Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[eucharisteo]

 

[AmyMart]

Thank you for taking the time to explain ans yes, it did help! Amy

 

[eucharisteo]

Hope to see you around Amy. Good luck on your journey of learning. It’s been very rewarding for me.

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

I assume we have all heard of the pronouncements in Rome and London last week to the effect that whole parishes of Anglican/Episopalian(?), including their married male clergy but excluding female clergy, have successfully petitioned to be received into the Roman Catholic Church.

I have not yet had access to a l’Osservatore Romano and would be helped by information from contributors: Is this to be just a canonical “annexing” of those parishes/dioceses so that they continue their traditions but in communion with Rome (like some Eastern communions)? Are these Anglican priests to have faculties/status limited to just these parishes or is the local bishop/ordinary free to appoint them anywhere in the diocese? Or is this to involve formal ordination of their clergy/ reception of their communicants into our parishes/dioceses so that, like all of us, they are “Catholics at large”?

I would be helped by those with better access to the actual details of the response to their submission to Rome (which I understand took 2 years to be determined).

Thinking out loud (Part 1): This phenomenon does not look like a carefully discerned “case by case” basis but an en bloc incorporation. If that is so, then it seems that the discipline of celibacy can be jettisoned as a general rule - rather than as a particular exception in a particular case. This has to be the correct analysis if only because of these considerations: Unless the priests in question are virtually guaranteed of a place as pastor with their parish in the Roman Catholic Church, then would the parish "come over"without that priest and, in that context, what is the utility of any discernment of the particular character of that priest? If the parish comes without the priest, then what priest could the bishop appropriately/sensitively appoint to the parish given the profile of the parishioners?

Thinking out loud (Part 2): If that is the correct analysis, then does that not pose a problem for many carefully constructed theologies of priesthood that allege an intrinsic/intimate/necessary connection between priesthood and celibacy? With the greatest respect, doesn’t it suggest that even some of the practical/pastoral reasons lately advanced by such contributors as Br JR OSF as to why celibacy ought continue as the disciplinary norm for diocesan/secular clergy are really just “after the fact” justifications for a rule that Rome, when it suits, can dispense with a swipe of a pen as a general discipline without careful consideration on a case by case/exceptional basis? Perhaps some of Fr Anthony 1’s contributions a little while back where not as worthy of the castigation that some of us seemingly sent his way? (I always have trouble reading ‘tone of voice’ in e-mails/internet and maybe there was no castigation at all - just like I can’t pick humour or subtle irony in this medium.)

As for myself, I received all appropriate dispensations from orders based on my physical health. It was several years later that I met and married my wife. But, in light of last week’s events, I feel for those priests of my acquaintance who either practice celibacy reluctantly for the sake of priesthood or who had to choose between priesthood and marriage and opted for the latter after they’d betn ordained. It goes to show, unlike some of the very early responses in this thread, that This discussion is not just a mere speculative exercise on a closed topic that has been comprehensively ruled on by previous pontificates. This discussion can have very real pastoral consequences for people when events such as this occur.

 

[JReducation]

There is not going to be a “new rite”. What is being allowed is the preservation of the Anglican form. But the Anglican form is really part of the Latin rite.

As to the ordination of the incoming ministers, they will be assigned to a vicar, who will not be a bishop, unless he’s celibate. They will be subject to the local bishop in each diocese where they find themselves. They can choose to remain in their “enclave” or disperse through the dioceses in their counry. It will be up to the bishop to give them faculties.

The declaration does not make provisions for single Anglican men to become Catholic, marry and then become priests. The provision is only for those that are married when they enter the Catholic Church. All others will have to subject themselves to the same discipline as “cradle Catholics.”

The role of the vicar will be strictly pastoral, not juridical. The local bishop will still be the Ordinary. From the wording of the little that I have seen, it appears that these vicars will serve a transitional role. I get the impression that they are not going to be replaced once they die.

