Can a former Anglican minister now a R. C. Married Priest be the main presider at Mass?

[Aramis]

Does the Pope have the authority to appoint a married Catholic priest in the Latin Rite to the episcopacy?

Yes. Scripture permits married bishops, and the church used to have married bishops, including St. Peter. It was decided fairly early (by 300AD) that a bishop’s job needed his full attention, and his wife should either go to a monastery, or have already predeceased him, or he should have been celibate.

It is, however, quite unlikely, especially for married clerics of the Roman Church, since all current roman church married priests are converts.

If not does he have the authority to dispense with any discipline that would forbid it?

You’re right: it is a discipline. The pope can change any discipline of the church, after consultation with the bishops.

Some, however, are so ingrained as to be Tradition, and changing discipline in the face of Tradition usually spins-off schisms.

Does the College of Cardinals have the authority to elect a married Catholic priest as pope–yes I know he would have to become a bishop first–but could they consecrate a married Catholic priest as a bishop and then that same married bishop become pope?

No. They may not exceed special law, and the special law can only be changed by a sitting pope. And, last I heard, current special law restricts their proposals to male unmarried Catholics. It is possible, but unlikely, that the Pope has changed this. Note that Special Law only comes to force with the death of the Pope…

In other words are married Catholic priests of any Rites in the Catholic Church forbidden with no allowance of any dispensation whatsoever from a pope or the College of cardinals from being consecrated as bishops or as pope?

At present, no Catholic Bishops are married men, tho’ several widowers have, in the past, been ordained bishops.

There is possibility of it, but it is unlikely. Even less so for converts who are ordained to the Latin Priesthood as married men.

 

[SMHW]

I had always thought the opportunity was present for any Episcopal priest, not just one bringing his congregation. But it may be that this is by another means than the Pastoral Provision:By what means are say married Lutheran ministers admitted to the priesthood?

I believe (hopefully someone can site a reference) that the Pastoral Provision may have been inspired by entire Anglican/Episcopalian congregations wanting to become Catholic. But it is my understanding that any Episcopalian priest may take advantage of it. The priest who had been assigned to our parish for a while did not bring his Episcopalian congregation with him.

 

[AJV]

In our diocese there is a new priest of 2 yrs. who is married with 2 children. A convert from the Anglican Church.
My question… if he is not celibate can he celebrate the Mass as the main presider? Or con-celebrate? Can he hear Confessions?
I was under the impression that he could not, but can only assist, never be a Pastor, but hold an adminstrative position, and can celebrate his own Mass, not a Parish one.
Just asking as the guidelines appear to blur in this case. Many have asked and have not been given the answers, and it is not clearly written in Liturgical or Canon info.
Thank you.

As others have said, he can celebrate the Mass and hear confessions. I suspect, however, the the situation you describe is more in order not to confuse or scandalise people who may not know all the details of the pastoral provision.

 

[benedictgal]

One reminder: Unless he is the pastor, permission to hear non-deathbed confessions isn’t automatic.

But as the others have said, yes, he can preside at the mass. He is a priest of God now, and so long as he obeys the rules, he is permitted to function as such.

Keep in mind: The apostles all had wives. And they were the first bishops. Scripture calls for priests (and bishops) to be a “man of one wife”… Celibacy is the change from the early church, not the other way 'round.

Actually, Aramis, we don’t know for certain that all of them had wives. Peter had a mother-in-law. But, that doesn’t mean that the other 11 were also married. John wasn’t married, nor was St. Paul (who emphatically states that in his writings). Let’s try to do a facts check on things before posting.

 

[Rolltide]

What would keep this problem from recurring with our “new” married clergy? If it became common practice. We are human after all. St. Paul stated that IF a man couldn’t be as he (Paul) was “then” marry to avoid sin. I take this as the supreme vocation would be the celibate Priesthood. I am not saying Marriage is not a worthy vocation (I am married), but then one can get married and choose this instead of the Priesthood. Both are vocations unto themselves and valued as such.
I know I am chewing this to death, but there is nothing to convince us (I am not the only one concerned) that this is right. I am seeing a lot of possibility for abuse by some not as holy as our present Pope is. The Holy Father approved it, but even then I thought it was for extreme cases such as isolated regions etc. and the people would be completely without the Sacraments. The exception is in danger of becoming the “norm”. AGAIN.

