Married Deacon To Be Ordained a Priest

Eastern Catholic churches in the Middle East and Europe ordain married men. However, the Vatican banned the practice in America in the 1920s after Latin-rite bishops complained it was confusing for parishioners.  I love that word “confusing” which is often used by the hierarchy when trying to explain something that one has trouble explaining.

Well for the first time in nearly a century, the Maronite Catholic Church in the United States is ordaining a married man into the priesthood in a ceremony at St. Raymond's Maronite Cathedral near downtown St. Louis.  Maronites are among more than a dozen Eastern Catholic church groups in the United States. Eastern Catholics accept the authority of the pope, but have many of their own rituals and liturgy.

Pope Francis recently gave permission for the ordination of Deacon Wissam Akiki who has been a married deacon at St. Raymond's since 2009 and has worked as the assistant to the bishop.  But it was noted that the pope's action does not lift the ban on married priests in the U.S. It is simply an exception. Celibacy in the priesthood has been required in the Latin Rite since the 12^th century.

Will his decision open the door for more married priests? It is not clear, but experts cautioned against reading too much into it. But in the most recent Maronite Patriarchal Synod, the church reaffirmed its position in support of allowing married priests, a tradition that, worldwide, dates back centuries.  

Perhaps it is time for the Latin Rite Church to review, once again, at its upcoming Synod, the rule of mandatory celibacy.

 

Was Jesus Married?

That seems to have been the big question on many minds this past week. This, after Karen L. King, a church historian at Harvard Divinity School presented a fourth-century papyrus fragment containing Coptic text in which Jesus uses the words "my wife."  High interest in the public was noted as hope had sprung forth that this would give proof that Jesus was married.  But of course, it does not.  There were many good articles published this past week on the topic, but two caught my eye, both with Jesuit roots (so they must be good!)

The first is an Op-ed piece that ran in the New York Times, penned by Jim Martin, S.J.  cleverly entitled, Mr and Mrs. Jesus Christ?   His answer to the question whether this means Jesus was married is “probably not.”  Although he goes on to say “It wouldn’t upset me if it turned out that Jesus was married. His life, death and, most important, resurrection would still be valid.”  Amen to that!

The second article was written by an assistant professor of theology at Fordham University, Michael Peppard: “Jesus’ wife”: Nothing to fear, something to learn.  Peppard ends his piece with the following statement:

“It is likely that, whatever words completed the sentence about Jesus’ “wife,” the new fragment came from a text that engaged some of the central questions of its day for Christians: Were sex and procreation blessings God wished for everyone? Or was some spiritual value to be sought in renunciation and celibacy? If Jesus spoke in figurative language of weddings, brides, and grooms, what and whom specifically was he talking about? The transmitter of this ancient text was likely trying to understand these legitimate questions, along with how Jesus’ singleness (or not) was to be understood as a model of Christian holiness.

Christians need not fear such timeless questions. We keep learning and striving to understand the issues that generated our past—even when its pieces are puzzling”

 

What role should celibacy play in priesthood?  If Christ was single, was he saying all priests should be single? Should some clergy be allowed to get married? Why can married Anglican priests convert to Catholicism, and fully function as married priests? Why was it fine for the first 1,139 years to have married clergy, including a handful of popes, but now it is not? And if some priests were allowed to marry, would that address the growing shortage of Catholic priests in the United States?

To me, these seem to be some of the questions that get side stepped, partly because Rome does not want any discussion about it.  Kind of reminds me of the biblical passages where Christ tells his followers not to tell anyone about his works, knowing that they would just talk about them more!   And maybe that was part of his plan.

Peppard is correct - these, and other questions like them are timeless.  Was this piece of papyrus, written about 350 years after Christ died, wresting with the same questions or was it finally committing to writing what was passed down in the oral tradition for centuries? 

Perhaps the past will one day give us insight to the present.  But right now, I am less concerened about what happened 'then'…and much more concerned with what is happening 'now.'

…more to follow….