Eastern Catholics and Married Priests

"Validity of Eastern Catholic traditions?"  

The following article from the USCCBlog does a pretty good job of summarizing what transpired between Eastern and Latin Rites about the turn of the 19th century.  All in all, I appreciated what was being said, but I would offer one correction.  In the final paragraph it states:

The fact that Pope Francis has decided to allow Eastern Catholic bishops anywhere in the world to ordain worthy married men to the priesthood is a great step forward. He has recognized that the validity of Eastern Catholic traditions is not limited to certain geographical areas, but applies to those churches wherever they may be found.

Well, that's a bit misleading a bit condescending to all the popes of the 20th century!  There NEVER was a question of the Eastern Catholic traditions, even that of the married clergy!   Now what DID happen was the Western bishops decreed that Eastern Rite priests who wished to stay in the United States could not be married.  There is nothing about validity here - what the decree did was make it "illicit" for married priests to remain in the United States.   That being said, several exceptions to that rule were made, especially in recent years.

Personally, I welcome the married clergy among Eastern Catholics - and would support the Latin Rite creating a special order which allows for married priests too.  At a time when there is a shortage of priests in the world, removing obstacles - like the discipline of a celibate priesthood - may help to alleviate the situation.  The full article I refer to can be found here:

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2014/11/with-married-eastern-catholic-priests.html?m=1

Married and Catholic Priests

Well, yes indeed!  Many may know that Eastern Rite Catholic priests could be married - however, NOT in the United States!  There has been a "ban" in place since 1929 prohibiting Eastern Rite Catholic priests from serving in the United States.  The "ban" states: Greek-Ruthenian Catholic priests “who wish to go to the United States of North America and stay there, must be celibates.” (Article 12, last sentence).

It would appear this "ban" is virtually dead, according to word leaked and reported here and here.  However, there has been no official pronouncement that married, Eastern Rite priests can be priests in the United States.  Now, there have been some exceptions to this "ban," one such is now Fr. Akiki, who was ordained into the priesthood - with Pope Francis' approval - on February 28, 2014 (pictured here giving the Eucharist to his daughter on the day of his ordination).  According to this article, he is the first married Maronite to be ordained to the priesthood in the United States.  It seems strange that there are actually MORE married Catholic priests in the Latin Rite in the United States than there are in all the Eastern Rites, combined!

Another discussion of the subject of married Eastern Rite priests can be found here.

The Irish Central reports:

Does that mean we can soon expect the end of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests? The short answer is “no,” because even Pope Francis has dismissed this. But we tend to forget that we already have married Roman Catholic priests. Less than 100, true, the vast majority of them former Protestants who were married, then converted.Still, given the various crises enveloping Roman Catholicism these days, who knows what small open door will lead to a kind of reform that even Pope Francis could not envision?

So, are we on the doorstep of a married clergy in the Latin Rite of Catholicism?  Only time will tell.  It is the opinion and hope of this writer that the pope could, without scandal, allow for the complete abrogation of this ban on married Eastern Catholic priests and also, while he's at it, establish an order to which Latin Rite priests could belong to and be married and serve in diocese throughout the world - including the United States this time.  Call it an experiment, if you will, and see how it goes!  I would predict that there would be no shortage of candidates for the priesthood in that order! 

Greek priest and his wife.

A very good friend of mine posts an article of interest to Eastern Catholics and to Eastern Orthodoxy, which has been having conversations about reuniting with Rome.  My friend is concerned about the Vatican encouraging Eastern Catholic priestly candidates in the USA to "embrace celibacy."  

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/rome-to-us-eastern-catholics-new-priests-should-embrace-celibacy/

The reasoning is the "norm" in the USA is celibacy in the priesthood.  I truly don't see this encouragement being any different from St. Paul's "encouragement" in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 - 

⁷ For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.⁸ But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

Again, this is not a world-wide statement from the Vatican, but directed toward priestly candidates in the United States among Eastern Catholics - because it is the norm in the USA among Catholics.  Certainly there have been exceptions to the "rule" - and sometimes methinks the East protesteth too much.

More reading:

http://www.impactlab.net/2009/11/01/vatican-to-accept-married-priests-on-case-by-case-basis/

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/romance-blooms-in-a-catholic-seminary-for-fr-roman/

1934 Letter from Rome on Celibacy

To Bishop Basil Takach

Sacred Oriental Congregation.
Prot. No. 572-30

Rome, July 23, 1934
(Borgo, Nuovo, 76.)

Your Excellency:

It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the United States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and deplorable rebellions are being intensified and expanded on the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and privileges of the Ruthenian Church.

