Pressure from Latin Bishops to Not Ordain Married Priests

[Rafkqa]

There have been Vatican decrees that have said ordaining married men in the diaspora is canonically illegal. For example, the 1921 decree cum data fuerit. This decree was originally directed to the Greek Catholics in the US, but has been applied universally to all Eastern and Oriental Churches sui juris to prevent the ordination of married men to the priesthood in all of the diaspora. Another example is in 2008 when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith reaffirmed the norm of binding celibacy of Eastern Priests outside of ‘Patriarchal Territories’

To read more click below:

qadishat.com/2013/10/pressure-from-latin-bishops-to-not.html

I am just wondering how you know this? Specifically this? Have they met on this issue recently?

“Australian Latin Bishops (and a certain Eminent Latin Bishop in Sydney) have put pressure on Australian Eastern Catholic Bishops (and more specifically the new Maronite Bishop) to not ordain Married Priests.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

So… why again would the Eastern praxis cause scandal? Still don’t see the problem.

It was ‘accepted’ in the “Old Country” and in the “good old days” in the Latin territories for a so-called “celibate” straight priest to keep a hidden concubine or secret spouse. Many villagers know/knew and didn’t/don’t bat an eye. Why is this not the true scandal? This was/is proven time and time again from France, Spain, England, and even Italy.

Never a problem with scandal, plain ol silliness, or violations of tradition here:
ntnews.com.au/article/2010/10/18/187521_ntnews.html

 

[Peter_J]

So… why again would the Eastern praxis cause scandal?

I can’t really say, but you just reminded me of a survey I saw years ago. I forget the actual numbers, but I remember that the percentage of Catholics in favor of married priests was just slightly higher than the percentage in favor of women’s ordination.

uch:

 

[babochka]

I can’t speak for babochka or Peter, but the way I read it, the “if” refers to the fanfare. IOW, where an ordination is done with lots of publicity.

This is precisely what I meant by fanfare. The bishop did not feel the need to make a special announcement, resulting in headlines reading “In Defiance of the Vatican, Bishop Ordains Married Men” or some such thing. I have no idea if permission from Rome was obtained or even sought. The bishop simply was doing one aspect of his job, ordaining worthy men to the priesthood.

 

[Aramis]

As I understand it, the pastoral provision for the Anglican Ordinariate is that current priests that convert to the Catholic faith can be ordained if they were married but only for already formed priests.
The new candidates to the priesthood that are in seminary still and have not finished the vocation discernment will have to abide by the celibacy discipline like all the rest.

So it is only a transitory dispensation, not a permanent one.

–

That’s not what it says in the documents promulgated by Rome. Those raised within the Anglican Ordinariate may be ordained if already married. Just like EC priests of the Melkite and Ukrainian churches, and the homeland priests of most of the Byzantine Rite Churches sui iuris.

Cum Data Fuerit, by the way, was time limited, and applied only within the United States. It’s LONG expired.

 

[malphono]

Cum Data Fuerit, by the way, was time limited, and applied only within the United States. It’s LONG expired.

Yeah, it supposedly had a sunset clause. But ask a Canon lawyer about it’s being expired.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not what it says in the documents promulgated by Rome. **Those raised within the Anglican Ordinariate may be ordained if already married. **Just like EC priests of the Melkite and Ukrainian churches, and the homeland priests of most of the Byzantine Rite Churches sui iuris.

**May **be, but probably won’t be.

 

[twf]

**May **be, but probably won’t be.

Who knows? The provisions Pope Benedict promulgated took most of us by great surprise. Things have and can change in Rome…

 

[Horacio]

Married American males (already ordained as deacons) were very recently ordained as priests in the USA by the Bishop of the Eparchy of Phoenix.

“Pressure”? Can you imagine the response of Pope Francis if a Latin Rite bishop in the USA (or the Roman Curia) tried to curtail the legitimate ordination of married Eastern priests in the USA?

 

[Aramis]

Married American males (already ordained as deacons) were very recently ordained as priests in the USA by the Bishop of the Eparchy of Phoenix.

“Pressure”? Can you imagine the response of Pope Francis if a Latin Rite bishop in the USA (or the Roman Curia) tried to curtail the legitimate ordination of married Eastern priests in the USA?

It’s interesting to note that Light of the West doesn’t explicitly mention that they’re married - I suspected that the photos are of the Pani, but it didn’t mention wives.

Circumspection? Or an expectation that everyone in the Eparchy would know them? (Being in the hinterlands, we don’t see the rest of the clergy of the Eparchy much.)

I’m glad they are. His Grace is reclaiming authentic clerical tradition.

 

[Rafkqa]

Married American males (already ordained as deacons) were very recently ordained as priests in the USA by the Bishop of the Eparchy of Phoenix.

“Pressure”? Can you imagine the response of Pope Francis if a Latin Rite bishop in the USA (or the Roman Curia) tried to curtail the legitimate ordination of married Eastern priests in the USA?

