Almost every news report on the Church contains errors, but some journalistic misunderstandings are so risible they make one wonder if the journalism profession is populated primarily by disaffected Catholics. A recent story on a married German priest is a good example, especially given current obsessions about clerical celibacy.
Harm Klueting, 61, was recently ordained for the Diocese of Cologne after entering the Catholic Church. Klueting and his wife both functioned as Lutheran clerics before the move, and as the Associated Press story runs, they will be “allowed to remain married” through the transition. One would think so, since the Church views the dissolution of a valid marriage as impossible, except by the death of a spouse. So far, so good: The Church neither required Fr. Klueting to abandon his wife nor to throw her into a lake to meet the requirements of his ordination.
The report’s second detail is even stranger: Klueting will “remain married to his wife—who has already become a nun.” Aside from the fact the journalist seems to think a nun is simply the female version of a priest, Edeltraut Klueting is, in fact, a third-order Carmelite, living out her calling in academic and family life rather than within monastery walls. While there are a good number of married Catholic priests in the Latin Rite, there are no married nuns. And, we should add, while nuns take vows, diocesan priests do not, so the “vow of celibacy” later mentioned in the article is simply moot.
The next line in the AP story seems at first to be an ironic joke: “The Cologne archdiocese said in a statement that the couple would not have to take the traditional vow of celibacy as long as they remain married.” It’s rather like saying they will be allowed to live as long as they do not die. Celibacy is, after all, the state of being unmarried, while continence—perhaps what the journalist had in mind—pertains to the choice not to lead a conjugal life.
The article later speculates on matters conjugal: “Klueting and his family could not be reached for comment, and it was not clear whether they still lived together as a couple.”
Last in the list of details is a snapshot of Fr. Klueting’s ordination, pictures of which showed Klueting “with short gray hair and a beard, wearing a simple white priest vestment as he received his blessings from Meisner, who was wearing a festive yellow embroidered robe and a golden cardinal’s hat.” A visit to Wikipedia might have helped to clarify the terminology of vestments, and made clear that the “festive” robe and cardinal’s hat are not just for fun.
March 1st, 2011 | 12:53 pm
“While there are a good number of married Catholic priests in the Latin Rite, there are no married nuns. And, we should add, while nuns take vows, diocesan priests do not, so the “vow of celibacy” later mentioned in the article is simply moot.”
Mr. Stacey is right about the specifics of this particular case, but gives the impression that married women cannot become nuns. In fact, it used to be quite common for a husband and wife, at some point in their lives, to foresake the world and enter the monastic life, the wife becoming a nun, the husband a monk, each living in a separate monastery.
It was probably even more common for husbands–particularly royal or aristocratic ones–to force their wives to take monastic vows in order to free the path for their own remarriage (since a person who becomes a monastic is effectively “dead to the world”). Though, technically, a coerced vow is no vow at all, the abuse was exceedingly common in the Middle Ages, despite continual calls for reform.
In the Eastern Churches, it was not uncommon for a member of the married (“secular”) clergy and his wife to both enter monastic life in order to allow him to be ordained to the episcopate (since bishops are selected only from among the monastic clergy).
In short, a monastic can be married–or have been married. Upon entering monastic life, celibacy supersedes matrimony.
“The article later speculates on matters conjugal: “Klueting and his family could not be reached for comment, and it was not clear whether they still lived together as a couple.””
There was, and continues to be, within the Latin Church, a strain of thought that holds a married priest must abstain from all marital relations. This goes back to a number of ancient canons dating to the fourth century (at which time the prohibition applied to all clerical orders from the subdiaconate upward).
It was on account of an attempt by the Latin Church to impose continence upon the married clergy of the Eastern Churches that the Quinisextunct Council in Trullo issued canons not only allowing married priests to have sex with their wives, but mandating it. Eastern married priests have always had sex with their wives–witness their large families. And, from a quick perousal of birthdays and ordination dates, it would appear that the Latin discipline was followed more in the breech than the observance.
March 1st, 2011 | 12:58 pm
Are there no competent Catholics that work for the AP? Its either an intentional effort to dumb it down, so to speak, and thus not really care about the finer points; or, complete editorial incompetence in getting someone who knows what they are talking about.
