Married priests?

[twf]

The Latin Church also ordains married men to the priesthood to serve within one of the three Anglican Ordinariates - though thus far this applies only to married men who served within the Anglican priesthood prior to their conversion.
The Eastern Catholic Churches, of course, regularly ordain married men to the priesthood.

 

[Modern_Revert]

Father Dwight Longenecker is married.
His blog is at:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/

 

[commenter]

The excerpt from “CITI” reflects their ideological agenda - clearly their job is to motivate people to lobby for CITI’s political goals. CITI stands for “Celibacy is the Issue”, but they also go under the name “Rent-a-Priest”. This is not a group of former priests who come together for support in their new role in the Church. This is a group of people who have left the Catholic Church, and opposes both the Church, and some of the doctrine. Individuals, if effect, “market” their ordination, presenting themselves as priests usually to supplement their income, as most have to work a day job. In effect they sell the sacraments, probably validly but illicitly, but have no connection to any bishop, nor to any larger faith community, other than a few who may meet weekly for services. They are not at all like most men who left the priesthood to marry, who are now faithful Catholic laity. Since the members of CITI are not in the Catholic Church, they can’t have a fruitful apostolate as laity, let alone priests.

The problem is that the persons coming to them, for instance on a cruise ship, may put confidence in this priest. They may not realize he may have been ejected from the priesthood for reasons other than marriage, or that he is not responsible to any bishop or religious superior anywhere, that he may have religious beliefs totally incompatible with Christianity now. If you seek out his religious counsel, you may get good, or not so good. He has no bishop, no diocese, no relation to any pope or patriarch, or even any kind of Superintendent or Board or Conference, etc, that oversee Protestant clergy. He has left the Catholic Church but is not obedient to any Protestant or Orthodox leader, or tradition either. He is strictly freelancing.

I know 2 former priests who now belong to it; they seemed reliable when they were priests years ago; but just the fact that they would align with a group that is so anti-Catholic, and so misleading to laity, causes me great concern over their judgement now.

 

[Seraphim73]

The excerpt from “CITI” reflects their ideological agenda - clearly their job is to motivate people to lobby for CITI’s political goals. CITI stands for “Celibacy is the Issue”, but they also go under the name “Rent-a-Priest”. This is not a group of former priests who come together for support in their new role in the Church. This is a group of people who have left the Catholic Church, and opposes both the Church, and some of the doctrine. Individuals, if effect, “market” their ordination, presenting themselves as priests usually to supplement their income, as most have to work a day job. In effect they sell the sacraments, probably validly but illicitly, but have no connection to any bishop, nor to any larger faith community, other than a few who may meet weekly for services. They are not at all like most men who left the priesthood to marry, who are now faithful Catholic laity. Since the members of CITI are not in the Catholic Church, they can’t have a fruitful apostolate as laity, let alone priests.

The problem is that the persons coming to them, for instance on a cruise ship, may put confidence in this priest. They may not realize he may have been ejected from the priesthood for reasons other than marriage, or that he is not responsible to any bishop or religious superior anywhere, that he may have religious beliefs totally incompatible with Christianity now. If you seek out his religious counsel, you may get good, or not so good.

I know 2 former priests who now belong to it; they seemed reliable when they were priests years ago; but just the fact that they would align with a group that is so anti-Catholic, and so misleading to laity, causes me great concern over their judgement now.

Pretty sure that’s not what the OP was talking about.

 

[commenter]

Pretty sure that’s not what the OP was talking about.

The OP was obviously seeking good information.

The first post consists mostly of an excerpt from an organization that presents itself as Catholic, but actually has no connection to the Church, and opposes the Catholic Faith on many things besides celibacy.
Pointing out that fact is relevant to the goal, “seeking good information”.

Suppose a fundamentalist group started a website, and called it “Catholic Teaching on Tuesdays”, and filled it with articles that sound somewhat Catholic, quote Vatican 2 documents out of context that support their agenda, and bend and misrepresent statements of popes. If someone quoted from this in starting a thread, it would be useful to the OP and to others on the thread, to point out the actual position of their source. Context is useful.

 

[Seraphim73]

The OP was obviously seeking good information.

The first post consists mostly of an excerpt from an organization that presents itself as Catholic, but actually has no connection to the Church, and opposes the Catholic Faith on many things besides celibacy.
Pointing out that fact is relevant to the goal, “seeking good information”.

