Pope’s Offer Raises Idea of Marriage for Catholic Priests

[KyivAndrew]

Well, KIND of… You might have noticed that the Eastern catholic churches, for all their glorious contributions to catholic theology have been rather moribund in terms of the Great Commission for centuries. The celibate Roman rite, on the other hand, was free go go off and be martyred in the mission field and whole civilizations (continents!) converted as a result. And this isn’t meant as a slam on the easterners,

Just for reflection, it is quite arguable whether the one particular Catholic Church that gave the most “martyrs” to the faith in the 20th Century was the Ukrainian Catholic Church after Joseph Stalin ordered its liquidation in 1946. My dad was taught by the second most powerful bishop in our Church who was tortured, mutilated, and died in a K.G.B. prison. Martyrs? The Ukrainian Catholic Church is hoping to start moving the boundaries of Catholicism eastwards in Europe, should Rome allow it.

Here have a look at this. It is a list of Ukrainian Catholic martyrs Beatified by Pope John Paul the Second in Ukraine on His Holiness’ visit there in 2001. Please note how these Ukrainian Catholics were put to death in defending the Catholic faith.

ugcc.org.ua/35.0.html?&L=2

 

[Father_of_9]

As I understand it, celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine. Therefore, it can be changed and it has since the beginning of the Church. It’s possible that in the future celibacy may be optional for priests, but not bishops. There’s certainly arguments for and against changing the current discipline, but ultimately the Pope will decide what’s best for the Church.

 

[Tybourne]

they should allowed to maintian a married clergy…heck maybe it should be used as a trail run to see if it would would for Roman-use Catholics, afterall its worked in the Eastern Catholics without incident

And yet, interestingly, at a recent Synod, I understand that Eastern Rite Catholic Bishops advised the Pope *against *changing the discipline in the Western Church because of all the complications that had occurred with married clergy in the East, such as separated clergy or bishops being unable to send priests where they were most needed because of family commitments. This episode changed my mind on the issue. Whereas I formerly believed the discipline should be changed, I now believe it’s prudent and providential.

 

[Montalo]

I’ll be curious to see what the Apostolic Constitution will have to say about Anglo-Catholic Rite seminaries. Will future Anglo-Catholic Rite priests be married or just current ones?

While the Church will not be ordaining any married men to be bishops, it could be interesting what they do with whoever they chose to be the “head” of the Anglo-Catholic Rite. Technically speaking they could make a married priest a Cardinal and place him in administrative charge of the Rite. And wouldn’t that be interesting, a married Cardinal electing a Pope!

that would be impossible

His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, which incurs being a bishop and therefore being celibate.

 

[JimG]

that would be impossible

His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, which incurs being a bishop and therefore being celibate.

I think that the poster was referring to the possibility of a married Cardinal casting a vote in a papal election, not being elected pope.

(In theory, any Catholic man including a layman could be elected pope by a conclave. But before assuming office, he would have to receive holy orders. A married man could not be ordained as a bishop, and so could not become pope, but an unmarried could–at least in theory.)

 

[Montalo]

I think that the poster was referring to the possibility of a married Cardinal casting a vote in a papal election, not being elected pope.

Ah, I humbly apologize for misreading the post.

I did misread it, so please ignore my previous post

 

[KyivAndrew]

And yet, interestingly, at a recent Synod, I understand that Eastern Rite Catholic Bishops advised the Pope *against *changing the discipline in the Western Church because of all the complications that had occurred with married clergy in the East, such as separated clergy or bishops being unable to send priests where they were most needed because of family commitments. This episode changed my mind on the issue. Whereas I formerly believed the discipline should be changed, I now believe it’s prudent and providential.

I don’t think this can be applied to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. They, along with their Cardinal, have struggled with Rome for decades to keep their married priesthood open, and actually would like the Pope to grant them their own Patriarchate as they are the largest Eastern Catholic Church without its own Patriarchate. I think the Ukrainian Catholic Church should be doing the proselytizing in Eastern Ukraine, as the Roman Catholics stationed in the East aren’t bearing much fruit. At least the Ukrainian Catholic is a native Church with the familiar Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom. I hope Rome gives the Ukrainian Catholics the go ahead with its own Catholic Patriarchate for all of Ukraine.