This is a flawed argument for two reasons:

1. Married priests were permitted in the Latin Catholic church for the first 1100 years of Christianity. There is clearly precedent for a married priesthood, as it wouldn’t have been allowed for that long if it wasn’t ok in the first place. In the Eastern Catholic Church, celibate and married priesthoods have ALWAYS existed side-by-side. If it was so bad, why wasn’t it banned in the east?
2. The supreme irony of the whole situation is that originally, priestly celibacy was instituted as a reform, but people are now arguing to end it as a reform, due to the priestly abuse scandal. This is where your argument fails. People are sinners. Individuals are sinners. In any time and place, there are good people and bad people. Both a celibate priesthood and an married priesthood have the possibility of being exploited. Banning one or the other is not the solution. The solution is better oversight, supervision, and transparency, so that problems can be stopped before they start.

 

[CMP2]

This is a flawed argument for two reasons:

1. Married priests were permitted in the Latin Catholic church for the first 1100 years of Christianity. There is clearly precedent for a married priesthood, as it wouldn’t have been allowed for that long if it wasn’t ok in the first place. In the Eastern Catholic Church, celibate and married priesthoods have ALWAYS existed side-by-side. If it was so bad, why wasn’t it banned in the east?
2. The supreme irony of the whole situation is that originally, priestly celibacy was instituted as a reform, but people are now arguing to end it as a reform, due to the priestly abuse scandal. This is where your argument fails. People are sinners. Individuals are sinners. In any time and place, there are good people and bad people. Both a celibate priesthood and an married priesthood have the possibility of being exploited. Banning one or the other is not the solution. The solution is better oversight, supervision, and transparency, so that problems can be stopped before they start.

Celibate Priesthood is the ultimate Priesthood. The full sacrifice of oneself to the Bride. How can a man have two Brides. Or a woman two Spouses. The reason for Celibacy.

 

[CMP2]

Actually, Aramis, we don’t know for certain that all of them had wives. Peter had a mother-in-law. But, that doesn’t mean that the other 11 were also married. John wasn’t married, nor was St. Paul (who emphatically states that in his writings). Let’s try to do a facts check on things before posting.

**
An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelty.
Pope Benedict XVI

This pretty much says it all. Thank you Benedictgal for the sound reason in your statement. If one cannot find a firm base for argument where is the reason to find reason? Where is the writ on the absolute ruling on Married Priests. To say it is up to the Bishop, or to say that it is open to the whim of the Holy See is to set the Rule of Holy Orders on sandy base and not on the Rock. To say that the Married Priesthood was in existance until 1100 is defeating this argument. There must have been a reason (the Holy Spirit?) for abolishing it. Which means it has been abolished for nearly 1000 years. Same good argument, No?
God bless**

 

[CMP2]

Celibate Priesthood is the ultimate Priesthood. The full sacrifice of oneself to the Bride. How can a man have two Brides. Or a woman two Spouses. The reason for Celibacy.

**
Part of my comment to Benedictgal **
** To say that the Married Priesthood was in existence until 1100 is defeating this argument. There must have been a reason (the Holy Spirit?) for abolishing it. Which means it has been abolished for nearly 1000 years. Same good argument, No?**

 

[CMP2]

Celibate Priesthood is the ultimate Priesthood. The full sacrifice of oneself to the Bride. How can a man have two Brides. Or a woman two Spouses. The reason for Celibacy.

So because celibate and married priesthood can be exploited we should allow both to exist to be exploited? Why not expect the ultimate outcome for Celibacy and forget the option?

 

[Sir_Knight]

If the wife dies, could the priest then be consider for a bishop position?

 

[Rolltide]

What about the Eastern Catholics? Out of 23 branches of the Catholic Church, only ONE has completely forbidden it, and that is the Latin Catholic Church. Are the other 22 just wrong because they’ve had married priests since day one?

(And please understand, I think a celibate priesthood is a great thing. I’m simply pointing out that the practice is only a discipline of the church, and disciplines can be changed at anytime.)

 

[Rolltide]

If the wife dies, could the priest then be consider for a bishop position?

I believe so. I should also point out that there is a single, exceedingly rare circumstance in which a priest who was married could get remarried after ordination. If the priest had children, and his wife died while they were still very young, he could petition the pope for an exception and he might be permitted to get remarried. This has only happened a handful of times in all of Catholic history though.

 

[benedictgal]

Celibate Priesthood is the ultimate Priesthood. The full sacrifice of oneself to the Bride. How can a man have two Brides. Or a woman two Spouses. The reason for Celibacy.

And of course, the High Priest and Bridegroom, Christ, was celibate in his earthly life. But, I think that we are digressing from the OP here.

Pope John Paul II acted in charity towards those Anglican parishes that converted en masse along with their pastors to the Church. The permission he granted was done after a lot of prayer and discernment and it was also done, I believe, in conjunction with the establishment of the Anglican-Use Rite to ease the transition into the Church.