But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, "that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates." This regulation indeed was not and is not a "lex de coelibatu apud clerum graecoruthenum," as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian ecclesiastical discipline, to which, in so far as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose not now, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.

And, moreover, when the Holy See recognized the peculiarities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596, during the Pontificate of Clement VII, and of the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians.

As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at all times and in all places without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy, permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly be advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and mentality altogether different.

Let it not be said that the regulation of Cum Data Fuerit was new legislation, since the preceding Decree Cum Episcopo (August 17, 1914) - issued as a modification of the Constitution Ea Semper (June 14, 1907) - did not make any mention of it.

The fact that no mention was made of it in the Decree Cum Episcopo was not due in any way to a revocation of the regulation, adopted since 1890 and solemnly called to mind on several occasions; on the contrary, it was due to an indulgent attitude of the Holy See taken in view of the statements of the Ruthenian Bishops in Europe to the effect that the number of unmarried priests in their dioceses was still too few and that they could not very well reduce that number by aligning some of them to the spiritual assistance of the Ruthenian faithful in America. And that this was so is proven clearly by the fact that in the years from 1914 to 1929 - that is during the period in which the regulation in question did not appear - the Holy See upheld in practice the same regulation, which continued to be known to the entire Ruthenian hierarchy and clergy so much so that when the Ordinary of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenians in the United States of America deemed it necessary in 1925 to ordain some married clerics, he asked the Holy See to permit him, by way of exception to do so. The Holy See in acceding to the request, took care to emphasize the exceptional nature of the permission and to add "exclausa quavis spe futurarum ordinationum."

As the situtation changed for the better, it seemed well that the decree of March 1, 1929, should state again, explicitly, that which in fact had never been abrogated. And so much the more so, because the regulation in question does not concern exclusively the Ruthenian clergy, but applies without exception to priests of all Rites.

But the Decree was accompanied on the part of the Holy See by an attitude of the greatest discretion and indulgence; so that even after it, no action was taken to send away from the United States those married Ruthenian priests who had already immigrated there in opposition to the regulation which would have forbidden them to do so; and these priests were not disturbed even when some of them showed themselves to be partisans of an altogether deplorable movement of hostility against their bishop and against the Holy See itself.

In the face of the simplicity and the logic of what article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit disposes, it seemed immediately evident that some sought to bemuddle the situation, deceiving the ingenuous minds of the faithful by a misleading and a malign interpretation of every act emanating from the Holy See and put into effect by the Ordinary, Bishop Takach. And if there would have been any doubt about this, it would have been dissipated at lengths by what happened in the Convention, promoted by the KOVO and held in Pittsburgh from July 26 to 28, 1933 a meeting of intents and manifestations clearly schismatic, even to the extent of threatening the Holy See that unless it had - within sixty days - granted what was requested in the resolutions of the convention, the delegates at Pittsburgh and the people whom they represented would declare themselves "independent of Rome." A tremendous statement, which, however, was not surprising because it revealed without possiblity of further doubt, the true motives of a complete campaign of the press, of meetings, of protestations, of rebellions, of schisms, which under the cloak of the defense of the privileges of the Ruthenian Church had already grievously offended against the spirit of reverence and obedience to the Ordinary - even to the extent of depriving him of almost every means of substinence - and weakened the very attachment to the Catholic Faith . . .

Therefore, let every dissension and - every suspicion by banished, so that there may be reestablished, in the pride of the common Catholic faith and in fraternal sentiments inspired by a common origin and membership in the same Rite, that mutual charity which should bind closely together all the Ruthenian people in America with their Bishop and clergy, and make of them, even in that land far distant from their native county, a magnificent appeal to dissidents to return to the unity of the Catholic faith.

Your Excellency, who by reason of long practice of office and of affection, has closely at heart the spiritual welfare of the Ruthenian people in the United States, will convey to all the good people, and first of all to Bishop Takach - so sorely and unjustly tried - the trustful word of the Holy Father, who, the guardian of ecclesiastical discipline by reasons of his apostolic ministry, desires that the exact observance of whatever regulations this Sacred Congregation has issued be, on the part of the Ruthenian Church in the United States of America, the most worthy proof of its Catholic faith and of its willingness to live, increase and flourish in works of holiness.

May there descend upon Bishop Takach, his clergy, his faithful - and among them, upon also those who are sorry for their transgressions and return to the proper disposition, the comforting and vivifying blessing of Almighty God, which the Holy Father, through the intercession of the most glorious Virgin Mother, invokes generously and with a fervent prayer that it may be abundant in heavenly graces.