Suppose a fundamentalist group started a website, and called it “Catholic Teaching on Tuesdays”, and filled it with articles that sound somewhat Catholic, quote Vatican 2 documents out of context that support their agenda, and bend and misrepresent statements of popes. If someone quoted from this in starting a thread, it would be useful to the OP and to others on the thread, to point out the actual position of their source. Context is useful.

The question was about already married Protestant converts being ordained, not about already ordained priests getting married.

 

[Corki]

The question was about already married Protestant converts being ordained, not about already ordained priests getting married.

But the section of the website quoted in the OP was about ordained priests (specifically laicized priests) getting married.

You are right, the OP’s question didn’t quite match what she quoted. Isn’t it a good idea to address both?

 

[commenter]

But the section of the website quoted in the OP was about ordained priests (specifically laicized priests) getting married.

You are right, the OP’s question didn’t quite match what she quoted. Isn’t it a good idea to address both?

The OP innocently quoted from a website that is anti-Catholic. The website is not just about laicized priests getting married.

If someone inadvertently quotes from a website that has any kind of underlying political agenda, it’s prudent to point out that agenda, so other readers are aware of it. Caveat Emptor.

 

[dixieagle]

Eastern Catholics allow married men to become priests (as EC priests cannot marry after ordination).

It strikes me as…oddly ironic…that the Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome, yet it seems a simpler process for a married Protestant minister to become a Latin priest in the US and Rome than for an EC married man to become an EC priest in the US and Rome. After all, Latin and Eastern Catholics are closer in theology.

You can expect to see this slowly but surely change. It is a travesty that the sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches have been prevented from ordaining married men to the priesthood in the US since the 1920s. The tide has turned, with several married men quietly ordained in the last few years. You will see more before long, and practical preparations for married seminarians are being made.

 

[Abu]

Emily2014 #16
So, why is this such a big issue?

Because of the mistaken knowledge and feelings of some who do not know the practice of Christ and His Church through the Apostolic Norm of celibacy esteemed by Christ, until the error at the Council of Trullo of establishing a married clergy.

Vatican II, says “that students for the priesthood, while having a proper knowledge of the dignity of marriage, 'should recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ" (Decree on the Training of Priests, n.10)."

The discipline on a celibate priesthood as an Apostolic norm, was breached by the Eastern Rite Catholics at the Council of Trullo in 691. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.

 

[Seraphim73]

Because of the mistaken knowledge and feelings of some who do not know the practice of Christ and His Church through the Apostolic Norm of celibacy esteemed by Christ, until the error at the Council of Trullo of establishing a married clergy.

Vatican II, says “that students for the priesthood, while having a proper knowledge of the dignity of marriage, 'should recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ" (Decree on the Training of Priests, n.10)."

The discipline on a celibate priesthood as an Apostolic norm, was breached by the Eastern Rite Catholics at the Council of Trullo in 691. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.

Now I have to respond. That’s a bunch of baloney on a number of levels.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Because of the mistaken knowledge and feelings of some who do not know the practice of Christ and His Church through the Apostolic Norm of celibacy esteemed by Christ, until the error at the Council of Trullo of establishing a married clergy.

Vatican II, says “that students for the priesthood, while having a proper knowledge of the dignity of marriage, 'should recognise the greater excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ" (Decree on the Training of Priests, n.10)."

The discipline on a celibate priesthood as an Apostolic norm, was breached by the Eastern Rite Catholics at the Council of Trullo in 691. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.

You are actually mistaken. Being a discipline means it is not a requirement forever and always. The Latin Church could decide tomorrow to allow all priests to be married.

 

[Abu]

WingsOfEagles #32
You are actually mistaken. Being a discipline means it is not a requirement forever and always.

The mistake is to imagine that it was not an Apostolic Norm.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements, explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.

 

[otjm]

Continence is not expected of married priests by the Church.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=139355

I don’t know that I would want to put money on that one, unless I know that Canon law had been abrogated. Several years ago, Peter Kreeft and another canonist got into a lively public discussion about whether or not permanent deacons were required, by Canon law, to be continent. I don’t know that I read through the last round of salvos, but the gist of what I was reading was that the law required it.

