Married priests?

[Abu]

Seraphim73 #40
Clerical celibacy didn’t become the norm even in the West until much later.

False.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are:* Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy*, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.

“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled. This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.”

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book)."

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

Fr. George William Rutler, in an article entitled *A Consistent theology of clerical celibacy *(Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Feb. 1989), notes that “Virginity and celibacy were not synonymous in the original ecclesiastical institution of celibacy. Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination. The new archeology shows that this was the case for all the Eastern Churches in the earliest centuries, and in a mitigated form later. In the Latin Church this was the clear rule throughout the first millenium, culminating in the laws of the Gregorian reform, especially as found in the First Lateran Council of 1123, and the Second Lateran Council of 1139…The discipline of the Second Lateran Council explicitly forbidding marriage after ordination was not an innovation in the observance of continence. Its prohibition of clerical marriage was only a regulation ensuring that the apostolic norm of abstinence would be better observed.”

Thus, the Church had celibate clergy only, from the beginning.

I also find it odd that a Catholic would cite Trullo as the Catholic Church in no was considers it authoritative

That’s precisely why post #30 states factually the reality that the apostolic Norm “was breached by the Eastern Rite Catholics at the Council of Trullo in 691. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

There comes Stickler and Cochini trodded out again, despite every other writing and scholarly work stating slightly differently. It’s as if they have been treated as Ecumenical Councils approved by the Pope for all time… in very small, but extremely vocal circles, of course.

““From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed”

And again, what about the non-GrecoLatin world - Syriac, Copt, Ethiopian, Armenian, Indian, Chaldeo-Assyrian, etc - The Traditions which Trullo and Byzantium play no part?
Sure celibacy is held in high regard, but never has it been dogmatized - neither in practice nor catechesis (although some have spoken of it very highly) - as is repeatedly being claimed.

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #42
Sure celibacy is held in high regard, but never has it been dogmatized - neither in practice nor catechesis (although some have spoken of it very highly) - as is repeatedly being claimed.

False again – no one has ever “claimed” that it is a dogma, but it has been shown empathically to be an Apostolic Norm, supported strongly by the Church, and shattered for the East at the unilateral and unapproved affair at Trullo.

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.

The superiority of the state of virginity or celibacy for the love of God is taught infallibly (Council of Trent, D.S. 1810), and Vatican II affirms this. “The crucial factor is the leading of a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12). One can be unmarried for any number of reasons, good, bad or indifferent.” [Catholic Thinking, John Young, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, 1990].

History attests to the reality that celibacy was mandatory and those married priests freely, with the consent of their wives, accepted chastity from the beginning.
“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.
.
No reputable refutation of the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy can be substantiated after the illustrious scholarly works cited and quoted, including the following detail from Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network by the scholarly Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.”

For the record, Father Echert is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, ordained in 1987. He is a member of the faculty of The Saint Paul Seminary in Minnesota and teaches Sacred Scripture. He is also an adjunct faculty member of the University of St. Thomas. Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

Since definitive means “of recognized authority or excellence”, this is the case.

What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. “This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole century.” – Henri Cardinal de Lubac.

5. Celibacy allows the priest’s first priority to be the Church.
“The image used to describe the role of the priest is one of marriage to the Church. Just as marriage is the total gift of self to another, the priesthood requires the total gift of self to the Church. A priest’s first duty is to his flock, while a husband’s first duty is to his wife. Obviously, these two roles will often conflict, as St. Paul noted and as many married priests will tell you. A celibate priest is able to give his undivided attention to his parishioners without the added responsibility of caring for his own family. They are able to pick up and go whenever necessary, whether this involves moving to a new parish or responding to a late-night crisis. Celibate priests are better able to respond to these frequent changes and demands on their time and attention.”
See:** 5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them**
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html*

 

[otjm]

While not a doctrine, an Apostolic “norm” means rules, including commands and prohibitions; “rule” means a prescribed guide for conduct; “prescribe” means issue commands or orders for; tradition means an inherited pattern of thought and action; custom means habitual practice of longstanding; practice means a customary way of acting; requirement means indispensable – the celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory.

