Romanian married GC priests not welcome in Italy's Churches

[Cavaradossi]

The Cardinal Vicar of Rome is typically President of the Conference, though I’m not sure if that is currently the case. Regardless, the Italian bishops have just as much autonomy as the bishops of any other country. I think Pope Benedict has demonstrated that it is his intention to lead by example and respect his brother bishops and their God-given authority. Why is it that the East constantly wants assurances that the Catholic understanding of primacy respects the autonomy and rights of all bishops, but when something like this comes up everyone demands that the Pope starting butting heads and “bossing” bishops around? I think this decision was most regrettable but it is a local Italian matter not a universal one. If the Romanian priests wish to petition Rome for assistance that would be a different matter.

Because it is an understandable sore spot for Eastern Catholics, who are essentially being treated as second-class Catholics. Latin Churches can exist all over the world, but authentic Eastern Churches, with a married priesthood should be limited to their homelands, so as not to ‘confuse’ or ‘scandalize’ the faithful. When a certain archbishop Ireland tried this just a century ago, a certain Alexis Toth led the charge for a wave of 20000 or so Eastern Catholics to join Orthodoxy. Is this mistake really worth repeating, especially with a large Romanian Orthodox population currently in Italy, which could easily accommodate disaffected Romanian Catholics?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman
One would hope that no one would object to married EC priests serving their own parishes in Italy or anywhere else.

In fact, neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy endorses Branch Theory.

 

[Peter_J]

That is 800,000 Romanian Catholics in Italy.

Unless this ^^ is a mistake, wow!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Presumably there is Eastern Christian unity with Rome because Eastern Catholics believe that Catholic Church is the true Church that Christ founded and want to be members of it, whatever disagreements about clerical disciplines there may be.

I don’t see how anyone can say that the Orthodox bishops of the Kyivan Orthodox Metropolia in 1596 sought union with Rome because they thought the (Roman) Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ.

In fact, it can be shown that there were other, more worldly considerations involved and that for those bishops it was simply a change of allegiance from one patriarch to another (in the West). And in no wise did they accept Catholic dogma but were purposefully obscure in the 33 articles of the Union of Brest.

In fact, their agreement on the unity was DEPENDENT on Rome’s acceptance of their traditions, including that of clerical discipline pertaining to married clergy.

So yours is not the best presumption!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Rome does allow married clergy in the Latin Church - Anglican Ordinariates for example. That being said, one shouldn’t equate the Italian bishops with Rome. The bishops make their own calls on such matters - contrary to popular belief, Rome does NOT micromanage the Church

Such married clergy, however, are a dispensation and not the rule, as they are in the EC tradition. The Anglican married priest who are coming under Rome are being accepted as such - but no future Anglican Use seminarian will be able to be married before ordination. Rome will always accept into the ranks of Catholic clergy married Protestant ministers.

The Italian bishops make their own calls - but that doesn’t mean that their calls don’t reflect on the entire Catholic Church around the world. In this case, it most certainly does, as did the decision of Poland’s bishops with respect to married UGCC clergy.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Rome authorizes the ordination of married priests yes, but in general she grants the local bishops considerable autonomy. Rome could intervene in this situation, but my point was that she rarely (at least in recent memory) overturns the decisions of local bishops, whose divine vocation it is to shepherd their own churches. There are significant differences between national branches of the Latin Church - holy days vary, fasting rules vary, kneeling/standing postures at mass vary, etc.

My archdiocese has recently decided to ordain married men to the diaconate. This practice has been common in the US for decades but it has not, up until now, been permitted here. The neighbouring diocese still ordains only celibate men to the diaconate. Such decisions belong to the local bishop - Rome will not interfere.

Would the Orthodox have the same problems in a reunited Church? I very much doubt it as they would have their own jurisdictions in place and not be dependent upon local Latin ordinaries. If Rome starts over turning the decisions of local bishops, as is being asked here, I think the Orthodox have much to fear as it shows the pope is the micromanager, local bishop upsurping caricature so often feared by Catholic detractors. Rome has and will defend the rights of the Eastern churches and I sincerely hope this decision in Italy is reversed…but Rome will not start pushing her brother bishops around.

Unfortunately, your argument here isn’t one. IF a local bishops’ conference decide to ordain previously married men as priests - what would Rome do then? Are you saying Rome would not push them around, interfere or overturn their decision?

Are you being serious here?

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

That is 800,000 Romanian Catholics in Italy. The married priests are normal in two eparchies however, per the article: Piana degli Albanesi (Sicily) and Lungro (Calabria).

I have to question this. Good for a study …

The two dioceses of Piana degli Albanesi and Lungro probably have some married priests at present. I don’t know how many or what percentage.

However the Pope (as far as I know) has not given them new bishops and the two small dioceses are administered by neighboring Latin rite bishops. I have to wonder aloud whether these bishops will permit the formation of married men for the priesthood.

Of course, the two Albanian diosceses are far to the south in mostly rural areas or smaller cities, and have no authority beyond the physical bound set for them by the Popes, so as I see it they would be of little to no help to the Romanian immigrants who are probably mostly in urban areas and mostly to the north, even if they were willing.