Cardinal Levada recently said that this was an exception and there is no plan to make it the rule that those who belong to the Anglican form can be married before ordiantion. But we have to wait and see until the final edition of the decree is promulgated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

The declaration does not make provisions for single Anglican men to become Catholic, marry and then become priests. The provision is only for those that are married when they enter the Catholic Church. All others will have to subject themselves to the same discipline as “cradle Catholics.”

I think you meant “married and ordained”.

Cardinal Levada recently said that this was an exception and there is no plan to make it the rule that those who belong to the Anglican form can be married before ordiantion. But we have to wait and see until the final edition of the decree is promulgated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and not always with a dull razor. Growing up Anglican/Epsicopalian, getting married, getting ordained, and then coming over is a simple route to skirt the issue. Not that I would assume that anyone would necessarily be that Machiavellian; but the route is well layed out. There are no guarantees that anyone taking that route would of necessity be ordained in the Catholic Church, so such a route is not a slam-dunk. Not all ministers, married, who have converted have been ordained.

Whether this eventually, in a few or more years, will result in the Church reviewing its rule of celibacy for Catholic priests remains to be seen; this has still not “gotten through the works” of Rome’s rule making. But for once they got the cart and the horse in the right order; they got to the press instead of the press getting to them.

Who knows; the Curia might actually get themselves into the 20th century!

 

[JReducation]

I think you meant “married and ordained”.
However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and not always with a dull razor. Growing up Anglican/Epsicopalian, getting married, getting ordained, and then coming over is a simple route to skirt the issue. Not that I would assume that anyone would necessarily be that Machiavellian; but the route is well layed out. There are no guarantees that anyone taking that route would of necessity be ordained in the Catholic Church, so such a route is not a slam-dunk. Not all ministers, married, who have converted have been ordained.

Whether this eventually, in a few or more years, will result in the Church reviewing its rule of celibacy for Catholic priests remains to be seen; this has still not “gotten through the works” of Rome’s rule making. But for once they got the cart and the horse in the right order; they got to the press instead of the press getting to them.

Who knows; the Curia might actually get themselves into the 20th century!

There are two questions here and I believe that is what the Cardinal is trying to get at. The reception of clerics from the Anglican Communion and what to do with those who apply for Holy Orders is one question. The ordination of married men is another question. My take is that the Cardinal is saying that the ordination of married men is not what’s on the table.

What you say is also true. Not all clerics who converted were ordained. But how many have asked? An individual who converts must go through the local bishop.

This declaration is what in civil law would be called a “class action”. It’s speaking about a group and is written for that group only.

What I was trying to say above was that there is no provision in the declaration for single men who convert. Those men have to observe the discipline like anyone else. If they marry after they convert, they cannot ask for Holy Orders on the grounds that they were TAC.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

What I was trying to say above was that there is no provision in the declaration for single men who convert. Those men have to observe the discipline like anyone else. If they marry after they convert, they cannot ask for Holy Orders on the grounds that they were TAC.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And what I was trying to say is that my understanding is that if a married Anglican/Epsicopalian converts, he also will not be ordained unless he was an ordained minister in the previous church. In other words, the only married priests who will be added to the Roman rite will be converts, married and ordained at the time in the previous church from which they convert. In short, not a change from what has been going on in the recent past. The real change is the extension of using the Anglican rite (modified slightly) in their Masses (and perhaps the LOTH) to a very large group, allowing parishes “en masse” to enter, as opposed to onzees and twozees. It is not without precedent, but previously each group had to petition on its own.

And undoubtedly, some of the alleged 400,000 will chose to not cross the Tiber; and others will; some individually or in small groups, and others as a parish, or perhaps as a diocese (or equivalent, under a bishop).