Something else to consider is the fact that as Catholics, we demand a lot of our priests. The 3AM calls when a person is dying in the hospital, the counseling sessions that often go past dinner time, the early morning Masses, the visits to the prisons, the sick calls, and other aspects of the ministry of a priest could very well take a toll on a marriage, if one were to have existed.

Speaking as a woman, I don’t think that I could live like that. Furthermore, the wife would be held under a microscope and be on constant guard. Every facet of her life and the lives of the children she and her husband are trying to rear would be in a fishbowl. Let’s say she decides to go to Macy’s and her husband gets criticized for spending the collection plate on her suits and makeup. Her life would not be her own. And a career? That would probably not work out too well because even that would be scrutiinzed. Furthermore, there is also the issue of instability because the priest’s family would also be having to move constantly, especially, as in the case of my diocese, they would could only stay in one place 12 years at the most and the family couldn’t own any property, except maybe the car.

 

[CMP2]

Probably. Why the heck not. Anything goes apparently!

 

[CMP2]

What about the Eastern Catholics? Out of 23 branches of the Catholic Church, only ONE has completely forbidden it, and that is the Latin Catholic Church. Are the other 22 just wrong because they’ve had married priests since day one?

(And please understand, I think a celibate priesthood is a great thing. I’m simply pointing out that the practice is only a discipline of the church, and disciplines can be changed at anytime.)

Unfortunately the discipline seems rather undisciplined and random. Lets just get back to the great thing and follow the ONE true Church. Especially as we belong to it.

 

[CMP2]

Benedictgal:

I agree. Two families is one two many.

Also, the transition of the Anglican clergy and their congregations is not moving smoothly due to the fact that they refer to themselves as Anglican “catholics”. Small c to me. See the TAC. This is a bit ridiculous. I guess, as I am a convert I should be a United Catholic, or Baptist Catholic. They want the “umbrella” of Rome without the obedience due the Holy See.

I know what you are going to say folks. Obedience? Where is mine in relation to married clergy? As it is not a “rule”, or a “dogma” and is up to the whims of the times and can be changed as it is only a “law”, then why do I have to obey it? See the problem? Constant confusion.

 

[dixieagle]

Unfortunately the discipline seems rather undisciplined and random. Lets just get back to the great thing and follow the ONE true Church. Especially as we belong to it.

If you are referring to the Eastern Catholic churches - fully in communion with Rome - as not “true churches” you are quite mistaken. I suggest you do some research.

 

[CMP2]

I was thinking of the Orthodox. Sorry. I just pray that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow it. Ever. This is the way it had been decided almost a1000 years ago, and this is what we should be doing. It works. It is a full commitment. To be a Father to the Church at large and a husband to Her. Difficult if one is a father and husband to an earthly family. The consecration of a R. C. Priest is so holy as to exclude him from the world. In the world but not of the world, isn’t that how it goes?

 

[dixieagle]

I was thinking of the Orthodox. Sorry. I just pray that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow it. Ever. This is the way it had been decided almost a1000 years ago, and this is what we should be doing. It works. It is a full commitment. To be a Father to the Church at large and a husband to Her. Difficult if one is a father and husband to an earthly family. The consecration of a R. C. Priest is so holy as to exclude him from the world. In the world but not of the world, isn’t that how it goes?

Exclude him from the world? I don’t think I’d want a parish priest who was that ethereal!!! (Perhaps that’s fine for monks…)

You must understand that this is NOT dogma, but, as others have repeatedly pointed out, a discipline which can be changed. The president of our daughters’ high school was formerly an Episcopal priest, married with 5 children. He is highly effective, and one of the most respected priests in our city. A former Lutheran minister, married with 3 children, serves as chaplain to the local Catholic hospital. My husband is a Ruthenian Catholic (one of the “sui iuris” Eastern churches in full communion with Rome, and just as Catholic as the “Roman” Church) and his childhood pastor was the son of a priest. The Ruthenian Church always had married priests in other parts of the world, and did here until the last century. As I understand, there has been a married Ruthenian man or two quietly ordained in the States recently.

This is not a “make or break” issue. Ordinarily, the current discipline in the Latin Church requires celibacy, but exceptions can and have been made, and likely will be again. It is not really something to get so worked up about - truly!

 

[7_Sorrows]

i was in the episcopal and anglican churches before i became a convert to roman catholicism.

one of our episcopal priests was married with children and he became a roman catholic last year and he is on his way to becoming a roman catholic priest. i was told that the only difference for him being a convert to the faith and a married priest was that he could not have his own parish. as others stated, he can only be associate priest or pastor.

if anyone believes differently, please post because i am relatively new to this.