Why is celibacy required of Eastern Catholic priests?

[McPhelan]

In the Ruthenian Eparchy of Parma we have several married priests. I had the great honor of serving the Ordination Divine Liturgy of one of them, Fr. Joseph Marquis. He was a long time Deacon in the Eparchy and he is now Pastor of Sacred Heart Parish in Livonia, Michigan. I do not know if Bishop John had to ask for a dispensation in order to Ordain Fr. Joseph or not. As of yet, Fr. Joseph is the only native born married priest that the Eparchy has. The rest are from Europe. There is another native born, married, Deacon who is likely to be Ordained in the relatively near future.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

as far as I know there are several married Ukrainian catholic priests here in the US and in Canada. The Latin church shouldn’t be so preachy about it if they also allow married protestant converts to be ordained into the Latin Church…I call that hypocrisy…

When I read the different posts here it reminds me why we have so many different sects & folks breaking away from the Church.
Obedience is hard, but in the OT, God said He prefers it to sacrifices.When you read the biographies of the saints you often see them experiencing hardship from insensitive & what appear to be poorly thought out directives from their religious superiors.But in the long run, God uses this for good.Without serious checks & balances, (even those that appear clumsy, harsh, & hypocritical), a saint might turn into a Jim Jones.

 

[Hesychios]

In the Ruthenian Eparchy of Parma we have several married priests. I had the great honor of serving the Ordination Divine Liturgy of one of them, Fr. Joseph Marquis. He was a long time Deacon in the Eparchy and he is now Pastor of Sacred Heart Parish in Livonia, Michigan. I do not know if Bishop John had to ask for a dispensation in order to Ordain Fr. Joseph or not. As of yet, Fr. Joseph is the only native born married priest that the Eparchy has. The rest are from Europe. There is another native born, married, Deacon who is likely to be Ordained in the relatively near future.

I am glad to see this.

Wasn’t Father Joseph Marquis in the UGCC for a while? I thought he was from Canada or something like that.

 

[McPhelan]

Fr. Joseph had been a Deacon of the Latin Diocese of Detroit and transfered to the Eparchy of Parma. He served Sacred Heart parish as Deacon for a number of years before he was Ordained to the Priesthood.

 

[Ghosty]

Hi Ghosty,
Would you care to name them?

I am curious.

Looks like my wording was poor. I meant that those of us in these forums know of several married Ruthenian priests, not that there are several married priests posting in these forums.

As for the names of married Ruthenian priests, I don’t recall them off-hand, but if you do a search they should come up in past discussions on this forums. There was a thread not too terribly long ago, IIRC.

Peace and God bless!

 

[aspirant]

I also remember something about Metropolitan Judson Procyk being in favor of the “married candidate option” but the other bishops did not. In any case it was (supposedly) the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, and not the Vatican, that wanted the “special dispensation” clause in the particular norms.

That is my understanding.

Bishop John Kudrick of Parma (consecrated 2002) was the most receptive to the idea of ordaining married men, last I remember.

According to what I’ve read, he has ordained at least three married men himself.

Fr. Joseph Marquis… I do not know if Bishop John had to ask for a dispensation in order to Ordain Fr. Joseph or not.

He is one of the ones I’ve seen mentioned.

 

[Ghosty]

I think it is a question of requiring a dispensation.

The dispensation is imposed by the Ruthenians themselves, for whatever reason, and not the Vatican. It seems that the Ruthenian Church opted to make Rome the final arbiter on ordinations of married men, but I have no idea why. Rome certainly has more important matters to worry about.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hi Ghosty,
Would you care to name them?

I am curious.

I don’t think Ghosty should name them if they chose not to name themselves.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a post from the earlier thread to which Ghosy alluded.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5890753&postcount=10

Father Francis Murin is another married BCC priest; he serves in the Eparchy of van Nuys at St. Phllip’s in Sacramento.

 

[dvdjs]

A diocese that has to support a bishop and chancellor, plus 30 - 35 other priests with just 12,000 members is definitely challenged.

This is a big problem for us. As the small coal towns and rust belt cities of the NE depopulate, we have fewer people but still try (too much, IMO) to keep the same number of parishes open. The people leaving the NE are dispersed over a broad swath of the country. So we need and will continue to need to staff numerous, smaller parishes. The financial issues are daunting.

And think of what this means in vocations: the number of vocations per male parishioner will have to be larger than that of the most vigorous Latin dioceses in the US. That is a tall order. In Van Nuys we currently have three seminarians among ~200 faithful. That means that 1 of every 500 male parishioners, and about 1 of every 100 men of traditional seminary age is currently in the seminary. Said another way: in van Nuys there are (From the Catholic-Hierarchy website) ~100 parishioners/priest; in the RC diocese of St. Louis the ratio is ~800; in Denver it is ~1300. We need vocation rates 8-fold higher than St. Louis, 13-fold higher than Denver - both of which are vigorous RC dioceses.

I don think that the significance of these numbers is very well understood in the Metropolia. Given these numbers, we cannot realistically hope to sustain or finance the requisite numbers of priests without a presbyterate that includes married men who are either pensioned or working other jobs. It is not just a matter of our canonical right, or our tradition - it is, IMO, a demographic necessity.

