When are bishops permitted to be married?

[Blind_Didymus]

This is intended as a genuine question so calm and informed answers would be appreciated please.

What prompted this question:
I’ve recently come across the Brazillian Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz. Among other things, he was at Vatican II and was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janeiro by Pope John XXIII, yet he was married before he was received into full communion with Rome. Assumably this changes things a bit.

So, could somebody please explain how it was that Bishop Ferraz was allowed to be a married Roman Catholic bishop in 20th century South America?

Also, how is this case different from the cases of married Anglican bishops who become Catholic, seeing they are not permitted to be bishops but only priests?

Please note: I am neither married nor a cleric. I would just like to understand things properly

Thank you for your replies.

 

[DavidFilmer]

St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (ie, Pope) was married, as we can infer from Scripture:

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever [Matt 8:14]

An unmarried man cannot have a mother-in-law.

There is no theological reason which prevents a married man from becoming a Bishop of the Church. A married man is just as capable of being a Bishop as an unmarried man. Indeed, St. Paul instructs both Timothy and Titus in ordaining Bishops:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… [1-Timothy 3]

For this cause l left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre [Titus 1:5-7]

The restriction of marriage is a rule only - not a doctrine. It is also based on the [higher] instruction of St. Paul:

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. [1Cor:7:32-33]

The fact remains that, from ancient times, a Bishop may be married. The restriction of married Bishops is also an ancient rule, but is not a doctrine. In “modern” times, the rules of the Catholic Church are encoded in the Code of Canon Law. The Pope is the only Catholic who is not subject to Canon Law in any way whatsoever, so he is perfectly at liberty to appoint and ordain as many married Bishops as he pleases. In modern times, the number of such appointments has been scant. But it is a non-zero probability (as you have properly cited), and there is no theological reason why it could not substantially increase at the whim of whomever happens to be Pope today or in the future.

You identify yourself as Orthodox. How many Orthodox Bishops are married?

 

[Blind_Didymus]

I’m not aware of any married Orthodox bishops at the moment (at least not any canonical ones), however the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church had a few around a century ago around the time they were facing genocide. They have sinced ceased ordaining married bishops again.

Part of the reason I ask is that when the Russian Orthodox Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh of Brooklyn, USA married, the Orthodox Church viewed him as having deposed himself.

It would appear though that the distinction here is that the whole Church (West and East) recognises that a person who has been ordained may not subsequently marry, but if one is already married one may be ordained.

This being the case, why are married Anglican bishops who wish to become Catholic only allowed to be ordained as priests, not bishops? Thank you for your answer but so far all you have indicated is that married men can be ordained as bishops if the Pope of Rome wishes to ordain a married man as a bishop. But why then does there seem to be a position of no compromise in regards to Anglican bishops?

No offence is intended here. I’m just trying to find out what the technicalities of these situations might be. Thank you again for your replies.

 

[St_Francis]

Priests and by extension bishops can only marry before they are ordained. Once ordained, they cannot marry, even if their wife dies.

In the Western Catholic Church, it has been a *discipline *not to ordain married men to the priesthood–they can become deacons. This means that it is only a rule, not a teaching, and so married men can ask to be ordained. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is not a rule, so married priests are not unusua. However, Eastern priests too are forbidden to marry after ordination.

 

[1ke]

So, could somebody please explain how it was that Bishop Ferraz was allowed to be a married Roman Catholic bishop in 20th century South America?

He was validly ordained and consecrated a bishop in a schismatic church which maintained valid holy orders. Therefore, he was a valid bishop whether he ever came into the Catholic Church.

Being received into the Catholic Church did not change anything-- he was ALREADY a validly ordained priest and consecrated bishop. He could never be anything else, as you know ordination imparts a character that is permanent.

What the Church can, and does, regulate is the exercise of that ministry within the Church.

It is within the Pope’s authority to make exceptions to canon law. That is what John XXIII apparently did in making such an appointment.

Also, how is this case different from the cases of married Anglican bishops who become Catholic, seeing they are not permitted to be bishops but only priests?

He was **already **validly ordained and consecrated a bishop. That is the difference.

Anglican clergy who seek to enter the Catholic Church do so as lay men. They are not validly ordained in their own ecclesial community-- the Catholic Church has made a determination that Anglican orders are invalid (and those reading this who want to bring up the “Dutch touch”, etc, can just forget it, that is an exception not the rule).

So, the Anglican priest enters the Catholic Church a lay man. By exception, he is allowed to be ordained to the priesthood. There has been no exception made to allow his elevation to Bishop. It simply is not done in the Catholic Church.

 

[runningdude]

This is intended as a genuine question so calm and informed answers would be appreciated please.

What prompted this question:
I’ve recently come across the Brazillian Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz. Among other things, he was at Vatican II and was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Rio de Janeiro by Pope John XXIII, yet he was married before he was received into full communion with Rome. Assumably this changes things a bit.

So, could somebody please explain how it was that Bishop Ferraz was allowed to be a married Roman Catholic bishop in 20th century South America?

According to Wikipedia, he was validly ordained by a renegade bishop, but repented of his efforts to form a competing church. Thus he already had valid orders.

That the Catholic Church chose to accept him into ministry, shows they accepted his penance and believed him to be worthy of the responsibility. Because he had orders, **AND **the church accepted him to ministry, it would be disrespectful to the sacrament to to treat him as thing less than a bishop. It is, however, an extremely rare exception to admit a married bishop to ministry.

