to our times.

The tradition about Peter and his wife derives in part from Clement of Alexandria who relates is and tells us also about Peter’s early successors: Linus, Cletus, Clement and others close to Peter in the sub-apostolic Church. (Note that these men succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome even as John, one of The Twelve, was still alive and living elsewhere; he was never a successor of Peter.)

I will leave it to someone who better knows English language books that treat upon these aspects of the history of ancient Rome to give you a recommendation of where this would be recounted in English and on-line. I use actual books and not things on-line, normally. So, I rely on the Patrologia Graeca, in this instance, and also, of course, l’Abbé Migne.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

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.

As an Eastern Catholic whose tradition includes married priests, but whose pastor is celibate, I would say that you are correct.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This quote is mine.

*Quote:
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.

No the following exchange is what I was responding to:

• Originally Posted by JimmyG88 View Post

A married Roman Catholic priest recently buried my mother and I have rarely met a more holy man wo conducted the mass and services with exceptional piety. His married status was irrelevant (or possibly that is what helps him to be such an exceptionally holy man)
*
*To which there was the response:
Friardchips:
There are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above. *

It is this last conclusion that is offensive because the saints common to East and West of the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic Church, in fact, of course include married priests…including the protomartyrs of the Church of Rome, whose feast is celebrated the day after Saints Peter and Paul. There will no doubt be many more married priests beatified in the decades ahead. They are as eminently canonisable as any celibate priest.

 

[friardchips]

No the following exchange is what I was responding to:

• Originally Posted by JimmyG88 View Post

A married Roman Catholic priest recently buried my mother and I have rarely met a more holy man wo conducted the mass and services with exceptional piety. His married status was irrelevant (or possibly that is what helps him to be such an exceptionally holy man)
*
*To which there was the response:
Friardchips:
There are many saints who we revere and none of them were married priests, so…again, please read the document above. *

It is this last conclusion that is offensive because the saints common to East and West of the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic Church, in fact, of course include married priests…including the protomartyrs of the Church of Rome, whose feast is celebrated the day after Saints Peter and Paul. There will no doubt be many more married priests beatified in the decades ahead. They are as eminently canonisable as any celibate priest.

Trust the oppressor to pick the one statement out of all things said in opposition in order to redirect the point away from why they were originally made and to cast shadows.

In the case of the saints, as I have already stated, it is easier for people to become saints when they are in such forgiving environments that allow for continual direct commitment to our Creator’s Will.

In the case of those who were married, it is quite clear that in the saints’ lives you have touched upon, the saintliness was already given as a gift to that individual on their soul. Really, their marriages are significant in that they still managed to live with extra grace while married, by leading good lives, and yet it is clear from the saints that such holiness was there with or without the marriage. And many of them when married eventually went on to commit themselves more fully in religious celibate life.

However, in the case of saints who joined religious Orders, they did not wish to be married also, because “those who look back are not fit to be my disciples” - as said in Scripture.

And again, read St. Paul Cor. 1:7 (if you don’t believe me).

St. Thomas Aquinas clearly stated that “grace builds upon nature.” And so it follows that if one is in an environment which allows for the increase of grace with no look to the flesh then the grace will abound even more.

One cannot make a distinction explicit enough to say that a saint who was married could have achieved an even deeper union between the saint and the Creator because married life is separate to the celibate life. A clear distinction (!) And we can only compare by knowing that eventually either the saint became widowed and THEN moved into religious life or they died early.

And it is true that in the RC church there are no saints as far as we know who were married priests except maybe in the cases in which they were widowed. However, feel free to prove me wrong with some ACTUAL evidence and I’ll be a little more broadminded. I would imagine that anyone who achieved sainthood as a married priest as recognised by the RCC was either widowed, an annulment had occurred or they had stopped sharing intimacy for whatever reason, and even if these scenarios weren’t so, they were given a ‘special dispensation’.

There may have been in the eastern Catholic Church but not in the RCC, for the simple reason that special dispensations have only occurred since St. JPII and then moreso with Pope Emeritus’ welcome to Anglicans who wished to become RCs.