With sentiments of esteem and best wishes, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Luigi Cardinal Sincero
Bishop of Palestrina, Sicily
G. Cesarini, Assessor

(Source)

East and West and Married v Unmarried Priests

A friend of mine, actually a very GOOD friend, posts this blog article earlier this year.

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests

I have left a few comments there, but I think a fuller response is merited...

The Problem:
The normative Roman Catholic position is that only single men can be ordained to the priesthood. Likewise, the Orthodox have celibate clergy, but they are usually required to take monastic orders, to fill the family void. However, Orthodox Bishops will also ordain married men to the priesthood. (Neither Church allows single men who have been ordained to later marry.) In a reunited Church, could Orthodox and Catholic parishes live side by side with people possibly transferring between parishes, one ordaining married men to the priesthood and one limiting it only to unmarried, single men?

My answer to this was, and remains, SURE!  A bishop has jurisdiction over his diocese and everything which takes place, as it relates to the Church comes under his authority within his jurisdiction.  Eastern Catholics who have migrated to Western territories have to understand that the bishop of the territory they have moved to has the authority over that diocese.

Another reason the Eastern Catholic discipline of a married priesthood is relatively unknown is because it is generally restricted to the traditional homelands of these Eastern Catholic Churches.

And one would expect that the traditions of the homeland remain in the homeland!  Why would an Eastern Catholic presume that just because they had traditions back home that these traditions are to be automatically accepted by Western Catholics?  Likewise, the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Confirmation are all under the auspices of the local ordinary (bishop) and a Western bishop in an Eastern jurisdiction should not presume to authorize these without consent of the Eastern bishop.

For an example of a Latin Rite practice (one which I personally oppose and do not participate in) is communion in the hand.  What would the Eastern Rite priest think if a Latin Rite person were to reach for the spoon?  Of course that would be expressly forbidden!  I have witnessed some Latin Rite Catholics who "self-intinct" by taking communion in the hand and then approaching the Chalice they take the Host and dip it - this practice is expressly denied in the GIRM (#287).  It is possible for a Latin Rite priest to practice intinction, but it would be quite illicit for a communicant to self-intinct.

Vatican II issued the Decree of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite wherein it states:

The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.

It must be noted, BOTH traditions are seen as apostolic in nature - and must be respected by each rite.

The Council of Trullo, 692ad (though arguments are made that this council was a continuation of the Sixth Synod, it was not represented by the Latin Church at all and when the decrees were sent to the Pope, he would have nothing to do with them) in Canon 13 states:

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

My friend is not alone here:
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/
Catholic Exchange presents this article which echoes the sentiments of my friend.

“My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be,” he said (Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt).

Now while echoing my friend's sentiments, it also brings out the point I have made:

At present, many Eastern Catholics living outside of their home territories are under the care of Latin Rite Bishops unless an Eastern Catholic hierarchy has been set up.

With all due respect to Bishop Aziz Mina, it makes sense that a Catholic living outside their homeland to expect to be under the local jurisdiction of the bishop under whom they are living. 
Note, if "an Eastern Catholic hierarchy" is established - then it is possible for the Eastern bishop to practice the traditions of their homeland without hindrance.  Again, this makes sense!  If there are enough of a given Eastern ethnicity in a given region, then an Eastern Catholic hierarchy can be and even should be set up.  Then proper and due respect is owed to both hierarchies within a given region.

We must also point out that the practice of the celibate priesthood in the West is a discipline, not a dogma, and one that is even observed by some Eastern Rites.  The discipline COULD be changed allowing for married clergy from any rite.  At present the Latin Rite chooses to adhere to St. Paul's recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7:28 and especially Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 19:11-12:

He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, ⁸ but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage ⁹ for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Footnotes:

⁸ [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God. ⁹ [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

Jesus Himself recommends celibacy for those who are called to it, and in the Latin Church, those who are called to celibacy are also called to serve Him in His Church.  There are places for the married too, up to and including the deaconate, so married individuals are not forbidden from serving Him through His Church - they would just do a different role within the Church.

So, to answer my friend's question, "Can East and West co-exist with married and unmarried priests?"  The answer is YES!  So long as the local ordinary and the disciplines for each jurisdiction are respected on BOTH sides, then most certainly we can co-exist.  It seems to me that those bringing up married v. unmarried clergy are actually either deliberately or subconsciously throwing up road blocks, or attempted ones at least, in an attempt to thwart reconciliation between the East and the West.  Again I wish to emphasize that if proper respect is given on BOTH sides - this is really a non-issue, or a mountain from a molehill.

AMDG,
Scott<<<