 

[JReducation]

And what I was trying to say is that my understanding is that if a married Anglican/Epsicopalian converts, he also will not be ordained unless he was an ordained minister in the previous church. In other words, the only married priests who will be added to the Roman rite will be converts, married and ordained at the time in the previous church from which they convert. In short, not a change from what has been going on in the recent past. The real change is the extension of using the Anglican rite (modified slightly) in their Masses (and perhaps the LOTH) to a very large group, allowing parishes “en masse” to enter, as opposed to onzees and twozees. It is not without precedent, but previously each group had to petition on its own.

And undoubtedly, some of the alleged 400,000 will chose to not cross the Tiber; and others will; some individually or in small groups, and others as a parish, or perhaps as a diocese (or equivalent, under a bishop).

We are in agreement. For the sake of calification for all who are reading. They can only come under the jurisdiction of an already ordained Roman Catholic bishop. Anglican bishops who convert will be ordained priests, but not bishops, unless they are celibate. If they are not celibate they will be priests, they serve as Vicars with Ordinary authority, but not as bishops and will not have the sacramental power of a bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Formosus]

The declaration does not make provisions for single Anglican men to become Catholic, marry and then become priests. The provision is only for those that are married when they enter the Catholic Church. All others will have to subject themselves to the same discipline as "cradle Catholics."

When I read the press release , it seemed to suggest the opposite, that, while Anglicans will not be their own sui iuris church ( rite is not the correct term, rite refers to liturgical forms and theology), they appear to be turning them into something similar to one. Obviously we have to wait for the full document to appear, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Anglican personal prelature will allow for married men to become priests much like various Eastern churches do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When I read the press release , it seemed to suggest the opposite, that, while Anglicans will not be their own sui iuris church ( rite is not the correct term, rite refers to liturgical forms and theology), they appear to be turning them into something similar to one. Obviously we have to wait for the full document to appear, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Anglican personal prelature will allow for married men to become priests much like various Eastern churches do.

It is not going to be a personal prelature either. What it will be has been described to be like a personal prelature but not one.

It is useless to guess at what this will be when we are waiting for a document to be released by the Vatican from the pope that will state exactly what this will be.

 

[eucharisteo]

What are the chances of getting 2 religious brothers on the same thread. Funny to me. But I plan to be at a Benedictine Monestary around Christmas with my family to visit our children’s godfather, a priest…not a monk. My favorites too, Carmelite, Franciscan and Benedictine. are either of you working towards the priesthood?

 

[JReducation]

What are the chances of getting 2 religious brothers on the same thread. Funny to me. But I plan to be at a Benedictine Monestary around Christmas with my family to visit our children’s godfather, a priest…not a monk. My favorites too, Carmelite, Franciscan and Benedictine. are either of you working towards the priesthood?/

One does not work toward the priesthood, turkey. One studies theology and your superior decides whether you have a vocation to the priesthood.

To answer for me, the answer is not, there are no plans for me to be ordained. My superiors felt that we have too many ordained brothers. We needed more theologians. So, after I finished my M.Div. I was sent to Rome to get my STD in Mystical Theolgoy and then to another university to get my PhD in psychology. We need more theologians in our community and more lawyers. So that’s what we’re focussing on right now. We work full-time with Respect Life. We were separated from the Capuchins as a distinct branch of the Franciscan Order for the sole prupose of the unborn and the Gospel of Life. We already have one ordained brother for every 30 friars. That’s is enough for our sacramental needs.

By the way, in the Franciscans Brothers of Life, all friars are called Brother. No one may use the title Father. What you see in front of someone’s name is Rev. Br. or Ven. Br.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What are the chances of getting 2 religious brothers on the same thread. Funny to me. But I plan to be at a Benedictine Monestary around Christmas with my family to visit our children’s godfather, a priest…not a monk. My favorites too, Carmelite, Franciscan and Benedictine. are either of you working towards the priesthood?

As the Carmelites are a clerical order (today), unlike the Franciscan, most of us in formation are on the ordination track though if we do not feel called to be ordained that is honored by our superiors.