It’s always hilarious when a movie or show tries to illustrate some aspect of the Catholic Church (vestments, mass, priests, etc.) and gets it totally wrong. It doesn’t take much to ask a Catholic what is accurate.
March 1st, 2011 | 1:37 pm
I don’t get this, is this similar to the annulment back door for divorce? If a priest cannot be married while in the priesthood, why should he be ordained if he is married outside of it? Wouldn’t the correct response be for the lutheran reverend to stay a lay brother?
I get the reasoning you give, but I don’t get why he should have been ordained at all.
March 1st, 2011 | 2:20 pm
I suspect this is a general competence matter and not an anti-Catholic matter. We’ve all had the experience of knowing something about a subject and then reading about it in the press, noticing how badly they got it. The real question is, why on earth do we assume there are topics on which they are competent?
March 1st, 2011 | 2:45 pm
Dblade – the practice of the Latin Rite of the Church in not allowing priests to marry is not a doctrine of the church. That is, it is not a required teaching – it could be changed. Other rites within the Church allow priests to marry. The Church allows priests of other denominations to remain priests when they convert and become members. Among other things, this fosters conversion and is possible because being single is not essential to the nature of the priesthood.
March 1st, 2011 | 2:59 pm
“Other rites within the Church allow priests to marry. ”
Other “particular Churches” within the Catholic communion ordain married men to the presbyterate. None of them allow priests to marry–or to remarry, for that matter. A subtle but crucial difference.
Lutheran and Anglican ministers who are married are ordained in the Latin Church as a dispensation. Since their “orders” are not regarded as valid, they are not being “re-ordained”. I assume that Anglican and Lutheran ministers who have been married more than once are not being ordained into the Latin Church.
March 1st, 2011 | 10:52 pm
“In fact, it used to be quite common for a husband and wife, at some point in their lives, to foresake the world and enter the monastic life, the wife becoming a nun, the husband a monk, each living in a separate monastery.”
One wonders about the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage in the face of this. It’s okay to divorce in fact if you don’t do it in name?
March 2nd, 2011 | 6:11 am
“One wonders about the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage in the face of this. It’s okay to divorce in fact if you don’t do it in name?”
I don’t think the Church actually saw it in that light, but rather viewed it as a mutual search for a higher degree of perfection in Christ. From a practical standpoint, it also offered a degree of security for people in their declining years, since monks and nuns would be fed, clothed and given care even after they could no longer do so for themselves. It is difficult to make judgments about people who lived in the past unless we can understand their world view and situation.
March 2nd, 2011 | 9:56 am
I was assuming they didn’t see it that way, but that’s what it adds up to. I don’t dispute what you say about its probable good intentions, but it’s still inconsistent with the indissolubility of marriage. If two married people deliberately choose to live apart with no contact and no ability or desire to fulfill their marriage vows, they have broken the vows and ended the marriage.
But every age has its blind spots.
March 2nd, 2011 | 11:28 am
Pentamon
By the same token, a divorce a mensa et thoro would amount to a dissolution of marriage, but it has always been permitted by the Church.
The indissolubility of marriage means that no second marriage is possible during the first.
Stuart Koehl
You are right to distinguish between the ancient and universal rule that made holy orders and impeciment to marriage and the Latin practice of not ordaining married men to the priesthood.
Until the Reformation, only the Nestorian churches of the Persian empire briefly allowed those in holy orders to marry and the ensuing scandals caused them to abandon it, with priests using their influence as spiritual directors to become the successful suitors of rich widows &c.
March 2nd, 2011 | 2:25 pm
Michael PS,
Sorry, I’m not familiar with that term.
I just think it’s odd that marriage vows can be set aside at will like that — that, in effect, man CAN put asunder what God joins together, as long as there’s a monastery involved. I don’t understand what a permanent vow can mean in that context.
March 2nd, 2011 | 3:08 pm
“If two married people deliberately choose to live apart with no contact and no ability or desire to fulfill their marriage vows, they have broken the vows and ended the marriage.”