Also, how is this case different from the cases of married Anglican bishops who become Catholic, seeing they are not permitted to be bishops but only priests?..

Anglican clerics do not possess valid orders. Accepting this teaching is a requirement of conversion. However, married clerics accepted to Catholic ministry who previously served as Anglican bishops are permitted to hold the position of “Ordinary”, which is the governing authority of a bishop in his diocese or equivalent.

 

[phil19034]

St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (ie, Pope) was married, as we can infer from Scripture:

An unmarried man cannot have a mother-in-law.

As FYI - Some traditions (not the lower case t) claim that Peter’s wife had actually died. Some use the text from the Bible which speaks about his mother-in-law as proof that his wife had past. The theory is that if Peter’s wife was alive, she would have been serving them, not her mother. Or at bare minimum, Peter’s wife would have been mentioned as helping or why she wasn’t helping during that passage.

The fact that she’s not mentioned doesn’t prove that she had died, but does support the theory.

To the OP: The only way we can have a married Bishop is if they were married in a schismatic group or dissent Bishop with valid orders, like this Bishop was. For example, an “Old Catholic.” As others have mentioned, Anglicans do not have valid orders. Also, as some “Old Catholic” groups have started ordaining women, there may come a time when their orders cease to be valid too. Or a defrocked Bishop ordaining a priest as a Bishop.

As note: Bishop Ferraz never lead a Diocese. He was only a Titular Bishop.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Okay. Thank you.

So put simply, married men who receive valid orders in schismatic groups retain them when becoming Catholic, but married men who receive invalid orders may only be (re)ordained under certain circumstances. Is that right?

Seeing it was brought up then, just where does this leave Anglicans who received their orders via Utrecht (i.e. the Dutch Old Catholics)? Might they be considered valid or are they invalid too?

 

[1ke]

Seeing it was brought up then, just where does this leave Anglicans who received their orders via Utrecht (i.e. the Dutch Old Catholics)? Might they be considered valid or are they invalid too?

The Church would have to conduct an investigation of any claim of valid orders based on specific apostolic lineage.

However, Anglican priests joining the Church – valid orders or not-- join the Ordinariate. The Ordinariate has no allowance for married bishops.

Unless the Pope made an exception, such a person would be able to exercise whatever priestly ministry is allowed in the Ordinariate, but would not exercise any ministry as a bishop.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Alright, thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

I could make this more complex and ask what would happen if it was in a country where no Ordinariate yet exists but considering that for now this is a hypothetical question we may as well just leave it until that actually happens, if it ever does.

Thanks again, peace and remember me in your prayers also please.

 

[runningdude]

Alright, thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

I could make this more complex and ask what would happen if it was in a country where no Ordinariate yet exists but considering that for now this is a hypothetical question we may as well just leave it until that actually happens, if it ever does.

Thanks again, peace and remember me in your prayers also please.

There is no requirement, actually, for an Anglican convert to join an ordinate, even if an ordinate is present.

Further, if a married clergy member converted, and wished to participate in Catholic ministry, then any Catholic Bishop could petition the Pope for permission ordain such a convert, if he felt the candidate were worthy. The Pope has granted such dispensations before the formation of the ordinates, and could still do so if chooses.

 

[Bishop_Gavrilo]

My five cents to this discussion, as an Eastern Orthodox bishop:

–Armenians about a hundred years ago ordained some married parish priests into episcopacy, validly, canonically, with full synodal approval and while applying the Canon of Necessity.
–Russian Orthodox Church in Catacombs during the severe persecution by Stalinists did the same thing, on account having no monks or celibate priests from which to draw bishops.
–Czechoslovak (Underground) Roman Catholic Church after WWII ordained a few married priests into episcopacy, secretly and with no papal consent, under Canon of Necessity. There was simply no physical way to obtain the consent from Vatican and the visible church was collaborant Pacem in Terris full of Communist agents, is what I read on that topic. As far as we know, after the fall of Communism, John Paul II called all those illicit married bishops to Vatican, some were re-ordained sub-conditione, some were transferred to Greek-Catholic rite and accepted into position of (married) parish priests, two or three were accepted “as is”, i.e. as married Roman Catholic bishops, were regularized by Vatican, but at immediately after that were “retired”. Thus, they kept the titulature, but were allowed no active ministry. They had to make a solemn vow to the Czechoslovak Cardinal never to ordain anyone. Some of them repeatedly broke the promise not to actively serve (by saying mass here and there or by hearing confessions here and there) but the Cardinal did not make a big deal out of it, just reminded them they were given no official faculties and to please refrain from it.

Also, there is a synodical document from GOX (Greek Orthodox Church) from early 1920s where the synod is pondering whether or not (and how) married parish priests could be ordained into episcopacy yet again (i.e. how to derrogate the current discipline). They came to conclude that an autocephalous church (there are many of them) would have to pass a synodical resolution that would be effective for the whole territory under the rule of that autocephalous church, whereby the canon of “only monks or celibate widow-priests may be elected for episcopal ordination” would be derrogated. Until this day, it has never happened.

There are Orthodox theologians who say that a Pan-Orthodox council could derrogate that discipline. Some say a General Council could do that (after West and East are, again, in communion).

Blessings,
+Gavrilo, Bishop of Czechia
Exarchate of Vlahia
Greek Orthodox Church
Synod of Avlona