Why is celibacy required of Eastern Catholic priests?

[Mickey]

A few years ago when I was with the Ruthenian Catholics, a married friend of mine was extremely motivated for the priesthood. He approached the Metropolitan who told my friend that he will never be ordained due to his marital status.

 

[bilop]

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:

Have any Eastern Catholic Eparchies looked into “co-locating” parishes with Latin parishes? i.e sharing the physical church, rectory, etc. You’d probably need some sort of separate chapel so that Eastern architecture and art could be preserved, but lots of Churches have those separate chapels. I know in NY there is a Russian Catholic Chapel on the grounds of Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

It would seem this would reduce the financial burden on the parish dramatically, and given that there are many under-utilized Latin Churches/rectories a wise use of resources.

I’m very interested in these issues as a married Latin, who would seriously consider the priesthood if it were ever opened to married men in the Latin Church.

God Bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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!

Could it be that we are only a Metropolitian Church solely confined to the United States?

 

[aspirant]

A few years ago when I was with the Ruthenian Catholics, a married friend of mine was extremely motivated for the priesthood. He approached the Metropolitan who told my friend that he will never be ordained due to his marital status.

And yet married Ruthenian men are being ordained. Not many, perhaps, but it does rule out “never… due to his marital status.”

 

[Aramis]

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!

The Ruthenian Metropolia functions as a sui iuris church separate from it’s Rusyn parent eprarchies. Those operate as papal dependent Eparchial churches. The metropolia is sui iuris separate from them, and unique to the US. It would be more honest to call it the American Greek Catholic Church instead, except that that would denigrate those american subjects of the bishops of the Romanian, Melkite, and Ukrainian churches. But those churches are actively part of multi-national churches, whilst the MoP is not.

Rome has intentionally kept a wedge between the two “spheres” of the Ruthenians. Everywhere else, Ruthenians are deposited under the omophor of the Ukrainian, or some other slavic byantine, or some other byzantine, then under the ordinary of the dominant rite.

This separation has apparently kept the Eparchy of Muchachevo from being “corrupted” by the American church.

 

[sidbrown]

A few years ago when I was with the Ruthenian Catholics, a married friend of mine was extremely motivated for the priesthood. He approached the Metropolitan who told my friend that he will never be ordained due to his marital status.

Yes. i have understood that to be the case in the USA.

 

[sidbrown]

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

Yes. I believe that you are correct on this. I notice that ghosty did not give us any documentation for his opinion, but demanded documentation for ours.

 

[Hesychios]

And yet married Ruthenian men are being ordained. Not many, perhaps, but it does rule out “never… due to his marital status.”

It is entirely up to the bishop, some are “Old School”.

That does not mean that they are ‘Orthodox’ old school, it means that they are the products of another age, like the “Elko” age. The Catholic Ruthenian community had already calved off the more Orthodox sympathizers among their flocks over a period from the 1890’s to the 1930’s. By the 1950’s this community was pretty homogenized.

One has to be familiar with the BCC - ACROD controversy. The faction that remained under the Pope consisted of a string of remaining parishes that was fairly Latinized, and the young men who went into seminary at that time committed themselves to a life of celibacy. They had to be ardent on the subject, they were being obedient to ‘Peter’ in the person of the Pope, who required this sacrifice from them (as per Cum Data Fuerit). They had to be proud of this commitment, this loyalty manifested in personal sacrifice. They just had to know that they stood on the right side in this debate.

Now, as much older men after a lifetime of self denial and sacrifice, and as bishops, they are told that they may ordain married men … the very issue that split their families, their parishes and their church apart in not one but two horrendous schisms! Of course they will - NOT!

And that bishop has the right to say so, if he will never ordain a married man he can give that as his reason.

 

[Mickey]

And yet married Ruthenian men are being ordained. Not many, perhaps, but it does rule out “never… due to his marital status.”

If this is accurate, then one wonders why the Metropolitan said this.

 

[Mickey]

Now, as much older men after a lifetime of self denial and sacrifice, and as bishops, they are told that they may ordain married men … the very issue that split their families, their parishes and their church apart in not one but two horrendous schisms! Of course they will - NOT!