Your reference to another thread is not particularly proof; I spoke at the time with my deacon and he too was unaware of any requirement.

It may be on the books, and there may be something from Rome saying that it will not be enforced, or required, or that is is suspended, but according to the discussion I was reading, that did not seem to be the case. It appears that it is simply being ignored - and before that sets anyone off, I would highly suspect that Rome is aware of that.

 

[seagal]

The mistake is to imagine that it was not an Apostolic Norm.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Eastern Rite allows married men to be ordained.

As this article rrom the Catholic Answers page Celibacy And The Priesthood points out, celibacy in the priesthood is a traditional discipline, not unchangeable dogma.

…Celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married. [emphasis mine]

 

[otjm]

This^

I’m also aware of a couple of stories of converts (iirc Episcopalians) whose ordinations were valid through apostolic succession but illicit as these men were ordained outside of the Church. They did not have to petition Rome in the same way, but they did have to prove their ‘pedigree,’ and their faculties were suspended until their situations were resolved.

Eastern Catholics allow married men to become priests (as EC priests cannot marry after ordination).

It strikes me as…oddly ironic…that the Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome, yet it seems a simpler process for a married Protestant minister to become a Latin priest in the US and Rome than for an EC married man to become an EC priest in the US and Rome. After all, Latin and Eastern Catholics are closer in theology.

They may be closer in theology, but not necessarily in politics. It was the US bishops who raised such a fuss that the Eastern rite churches were not allowed to introduce married clergy into the US.

 

[otjm]

The mistake is to imagine that it was not an Apostolic Norm.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements, explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements

. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.You never seem to be able to distinguish between a norm and an absolute.

 

[Miserissima]

They may be closer in theology, but not necessarily in politics. It was the US bishops who raised such a fuss that the Eastern rite churches were not allowed to introduce married clergy into the US.

Was this before or during Bp. Ireland? I really am curious if this was always the case in the US (and Canada?).

If it was through the efforts of Bp. Ireland, how did his influence reach outside of his territorial purview?

 

[Abu]

The fact that it is an Apostolic Norm means that it was unilaterally changed at Trullo for the Eastern Catholics.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

Not only is the celibate priesthood from Christ, it is most scriptural:
St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

The Magisterium teaches:
32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.
(Sacra Virginitas, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, 1954).

‘In her magisterial statements, the Catholic Church has often spoken of the Eastern practice regarding celibacy. The Church always uses guarded language, not wanting to widen the breach between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. But she has never said—never even implied—that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy. Typical of her attitude is the language of Pope Pius XI in his 1935 encyclical on the Catholic priesthood. After extolling the glories of priestly celibacy, he said he was not criticizing the Oriental discipline. “What we have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something we consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood , something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and his purposes in regard to priestly souls” (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, Section 47).’
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholici-sacerdotii_en.html

 

[Seraphim73]

The fact that it is an Apostolic Norm means that it was unilaterally changed at Trullo for the Eastern Catholics.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

Not only is the celibate priesthood from Christ, it is most scriptural:
St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

The Magisterium teaches:
32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.
(Sacra Virginitas, Encyclical Of Pope Pius XII, 1954).

‘In her magisterial statements, the Catholic Church has often spoken of the Eastern practice regarding celibacy. The Church always uses guarded language, not wanting to widen the breach between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. But she has never said—never even implied—that the Eastern practice stands on par with her own discipline regarding celibacy. Typical of her attitude is the language of Pope Pius XI in his 1935 encyclical on the Catholic priesthood. After extolling the glories of priestly celibacy, he said he was not criticizing the Oriental discipline. “What we have said has been meant solely to exalt in the Lord something we consider one of the purest glories of the Catholic priesthood , something which seems to us to correspond better to the desires of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and his purposes in regard to priestly souls” (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, Section 47).’
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholici-sacerdotii_en.html

But that’s only part of the story. Trullo accepted into the canons many ancient rules including by the way regulations on second and third marriages. Of course Catholics ignore them entirely. I also find it odd that a Catholic would cite Trullo as the Catholic Church in no was considers it authoritative

Western writers tended to view sex as a necessary evil. For the most part Eastern canonist did not. Clerical celibacy didn’t become the norm even in the West until much later. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the discipline but it has certainly not been universal throughout the history of the Church.