To some extent yes, and yet to another, no. Take, for example, a man imprisoned for life without conjugal visitation rights. Or a couple who are not, for physical reasons able to engage in conjugal relations any longer. While the Church has always held that marrying without any intent to consummate the marriage was grounds for annulment (false intentions), it has never found inability to be grounds for annullment.
March 2nd, 2011 | 3:15 pm
“The indissolubility of marriage means that no second marriage is possible during the first.”
The Eastern Churches would hold that only one sacramental marriage is possible, period, regardless of whether the other spouse is living or deceased. In the West, marriage tended to develop in the form of a life contract, whereas in the East, the older view of marriage as transcending death persisted.
This may seem paradoxical, as the Eastern Churches allow remarriage after widowhood and divorce, but second marriages, for whatever cause, are not considered sacramental. In fact, prior to the 9th century, the Eastern Churches did not even perform second marriages, but only reintegrated those who got them in civil ceremonies through a penitential process of prayer, fasting, and abstinence from communion for 3-5 years. The Eastern Churches also only allow remarriage after divorce for a severely limited number of reasons (of which the desire of one party to enter monastic life is one), and then only to the innocent party.
Thus, e.g., adultery is considered legitimate grounds for divorce, but only the offended party would be allowed to remarry. If both parties had committed adultery, neither would be permitted to remarry. Neither is “irreconcilable differences” or mutual desire for divorce considered just grounds, and couples who engaged in deception in order to obtain a divorce (e.g., the husband moves to another village to feign abandonment, or one party consents to an act of adultery by the other, then neither would be permitted to remarry.
Finally, the Eastern Churches will allow only three marriages per lifetime, total, in accordance with the teaching of St. Basil the Great.
March 2nd, 2011 | 7:06 pm
Yeah, I’m still not getting this. To the point of the article, I think Catholics really don’t understand how arcane your church looks to those of us outside, and even making a good faith effort to research can still bring a lot of confusion.
March 2nd, 2011 | 7:40 pm
Stuart, neither of your examples includes all the elements of willful choice, lack of desire to honor vows, and the evacuation of ALL marriage vows. Remember, it’s not just sex that doesn’t happen between two people who don’t have contact with each other, it’s all the other things you vow to do that can’t happen, either. “Love” is the exception, but it’s not allowed to take any active form in that situation. And it’s a mutual voluntary decision to violate the vows, which is definitely “putting asunder” of the marriage.
March 2nd, 2011 | 8:59 pm
“Remember, it’s not just sex that doesn’t happen between two people who don’t have contact with each other, it’s all the other things you vow to do that can’t happen, either. “Love” is the exception, but it’s not allowed to take any active form in that situation. And it’s a mutual voluntary decision to violate the vows, which is definitely “putting asunder” of the marriage.”
I guess my fundamental problem is there are no “vows” in Eastern Christian marriages. In the West, the couple are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament; in effect, they marry each other, and the Church stands as witness and blesses the union. In the East, the priest is the ordinary minister of the sacrament, who unites the couple through the descent and action of the Holy Spirit (which is why a deacon is not permitted to preside when a Roman Catholic marries an Eastern Catholic). The man and woman do not exchange any vows, nor is there even an exchange of rings (rings are exchanged at a separate betrothal service).
So, while you may have a point within the Western sacramental theology of marriage, it doesn’t apply to Eastern marriage. That said, ultimately, the Church is the final arbiter of what constitutes a nullification of the union, and obviously even the Latin Church did not consider leaving marriage for the monastic life to violate the sacrament.
March 20th, 2011 | 3:05 am
Kevin mentions that Mrs Klueting is a “third-order Carmelite.” That is a broad, non-specific description of Mrs Klueting’s vocation. By that title, one can assume that she is a member of the Third Order of the ancient observance, i.e. T.O.Carm. A photo of Father and Mrs Klueting is featured on his website; and sure enough, the caption identifies her as “Dr. phil. Edeltraud Klueting T.OCarm.” According to Canon Law, the members of third orders are called to “tend toward” the evangelical counsels within their state in life. So, there should be no scandal to learn that Father Harm Klueting is still residing and celebrating the Sacrament of Marriage with his wife, Edeltraud Klueting, T.O.Carm.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact