From the blog of a Greek Catholic parish in Dallas, TX, a post about the great unrest caused by Fr. Robert Barron’s very popular Word on Fire organization using the events in Ukraine to decry the married priesthood.
(St. Sophia) - Ukraine, you might know, is in the middle of a revolution. The people are protesting the government’s tyranny and corruption. The Ukrainian government is responding by torturing and killing the citizens in a scorched earth policy. Numerous images of fearless priests standing between the government soldiers and the citizens, holding nothing but the cross of Christ as they call for peace, have gone viral. These images capture the manly and fatherly call of the shepherd willing to lay down his life for his flock.
The majority of the Ukrainian Catholic priests are young and married as they come from a life-filled and fruitful church, built on the blood of the martyrs. Ours is a church that has always had both celibate and married men ordained to the priesthood, a tradition whose continuance the UGCC assured when they entered reunion with Rome.
Patriarch Sviatoslav, the head of the largest Eastern Catholic Church, gave clear directions to his priests on how they’re to conduct themselves amid this revolution. His Beatitude affirmed their presence on the Maidan and their call for peace, saying, “The calling of each priest, in all frightening circumstances – is not to abandon his flock and to be with them. ‘The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ‘ (Jn 10:11). Setting aside all fear, a priest is called ‘to be a witness to Christ and His truth.’ ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mt 24:35).”
In the mean time, Fr. Robert Barron’s popular Roman Catholic catechetical and evangelization ministry Word on Fire published a photo of one of these fearless Ukrainian priests as an accompaniment to the specious argument that a mandatory celibate priesthood is supposedly “non-negotiable” for Catholics.
As a reason given to defend this novel assertion, the blog explained: “To give a dire example, in the case of a catastrophe, I would want my priest to be at the front of the lines leading his flock to shelter. If the priest had a biological family of his own, he would first think of their safety before his flock as the natural instinct would drive his protector reaction towards sheltering his own.” They accompanied this assertion with the image of a Ukrainian priest who is most likely married as their model, on a day when married priests are literally standing between their flocks and death and many faithful lost their lives.
Not only did the blog writer appear not to know that the pictured priest was Eastern and probably married, he taught that the man’s marriage undermines and invalidates his priesthood. An outcry erupted from both East and West which led to the ministry apologizing for the use of that image, but after hundreds of messages, the requests for revision of the text remained unacknowledged and the blog post stood. The silence was interpreted by many to indicate the apparent approval of the ministry’s leader Fr. Barron for this attack on married clergy; an attack so poorly formed that it likewise undermined the sacraments of marriage and ordination, the call of vocation, and manhood, not to mention the obvious attack on the unity of the Church and the Body of Christ. That the Word on Fire ministry has a history of removing the East from it’s catechesis allowed their silence and continued support of the offensive and erroneous assertion done in their name to show how far we still have to go to leave behind the legacy of Roman Catholic Bishop John Ireland...
Complete article here.
Posts
This sort of opportunism is unfortunate. It reminds me of the horrible instance when a priest drowned a baby during baptism and a Catholic writer used it to tout the superiority of sprinkling.
ReplyDeleteBtw, that instance was the first recorded one in almost 2,000 years.
DeleteI had a distant relative, a Muslim, at a baptism. When the baby cried, he said "See! That's why I can't believe in your religion! You're hurting him!" I then brought up my relative's circumcision, and asked if it hurt.
Centaurs.
ReplyDeleteThe good news, even in the midst of this kind of idiocy, is to remember that polemics like this are not even close to the norm. They don't accord with Roman doctrine and they aren't part of mainstream Roman ideals.
ReplyDeleteThat's why tripe like this stands out; that's why it's even worth reporting on.
Oh, it's quite the norm: you can, for instance, see it on the Vatican's own official website
Deletehttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html
although, I am told, the author of this has repudiated the position expressed years ago.