Wow! I never thought about it in that way. This is a very good point!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am willing to give our bishops the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are actually concerned with how a married priest could take care of a family on the very low wage that is paid.

Maybe they are also concerned with this priests retirement and health benefits, how to pay for them so that the family is covered as well.

Its not an easy thing especially when most of our praishes are so small.

I do not think it is a good thing in some of the Orthodox jurisdictions where the parish priest has to work a job out side of the parish, even if it is just teaching religion at a school. The pastors job is the parish. A vicar (to use a Latin Church term, don’t really know the term for Eastern Christians for a second priest at a praish (are there any parishes with more than one priest in residence anyways)) I could see having a job out side of the parish, but if that job is not in some ministry type area (such as stated above where the priest works in the IT department) then I think something is very wrong. (Not that I do not love IT work as that is what I did before entering the Carmelites and is what I am teaching at the High School I am assigned to for my internship ministry but then, this is my ministry not some extra job I must work to live).

 

[Ghosty]

Yes. I believe that you are correct on this. I notice that ghosty did not give us any documentation for his opinion, but demanded documentation for ours.

All I asked for was documentation that explained how there is an imposed rule of celibacy when there are currently married Ruthenian priests. I don’t see how I required more documentation than the fact that there are indeed married Ruthenian priests, and that the Vatican doesn’t impose celibacy on any other Eastern Churches.

The documentation has been provided, and I’m satisfied with that, though a bit confused by the peculiar status of the Ruthenian Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The documentation has been provided, and I’m satisfied with that, though a bit confused by the peculiar status of the Ruthenian Church.

I think that is part of the issue. I think everyone is confused by this.

 

[Aramis]

One of the blessings of it’s being reserved to Rome, rather than to either the Metropolitan or the synod, is that the bishops who want to can get men approved. If it were required to go through his grace Basil, wouldn’t happen for priests.

 

[Diak]

I do not think it is a good thing in some of the Orthodox jurisdictions where the parish priest has to work a job out side of the parish, even if it is just teaching religion at a school. The pastors job is the parish.

What is the difference between this and a Latin parish priest who works in a chancery, teaches full time in a school, etc.? None.

This arrangement, while certainly a challenge for the priest and his family, has worked out well in several Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (thinking here of Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians) to support the priest while not creating a crushing financial burden on a small or mission parish.

 

[Mickey]

What is the difference between this and a Latin parish priest who works in a chancery, teaches full time in a school, etc.? None.

This arrangement, while certainly a challenge for the priest and his family, has worked out well in several Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (thinking here of Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians) to support the priest while not creating a crushing financial burden on a small or mission parish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is the difference between this and a Latin parish priest who works in a chancery, teaches full time in a school, etc.? None.

No, the difference is that those are the full time ministries of those priests, they are not also assigned as a pastor of a parish.

I think it is a great loss when a pastor of a parish needs to seek outside empolyment.

This arrangement, while certainly a challenge for the priest and his family, has worked out well in several Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (thinking here of Melkites, Ukrainians and Romanians) to support the priest while not creating a crushing financial burden on a small or mission parish.

Yes, small or mission parish but that should be an exception, not the norm.

If this is the norm then I think it is time all the bishops in the United States get together and see about working together. In some places there are parishes from multiple jurisdictions that are small but if they were consolidated together they would be a nice sized parish.

But that is fodder for another thread.

 

[Diak]

No, the difference is that those are the full time ministries of those priests, they are not also assigned as a pastor of a parish.

I think it is a great loss when a pastor of a parish needs to seek outside empolyment.

I would argue again that there is no difference - in many, many cases I know of the Latin priest has a full time job AND is assigned to parish work. I’m sure many here also know of Latin priests wearing multiple hats in this way. Any priest who is a full-time teacher and has a parish assigned does indeed have a full-time job besides pastoral ministry. Just ask them. The Vicar Generals, Judicial Vicars and Chancellors of many Latin dioceses/archdioceses have full time parish work besides the chancery work, as do a large number of teachers and chaplains of schools, prisons and hospitals. There is no difference, only that the Church is the employer rather than some outside company. They have work obligations AND parish obligations.