 

[JReducation]

it may be true that The Anglican Tradition comes from the wider Western rite but they have been seperated from the Papacy for hundreds of years now and have developed there own unique traditions. they should be allowed to maitain married clergy due to the fact they have diverged from the Roman Church and disipline centeries ago.

plus lets face it…the bible says priests are allowed to marry…(or that married men can be ordanined priests) and whilst our Tradtion/disipline is important; it is not more important then what the bible says on the matter…thus they should allowed to maintian a married clergy…heck maybe it should be used as a trail run to see if it would would for Roman-use Catholics, afterall its worked in the Eastern Catholics without incident

We have to be careful here not to put the cart before the horse. What we find in the bible is what the Church allowed to be placed in there. The Church and Christian tradition are older than the bible, not the other way around. When the final edtion of the bible was compiled the Church made sure that only what reflected the belief of the Church was placed in the bible. The purpose of the bible is to protect, present and preserve the faith of the Church. The faith of the Church was handed down by Apostolic tradtion long befoer biblical tradition. Even the OT as we know it was not compiled until after the death of the Apostles. The Jews had the writings in scattered tomes and places.

When the bible speaks about a married clergy, it is saying that such is allowed. But it does not imply that the Church must allow it. There is a difference between what can be done and what the Church has to do. A married clergy falls into one of those areas that is allowed to the Church, but not enforced upon the Church. That is a decision for Peter to make, not the bible.

On the other hand, we know that Peter, the bible and tradition must be in sync with each other. For that reason we say that the Church can allow married men to be ordained. This way the bible and the Church are in harmony and the Church retains her freedom to develop its disciplines without violating revelation. In other words, married clergy are not a command with which the Church must comply. It is a discipline that the Church may allow.

As to the Anglicans, what will probably happen is that those who convert will remain married and be ordained. But those who are single and convert will not be allowed to marry if they choose to become priests. They will be part of the Latin Church. Therefore, they will have to submit to the disciplines of the Latin Church. The difference will be in the form of the mass, not even the rite. The Anglican form is part of the Latin Rite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

I think it works like this:

• If you’re a married Anglican priest and you convert, you can keep your missus and be a Catholic priest, but you can’t become a Catholic bishop.
• If you are a married layman, Anglican or not, you can’t then become a Roman Catholic priest.
• If you are currently a Catholic priest of whatever rite, you can’t then marry.
• If you are a married Anglican bishop, you may become a Roman Catholic priest if you convert, but you may not become a Roman Catholic bishop.

Bishops are unmarried, in any rite of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

This one I’m not sure about:

• If you’re a married man you may become a priest in some or all of the non-Roman (Eastern) Catholic rites.

Yes, most of the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome have married clerics, and ordain married men to both the deaconate and the presbyterate (priesthood).

Nothing yet says that the seminarians of the Anglican Ordinariate must be celibate; if fact, quite a few Roman seminarians are not… tho most are candidates for the diaconate, and the rest are former protestant preachers. (I know a married man who happens to be a Roman priest. I also know a widower who was ordained a Roman priest. Both are much beloved by their parishes.) A married priesthood is one of the distinguishing elements of the Anglican Patrimony; I doubt that it will be imposed o the Anglican ordinariate.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Not really. The Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican holy orders and yet married Anglican priests who convert are ordained as married Catholic priests. I’m not entirely positive but I do believe that Church also makes similar exceptions (on a case by case basis) for Lutheran ministers who convert as well.

You are correct. Some Lutheran Rites do in fact have valid Holy Orders which are recognized. I do not know all the different protestant denominations, or even if there are any more that do have valid Orders. But if married and converted, they are accepted as priests.
Even many Oriental Rite priests, (who are Catholic) but not in union with Rome if married and are converted are similarly accepted.

 

[manualman]

Just for reflection, it is quite arguable whether the one particular Catholic Church that gave the most “martyrs” to the faith in the 20th Century was the Ukrainian Catholic Church after Joseph Stalin ordered its liquidation in 1946.

My profund apologies if it sounded like I was claiming a trophy for number of martyrs! That wasn’t my intention at all.

My point was the celibacy frees priests to offer themselves to service in Christ in ways that a married priest never could. Indeed, sometimes circumstance comes anyways and people choose the heroism of martyrdom for Christ. But that is rather different than actively choosing to put oneself in harm’s way to spread the Good News of Jesus.