That simply is not truthful. It took centuries for celibacy to become universally mandatory within the Roman rite.

The superiority of the state of virginity or celibacy for the love of God is taught infallibly (Council of Trent, D.S. 1810), and Vatican II affirms this. “The crucial factor is the leading of a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12). One can be unmarried for any number of reasons, good, bad or indifferent.” [Catholic Thinking, John Young, Cardinal Newman Catechist Centre, 1990]. *This is not a thread about the superiority or inferiority of either a married priest or a celibate one. Your diatribe notwithstanding, we now have married priests and married permanent deacons, whether you like it or not. Your comments are disjointed, and not on point.
Abu;12277452:

History attests to the reality that celibacy was mandatory and those married priests freely, with the consent of their wives, accepted chastity from the beginning.

There is ample historically reliable evidence to the contrary. those who wish to read history or research it without a preconceived agenda can certainly find it; those who don’t will continue with blinders on.

.

No reputable refutation of the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy can be substantiated after the illustrious scholarly works cited and quoted, including the following detail from Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network by the scholarly Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003

An interesting and sbtle shift that most people won’t catch. No one is trying to refute anything, except you who persist in fighting the shadows. While there was a norm, it was not universally accepted for centuries until finally the Church succeeded in imposing absolute mandatory celibacy. For the record, there were celibate priests and married priests from the beginning.

What Cochini shows through patristic sources and conciliar documentation is that from the beginning of the Church, although married men could be priests, they were required to vow to celibacy before ordination, meaning they intended to live a life of continence. He provides extensive documentation, a bibliography and an index. “This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole century.” – Henri Cardinal de Lubac.

You don’t even have that right - a) it was not universal from the beginning, and it was not celibacy - in was continence, and history shows that continence was not universally practiced nor universally required.

See:** 5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them**

catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.htmlAgain, a glaring red herring. No one here is proposing doing away with celibacy. Having married priests has not done so, and will not do so. Nor is any reasoned person arguing to “do away with celibacy”. This thread most certainly is not, so please, refrain from making straw men and then attempting to knock them down.

 

[Abu]

Otjm #44
it was not universal from the beginning, and it was not celibacy - in was continence, and history shows that continence was not universally practiced nor universally required.

It was continence, as my post #31 confirms:
“**From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop **– for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).”

As there are no other scholarly studies of such high repute, nor of such recent vintage, to confirm what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has confirmed in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483, as in my post #33: “That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is **shown clearly and convincingly **by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).”

Trying to deny that reality merely reflects the outdated and false ideas expressed.

 

[AndyP2010]

Abu

Simply reposting over and over again the same data does not constitute an effective argument. You come across more like someone trying to bludgeon the other posters into not posting anything you disagree with. Please in all charity stop this behavior, I don’t think you can win hearts and minds this way. Nor is anyone arguing, other than yourself either for or against clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite. What is being discussed is the facts on the ground at this moment. The facts on the ground right now are this. The pastoral provision allows for married former protestant clergy to be ordained as Roman Rite Catholic priest. The apostolic constitution for the Anglican Ordinariates “Anglicanorum coetibus” allow with approval by the Pope on a case by case basis the ordination of married men who are members of the ordinariate, (i.e. converts or those who received the sacraments of initiation in an ordinariate parish.) Those are the facts on the ground today, whether we like them or not. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Reclaim]

An interesting look into the life of a priest’s wife:

thecatholiccommentator.org/pages/?p=10410

 

[Abu]

Seraphim73 #11
No it’s not new. There have been married clergy in the Catholic Church. since the time of the Apostles. St Peter was married.
AndyP2010 #46 in Thread: Why is priestly celibacy not Dogma. It can be changed!
I guess recent scholars haven’t read 1 Timothy or Titus where it clearly shows that married clergy where allowed from the beginning.