In some cases our priests are doing the same thing (biritual work as hospital chaplains, etc.) as the Latin priests they work alongside with who, like them, also have parish duties.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would argue again that there is no difference - in many, many cases I know of the Latin priest has a full time job AND is assigned to parish work. I’m sure many here also know of Latin priests wearing multiple hats in this way. Any priest who is a full-time teacher and has a parish assigned does indeed have a full-time job besides pastoral ministry. Just ask them. The Vicar Generals, Judicial Vicars and Chancellors of many Latin dioceses/archdioceses have full time parish work besides the chancery work, as do a large number of teachers and chaplains of schools, prisons and hospitals. There is no difference, only that the Church is the employer rather than some outside company. They have work obligations AND parish obligations.

In some cases our priests are doing the same thing (biritual work as hospital chaplains, etc.) as the Latin priests they work alongside with who, like them, also have parish duties.

You are not understanding me, but that is fine. It is not always easy to get one’s ideas across in this media.

 

[lemkorusyn]

The term “Ruthenian” has meant different things to different people at different times in history. Today, it is used loosely to refer to the Eastern Slavic people from what is now Belarus, southeastern Poland, northeastern Slovakia, and western Ukraine (Transcarpathia). Today, Ruthenians can be either Byzantine (Greek) Catholic or Orthodox. It is in the Orthodox churches that the priests are allowed to be married.

In the mid-800s, Ruthenians were converted from paganism to Orthodoxy by Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were Greek missionaries. They remained Orthodox (Russian Orthodox) until the the mid-1500s, when they were pressured and given many promises to unite with Rome and fall under the authority of the Pope. At the Union of Brest (and later at the Union of Mukachevo), the Ruthenian church leadership (i.e., Orthodox Bishops) agreed to unit with Rome on the condition that they be allowed to maintain their Eastern (Orthodox) traditions. (At that time, they were referred to as “uniates.”)

The traditions they were promised to be able to keep included celebrating the Divine Liturgy (mass) in the Old Slavonic rather than Latin tongue, crossing themselves from right to left (rather than left to right in the Latin tradition), using the three-bar cross, serving communion with bread and wine (rather than a wafer), allowing priests to be married, and much more. Unlike the Latin church, there are no organs or other instruments in the Byzantine (or Orthodox) church, the belief being that the people’s voices were a gift from God and more beautiful than any man-made instrument. Another promise was that Byzantine (Greek) Catholic priests would be held in the same regard and given the same status and benefits as Latin priests–which didn’t happen.

Byzantine Catholic priests were allowed to be married until sometime around the 1940s, when that privilege was taken away. Unfortunately, Byzantine (Greek Catholic) priests were always treated like second citizens. And over time, Rome gradually started breaking its promises and taking away privileges that had been guaranteed in the original agreement–including the right for priests to be married.

Around the 1930s, many priests, bisphops and lay people in the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church grew so angry about these broken promises and the increasing imposition of “Latinization” that there became a cry to return to Orthodoxy. Many churches (and people) broke away and became Orthodox again, causing a huge split in the church as well as within families. As a result, you will find both Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic and Ruthenian Orthodox churches today.

Today, three-bar crosses are no longer allowed. They had to be changed to the Latin two-bar cross. In the U.S., the traditional “iconastisis,” which was a magnificent, ornate wall of icons separating the congregation from the altar, have been torn down to make the churches more like the Latin churches. It was a shame because these were elegant and costly masterpieces that the people had paid for…and to many, a sign of disrespect.

On the other hand, the Latin Church has adopted some of the practices that were traditional in the Byzantine Catholic Church–like singing the mass, confessing face-to-face with the priest instead of in a confessional.

As for the question regarding why there were still married Ruthenian priests: if they are Orthodox, the priests have always been allowed to be married. However, they must be married before they enter the priesthood. They cannot be married afterward. In the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, I understand widowed men are being allowed to become priests today.

I grew up Byzantine Catholic. When I was a child, our priest was married. But his family didn’t just sit back and be supported by the parishoners. The entire family was actively involved in the church. The wife and grown children took on many responsibilities that now take more than one priest to handle or that churches now pay people to do. I personally believe that In smaller communities, it makes a lot of sense (and can be more economical) to have married priests.