Even here in the USA there are inner city pastors who are freed to preach against drugs, gangs and violence because they have no fear of angered men going after their wives and children.

 

[Father_of_9]

One thing that’s always puzzled me is why there aren’t more married men becoming permanent deacons. There are lots of good, faithful men who would be great deacons and provide much needed service to the Church.

 

[crazzeto]

One thing that’s always puzzled me is why there aren’t more married men becoming permanent deacons. There are lots of good, faithful men who would be great deacons and provide much needed service to the Church.

I’ve considred going for this my self, but I need to look into it more… I’ll be honest when I say I have no idea what all it entails, but I’m just getting ready to get married and can’t really risk a full career change.

At the same time, I’d love to help out with the priest shortage in any capacity that I could.

 

[JReducation]

I’ll be curious to see what the Apostolic Constitution will have to say about Anglo-Catholic Rite seminaries. Will future Anglo-Catholic Rite priests be married or just current ones?

While the Church will not be ordaining any married men to be bishops, it could be interesting what they do with whoever they chose to be the “head” of the Anglo-Catholic Rite. Technically speaking they could make a married priest a Cardinal and place him in administrative charge of the Rite. And wouldn’t that be interesting, a married Cardinal electing a Pope!

Actually, a Cardinal need not be an ordaine cleric. Current canon law says that they must be bishops. But that law came into existence in 1983. Prior to that, the Code of Canon Law did not require Cardinals to be ordained. We have had lay Cardinals and religious Cardinals (monks, brothers, friars). I can’t recall his name, but the last lay Cardinal died in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The original titles: Cardinal Deacon, Cardinal Priest etc were instituted because they were members of the different clerical orders.

I’m not so sure that there is going to be a reversal of the 1983 canons. But what I do see happening is those former Anglican bishops who become Catholic priests would have the same Ordinary authority that male religious superiors have. Most people do not realize that in religious orders and religious congregations of men the Major Superior is an Ordinary and he need not be a priest. In my own community the Major Superior is a Canon Lawyer, but a lay brother. We have ordained brothers. The role of the Ordinary in this case is to call men to Holy Orders, to assign, govern, teach, lead, correct, support, discipline and to encourage them to holiness. They have all of the administrative and pastoral authority of a bishop, except that it’s over their own, not over the laity, unless he’s a diocesan administrator. These men can be diocesan administrators, since they will be priests. They would not have the sacramental authority of a bishop, but all the other powers, as do Major Superiors of Men.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KyivAndrew]

My profund apologies if it sounded like I was claiming a trophy for number of martyrs! That wasn’t my intention at all.

My point was the celibacy frees priests to offer themselves to service in Christ in ways that a married priest never could. Indeed, sometimes circumstance comes anyways and people choose the heroism of martyrdom for Christ. But that is rather different than actively choosing to put oneself in harm’s way to spread the Good News of Jesus.

Even here in the USA there are inner city pastors who are freed to preach against drugs, gangs and violence because they have no fear of angered men going after their wives and children.

Nothing to apologize for! Just pointing out the Ukrainian Catholics martyred for Catholicism.

God Bless,
Andrew

 

[JReducation]

One thing that’s always puzzled me is why there aren’t more married men becoming permanent deacons. There are lots of good, faithful men who would be great deacons and provide much needed service to the Church.

Because they have not been called. The diaconate is a call by Christ to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The man called by Christ has to be called through the bishop. If the bishop says that there is no calling, then there is no calling. Bishops and Major Religious Superiors speak for Christ when it comes to vocations. They decided when Christ is calling or when he’s not.

A man must present himself to the bishop. The bishop must discern whether this man has been called by Christ. We have no idea how many present themselves to the bishop and how many are turned away, because they do not have a vocation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[adowcday]

To my knowledge, it is still uncertain whether the proposal would permit married Anglican men who are not already ordained to be ordained Catholic priests. Given the experience of Eastern Rite Catholic churches, I would expect this to be permitted, however.

Here’s what the Wikipedia entry for “Easter Rite Catholicism” says about the ordination to the priesthood of married men in the Eastern Rites:

Bishops are normally selected from the monastic clergy, and in most Eastern Churches a large percentage of priests and deacons also are celibate, while a portion of the clergy (typically, parish priests) may be married. If a future priest or deacon is to be married, his marriage must take place before ordination to the diaconate. While in some countries the marriage continues usually to be arranged by the families, cultural changes sometimes make it difficult for such seminarians to find women prepared to be the wife of a priest, necessitating a hiatus in the seminarians’ studies.