 

[friardchips]

One such example who was noted is St. Thomas More, whom I believe could do with being a saint to emulate for married couples, and yet, his life proves:

1. His saintliness was very much endowed upon his personal character.
2. That his life was enormously difficult when it came to being married and holding up his pious virtue in the face of continuing imminent danger and the pull of family upon his virtue to give in to outside pressure (a marriage is meant to be an equal partnership) - whether or not they intentionally did.
3. He wasn’t a married priest.
4. More of an example as one who held up the laws of the Church amongst outside aggression (!) than a saint with mystical visions such as those who received the stigmata. No less holy and he died a martyr. But a different kind of saint who does nothing to add weight for legitimate claim in your undermining of priestly celibacy.

However, when it comes to reeling of lists of unmarried priests who became saints then there will be thousands upon thousands. Literally. Let’s not be any more disingenuous then some have already been.

The eastern church is a different matter. They are not the issue here. And the eastern church has no solid grounds for taking issue with the RC church on this matter.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Friardchips, I can’t help but notice that your posts constantly betray a rather tainted (and potentially boarderline heretical) view of marriage and the chaste sexuality that is the call of married couples.

You repeatedly make the mistake of equating sexual purity/chastity with celibacy. As Pope St. John Paul II rightly pointed out in both his Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility, married couples are called to sexual chastity just as much as are celibate persons. That being said, married chastity is expressed differently than celibate chastity.

Not only has the Church proclaimed throughout the ages that marriage (meaning the fullness of marriage which includes the sexual intimacy of the spouses) is a genuine path to holiness, but is also a path to sainthood, as witnessed by the numerous married saints who attained holiness through their vocation as spouses.

Bear in mind that St. Paul himself proclaimed that the Sacramental mystery of marriage points to the relationship of Christ (the Bridegroom) with the Church (His Bride). Again meditating deeply on the [sexual] relationship of married couples, John Paul II pointed out that marriage and family life is actually a sacrament of the inner life of the Trinity itself!

Finally, remember that Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church and is revered as a Sacrament/Mystery in the Tradition of every Apostolic Church. As a Sacrament, marriage always points us to the Eucharist (the source and summit of all Sacraments), and through the Eucharist to the Trinity itself. To demean the Sacramental Mystery of Marriage (which includes the conjugal embrace), is also to demean the relationship of Christ to the Church, and the very inner life of the Trinity itself.

 

[friardchips]

Friardchips, I can’t help but notice that your posts constantly betray a rather tainted (and potentially boarderline heretical) view of marriage and the chaste sexuality that is the call of married couples.

You repeatedly make the mistake of equating sexual purity/chastity with celibacy. As Pope St. John Paul II rightly pointed out in both his Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility, married couples are called to sexual chastity just as much as are celibate persons. That being said, married chastity is expressed differently than celibate chastity.

Not only has the Church proclaimed throughout the ages that marriage (meaning the fullness of marriage which includes the sexual intimacy of the spouses) is a genuine path to holiness, but is also a path to sainthood, as witnessed by the numerous married saints who attained holiness through their vocation as spouses.

Bear in mind that St. Paul himself proclaimed that the Sacramental mystery of marriage points to the relationship of Christ (the Bridegroom) with the Church (His Bride). Again meditating deeply on the [sexual] relationship of married couples, John Paul II pointed out that marriage and family life is actually a sacrament of the inner life of the Trinity itself!

Finally, remember that Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church and is revered as a Sacrament/Mystery in the Tradition of every Apostolic Church. As a Sacrament, marriage always points us to the Eucharist (the source and summit of all Sacraments), and through the Eucharist to the Trinity itself. To demean the Sacramental Mystery of Marriage (which includes the conjugal embrace), is also to demean the relationship of Christ to the Church, and the very inner life of the Trinity itself.

I am not demeaning anything. You are only going further in proving my position:

Religious/priestly celibacy is very different from marital chastity and the discipline of sexual abstinence.

Both are separate vocations and charisms within vocations.

If I were to speak of the beauty of married life between a husband and a wife then it would not occur in this discussion. The family is the reflection and living out of The Holy Trinity. In a very different way to celibate life.

Again, married life is very DIFFERENT to the call of religious life and the call of priesthood.

Thank you for reiterating my points exactly.