As a Roman Catholic who admires Orthodoxy, I concur: if - I say "if" - Fr. Barron said those things, he is not only not in agreement with the Bishop of Rome, he is an ass. As a Viet-Nam veteran I scorn keyboard commandos who judge those who suffer in the terror of combat.
ReplyDeleteWhat bollocks! I once spent an hour and a half defending my Eastern Rite Catholicism with a Roman who was just as ignorant as Fr Barron's post writer! LOL
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI looks like they retracted the post, on the WoF facebook page:
ReplyDelete"Thank you for all of your feedback regarding the ignorance and error in our post titled "Why I Don't Want Priests to Marry". We regret the content, which contained some theological errors, and we also regret using a photo of a Ukrainian Catholic priest, for obvious reasons.
We've removed the post and the photo. The mistake was an oversight and a regrettable lack of attention to detail, and was not meant to insult any priest or any rite, most especially those who are standing in harm's way to protect their flocks. Our most sincere apologies for any offense this photo caused. We certainly continue to pray for that priest and for all priests."
What was the relationship of the photo to the text in the first place?: it would seem to undermine the argument that married clergy aren't really dedicated.
DeleteThat illustrates the problem with Rome. You can go to the folk mass, the rock mass, the old Latin mass, "Eastern" Catholic Latinized variations of Orthodox Liturgies, or Episcopalian type services, and believe (or not!) just about anything you like-as long as you don't publicly speak against the "Universal Authority" of the Pope. The most important reason to "Say NO to Ecumenism!" I can't understand why this merits any attention on an Orthodox website!
ReplyDeletemwoerl, I understand the frustration. True ecumenism of frank and honest discussion of religious concerns is necessary. Liturgically, the Roman Church has become a mess in many places. A large part of it is because of weak bishops and priests (and laity) who think liturgy does not really matter. I hope Orthodox bishops and priests directly confront Roman bishops explaining how such things like folk and rock Masses are offensive and ask why they are permitted in practice, albeit folk and rock are not supposed to be done and many young Roman priests and laity are turning to the traditional rites.
DeleteOn the point of forced Latinizations, I am against it. I think you need to add the adjective "forced." Sadly, they were done in times when culture was sometimes confused with faith. So, I invite you to consider two things. First, that the see of Constantinople was guilty of forced "Byzantinizing" the other patriarchal liturgies and even churches of the Roman patriarchate wherever the empire had control. And even today, the "Western" Orthodox version of the Canon of the Roman Rite has been tampered with to appease Eastern minded bishops. Secondly, not all Latinizations (or Byzantinizations) are bad, unless one has no respect for other liturgical traditions. St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom were not ashamed to borrow from Syria. Why should not sister churches borrow from each other, but freely, of course?
On the note above about why this merits attention on an Orthodox website: we can't hold our heads under the sand and pretend that only Orthodoxy exists. This website to my mind tracks a number of Eastern Christian specific issues and news items, but I think in particular it is important for us in our Orthodoxy (to those reading who are) to engage with the non-Orthodox and continue discussion. Something like this can be a stepping stone for people entering Orthodoxy, such as forced Latinization in the late 19th C. brought St. Alexis Toth (a celibate Eastern-Rite priest) and his flock back into communion with Orthodoxy. If we ignore this kind of thing we lose the chance for discussion and illumination.
DeleteI'm glad to hear they removed the post. However, I wish I could have read it. I will not defend the indefensible, but I wonder, "Was the post against priests of the Eastern Church or against heretics in the US who argue that "priests should be able to marry" which even the Eastern Church rejects?" Married men can ordained priests, ordained men cannot marry. There are also other people in the Roman Church who want her to change her long and admirable tradition, in imitation of our Lord, of a celibate priesthood. The Church needs the witness of both married priests and celibate priests and we have that in both West and East. There are obviously challenges and problems to both vocations, especially in this day and age. Celibacy in itself does not make a priest more dedicated and generous in spirit on a subjective personal level. A wise professor once warned us in seminary that the danger for celibate priests is that like bachelors they want to be liked and may prefer not to present hard teachings of Christ. Having studied with men of the Eastern Church, I also learned that they do not just marry any woman. It takes a supportive culture wherein a woman has to grow up being prepared for a vocation to be the wife of a priest. People who advocate for married priests in the Roman Church never consider this. What we need is Romans to affirm the tradition of the Byzantines, Syrians, Chaldeans, and Copts even if Romans do things differently; and we need Byzantines, Syrians, Chaldeans, and Copts to defend the Roman tradition, even if they do things differently.
