Posted on 06/25/2004 12:50:39 PM PDT by NYer
During the spring of 2002, the church was confronted with the spectacle of some clergy who had sadly failed in their commitments in chastity by engaging in immoral relations with minors. Throughout the furor this scandal unleashed, the priesthood itself came under close scrutiny by the media, which insisted that celibacy was the cause of the problem.
Celibacy has been required of diocesan priests in the Latin Rite since the Second Lateran Council in 1139. But it was not always a universal requirement in the Roman Catholic church, as we know. Even some of the popes were married. For instance, Pope Anastasius I (399-401) was succeeded by his son, Innocent I (401-417). And Pope Hormisdas, a widower (514-523), was succeeded 13 years after his death by his son, Silverius (536-537). All four are recognized by the church as saints.
Even before the scandal broke, America magazine published in its April 15, 2000, issue an essay by Fr. Gerard S. Sloyan, professor emeritus of the Catholic University of America and Temple University in Philadelphia.
The essay’s title was “The Return of an Old Tradition.” The prophesied revival of an old tradition was a married clergy for the Catholic West.
According to Sloyan, “The chief observation to be made about a married priesthood in the West is that it is inevitable. … The questions here are not whether the change will be a good thing or a bad one. … The only point here is that this change is going to happen, and the worldwide Catholic communion of 1 billion needs to prepare for it. ...
“The first step in this direction should be serious studies. … These studies must first assess the people’s capabilities of supporting a married priesthood. … Married priests may be expected to have large number of children, for whom they and their wives will wish to provide higher education.”
Sloyan concluded, “The major alteration in church life that will undoubtedly occur can be only a matter of speculation.”
However, the modus vivendi et operandi of married priests is not haphazard guesswork, but an open book. We simply have to check how the loyal-to-Rome Eastern Rite married priests live, succeed and get along. Their only restrictions are that they cannot marry after ordination; they cannot remarry after the death of their spouse; and they cannot be appointed a bishop.
In the former Czechoslovakia, where I was ordained, there were plenty of Eastern Rite Catholics who acknowledged the jurisdiction of Rome. We lived in perfect harmony with their clergy (who jokingly referred to our rectories as “Homes for Unwed Fathers”).
In Czechoslovak seminaries, the Latin Rite students lived together with the Eastern Rite Catholics. Our curriculum was the same, but there were some small differences in lifestyle. For instance, we had to shave, but they grew beards.
The most piquing discrepancy was that on Saturday night the Latin Rite seminarians went to the chapel to read the Lives of the Saints, but the Eastern Rite seminarians took off to visit families with marriageable girls, since they had to tie the knot before ordination.
They were fine, clean-cut fellows who used to say that there were at least two instances when “marriage” had to come before “sex”: in the dictionary and in their courtship.
Even after ordination, we remained good friends and visited one another. Their life wasn’t easy. Children were born at regular intervals. The wife had to be a mother, sacristan, sexton, chairperson of various committees and sometimes even choir director.
The family was closely watched by the people, and critical eyes often found some real or concocted topics for gossip. The children, “the priest’s kids,” had to behave all the time -- or else. Any misunderstanding, criticism or dissatisfaction with the family meant a plummeting Sunday collection.
No wonder one of my Eastern Rite colleagues told me, “In fairy tales, the couple falls in love, gets married and lives happily ever after. That’s why they are called fairy tales.”
Of course, celibacy for us on the Latin side requires a certain sacrifice on the part of the priest. We exchange a personal bond with a spouse and family for a different but no less real bond with the church. I am convinced this is what our Lord meant when he replied to Peter, saying that he would receive “a hundred times as many homes, brothers and sisters, mothers, children and property” in exchange for his sacrifices (Mark 10:28-31). Pope John Paul II has repeatedly and strongly defended the Latin Rite rule on priestly celibacy. He calls it a timely challenge for contemporary society and says a married priesthood may create bigger problems than those it intends to solve.
There is no clear solution to this issue. But in the end, even celibate priests are guaranteed two dates. Both of them are engraved on their tombstones.
Eastern Rite priests can be married and ordained anywhere but in North America. That caveat was added by the Vatican in 1929 when married Eastern Rite priests began emigrating to the United States with their Greek and Russian parishioners.
I agree with Sloyan. There is simply too much evidence of responsible and valuable Catholic ministry being exercised by married Catholic men to ignore. That, or the Church will continue to experience the anomaly of the permanent diaconate drawing more vocations than the priesthood.
That will change, eventually, especially if we get an Eastern Rite Pope.
“The chief observation to be made about a married priesthood in the West is that it is inevitable. … The questions here are not whether the change will be a good thing or a bad one. … The only point here is that this change is going to happen, and the worldwide Catholic communion of 1 billion needs to prepare for it. ...
Yea, it is what the lefties want, among other things. What gets me is that every catholic has an opinion about topic like this, yet they barely know the fundamentals of their faith.
Instead fixating on a married clergy, we would be better off learning, and accepting, the fundamental teachings that the majority seem to reject, yet still go to communion. Let us start with contraception and all the other sexual sins that plague our society, once they are under control, then we can discuss the discipline of celibacy.
Lastly, Christ was celibate, is that not the proper model to follow?
Personally, I disagree with Sloyan ... parishes, especially Eastern Rite parishes, lack the financial capability to support a married priest (or 2) + wives, children, orthodontics, or "shoes" for that matter.
However, Sinkie, if YOU are interested, you may want to check your local community for a Melkite Catholic Church.