Please read “From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop” as from post #41, not post #31, as wrongly referenced in my #45.

The Apostolic Norm was recognized by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
[Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, instr. ad Archiep. Fogarasien. et Alba-Iulien. Graeci ritus Non latet Amplitudinem Tuam (24 martii 1858), in Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta, Instructiones, Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, in 2 vols., (Romae: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907) doc. n. 1158, I: 627-630, at 628].
canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm#Sacra_Congregatio

“….the Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, issued in 1994 by the Congregation for the Clergy. Section 59 affirms (that) the Church, from apostolic times, has wished to conserve the gift of perpetual continence of the clergy and choose the candidates for Holy Orders from among the celibate faithful (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 7:5, 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2-12, 5:9; Tit. 1:6-8)”, and cites several of the early councils which mandated continence for married as well as unmarried clergy.
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy

While there was always a belief by some like Gustav Bickell (1838-1917) that clerical celibacy was of apostolic origins and intrinsically related to ministry, all of these previously cited scholarly works were unknown at the time of Vatican II which was announced by Pope Saint John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and actually formally opened under the pontificate of Pope Saint John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1965.

These historical treatises were published between 1988 and 2000, thus it is no way surprising that the facts as known now were not widely known at the time of Vatican II. But even in 1935, Pope Pius XI could write that the disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 were the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” and "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

These studies substantiate what was already believed by some, and acknowledged by Pope Pius XI, further refutation of the biased, outdated and false ideas against priestly continence from the beginning.

The debunking of false ideas in no way obscures the reality and value of the Church’s acceptance in the Latin Rite of the ordination of those married already, who through, for instance, the Ordinariate, helps Anglicans enter into full communion with the Catholic Church – which entails leaving the Anglican communion, even while maintaining Anglo-Catholic traditions.

“In June 15th 2012, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI established the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross to allow those of the Anglican tradition to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church while retaining much of their heritage. This is the third Ordinariate to be established under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. The first Ordinariate was created on Jan 15 2011 in England and now includes Wales and Scotland. The second was established on Jan 1 2012 for those in the United States that also includes Canada.
This prophetic act of the Holy Father is a small but highly significant step along the difficult road towards the unity of all Christians for which Our Lord prayed.”
ordinariate.org.au/

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Abu

Simply reposting over and over again the same data does not constitute an effective argument. You come across more like someone trying to bludgeon the other posters into not posting anything you disagree with. Please in all charity stop this behavior, I don’t think you can win hearts and minds this way. Nor is anyone arguing, other than yourself either for or against clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite. What is being discussed is the facts on the ground at this moment. The facts on the ground right now are this. The pastoral provision allows for married former protestant clergy to be ordained as Roman Rite Catholic priest. The apostolic constitution for the Anglican Ordinariates “Anglicanorum coetibus” allow with approval by the Pope on a case by case basis the ordination of married men who are members of the ordinariate, (i.e. converts or those who received the sacraments of initiation in an ordinariate parish.) Those are the facts on the ground today, whether we like them or not. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Well put. The majority of posters on this thread have simply laid out what is currently in effect.

 

[Reclaim]

Was this before or during Bp. Ireland? I really am curious if this was always the case in the US (and Canada?).

If it was through the efforts of Bp. Ireland, how did his influence reach outside of his territorial purview?

I would even go so far as to say Bp. Ireland was responsible for thousands of Byzantine Catholics converting to Orthodoxy. Google Alexis Toth.

 

[Abu]

The quote by littlesoul (post #1) stated:

the Vatican has, in effect, re-established the married priesthood in today’s Roman Catholic Church. They have acted upon Pope John Paul II’s public statement that celibacy is not necessary for priesthood. By ordaining married Protestant ministers to the priesthood, the Vatican has changed the rules.

This gives the impression, obviously mistaken by some, that celibacy is in fact old hat for it is not really best for today.

