Video on Married priests in Ukraine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tradycja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While it is simplistic the acceptance of married clergy does help somewhat. A major issue that hit the Catholic Church though was that it covered up the charges so they all came out at once.
 
The case is not really made as to the linkage between celibacy and the sexual abuse scandal. Rather, it is inferred by way of example.

The Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora, where celibacy had been mandated, did indeed suffer cases of the same type of sexual abuse attributed to the broader Catholic Church. That said, I know of many more cases where EC priests / seminarians either (i) left the priesthood (temporarily or permanently) after becoming emotionally attached to women or (ii) fled to Orthodoxy in order to be able to marry before being ordained.

Having been raised in parish with a married priest with family, a rarity for my generation, I wholeheartedly agree with many of the stated pastoral advantages mentioned in the video. Married priests certainly understand the challenges of family life, as well as spiritual life.

It is also subtly but clearly highlighted in the video that there is strong cultural acceptance of the married priesthood in the Ukraine. The support of the priestly family by the lay community is critical to the success of this model of ministry.
 
Well…how interesting, they don’t have any scandals.

I think married priests are a good idea at this point in time.
 
pollycarp said:
Well…how interesting, they don’t have any scandals.

I think married priests are a good idea at this point in time.
Click to expand...
My only concern for the West is the culture shock married clergy would bring. In the East, the local culture revolves around having married clergy. I don’t know if it can be handled well in the West right now. How would seminarians find women to date? Would these women know the commitments that come with becoming a priest’s wife?
 
I think it is problematic to think of the vocation of priesthood to be, in some sense, synonymous with celibacy. Celibacy is its own vocation apart from priesthood. The best priest is the priest that follow his vocation, and if that means being married… the priest should be married… because that is God’s will for that priest’s life. Whether the celibacy regulations of the western church has any bearing on the priest’s sexuality is not conclusive, but if one is called to be married and they spend their entire life celibate this would inevitably affect that person’s sexual development, no?
 
You know I was thinking…just because cases “haven’t been reported” doesn’t really mean anything. I’ve been to Ukraine and have around 10 Ukrainian friends.

Not to criticize Ukraine, I love the country, the people, and the religion but the government in Ukraine is still very corrupt so things “not being reported” doesn’t mean much.

Nevertheless, my ultra-Latin friends go on about all the problems of married priesthood, like “they are not as available for confessions” but I have found the priests at my UGCC parish to be MORE available for confessions than the Latin priests in my area, go figure.
 
i think its beautiful.
priest should be allowed to marry end of story.
 
The sexual revolution is a breakdown of western society. Those in the west deal with its fallout. Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the US have sexual abuse scandals.

The atheistic and communist revolution was a breakdown of eastern society. Those western churches in the east deal with its fallout.

Having married or celibate clergy is incidental to both.

I love and support our married clergy. Marriage doesn’t make a person immune to abuse. Most sexual abusers are married and in the victim’s family, like a father, step-father, uncle, or grandfather. Sexual abuse in the family is inconceivable for any person who has a strong family life and example, but government-imposed atheism it is also inconceivable for anyone in the west with a strong community faith life. These are problems of culture.
 
Tradycja said:
Is it too simplistic or do they have a point?
Click to expand...
A little of both I guess. The “… but with one major difference …” statement at the beginning might give people the impression that the *only *big difference between Greek Catholics and Latin Catholics is the married priesthood.
 
ConstantineTG said:
My only concern for the West is the culture shock married clergy would bring. In the East, the local culture revolves around having married clergy. I don’t know if it can be handled well in the West right now. How would seminarians find women to date? Would these women know the commitments that come with becoming a priest’s wife?
Click to expand...
At the risk of getting onto a tangent, does anyone remember the movie “Return to me”?
 
Let’s get one thing straight first priests are not allowed to marry in either the eastern or western church, whether they belong to the Catholic church or the Orthodox church. The teaching and practice is that married men are allowed to become priests.

As another poster mentioned celibacy is a vocation in and of itself, separate from the vocation to priesthood. It’s always been the Vatican’s policy to allow the various branches of the Church to follow its own patrimony – whether that is a married clergy or not. The video makes it sound like Rome is doing something special in the case of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, it’s not really.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
It’s always been the Vatican’s policy to allow the various branches of the Church to follow its own patrimony – whether that is a married clergy or not.
Click to expand...
This definitive statement is not consistent with history.

Google Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit
 
The Vatican doesn’t allow patrimony. It has an obligation to respect it and to not hinder the expression or promulgation of it. An obligation it has failed to uphold at times.

We are only the torchbearers of tradition. We receive it and we pass it on. There’s no gatekeeper for which patrimonies may be shared. It’s quite the opposite really. Those who receive the patrimony are obliged to pass it on whole and complete. No authority can rightfully quash that. To say Rome has that authority is to greatly misunderstand the role of a bishop or a Pope regarding the church.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
This definitive statement is not consistent with history.

Google Ea Semper and Cum Data Fuerit
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should’ve said it is the Vatican’s current policy to respect the patrimony of the various rites in the Church.

Chads
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top