I feel called to be ordained and am on the ordination track. Currently I am on my two year internship in one of our ministries, in my case that is at one of our High Schools.

By the way, in the Franciscans Brothers of Life, all friars are called Brother. No one may use the title Father. What you see in front of someone’s name is Rev. Br. or Ven. Br.

For us a Rev. Br. is a brother who has been ordained to the Diaconate.

 

[JReducation]

As the Carmelites are a clerical order (today), unlike the Franciscan, most of us in formation are on the ordination track though if we do not feel called to be ordained that is honored by our superiors.

I feel called to be ordained and am on the ordination track. Currently I am on my two year internship in one of our ministries, in my case that is at one of our High Schools.

For us a Rev. Br. is a brother who has been ordained to the Diaconate.

Our transitional deacons also use Rev. Br.

But this is the beauty of the different charism in the Church, is it not? Some religoius orders, such as the Carmelites are clerical orders and others like the Franciscans are lay. As those of us who are religious know, there ae very good reasons for both. Perhaps you and I may explain why religious orders are clerical or lay, whether or not they have ordained men.

The important thing, as far as the religioius orders are concerned, is that every friar or monk is a brother and full member of his respective community and he shares the life and mission of his community regardless of his clericlal or lay state. This is something for the faithful laity to celebrate. While a garden with red roses is beautiufl, the Church is a garden with flower of many varieties and colors and all are necessary to her life and mission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[eucharisteo]

One does not work toward the priesthood, turkey. One studies theology and your superior decides whether you have a vocation to the priesthood.

To answer for me, the answer is not, there are no plans for me to be ordained. My superiors felt that we have too many ordained brothers. We needed more theologians. So, after I finished my M.Div. I was sent to Rome to get my STD in Mystical Theolgoy and then to another university to get my PhD in psychology. We need more theologians in our community and more lawyers. So that’s what we’re focussing on right now. We work full-time with Respect Life. We were separated from the Capuchins as a distinct branch of the Franciscan Order for the sole prupose of the unborn and the Gospel of Life. We already have one ordained brother for every 30 friars. That’s is enough for our sacramental needs.

By the way, in the Franciscans Brothers of Life, all friars are called Brother. No one may use the title Father. What you see in front of someone’s name is Rev. Br. or Ven. Br.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So I guess it’s okay if I call you brother knucklehead then. Dah I know that. I went to the seminary silly man that wears the funny looking clothes. My wife went up to a Franciscan and said can I take a picture of you with your stuff. He said at least you didn’t call it a dress. And we laughed because in the beginning of her conversion she called it a dress making fun of it. Now she loves it.

The real question I should have asked is “are either of you attending the seminary” or “discerning the priesthood?” Or even funnier is your superior discerning the priesthood for you.

“What you see in front of someone’s name is Rev. Br. or Ven. Br.” I know the first 2 but what is the last one “Ven. Br.”?

 

[JReducation]

So I guess it’s okay if I call you brother knucklehead then. Dah I know that. I went to the seminary silly man that wears the funny looking clothes. My wife went up to a Franciscan and said can I take a picture of you with your stuff. He said at least you didn’t call it a dress. And we laughed because in the beginning of her conversion she called it a dress making fun of it. Now she loves it.

The real question I should have asked is “are either of you attending the seminary” or “discerning the priesthood?” Or even funnier is your superior discerning the priesthood for you.

“What you see in front of someone’s name is Rev. Br. or Ven. Br.” I know the first 2 but what is the last one “Ven. Br.”?

I love your wife’s sense of humor. You can tell her that my “dress” is very nice. It’s a nice shade of grey. LOL

That being said, “Ven.” is short for Venerable, which is the proper title for any religious who is not ordained. Ven. Br., Ven. Sr. Though in my community we are not so formal. We just sign our names with Br. in front or no title and just the initials OSF (Order of St. Francis) after the name. Also, Franciscans do not use academic initials after their name, unless in an academic environment. For example, you will see Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap. or Sean Cardinal O’Malley, OFM Cap, or Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR. All of them are doctors (PhDs).

