In the 1890’s, the Latin Catholic hierarchy in the United States was confronted with a wave of immigrants who brought or wanted to bring married priests to minister to their communities. The Latin bishops were within their legal rights to determine which clerics they wanted to accept. The U.S. Latin bishops could have taken another path that would have recommended the establishment of hierarchies for these faithful. Instead, the bishops requested that the Holy See impose a prohibition against Eastern Catholic married priests serving in the U.S. The Holy See acceded; the prohibition was imposed in 1929 and reinforced in the code.

Times have changed. The current legal restriction is an archaic vestige of an embarrassing prejudice. The Latin Church has already accepted married priests with the ordination of former Anglican priests; married deacons are commonplace. The Australian hierarchy has even formally indicated to the Holy See that it would have no objection if the prohibition against married priests were to be lifted. Perhaps the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. would consider a similar request.

We must admit that not all the Eastern Catholic hierarchs would welcome married priests. While the Eastern Catholic churches have criticized the Latin hierarchy for the imposition of celibacy, some of them have also been quite reluctant to have that restriction lifted.

Since our Eastern Catholic faithful are dispersed, the faithful are sometimes found in rather small communities of 25 to 100 families, too small to support the full-time ministry of a priest. Currently, some of these communities are served by “circuit riders,” priests from other parishes who come on an occasional basis. If a mature married man (possibly one who is already a deacon) were ordained, he could serve the community without being dependent on it for a livelihood.

The lifting of the prohibition would also pose additional issues. Support of the clergy is one that immediately comes to mind. Many of the Eastern Catholic hierarchs have a difficult time in providing decent support of a celibate clergy; support of married priests and their families would pose an even greater challenge. Perhaps the married priests could serve in a capacity similar to that of the married deacons, that is, have employment elsewhere in the church (e.g., teaching) or in the secular sphere and serve on a part-time basis.

The transfer of clergy would also be more difficult since factors involving schools, the employment of spouses and children and other family bonds would need to be taken into account.

The spiritual and academic formation of married seminarians would present additional challenges. The situation of a first class, better educated, celibate clergy and a second class, less educated, married clergy would have to be avoided.

None of these issues need suffice as a reason to maintain the current restrictions. An appropriate response simply calls for prudence and creativity. Perhaps Eastern Catholic bishops would continue to prepare candidates for a celibate clergy but would also consider the possible ordination to the priesthood of mature men who have received the required formation. And any person who was not baptized in an Eastern Catholic church would need the nihil obstat of the Holy See before receiving priestly ordination.

This text was from the article "Eastern Churches in the Western World: Roots, Growth, Future" originally published in Catholic Near East Magazine, volume 26, number 5. Please visit the Catholic Near East Welfare Association's webpage at www.cnewa.org

last updated 19 January, 2001 Copyright © 1999-2001, St. Thomas the Apostle Church