 

[twf]

Such married clergy, however, are a dispensation and not the rule, as they are in the EC tradition. The Anglican married priest who are coming under Rome are being accepted as such - but no future Anglican Use seminarian will be able to be married before ordination. Rome will always accept into the ranks of Catholic clergy married Protestant ministers.

The Italian bishops make their own calls - but that doesn’t mean that their calls don’t reflect on the entire Catholic Church around the world. In this case, it most certainly does, as did the decision of Poland’s bishops with respect to married UGCC clergy.

Alex

You are correct that married priests are ordained as an exception to the rule as opposed to the norm…but i believe you are incorrect about Anglican clergy. Pope Benedict’s relatively recent provisions for Anglican Ordinariates, as I understand it, allow FUTURE married men within these Anglican Catholic communities to petition Rome for ordination. You are thinking of the more restrictive Anglican Use of Blessed Pope John Paul. Pope Benedict has been very generous with the Anglicans. In fact in both the UK and the US, the first two Anglican Ordinariates, the Ordinary is a married priest who has been granted by Rome virtually all the authority of governance of a bishop including the right to wear episcopal vestments.

I agree that there is a trend among certain segments of the Latin hierarchy to restrict the ministry of married priests, but it is not universal. It certainly isnt the current position of the Canadian or American bishops.

 

[twf]

Unfortunately, your argument here isn’t one. IF a local bishops’ conference decide to ordain previously married men as priests - what would Rome do then? Are you saying Rome would not push them around, interfere or overturn their decision?

Are you being serious here?

Alex

That’s not a fair analogy as such an action would be a clear violation of the Latin canons. While I personally disagree with the decision made, I don’t think it violates any canon… Within the confines of the law Rome will not interfere. Earlier I raised the example of ordaining married men to the diaconate. Some Latin bishops allow it while others do not/…neither choice is a violation of the canons. Many Latin Catholics disagree with reception of holy communion on the hand (myself included) but ROme does not interfere when local bishops allow the practice. No bishop, however, has the right to restrict reception on the tongue - to do so would be to violate universal law and Rome would have to intervene. Any bishop could, on the other hand, restrict reception on the hand and Rome would stay out. Not saying the issues are comparable - just pointing out that some issues are left to the local bishops while others directly violate universal law.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not a fair analogy as such an action would be a clear violation of the Latin canons. While I personally disagree with the decision made, I don’t think it violates any canon… Within the confines of the law Rome will not interfere. Earlier I raised the example of ordaining married men to the diaconate. Some Latin bishops allow it while others do not/…neither choice is a violation of the canons. Many Latin Catholics disagree with reception of holy communion on the hand (myself included) but ROme does not interfere when local bishops allow the practice. No bishop, however, has the right to restrict reception on the tongue - to do so would be to violate universal law and Rome would have to intervene. Any bishop could, on the other hand, restrict reception on the hand and Rome would stay out. Not saying the issues are comparable - just pointing out that some issues are left to the local bishops while others directly violate universal law.

I think I see what you’re saying: it’s not the pope, it’s the canons.

 

[Byz_Guy]

You are correct that married priests are ordained as an exception to the rule as opposed to the norm…but i believe you are incorrect about Anglican clergy. Pope Benedict’s relatively recent provisions for Anglican Ordinariates, as I understand it, allow FUTURE married men within these Anglican Catholic communities to petition Rome for ordination. You are thinking of the more restrictive Anglican Use of Blessed Pope John Paul. Pope Benedict has been very generous with the Anglicans. In fact in both the UK and the US, the first two Anglican Ordinariates, the Ordinary is a married priest who has been granted by Rome virtually all the authority of governance of a bishop including the right to wear episcopal vestments.

I agree that there is a trend among certain segments of the Latin hierarchy to restrict the ministry of married priests, but it is not universal. It certainly isnt the current position of the Canadian or American bishops.

As I understand it, there is no option for “future married men within these Anglican Catholic communities to petition Rome for ordination.”

See:

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/new-ordinariate-and-1980-pastoral-provision-analysis

The exception for married priests extends only to those who were previously both married and engaged in ordained ministry as Anglicans. Neither set of provisions permits a lay Catholic who converted from Anglicanism or who was raised in Anglican-use Catholic community to enter a Catholic seminary or to be ordained to the priesthood unless he is unmarried and commits himself to lifelong celibacy.

 

[5Loaves]

Married men in the Personal Ordinariate entering the priesthood in the future will be considered on a case by case basis.

Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus

. Article VI § 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

.
The first Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson is the Ordinary but he is not a bishop precisely because he is a married priest. I think he’s supposed to be interviewed this week on EWTN or Catholic radio, but maybe I just drempt that up, he’s such a compelling speaker.

There were already over 100 married clergy in the Latin Church before any of these new former Anglicans came into the Church. Those already married clergy have come from various protestant denominations. Anyone who watches or listens to “The Journey Home” on EWTN is familiar with many of these men. I’m sure they also were permitted to study and be ordained “on a case by case basis”.