This produced the many false ideas which failed to realise, and in some accept, the reality that continence for the priesthood is an Apostolic Norm, explained clearly and often by the Vatican and by the relevant studies quoted.

Thus AndyP2010, and WingsOfEagles don’t really understand the need, based on that reality, so eloquently expressed by St John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis (I Will Give You Shepherds, 1992), with the Synod of the world’s bishops, who has reiterated this. St John Paul II stated that he did “not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite” (no. 29).

 

[eamonnroma]

do you mean that they should be celibate w/in their marriages?

They should be chaste. Chastity for married couples includes sexual relations.

There are many married Roman Catholic priests in the world - it is not a new phenomenon.

 

[eamonnroma]

It is called the "Pastoral Provision. " It has been around since about 1983. And it is only for converted ministers who were already married when they converted. When they convert there is no guarantee that they will ever get to become a priest. I believe there is at least a three year wait before Rome will decide on their petition to the priesthood. I have been listening to old Journey Home radio archives with Marcus Grodi and almost all of the converts and their spouses actually say the celibate life for a priest is better for all involved. These are interesting listens. Also the converts can never become bishops.

This is not quite accurate. Pope Benedict set up an Ordinariate welcoming convert Anglican priests to the Catholic Church and to the priesthood. They are requited to be ‘re’-ordained.

 

[Duane1966]

This is not quite accurate. Pope Benedict set up an Ordinariate welcoming convert Anglican priests to the Catholic Church and to the priesthood. They are requited to be ‘re’-ordained.

I was wrong about 1983 being the date of THE PASTORAL PROVISION. JPII actually authorized it starting In 1980. This provision dealt with married Episcopal ministers who were converting. This is what I was responding to in the OP, that married priests in the RC is actually old news. Other than having the wrong year I stand by what I stated in my original post.

 

[AndyP2010]

The quote by littlesoul (post #1) stated:

This gives the impression, obviously mistaken by some, that celibacy is in fact old hat for it is not really best for today.

This produced the many false ideas which failed to realise, and in some accept, the reality that continence for the priesthood is an Apostolic Norm, explained clearly and often by the Vatican and by the relevant studies quoted.

Thus AndyP2010, and WingsOfEagles don’t really understand the need, based on that reality, so eloquently expressed by St John Paul II in Pastores Dabo Vobis (I Will Give You Shepherds, 1992), with the Synod of the world’s bishops, who has reiterated this. St John Paul II stated that he did “not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite” (no. 29).

I am not questioning the Apostolic Norm, Abu, I am simply stating that it isn’t being practiced, at least not perfectly, nor do the Bishops seem inclined to enforce perfect and perpetual continence on the married clergy. This is true of both deacons and priest.

 

[Abu]

Duane1966 #9
almost all of the converts and their spouses actually say the celibate life for a priest is better for all involved.

Correct, and good for them as expressing a reality which St John Paul II expressed in Pastores Dabo Vobis (I Will Give You Shepherds, 1992), who has reiterated this with the Synod of the world’s bishops. St John Paul II stated that he did “not wish to leave any doubts in the mind of anyone regarding the Church’s firm will to maintain the law that demands perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite” (no. 29).

 

[hwriggles4]

I was wrong about 1983 being the date of THE PASTORAL PROVISION. JPII actually authorized it starting In 1980. This provision dealt with married Episcopal ministers who were converting. This is what I was responding to in the OP, that married priests in the RC is actually old news. Other than having the wrong year I stand by what I stated in my original post.

Thank you Duane.

The secular media thinks that when a former Episcopal priest converts to Catholicism, it’s like a magic trick and the former Episcopalian is saying Catholic Mass the following Sunday across town.

Now, here’s the reality:

1. The former Episcopalian priest leaves his congregation
2. The former Episcopalian priest has to find some kind of a job to support himself and his family
3. The former Episcopalian priest enrolls in something like RCIA
4. The former Episcopalian priest applies for the Pastoral Provision (not everyone is accepted, by the way)
5. If accepted by the Pastoral Provision, the former Episcopal priest begins an approved process by his diocese to enter the Roman Catholic Church and be ordained. Some have actually had to return to seminary for further education.