"The ordination of a married man into the priesthood of the Melkite Church in the United States has triggered some far-ranging discussions of Eastern traditions and ecumenical prospects."
I think that any change should follow tradition. Attempts by American Catholics to "invent" a new style of priesthood should be made slowly. We have seen how the priesthood was demoralized during the '70s by the flight of priests from their vows. It was like the "hollowing out of the U.S. Army at the time. But priests and bishops saw their authority challenged and the old incentives for becoming a priest disappeared. Perhaps a careful enlargement of the Eastern Rites might be considered. Perhaps an increase in the number of deacons. But the conviction that a married priesthood will solve all our problems is misplaced. All one has to do is to look at the problems of the Protestant ministry.
It's my understanding that if they wish to become a bishop, however, they cannot marry.
Christ was God.
Protestant Churches are dying; the Catholic Church continues to grow, yearly, even here in the States.
Of course a married priesthood won't solve problems. There will be a new set of problems with married priests.
The question those at the top must answer is: are those problems preferable to the problems we have now?
Besides I don't see the priesthood as a problem to be fixed. The restoration of the permanent diaconate didn't fix the shortage of priests, but it certainly expanded the number of ministers available to the Church, in a different capacity.
I find it amazing that the Church hasn't done some extensive study about why men are not attracted to the priesthood. Greeley's new book says that many men think about it, and would consider it, but they were never asked to by their own parish priest! I wish he would drill down deeper and do a much wider study of many Catholic men. The results would be useful, if only to illustrate what Catholic men think about the priesthood.
Successful companies do all kinds of studies to determine why clients buy, or don't buy, from them. The parallel is not exact, to be sure, but it might be nice to know if Catholic men don't consider the priesthood because they've got an image of the priests they know that rules it out.
Self-criticism is a very good thing, it seems to me, but the Catholic Church is deathly afraid of what it might find if it did, indeed, take a hard look at Itself.
I agree. I know that priests stopped recruiting sometine after 1965. I think that they no longer believed that it was a worthy mission. Ask a marine about the corps and he will visably grow an inch in height before answering. Pride is all over his face. Don't have that with many priests.
I think you raise reasonable points, Sink. It is inevitable that we address them. Failure to do so, at this particular time, is irresponsible. V's wife.
I agree with you. I know I'm putting bugs in guys'ears all the time about the permanent diaconate: one of my cohorts in Chicago is entering their permanent diaconate program. He said he never even considered it until we talked about it at a class a year or so ago.
Two men in our parish are already enrolled in the next program here, and I'd like to think I had a little hand in that after prodding them to investigate the requirements (one is a Tongan gentleman, who owns a successful business who didn't think he was "smart enough."). The other is a CFO of a jewelry company and the head of our lector program.
I don't hang out with many younger single guys, so I don't have as much occasion to prompt them towards the priesthood. Frankly, I don't see many single guys at Mass, come to think of it. I wonder why?
That is correct! Only celibate priests are considered for the office of bishop.
Our Maronite pastor was ordained to the priesthood in Lebanon and then pursued higher studies in the US, attending St. John's Seminary and Boston College. Having been ordained to the priesthood 'celibate', celibate he shall remain. Frankly, given the schedule he works with, I cannot for the life of me imagine what it would be like for him if he had a wife and kids in tow.
It's a moot point. Our pastor is bi-ritual - Maronite and Latin Rite. Since the Maronite Rite does not allow for communion in the hand or from anyone other than the bishop, pastor or deacon, we have NO EEMs. Our pastor is the ONLY one who can do the communion visits which he does on a daily basis. He also assists the RC Diocese of Albany by saying the Latin Mass at the priestless parishes, during the week. At that time, he consecrates a sufficient number of hosts for their weekend "priestless" liturgy.
Can you imagine how this schedule would eat into any personal time with a wife and children!
The description of how the Eastern Rite treats the Eucharist illustrates why the two groups will never form a unified Church (beyond the fact that both acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope).
When mentioning the permanent deaconate in response to a question about the shortage of priests, you seem to think that the deaconate can have a hand in addressing the shortage. In a sense they can (in administering some of the sacraments), but they will never address the most serious need: priest who can say Mass abd hear confession.
The permanent deacons I know are very Protestant in their views (of both the Church and their role in it); one was recently chastised for administering the Eucharist to a known non-Catholic who would attend Mass. When asked why he did it, he responded that he thought she might convert. This "minister" took it upon himself to desecrate the Host, to pursue some dopey agenda.
FWIW: She didn't convert.
Hmmmm ... I'm not sure I understand your point. The Western and Eastern Churches are the two "lungs" of the Catholic Church. There is not now, nor has there ever been any move, that I know of, to unite the 22 different catholic liturgies into one. Am I missing something in your post?
Did I say that? Where did I say that?
But, since deacons can't confect the Eucharist, it's all the more reason why we should discuss expanding the pool of candidates for the priesthood to include married men.
The permanent deacons I know are very Protestant in their views
Not the ones I know. Complain to your pastor.
Post #7 (from another poster to you) describes "a careful enlargement" of the Eastern Rites as a possible solution. The differences you mention, as well as several others, are reasons why you can't just take some "Latins" and make them "Byzantines" or "Syro-Malabars"...
Why would you even mention the deaconate in terms of a shortage of vocations to the priesthood? In your mind, there is a relationship; in the Catholic Church, there isn't.
And why would I speak to a pastor about anything? They are the foot-soldiers of the heresy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.