 

[Peter_J]

I just came across a blog entry called Myth #1: Future Ordinariate Priests Must Be Celibate.

At first I wondered if it was meant as a joke, but if you read between the lines it’s really just saying what 5Loaves said, namely that married men in the Personal Ordinariate wishing to enter the priesthood in the future will be considered on a case by case basis.

 

[Byz_Guy]

I think the context explains the exception:

VI. § 1. **Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, **and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement In June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

Section 2 is an extension of the first section and it’s talking about those who had been Anglican deacons, priests and bishops.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Here is an Italian news article on the Romanian Catholic situation in Italy:

adistaonline.it/index.php?op=articolo&id=48942&PHPSESSID=85ded5

You’ll need an online translator to get it into English.

This sounds eerily familiar (to any knowledgeable Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic in the U.S.).

The Vatican policy continues to ignore the impact of diaspora on peoples of Eastern Europe. The end result is for Greek Catholics to resort to a modified version of their traditions outside of their native lands of origin. Does that seem right?

 

[Hesychios]

I just came across a blog entry called Myth #1: Future Ordinariate Priests Must Be Celibate.

At first I wondered if it was meant as a joke, but if you read between the lines it’s really just saying what 5Loaves said, namely that married men in the Personal Ordinariate wishing to enter the priesthood in the future will be considered on a case by case basis.

As I recall, the Anglican Use policy of the original Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II did not allow members of the congregation to marry first and then receive ordination. The allowance was reserved to convert clergy. The younger members of the congregation had to abide by the Latin rite celibacy requirement.

Also, if I remember correctly, according to the original provision, Anglican parishes which accepted the pastoral provision were supposed to change over to the Ordinary Form of the liturgy on the retirement of the original Anglican pastor(s). I thought that a small number of parishes did evolve into straight Latin rite operations. (Of course, at that point the local ordinary could consolidate the parish with any other, especially likely if the congregation is small and there is a shortage of priests.)

The erection of the ordinariate does give the Anglican Use of the Latin rite some measure of permanency, and can assure that an Anglican Use parish will not be changed to an Ordinary Form parish, but as I understand it the Anglican Use/Ordinariate community is still regarded as a component of the Latin church, and will only be able to offer their sons to the service of holy orders after the men’s standard commitment to celibacy.

 

[dcointin]

Although this has already been said, it bears repeating:

We Orthodox view watch the Eastern Catholic Church exprience to see what reunion with Rome would be like.

I realize that it has been said that the uniate model is no longer Rome’s way for dealing with reunion in the future, but actions speak louder than words, and we pay far more heed to what happens than what is said. Being unable to practice ones historic right to a married priesthood is not acceptable for us, and this will remain a significant barrier to reunion if this kind of action is allowed to continue.

 

[Peter_J]

Although this has already been said, it bears repeating:

We Orthodox view watch the Eastern Catholic Church exprience to see what reunion with Rome would be like.

dcointin, you should really read the Balamand Statement, or at least ponder its title: “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”.

I realize that it has been said that the uniate model is no longer Rome’s way for dealing with reunion in the future, but actions speak louder than words, and we pay far more heed to what happens than what is said.

I agree, and what I see in modern times is the lack of anything resembling a new “Union of Brest”.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

dcointin, you should really read the Balamand Statement, or at least ponder its title: “Uniatism, method of union of the past, and the present search for full communion”.

Don knows of what he is speaking. It has been proven in the past that official statements and documents actually do very little in contributing to the search for full communion. For all the high talk contained in the Balamand Agreed Statement, if there are not actions behind it then all is for naught.

For better or for worse the Orthodox do look to how Rome treats us Eastern Catholics (not what Rome says about us, or about the East in general) as a foretaste of how they can expect to be treated. That is why Eastern Catholics have to have the courage to stand up to Rome when she makes demands that would have us abandon our traditions in order to avoid “scandal.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It has been codified in the eastern code that the Apostolic See approve:

CCEO Canon 758

1. To be ordained licitly the following are required:
   (1) chrismation with holy myron;
   (2) both the morals and the physical and psychological qualities in harmony with receiving a sacred order;
   (3) the age prescribed by law;
   (4) the required knowledge;
   (5) reception of the lower orders according to the norm of particular law of each Church sui iuris;
   (6) observation of the interstices prescribed by particular law.
2. It is furthermore required that the candidate not be impeded according to the norm of can. 762.
3. The particular law of each Church sui iuris or special norms established by the Apostolic See are to be followed in admitting married men to sacred orders.

However, when Metropolitan Archbishop Judson submitted the Norms of Particular Law for the Ruthenian Church in America, Rome rejected the inclusion of language which would have permitted him, his brother bishops of the suffragen eparchies and their successors from ordaining married to the priesthood without Rome’s prior approval.

Thus, effectively, article 3. above should be taken to mean that married can be ordained to the priesthood only with Rome’s approval.

So far, its only been done once since the CCEO was promulgated (a married deacon was elevated to the priesthood in the Eparchy of Parma).