|
|
Married Priests
Oikonomia (economy)
Eastern Catholics Attending Roman Catholic Parish
Answers:
Roman Catholics
Attending Eastern Parishes:
Several parishioners from our church regularly attend a Maronite church.
They are Roman Catholic. Are our obligations for Mass met while attending
Divine Liturgy at this church? Also are we restricted in any
 way from
participation i.e.. receiving the Holy Eucharist or having our children
baptized in this rite?
Any Catholic can receive the Eucharist at any Catholic parish, whether it be
an Eastern or Western parish. Thus, Roman Catholics can fulfill their Sunday
obligation by attending an Eastern Catholic parish. They are also welcome to
go to confession, and receive the anointing of the sick in an Eastern
parish. However, they must have their kids baptized in a Roman Catholic
parish. Children must always be baptized according to the Rite of the
parents, unless absolute necessity dictates otherwise. If they are very
attached to the Maronite Church, and wish to have their children raised as
Maronites, the parents would have to obtain a formal change of Ritual Church
for themselves. At that point they would cease to be Roman Catholic, and
would be Maronite.
ÙTop
of page
Roman Catholics
becoming Eastern Catholic: I
would like to change rites from the Latin Rite to the Byzantine Rite. How
does one go about this, and is it a hard process?
To change from the Latin Church to the Byzantine Church, you must first be
involved in a Byzantine parish for at least a year. You need this time to
become acquainted with Byzantine spirituality and liturgical life. You
should then discus the matter with the Byzantine pastor. He will then guide
you in writing a letter to the Byzantine bishop, asking to join his eparchy.
The Byzantine bishop will then contact the Latin bishop, who will
investigate the matter. If you are cleared, the Latin bishop will turn you
over to the care of the Byzantine bishop, and you will officially become
Byzantine Catholic. The entire process only takes a few months.
You will only be refused if one of the bishops suspects that you have the
wrong motivation. If you want to transfer because you are attracted to the
spirituality of the Byzantine Church, your request will almost always be
granted. But if you want to transfer because you don't like the Latin
Church, and you say this in your letter, your request will be refused.
This is a big step to take, and should be treated with great seriousness.
You can only transfer Churches once in your life, and the change is
permanent. But if you find yourself falling in love with the Byzantine
Church, and begin to think of it as home, then go for it.
ÙTop
of page
Married
Priests:  Are
priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches permitted to marry?
No, priests are not permitted to get married. But married men may be
ordained as priests. There's a big difference.
In all but two of the Eastern Catholic Churches, married men may be ordained
to the priesthood.
ÙTop
of page
I understand that in Eastern
Churches, married men can become priests. In these cases, do the married
couples practice celibacy, living as brother and sister?
No, they continue to live as husband and wife.
ÙTop
of page
Why does the Eastern Church allow
for married clergy? How can the priest lay down his for his spouse and then
lay down his life for the Church?
There is a difference in how the Eastern and Western Churches understand the
role of a priest. In the East the priest is first and foremost a minister of
the Holy Mysteries. He is not considered to be "outside of the world," but
is a part of it along with his parishioners.
However, there are individuals in the Eastern Churches whose lives are
eschatological signs, who in a sense do live "outside of the world." These
are the monks. Both men and women can be monks in the Eastern Churches, and
they are the ones who most fully "lay down their lives for the Church."
In the Latin Church the role of the priest has become somewhat fused with
the role of the monk. In a very real sense Latin Catholics look at their
priests in the same way that we Easterners look at our monks.
I don't see this difference in discipline as being at all problematic. We
just need to respect each other's legitimate disciplines.
ÙTop
of page
Is it true that married Eastern
Catholics cannot be ordained to the priesthood in the US, but must be
ordained outside it?
In the early twentieth century many Roman Catholic bishops in the United
States were scandalized by the presence of married Eastern Catholic priests.
They vigorously petitioned Rome, asking to revoke our right to ordain
married men. After many years of persistent requests, Rome finally
intervened and banned married Eastern Catholic priests from North America in
1929. At the time almost all of our parishes were served by married priests,
and this ban caused a terrible schism to ensue. Over half of the Byzantine
Catholics in North America left for Eastern Orthodoxy. Entire families were
divided along religious lines, and a terrible wound was inflicted that has
not entirely healed.
Today Rome is no longer enforcing this restriction. In 1992 Pope John Paul
II promulgated the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which clearly
reaffirms our right to ordain married men. Since then many Eastern Catholic
bishops in the U.S. have reintroduced the tradition of married priests,
although some are still trying to resolve the financial issue of how to
support a priest with a family.
ÙTop
of page
Doesn't the existence of married
Eastern Catholic priests undermine the valuable discipline of celibacy in
the Latin Church? Isn't the Latin discipline the superior one?