 

[oliver927]

Hi Oliver. Sorry. Your comment was temporarily lost to me and I didn’t realize it was addressed to me.

The stories of Saint Peter and his wife and his daughter, Saint Petronilla, being together in Rome are part of the lore (I use that word in the sense of stories handed down and kept alive in Rome). There is an altar in Saint Peter’s with a magnificent painting depicting them. They are memorialized in other places in the oldest strata of Christian Rome.

So much is this a cherished and enduring story that centuries after their martyrdom, France, whose king, Clovis, is baptized thereby making France to be considered as a nation to be the Church’s eldest daughter, it is placed precisely under the patronage of Saint Petronilla, Saint Peter’s daughter, who died as a martyr in ancient Rome.

The Mamertine prison, the pavement of the imperial forum…so many places in the historic centre of the City are associated with them. It is like the witness of Pancrazio, Agnese, and Tarcisio. These were young children who died as martyrs and their stories are so cherished by Romans…they remain dearly part of the landscape and their witness and presence is very alive in the Eternal City because their witness was so vibrant. It echoes to our times.

The tradition about Peter and his wife derives in part from Clement of Alexandria who relates is and tells us also about Peter’s early successors: Linus, Cletus, Clement and others close to Peter in the sub-apostolic Church. (Note that these men succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome even as John, one of The Twelve, was still alive and living elsewhere; he was never a successor of Peter.)

I will leave it to someone who better knows English language books that treat upon these aspects of the history of ancient Rome to give you a recommendation of where this would be recounted in English and on-line. I use actual books and not things on-line, normally. So, I rely on the Patrologia Graeca, in this instance, and also, of course, l’Abbé Migne.

Don Ruggero, Thank you for the information. I was able to find a couple things online using some hints and clues in your post that I thought I would share for any who are interested in this as I am.

from boston-catholic-journal.com/roman-martrylogy-in-english/roman-martyrology-may-in-english.htm#May_31st Bolding is mine

At Borne,** St. Petronilla, virgin, daughter of the blessed Apostle Peter**, who refused to marry the nobleman Flaccus. Being granted three days to deliberate, she gave herself up to fasting and prayer, and on the third day, after having received the sacrament of the body of Christ, she yielded up her soul.

Also from newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm Bolding is again mine.

Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).

I would also like to add that the text of the above newadvent webpage received the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, as can be seen at the bottom of the web page.

And for anyone wishing to see the excerpts from the Clement of Alexandria references they are here Bolding is mine.

1. How then? Did not the righteous in ancient times partake of what God made with thanksgiving? Some begat children and lived chastely in the married state. To Elijah the ravens brought bread and meat for food. And Samuel the prophet brought as food for Saul the remnant of the thigh, of which he had already eaten. But whereas they say that they are superior to them in behaviour and conduct, they cannot even be compared with them in their deeds. “He who does not eat,” then, “let him not despise him who eats; and he who eats let him not judge him who does not eat; for God has accepted him.” Moreover, the Lord says of himself: “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and a sinner.”
   Or do they also scorn the apostles?** Peter and Philip had children**, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

and here

They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, “Remember thou the Lord.” Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

In the interest of being fair and not be accused that I only posted part of what Clement attributes to St. Peter, this is the next line after the above quote:

Thus also the apostle says, “that he who marries should be as though he married not,” and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.

 

[friardchips]

catholicstraightanswers.com/was-saint-peter-married/

*'Was Saint Peter Married? - Catholic Straight Answers

St. Matthew recorded in the Gospel, “Jesus entered Peter’s house and found Peter’s mother-in-law in bed with a fever. He took her by the hand and the fever left her” (Mt 8:14-15). Note that the passage does not mention St. Peter’s wife, but only his mother-in-law. The Gospels, however, make no mention of St. Peter’s wife, living or nonliving. Therefore, St. Peter’s wife must have died before Jesus called him to be an apostle.