I am yet to be persuaded by the OP’s initial post that any such pressure from Latin Bishops is currently happening - in Australia anyway, and I am yet to see a source for that…

In fact we have not had anyone ordained in Australia - married or otherwise under our new Bishop - which is hardly surprising considering he was only ordained less than six months ago…

 

[MorEphrem]

I am yet to be persuaded by the OP’s initial post that any such pressure from Latin Bishops is currently happening - in Australia anyway, and I am yet to see a source for that…

In fact we have not had anyone ordained in Australia - married or otherwise under our new Bishop - which is hardly surprising considering he was only ordained less than six months ago…

I agree with Rafkqa, I don’t think such pressure exists amongst Maronite bishops. I think it’s quite obvious they do it out of their own latinized volition. No one but themselves are forcing their own hand.

 

[Horacio]

It’s interesting to note that Light of the West doesn’t explicitly mention that they’re married - I suspected that the photos are of the Pani, but it didn’t mention wives.

Circumspection? Or an expectation that everyone in the Eparchy would know them? (Being in the hinterlands, we don’t see the rest of the clergy of the Eparchy much.)

I’m glad they are. His Grace is reclaiming authentic clerical tradition.

Circumspection and diplomacy. I suspect the bishop in question realizes that ordaining more priests and “reclaiming authentic clerical tradition” are the priorities (in that order) and not broadcasting the fact that he is doing so.

 

[Horacio]

I am yet to be persuaded by the OP’s initial post that any such pressure from Latin Bishops is currently happening - in Australia anyway, and I am yet to see a source for that…

In fact we have not had anyone ordained in Australia - married or otherwise under our new Bishop - which is hardly surprising considering he was only ordained less than six months ago…

I agree.

If Eastern bishops in the USA were ordaining married men to the priesthood and then broadcasting that fact in a loud and polemic manner, they might be requested (in private) to please dial down the volume a bit by Latin Rite bishops but that’s definitely not happening.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think such pressure exists amongst Maronite bishops. I think it’s quite obvious they do it out of their own latinized volition. No one but themselves are forcing their own hand.

Oh, there’s no doubt about the “latinized volition” part. None whatsoever. But it has its own nuance. If left to their own devices, it might just happen that one or another of the disaporal bishops would ordain a married candidate. But of course they’re in fear of repercussions from Rome, especially after the fallout from when the Melkite Eparch did this a few years back. You know, mommy (or “Super Nanny”) sending them to sit in the “naughty place” because of their tantrum.

In theory, a married Maronite priest from the Patriarchal Territories can be received into, and assigned within, a diasporal See with no no question. The first part (being received into) has happened in the US at least once. To my knowledge, however, the second part (being assigned within) unfortunately remains a no. As I understand it, in the one case, the priest has been granted faculties, though, and has been permitted to fill-in on occasion. It’s a small step but I suppose it’s better than no step at all.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh, there’s no doubt about the “latinized volition” part. None whatsoever. But it has its own nuance. If left to their own devices, it might just happen that one or another of the disaporal bishops would ordain a married candidate. But of course they’re in fear of repercussions from Rome, especially after the fallout from when the Melkite Eparch did this a few years back.

I know this has been alluded to before (at least on this thread, and I think on others) but can you provide a link for further reading?

 

[malphono]

I know this has been alluded to before (at least on this thread, and I think on others) but can you provide a link for further reading?

One item is here. (emphasis added)

In December 1996, Bishop John Elya—a predecessor of Bishop Samra as head of the Melkite eparchy—announced without fanfare that he had ordained a married man to the priesthood. That break from the old agreement caused no noticeable public backlash, and now Bishop Samra has given advance warning that he will ordain other married men to the priesthood.

The key, I think, is the highlighted part. While there was no “public backlash” to it, as it was explained to me by a very prominent and highly respected Canon Lawyer (JOCD) there was indeed a “backlash” from Rome. Notice that there was no subsequent ordination of a married candidate.

 

[Peter_J]

One item is here.

Thanks.

 

[Horacio]

Oh, there’s no doubt about the “latinized volition” part. None whatsoever. But it has its own nuance. If left to their own devices, it might just happen that one or another of the disaporal bishops would ordain a married candidate. But of course they’re in fear of repercussions from Rome, especially after the fallout from when the Melkite Eparch did this a few years back. You know, mommy (or “Super Nanny”) **sending them to sit in the “naughty place” because of their tantrum. **

In theory, a married Maronite priest from the Patriarchal Territories can be received into, and assigned within, a diasporal See with no no question. The first part (being received into) has happened in the US at least once. To my knowledge, however, the second part (being assigned within) unfortunately remains a no. As I understand it, in the one case, the priest has been granted faculties, though, and has been permitted to fill-in on occasion. It’s a small step but I suppose it’s better than no step at all.

With Francis at the helm? Like what exactly? The ban is effectively dead and some don’t seem to want to recognize that.

 

[malphono]

When I see the pyre burning for “the ban” and cum data fuerit etc, I’ll believe it and be thrilled. Until then, however, it’s business as usual.