I believe that it is possible to defend the Western discipline without
denigrating the Eastern discipline. Likewise, I believe that it is possible
to defend the Eastern tradition of a married priesthood without denigrating
or undermining the Western tradition of a celibate priesthood.
Between the Eastern and Western Churches there is not only a difference in
liturgy, but also a difference in "ethos." Our Eastern and Western Churches
have distinct characters, and for this reason different disciplines suit our
situations better. So, I would venture to say that mandatory clerical
celibacy is better suited for the Latin Church, and that optional clerical
celibacy (allowing for a married priesthood) is better suited for the
Eastern Churches.
This understanding is reinforced by the Second Vatican Council:
"...the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full
right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its
own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of
their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their
faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls," (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum, no. 5).
I would definitely say that our tradition of a married priesthood is "more
harmonious with the character of our faithful." However, this does not mean
that it is at all harmonious with the character of the Latin faithful.
ÙTop
of page
I'm not sure I quite understand
how Easterns developed a tradition of married clergy since early Verdana,Arial,Helvetica. My
difficulty is, canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea reads:
"The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or
any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him,
except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond
all suspicion."
This particular canon was introduced to prevent clerics from engaging in
scandalous activities. The very term "subintroducta" indicates a woman who
is living as his personal disciple, under the pretense of piety. Apparently
some clerics would bring these young women into their homes, and mentor them
in something other than the Christian faith.
I recently completed an extensive study of clerical celibacy in the ancient
Church, which I hope to have published in the very near future. My findings
conclusively demonstrate that at that the time of the Council of Nicea most
of the clerics in both the Eastern and Western Churches were married men.
However, a movement began in the Western Church during the fourth century to
promote clerical celibacy, beginning with a canon ascribed to Council of
Eliva. But it took many centuries for this to become the norm in the West.
In the East no such legislation was ever promulgated, although the Council
in Trullo did eventually legislate mandatory celibacy for bishops.
Of course ultimately this question is a moot point. What matters is the
current legislation in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II has laid down
the law for Eastern Catholics, so we can hardly be considered disobedient:
373. Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and
suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported
by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of
married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern
Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor. (Code of Canons of the
Eastern Churches)
ÙTop
of page
Do you agree that priestly
celibacy more perfectly conforms the priest to the person of Christ?
The Eastern Churches have always seen celibacy as being a special, high
calling for those who have this gift. While we ordain married men to the
priesthood, we also recognize that those who have the gift of celibacy
should be encouraged to foster this gift.
But for us Eastern Christians the person that is most perfectly configured
to the person of Christ is not the priest, but the monk. It is the monastic
life that is the highest possible vocation in our theology, and an important
component of the monastic calling is the gift of celibacy. Thus, in its
essence I must agree with Father Echert's statement. For Eastern Christians
I would phrase it differently, however: "celibacy more perfectly conforms
the monk to the celibacy of Christ."
A big part of the underlying psychology between the Eastern and Western
Churches is that Roman Catholics see their priests in the same light that we
Eastern Christians see our monks.
ÙTop
of page
Wasn't celibacy the norm for the
priests in the early Church? Is the married priesthood a later development?
A married priesthood was the norm in the early Church, although there were
always men who chose to live celibate lives. Beginning in the fourth century
in the West there was a movement to encourage married priests to live in
continence, abstaining from sex with their wives. This movement never caught
on in the East.
During the Arian crisis, in which many bishops and priests embraced the
heresy of denying Christ's divinity, the Church was saved by monks. It was
the celibate monks who preserved the true doctrine, and the Church was
extremely grateful. Thus, in the West many local councils began to legislate
clerical celibacy, holding up the monastic vocation as an ideal for all
priests.
 During this time bishops such as St. Augustine required their
priests to live in community with them.
In the East the response was somewhat different. Rather than requiring all
priests to be celibate, the Eastern Churches at the Council in Trullo (692)
required all bishops to be monks. This has been the law for the Eastern
Churches ever since.
ÙTop
of page
Why have the Eastern Churches
rejected the discipline of mandatory celibacy?
It is not so much that we "rejected" the discipline of priestly celibacy,
but rather that we have always preserved our tradition of a married
priesthood. The reasons for this are both historical and practical.
In the West there was always a push for a celibate clergy. Beginning in the
fourth century you will find local synods legislating clerical celibacy, and
requiring married priests to abstain from relations with their wives. The
canons of the synods of Elvira and Carthage, for instance, legislate
perpetual abstinence for married deacons, priests, and bishops. Also, Pope
Siricius did much to promote celibacy in the Latin Church.