 

[Hesychios]

I don think that the significance of these numbers is very well understood in the Metropolia. Given these numbers, we cannot realistically hope to sustain or finance the requisite numbers of priests without a presbyterate that includes married men who are either pensioned or working other jobs. It is not just a matter of our canonical right, or our tradition - it is, IMO, a demographic necessity.

All good points.

 

[johnnykins]

Yes, why not?

Are you an advocate of married bishops for all churches?

If the Church in her wisdom were to allow it - fine with me. I never have believed that the Church is stuck in some petrified adherence to ancient practice because She is the Church with full power today as She had in ancient times to change practices and discipline. If She wants to change, OK by me since She is the Church that made the rule in the first place.

So tell me, are you suggesting that Orthodoxy could agree on any such radical change without splitting apart - even though it would be a return to ancient Church practice jettisoned by the Church in Her wisdom? Do you think that Orthodoxy still has the practical power to change anything give her much vaunted (especially on this Forum) preternatural stasis? Not acting much like the early Church is she can’t change the rule back, n’est-ce pas?

 

[Brendan]

I don think that the significance of these numbers is very well understood in the Metropolia. Given these numbers, we cannot realistically hope to sustain or finance the requisite numbers of priests without a presbyterate that includes married men who are either pensioned or working other jobs. It is not just a matter of our canonical right, or our tradition - it is, IMO, a demographic necessity.

I see that in the Eastern Orthodox as well. I personally know an Orthodox priest who works in the IT department at our corporate headquarters.

 

[dvdjs]

I see that in the Eastern Orthodox as well. I personally know an Orthodox priest who works in the IT department at our corporate headquarters.

Precisely the model. I am involved with and OCA mission that after 15 years, still rarely sees more than 30 adults on a Sunday. The priest telecommutes with a software company.

ps In my post above, I botched a number: in Van Nuys we have three seminarians among ~3000 faithful.

 

[sidbrown]

The dispensation is imposed by the Ruthenians themselves, for whatever reason, and not the Vatican.

No.
“In 1998 the Ruthenian Catholic metropolitanate of Pittsburgh drafted new Statutes which stated that marriage was no longer an impediment to presbyteral orders. The new law was to take effect on September 1, 1998, but implementation was delayed temporarily at the request of the Holy See.”
faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Ruthenian.html

 

[Ghosty]

No.
“In 1998 the Ruthenian Catholic metropolitanate of Pittsburgh drafted new Statutes which stated that marriage was no longer an impediment to presbyteral orders. The new law was to take effect on September 1, 1998, but implementation was delayed temporarily at the request of the Holy See.”
faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Ruthenian.html

That has nothing to do with the Canon Laws enacted by the Ruthenian Church in 1999, which is where the self-imposed requirement of Vatican dispensation is enshrined.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Why not just return to the practice of the Ancient, Apostolic New Testament Church pre-schism???

Why not?**

 

[malphono]

I see that in the Eastern Orthodox as well. I personally know an Orthodox priest who works in the IT department at our corporate headquarters.

Good point.

In the “old country” (I’m speaking here of Middle Eastern, but I believe the Slavic reality was pretty much the same – with the normal cultural variations), married priests were also known as “village priests” and often had a heard of sheep or goats to tend. Or a small plot of land to farm. Or a wood bench and lathe, etc, to make furniture (shades of S Joseph there, but it was real.) No matter what it was that they did, they did it to support the wife and children. In other words, they were part of the village, not separate from it. Whatever the trade, the diocese didn’t support the priest’s wife and children. The priest did. The demands on them as priests were certainly real, but it was within the context of a small community where everybody knew everybody’s name (sounds almost like a plug for the old TV show “Cheers” doesn’t it?).

As a “cradle Oriental” I am, of course, not opposed to the ordination of married men. It’s part of our tradition (and a venerable part – there are a few in my family tree), and even S Paul speaks to it. At the same time, though, I’m not thrilled with the idea that a married priest’s wife and family should be supported by the diocese. The “old way” was otherwise, and IMHO that same “otherwise” is just as valid now. I’ll likely get slammed for supporting the “worker priest” idea, but in the case of married men, that is exactly the tradition. Yes, in the 21st century telecommuting might be the replacement for the seep and goats, but the underlying principle remains. Personally, I see no reason to change it.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Aramis]

That has nothing to do with the Canon Laws enacted by the Ruthenian Church in 1999, which is where the self-imposed requirement of Vatican dispensation is enshrined.

Peace and God bless!

Actually, it’s WHY it was enshrined. Rome made it clear that they did not want it lifted.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually, it’s WHY it was enshrined. Rome made it clear that they did not want it lifted.

Then this does raise the interesting question of why that is the case for the Ruthenians and, apparently, only the Ruthenians. Is there something peculiar to the Ruthenian case that doesn’t apply to all the other Eastern Churches (who, as we’ve seen, have no such restrictions)? The only thing I can think of is the general opposition to such a practice by Ruthenian bishops at the time, but that’s merely a guess.

Peace and God bless!