The process takes a few years. Another thing that makes this harder is many are persona non grata to their former Episcopal congregations. That is a hardship that many of these converts have lived with. I have a great deal of respect for these converts for remaining strong.

I have a Parochial Vicar at my parish who is a former Episcopalian, and his process took about four years. I was present at his ordination with five other former Episcopalians in 2012.

More recently, many Episcopal priests have left due to the “watering down” that is happening in the Episcopalian church (I know, I nearly became Episcopal 20+ years ago). Some critics say that 40 years from now the Episcopal Church in America will be gone. In 2009, half the RCIA at a parish in my diocese came from the Episcopal Church that was a few miles away.

 

[BernadetteM]

Actually there is no set time limit on how long until a former Anglican priest can be re-ordained as a Catholic priest. It depends on their previous education and also the Bishop. From the ordination of five priests, I believe in Texas, they were all going into the Ordinariate.

As far as the Pastoral Provision goes, I believe that it also depends on what I said above, as some of the first priests were ordained within I believe a year.

In regards to whether priests should be celibate or married, I believe that there are many different factors involved. My main concern is that protestant wives do not have the advantages that I think Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic wives have. From my understanding many of their fathers were also priests or at least they have a greater understanding of what is expected of them.

So far most of the former Anglicans’ wives seem to understand their own vocation,l however I know of one instance where the wife has former clicks within her small parish and it seems that she has involved her husband in this. Of course he is not really aware of what has happened, but the “husband” part is influenced by their wives, unless the priest can really separate being a priest first and second a husband.

I would prefer that before a former married protestant is ordained a priest, that their wives must also be part of a formation as the wife of a priest. Even if the man is a wonderful priest, at times he can be influenced by his wife’s opinion without realizing this.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[babochka]

My main concern is that protestant wives do not have the advantages that I think Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic wives have. ** From my understanding many of their fathers were also priests **or at least they have a greater understanding of what is expected of them.

This has traditionally been true in Slavic countries, but is no longer the rule It was a holdover from the feudal system, in which clerical families were their own class - not serfs, not nobility. Since one didn’t marry outside of one’s class, it naturally became the case that daughters of priests would marry son’s of priests. There was nobody else! The practice is rapidly declining, however. My own priest is not from a clerical family and is married to an American. I don’t believe it has ever been the predominate practice in Greece, among the Orthodox there.

So far most of the former Anglicans’ wives seem to understand their own vocation,l however I know of one instance where the wife has former clicks within her small parish and it seems that she has involved her husband in this. Of course he is not really aware of what has happened, but the “husband” part is influenced by their wives, unless the priest can really separate being a priest first and second a husband.

I don’t see why such a separation is necessary, or even wise. He is an integrated person, both a husband and a priest. Married or celibate, a priest is going to have to deal with difficult situations. For some priests, it is the brigade of little old ladies who have always run the parish and intimidated ever priest for decades. Every priest is going to have groups of people (cliques, if you will) that he is drawn to more, but still has to separate himself from his own inclinations and give fairly to the various groups and interests within his parish. Don’t blame the wife if a married priest is not yet good at that aspect of his ministry.

Even if the man is a wonderful priest, at times he can be influenced by his wife’s opinion without realizing this.

If they have any sort of decent marriage and the husband has respect for his wife and her opinions, I would think that it would go without saying that he would be influenced by his wife. Isn’t that part of the role of a wife? On a number of occasions, I have told my priest that I really appreciated his homily. Occasionally, his response is “Thank my wife. She told me what to say.” Her theological education equals his and she has unique insights. He claims that her intellect is far superior to his. I appreciate all the contributions she makes to the parish, but perhaps the unseen influences are the most important.

 

[Abu]

A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT)
At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. "I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.