For full disclosure, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III) (c. 202), said St. Peter was married, had children and witnessed his wife’s martyrdom in Rome. These terse points were recorded, citing Clement, in St. Eusebuis’ The History of the Church. Given the silence of other church fathers about St. Peter’s wife and children (who would have had some prominence in the history of the early church), and the lack of any archaeological evidence of ancient Rome, which holds the burial sites of St. Peter and so many other early martyrs, one would conclude St. Peter’s wife died before he had been called as an apostle.’*

---

Maybe it is that St. Peter’s mother in law was feverish because his wife had died and she was suffering due to the loss of her daughter?! Seems reasonable.

In addition: catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-peter-have-a-wife

• by an apologist from CA.

 

[friardchips]

In further defense of my position, I also found this article:

cbsnews.com/news/pope-canonizes-first-married-couple-in-modern-times/

These were the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux.

Though the husband was not a priest.

But they are the first married COUPLE to be canonized. Going to prove that sainthood is easier lived out in the celibate life. Hence, the need for priests to stay celibate apart from in the cases of ‘special dispensations’.

That is not to say that more married couples than what is recognised are not saints but that the married environment is a more of a challenge to remaining in receipt of extra grace unless one of the Spouses is personally endowed with this gift of grace or the couple is really dedicated to achieving sainthood as in the case of these saintly parents. I also expect that in turn St. Therese’s sacrifice of love to the celibate life brought untold gifts to her family.

Celibacy, therefore, is not the vocation for all, and yet, the bar of total self-giving in DIRECT submission to the Creator is a bar set for all and should not be lowered in the RCC for any reason.

 

[JimmyG88]

I am not demeaning anything. You are only going further in proving my position:

Religious/priestly celibacy is very different from marital chastity and the discipline of sexual abstinence.

Both are separate vocations and charisms within vocations.

If I were to speak of the beauty of married life between a husband and a wife then it would not occur in this discussion. The family is the reflection and living out of The Holy Trinity. In a very different way to celibate life.

Again, married life is very DIFFERENT to the call of religious life and the call of priesthood.

Thank you for reiterating my points exactly.

But (as others have laboured to point out) the married life and the Roman Catholic priesthood de facto and de jure do co exist and are not separate. It’s not the ‘norm’ but that’s where we are

 

[RyanBlack]

Celibacy, therefore, is not the vocation for all, and yet, the bar of total self-giving in DIRECT submission to the Creator is a bar set for all and should not be lowered in the RCC for any reason.

That’s not for you to decide. That would be for the Pope, together with the bishops of the Latin Church, to decide.

 

[babochka]

But they are the first married COUPLE to be canonized.

This is not quite accurate. They are the first married couple to be canonized together. There are plenty of saints in which both husband and wife have been canonized.

Going to prove that sainthood is easier lived out in the celibate life. Hence, the need for priests to stay celibate apart from in the cases of ‘special dispensations’.

Even if your statement were true, it proves no such thing.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That’s not for you to decide. That would be for the Pope, together with the bishops of the Latin Church, to decide.

This extreme celibacy stance is heretical as far as Catholicism is concerned, study up on the following heresies for example:
Bogomilism
Catharism
Albigensianism
Patarenism

 

[friardchips]

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?

So, in response to the OP’s original question: no. It would be a TEMPTATION to but not the right thing to do.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is not quite accurate. They are the first married couple to be canonized together. There are plenty of saints in which both husband and wife have been canonized.

Even if your statement were true, it proves no such thing.

I remember when Pope John Paul made the appeals relative to the cause of lay people and the married. Of course, a major obstacle is that causes easily take many years, if not decades, and the religious orders and congregations are the best suited in terms of the needed resources, plus manpower (or womanpower) for serving as postulator, and accomplishing all that must be done canonically to shepherd a cause through the Holy See’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Is it any wonder that so many are Religious…and actually foundresses or the most principle person of their religious community in that light?

Saint Maria Goretti, the poor young girl who was the martyr for purity, had her cause adopted by the Congregation of the Passion…the Passionists. It was too much for her diocese, let alone her poor parish.

It is a tremendous challenge today to find the resources to devote years to a cause for beatification and then canonisation and to mobilise all that needs be mobilised for lay people. Let us hope things improve there. It is better now. In former times, it was essentially impossible…except in the cases of very extraordinary laypeople who were at the highest levels of civic life.

 

[friardchips]

And the second post in the thread answered the OP satisfactorily.

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.