In the East the tradition of a married priesthood was always highly valued,
although there were some factions advocating celibacy. The issue briefly
came up at the Council of Nicea, but it was decided there not to legislate
mandatory celibacy for the entire Church, East and West. The first synod in
the East to really tackle this question was the Council in Trullo, which met
at the end of the seventh century. It was decided there that bishops would
be celibate, but that married men would continue to be ordained as deacons
and priests. This has been the rule in the Eastern Churches ever since.
From a practical standpoint, the Eastern Churches found it advantageous to
preserve a married priesthood. Our parish life is typically situated to
accommodate a priest with a family, and this has worked very well for us for
the past two thousand years. Our people are very used to this arrangement,
and greatly prefer it this way. In the early twentieth century there were
efforts to impose celibacy upon our clergy in the United States, and this
led to widespread discord and eventually to two tragic schisms. Although
mandatory celibacy works very well for the Latin Church, it doesn't work for
us because it is foreign to our tradition. Vatican II authoritatively
recognized this fact when it declared that:
"The Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right
and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own
established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their
venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful
and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls," (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum, no. 5).
Despite this and other differences, we are still the same One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, just as you have said. I tend to think these
differences highlight the beautiful plurality in the universal Church, and
are the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
ÙTop
of page
I e-mailed the director of
vocations for an Eastern Catholic church here in the U.S. and asked about
this. The answer I got was that the Pope must approve each ordination of a
married man individually and that no such approvals have been given so
far...
The situation that you are referring to, in which each married candidate
must be individually approved by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches
in Rome, only applies to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church in North
America. This requirement is found in their particular law, Canon 758 §3,
which was promulgated by the late Metropolitan Judson Procyk in 1999. There
is no reason to believe that any qualified married candidates to the
priesthood whose names would be submitted to Rome would be rejected.
However, this arrangement has yet to be tested. Up until this point the
Byzantine-Ruthenian bishops have been in no hurry to ordain married men to
the priesthood, and have not submitted the names of any married candidates
to Rome. This may be changing soon, since by the end of this year they will
have two new bishops who may very well want to ordain married men as
priests.
Again, this situation only applies to the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic
Church. Married priests are very common among several of the other Eastern
Catholic Churches in North America. The Byzantine-Ukrainian, Byzantine-Romainian,
and Byzantine-Melkite Catholic Churches have many married priests serving in
North America. In fact married priests are extremely common among the
Byzantine-Ukrainians and Byzantine-Romanians.
ÙTop
of page
Oikonomia (economy):
I
have a quick question about the Eastern Orthodox concept of 'Oikonomia' or 'economia'
(I hope I am spelling this correctly). Basically, my questions are these:
what in the world is this concept? I know we have dispensations in the Latin
Rite (for example, a bishop will grant all of his diocese a dispensation
from Sunday obligations in the event of inclement weather). Is this the same
concept? If so, I am confused. I have seen examples of Orthodox using this
concept to justify things such as divorce and remarriage, birth control,
etc.
Eastern Church law has traditionally followed the principle of "economy,"
whereby the Church does not always follow the very letter of the law, but
attempts to follow its spirit. This is a particular approach to the entire
question of canon law. Applying the principle of oikonomia, the canons of
ecclesiastical law are not always necessarily binding, and can be ignored by
the Church if it is for the benefit of souls. Therefore, bishops can choose
to be more lenient or possibly stricter than the canons prescribe in dealing
with matters of discipline.
Eastern Christianity has traditionally seen canon law as being a general
guide to be followed, but not as a binding juridical force.
ÙTop
of page
Eastern Catholics Attending Roman Catholic
Parishes: I'm Eastern Catholic. I have
practiced my whole life in both the Latin and Maronite rites, participating
in sacraments and going to mass in both. When people ask me about my
religion I just say that I'm Catholic, because if a person belongs to any of
the rites in communion with the pope, he can practice the faith in any one
of the other rites and fulfill Sunday obligations in any rite, according to
the catechism.
While this is technically accurate, Catholics have a certain obligation to
participate normally in the sui iurus Church to which they belong (in your
case the Maronite Church). Eastern Catholics in particular have a
responsibility to maintain their unique Eastern identity by participating in
their Eastern parishes and cherishing their traditions.
Here in North America it is particularly important that Eastern Catholics
participate regularly in their Eastern parishes. In the 1950's it was
commonly taught that "Catholic is Catholic," and that it was perfectly fine
for Eastern Catholics to join any Catholic parish. The result was that
millions of Eastern Catholics began joining Roman Catholic parishes because
they offered more convenient Mass Verdana,Arial,Helvetica and were someVerdana,Arial,Helvetica geographically
closer. The end result was a drastic loss in membership, with many parishes
closing.
It is important to remember that the Eastern Catholic Churches play a very
important role in the Catholic Church, and that if they were to vanish it
would be a profound loss for the entire Catholic Church.
ÙTop
of page
|