In countries where Eastern traditions prevail among Christians, a married clergy caused little controversy; but it aroused opposition in other countries to which Eastern Catholics immigrated. In response to requests from the Latin bishops of those countries, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939. Dissatisfaction by many Ruthenian Catholics in the United States gave rise to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. This rule was abolished with the promulgation of the Decree on the Catholic churches of the Eastern Rite; since then, married men have been ordained to the priesthood in the United States, and numerous married priests have come from eastern countries to serve parishes in the Americas

Some Eastern Catholic Churches have decided to adopt mandatory clerical celibacy, as in the Latin Church. They include the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and the Ethiopic Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

To my knowledge, it is still uncertain whether the proposal would permit married Anglican men who are not already ordained to be ordained Catholic priests. Given the experience of Eastern Rite Catholic churches, I would expect this to be permitted, however.

Here’s what the Wikipedia entry for “Easter Rite Catholicism” says about the ordination to the priesthood of married men in the Eastern Rites:

Bishops are normally selected from the monastic clergy, and in most Eastern Churches a large percentage of priests and deacons also are celibate, while a portion of the clergy (typically, parish priests) may be married. If a future priest or deacon is to be married, his marriage must take place before ordination to the diaconate. While in some countries the marriage continues usually to be arranged by the families, cultural changes sometimes make it difficult for such seminarians to find women prepared to be the wife of a priest, necessitating a hiatus in the seminarians’ studies.

In countries where Eastern traditions prevail among Christians, a married clergy caused little controversy; but it aroused opposition in other countries to which Eastern Catholics immigrated. In response to requests from the Latin bishops of those countries, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith set out rules in a letter of 2 May 1890 to François-Marie-Benjamin Richard, the Archbishop of Paris, which the Congregation applied on 1 May 1897 to the United States, stating that only celibates or widowed priests coming without their children should be permitted in the United States. This rule was restated with special reference to Catholics of Ruthenian Rite by the 1 March 1929 decree Cum data fuerit, which was renewed for a further ten years in 1939. Dissatisfaction by many Ruthenian Catholics in the United States gave rise to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese. This rule was abolished with the promulgation of the Decree on the Catholic churches of the Eastern Rite; since then, married men have been ordained to the priesthood in the United States, and numerous married priests have come from eastern countries to serve parishes in the Americas

Some Eastern Catholic Churches have decided to adopt mandatory clerical celibacy, as in the Latin Church. They include the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and the Ethiopic Catholic Church.

From the snippets that are floating around, what I gather is that the plan is to ordain Anglican clergymen who convert. This does not include a plan to ordain married lay men who convert. There are two reasons for that. First, the Anglicans who are converting are entering communion with the Latin Rite Church. They are not coming in as another rite. Therefore, they are subject to the same laws as all members of the Latin Rite. What they will be allowed to keep is the form of the mass that they celebrate, because it is a Latin Rite mass. Second, the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Rite Church is not being revised by this event. The document that Cardinal Levada revealed does not speak about celibacy. It speaks about the ordination of Anglican clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Father_of_9]

But what we don’t know is how many men are called, but do not accept or follow though. I have inquired about the diaconate myself, but since I have several young children, I was advised to not pursue it at this time which I wholeheartedly agree with. But there are probably many men who have a calling, but don’t accept it for various reasons.

 

[JReducation]

But what we don’t know is how many men are called, but do not accept or follow though. I have inquired about the diaconate myself, but since I have several young children, I was advised to not pursue it at this time which I wholeheartedly agree with. But there are probably many men who have a calling, but don’t accept it for various reasons.

The theological assumption that dioceses and religious orders make is that if one is truly called, one responds. Therefore, if one does not respond, then one is not truly called. With the call also comes the actual grace to respond.

On a parallel note, this is an area of major responsibility for formation directors. Being one myself, I can tell you that this is not easy. Ultimately, it is the formation director who advises the bishop or the major religious superior. You are the person who tells the bishop or the religious superior whether a person is called. Most bishops and religious superiors are not directly involved in formatoin. They delegate the decision to the formation director, even though the bishop or religious superior has to put the pen to the paper in the end.

Pray for those of us who do formation work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF