The Church can respond to this that only a bishop or a religious superior has the authority to confirm if a man has a calling and if he has a calling to the priesthood in the Latin Church, then he also has a calling to celibacy. We can’t argue with that logic. None of us can say that we have a vocation. Our vocation is confirmed by those in canonical authority to confirm it.
I think that I have actually been arguing with that logic. Whether I am correct or not may be a different matter.
It may well be that the Church is doing a much better job at vetting those in the seminary than they did before I got there (which was in 1964); but if they are, I suspect that it is of very recent vintage. I know all too many priests who have left to get married. And that includes my brother, who was ordained about 16 years ago, and left after 10. But if my experience (granted, not all that large; I was only in the minors for the first two years of college) and my observations amount to anything, the powers that be - seminary teachers, rectors, deans, etc., the bishop and his staff - seem to be a tad bit more focused on whether or not one has a vocation to the priesthood (diocesan) than if they have a vocation to celibacy (and which you so correctly noted was a promise, not a vow).
And we come looping right back to that anomoly, the Protestant minister who converts. Excuse me, but if the logic is that Christ and the Church see the need for celibacy in the diocesan priesthood, then life is very simple: you are Protestant and convert; wonderful, glad you crossed the Tiber, and yes you were a minister (and maybe even considered yourself a priest, if you were Lutheran or Episcopalian)and if you wish to serve the Church and the Gospel you have two choices: be a lay person or be a deacon. But no, you will not be ordained a priest because the Church and Christ consider celibacy to be necessary.
Well, the Church doesn’t think so. Obviously. So please explain the logic.
Oh, there are exceptions.
Then why are there no exceptions for any other married men?
Oh, that’s right, Christ and the Church consider it necessary…
But we just went down that path, right? and we found that Christ and the Church don’t consider it absolutely necessary…
I agree that none of us can say we have a vocation, but some of us have felt a calling to the priesthood and we have hit the brick wall. Except I don’t seem to be able to find the logic in this.
Oh. We don’t need logic.
Well, that would be a new one, I must admit.
In the Latin Church the criteria is that you must have a call to the celibate life.
And there we disagree; I am not convinced that the Church really spends any significant time, effort, investigation… etc. determining that one has a vocation to celibacy (for the diocesan priesthood). What I see (and again, I could be wrong) is that the Church spends a whole lot of time focused on the issue of the vocation of priesthood; and if you don’t have a calling to the celibate life, then if you will be a priest, you must live the celibate life whether you have a calling or simply an agreement that it is going to be part and parcel of being ordained. Again, my observation: the Church has ordained a goodly number of men who appear to not have the charism of celibacy, and are now laicized.
Therefore, no one can say, “I have a call to the Latin priesthood, but not a call to celibacy,” with legitimacy. Because the Church has ruled that the two come as one package. We have to submit to that ruling.
Or, perhaps, we can say that one can have a calling to one and not the other, but if the call is to the priesthood, you will make a promise to live a celibate life whether that is your charism or not. And good luck living out a life pattern that is not your charism. It is not impossible, just difficult. Good luck, stay warm and well fed (James).
All things being considered, we are probably beating on a dead horse. It has been a good discussion, but we have not gotten to an answer of why someone who was Protestant, married and now Catholic can be ordained, and one who was and still is Catholic, married, cannot be ordained. We have what appears to be a question in search of a theological reason, except that it is not always (a reason), and it is also a theological reason that should be a screaming insult to the intelligence and faith of all married priests, be they of Protestant origin or Eastern rite. If the theology is so overpoweringly correct, then there is no excuse, let alone reason to ordain any Protestant. And if the theology is so correct, then the theology of the Eastern rites needs to be examined as failing to show us Christ, or only through a glass darkly.
It seems rather, that the theological underpinnings have been overstated; at least, the reality seems to indicate that it is not so all encompassing in spite of the fact that it is written as so.
And I am still waiting for an explanation of the status quo, without someone telling me the obvious - “It is an exception”. Duh. That is not what I asked, and continue to ask; it is why is this exception acceptible, and not others?
Again, I get back to a suspicion that there are priests, or should I say bishops and cardinals, who don’t want to face the prospect of other married men being ordained, as they don’t want to examine their own lives lived so far yunder the rule (and not necessarily the charism). I sense an almost fearful reaction to the issue when it is brought up; Rome seems to say that anyone who proposes this is asking for a wholesale rewrite of the Church itself, or a “doing away with celibacy”. That is farcical at best; maybe some goofballs on the fringe want to do away with it, but they are so out of sync with the Church as to be only cultural Catholics. I don’t hear anyone else suggesting it, but that is what I hear Rome react to; that is called a strawman answer.
I guess I should have read before writing. If you gave me an opportunity to argue about the sky being blue are purple I’d probably jump on the green side. And I do believe I got bent over something like my father would. He was very Traditional Catholic. I have tendencies to be so myself. So anything out of the norm gets me bent. My wife would abandon this faith if these kinds of things happened, so part of me is trying to hold this world together for her. She loves the celibate priesthood which is very new to her. She argues against my thoughts and feeling about a married priesthood, which I am not largely for but would like to see more - but maybe for the wrong reasons. I prefer celibate religious like our pastor. To me a priest that doesn’t make a real sacrifice is not making much of a sacrifice. I knew priests that were very wealthy.
Um, no.
Sorry, diversion. I do this in the classroom too…class clown in my older years. Sorry.