ReplyDelete"we need Byzantines, Syrians, Chaldeans, and Copts to defend the Roman tradition, even if they do things differently"
DeleteRoman tradition, or Vatican tradition?
There is no need to defend mandated clerical celibacy, an aberration that should never have happened.
So, Isa Almisry thinks the mandated celibacy for bishop is an aberration?
DeleteIt is such intolerance that must be overcome.
Uknown, you know of St. Innocent the Enlightener of Alaska and North America?
DeleteSt. Innocent was tonsured a monk after his wife reposed (Catholics also ordain widowers). The celibacy mandate has held since the 6th Ecumenical council in the East. We (Orthodox) have plenty of celibate priests, both in the Monasteries and in parishes (especial parishes too poor to support a priest and his family). There's nothing wrong with priestly celibacy per-se, and it started to become a part of mainstream western custom in parishes at least in North Africa around the time of St. Augustine, in model of his semi-monastic community. I don't think there is any need to go overboard on that. There's plenty of controversy to discuss between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, that is not one of the points. Also, the one Eastern group with a married episcopacy in recent memory were the Renovationists, universally condemned by the Church.
Delete"St. Innocent was tonsured a monk after his wife reposed (Catholics also ordain widowers)."
DeleteAre any of the Vatican's bishops at present a widower? When did the Vatican last ordain a widower as one of its bishops? Among the Orthodox, it is common, among the Vatican-even its Eastern rites-it is an abnormality:remember, St. Fr. Toth, just a priest, was berated by the Vatican hierarchy for being married, although he was widowed.
I"m not sure St. Innocent had left the period of mourning before he was consecrated. His tonsuring happened immediately before and for his consecration-sort of like the death bed tonsuring of Basil III and Ivan IV.
The existence of celibate priests doesn't mandate celibacy. The mandate is the aberration, not celibacy, and that's what is wrong, per-se.
The Renovationists cloaked their heretical innovation with many legitimate reforms-setting many (.e.g the Calendar) back.
As to how well the mandate for episcopal celibacy has held since the 6th EC, it hasn't been problem free, and often enough honored in its breech (cf. for instance the episcopate in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth just before the Unia was forced on it). Lifting it wouldn't solve all problems, but neither is it dogma-despite many speaking for the Vatican saying the contrary.
Hello, all-- Thank you so much for your post and your feedback on Fr. Barron's website. I work for Fr. Barron, and I want to take the opportunity to take full responsibility for the ignorance displayed on the website. The post on married clergy was not meant to be tied to the Ukrainian conflict or to the Easter Rite directly (although of course the blog writer should have taken that into account, and for that, we are very sorry), but the post and its errors were exacerbated by the fact that I, in my Roman Rite ignorance, chose an image that became an egregious mistake. I am Creative Director at Word On Fire, and I searched for an image of a courageous priest to place in the blog header, not immediately aware that the image chosen was from a different rite (again, I wasn't aware there was such a sharp distinction). Mea Culpa. It has been a tremendous learning opportunity, but I apologize very sincerely for all whom my mistake offended so gravely, and I will continue to pray for all priests. Please pray that, with the following Word On Fire has, we will be given the wisdom and prudence to build up the Body of Christ, rather than tear it down.
ReplyDeleteRozann - Kudos to you for owning your mistake. We should all be so willing to acknowledge our errors and ask for forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteQFT
DeleteCJ- thank you. I just shudder seeing that image at the top of this post. And in my earlier comment, I meant "Eastern" not "Easter"-- the mistakes keep adding up.
ReplyDelete