Among Franciscans, this tradition goes back to Elias of Cortona, Anthony of Padua and Bonventure. All of them were priests and doctors. But all were Brother, not Doctor.

I believe that the Dominicans also observe the same custom, not using academic titles, but just OP after their name, even if they are bishops.

There is one more title that we do use in the Franciscan family. An abess is always Rev. M. and a major superior is always Very Rev. John Smith (even if he’s not ordained). But he surrenders the title when his term is up.

By the way, my father always called me knucklehead.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think we have gotten off track a bit here but let me add somethings.

Even though we Carmelites are a clerical order we are all still brothers within the order.

Back when the Mass changed there was discussion within the order about the new ability to con-celebrate the Mass. It was decided that the Community Mass would not be con-celebrated. One of the priests within the community celebrates the Mass, the rest form the congregation with those who are not ordained as we are all brothers.

Within our houses we do not address each other with titles, we just use our names as, again, we are all brothers and equal.

There are some younger members who have personal issues with this but the majority of us do not agree with them.

A priest is no higher in “reverence” than a brother or a deacon. All in solemn vows are equals and have voice (that is they have a vote at the chapter). Even those in temporary vows are treated as equals.

The only issue is that a non-priest can not serve as prior provincial (head of a province) or prior general (head of the order) as they serve as our ordinaries and call one to orders. A man can not call one to an order he does not hold. A non-priest can serve in any of the other governmental positions of the order.

 

[eucharisteo]

Yes we have digressed. I saw that we had discussed many aspects of this topic. But then I realized we have 2 religious that may or may not be in the process of becoming priests. And since it’s the year of the priest I thought I’d just make a open mental note of it for everyone reading this thread.

Like we say to military “thank you for serving”.

Now about celibate priests. If during the process of becoming a deacon I am asked if I feel called to become a priest I will have to consider it then, but now I am discerning the diaconate, not the priesthood. The reason I say this is that I’m discerning the permanent diaconate because I’m married. It’s different.

 

[Dr_Mark_Sayers]

It is always intriguing how the Spirit moves so as to effect change whilst leaving the feeling that everything remains the same.

I remember seminarians who, in the early 1980’s, ended their studies in the penultimate year before major orders in the sure expectation of a permanent married diaconate. They then married and waited. It then took a further 25 years for that ministry to be established in this province.

I also remember from the late 1980’s, local Anglican/Episcopalian students for ordination within that communion who tried to accelerate their ordinations (and marriages) to try and hop on the wave of enthusiasm for receiving/ordaining same (once married) into the Roman Catholic church. This enthusiasm was prompted by several high profile examples at the time (perhaps Amy’s relative?). Due to the transparency of these actions, many failed to be accepted back then but now it looks, some 20 years later, that there will effectively be a presumption in their favour if they are pastor of a parish that wants to ‘come over’.

I note that both my local ordinary and the spokesman for the provincial episcopal conference were noted ecumenists from the 1970’s who had served on the original ARCIC(?) dialogues.

Seeds and fruits… Assuming that there is a qualitative difference in this most recent pronouncement/practice from the previous ‘case by case’ basis, then perhaps it is not the immediate implementation of reception that is important but its fruits in 20-30 years’ time.

The more fellow parishioners that I talk to in my role on various archdiocesan bodies, the more I hear of the intuitive sense of unfairness that many feel (albeit not technically correct and perhaps it is an uneducated sense of unfairness due to lack of familiarity with canon law) that their sons/cousins/nephews cannot be priests and married but these other people can be married and priests as well. I cannot help but feel that a crash course for them in canon law isn’t all that terribly responsive in a pastoral sense (and risks sounding defensive) - but what other option is there?