Ordination of (former) Anglican

[diggerdomer]

. There are three vocations: marriage, priesthood, religious life. Period.

I think we’ve already shown on this thread that this idea isn’t accurate. The Catholic Church has married clergy (and always has). Some clergy are members of religious orders, others aren’t. Some married people are members of religious orders, most aren’t.

. I may be mistaken, but I believe that one of these three states has been predestined for all of us.

The Catholic Church does not teach predestination.

.Scripture and common-sense shows us that married clergy are in principle acceptable, but not ideal.

Scripture does not show this. We don’t know of any Apostle who was unmarried, definitely, but we do know for sure that Peter was married. So much for Scripture. Tradition (which may or may not be common sense to people) shows us that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS had both married and unmarried clergy. Whether or not one’s common sense can reconcile with this is, well, up to each individual.

 

[DrumminFool91]

I think we’ve already shown on this thread that this idea isn’t accurate. The Catholic Church has married clergy (and always has). Some clergy are members of religious orders, others aren’t. Some married people are members of religious orders, most aren’t.

That’s not at all what I said. If you had read my earlier post in the beginning of the thread, you would have seen that I clearly acknowledge the over-lap of these. I was specifically addressing another post’s thought that we need to broaden the definition of the term “vocation”, not the overlap of the three vocations.

The Catholic Church does not teach predestination.

Sure does. Not the Calvinistic form of predestination - be we are in fact predestined. We are predestined to Holiness, to be Saints, to be with God for all eternity in Heaven. You don’t think that God has known us since before we were formed in the womb, and that knowledge included how He desires us to live our lives?

Scripture does not show this. We don’t know of any Apostle who was unmarried, definitely, but we do know for sure that Peter was married. So much for Scripture. Tradition (which may or may not be common sense to people) shows us that the Catholic Church has ALWAYS had both married and unmarried clergy. Whether or not one’s common sense can reconcile with this is, well, up to each individual.

Again - it sure does. St. Paul clearly states that it is better for men to be as he is (unmarried and yes we know that he was unmarried, please read 1 Corinthians Chapter 7). Also, Jesus Christ Himself was unmarried and called some to this state (Matt 19:10-12). So, no you’re not done with scripture.

You’re right we’ve always had both married and unmarried clergy - but I made an argument in my earliest post on this thread that it is not advisable at all. In the case of the married priest. There’s a substantial argument to made that the married priest will constantly struggle with being both fully present for his family and his parish. If you were in his place, which one would you choose? Your sick child or your sick parishioner? To whom is your first obligation? There’s a struggle there that I would argue not many can handle. Some can and do (as in the case of the priest who performed our marriage), but this shouldn’t be the norm.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again - it sure does. St. Paul clearly states that it is better for men to be as he is (unmarried and yes we know that he was unmarried, please read 1 Corinthians Chapter 7). Also, Jesus Christ Himself was unmarried and called some to this state (Matt 19:10-12). So, no you’re not done with scripture.

Nope. Sorry.

First, St. Paul.

Yes, of course he wrote what you noted in 1 Cor. But of course the Bible has to be read and interpreted properly and part of that interpretation involves considering the literary form, the context of the writing, and considering the whole canonical witness.

Literary form: letters are written to one community for a specific purpose in a given set of circumstances. We cannot simply extrapolate what is written in one occasional letter to make it some universal and eternal fact.

Context: It’s often noted by Catholic biblical scholars that the early Church (i.e. when Paul was writing) expected Jesus to return immanently. Like, tomorrow. So much of their thought and guidance was based on that expectation. Such guidance may and can change in emphasis when one considers it’s been about 2000 years and we’re still waiting.

Canon: It’s not accurate to propose that the whole witness of Scripture prefers the unmarried state to the married state.

And here’s a really basic point that I’d be surprised if you weren’t aware of: St. Paul nowhere claims that he was unmarried. It certainly seems clear that he was unmarried WHEN HE WROTE 1 CORINTHIANS but that is exactly what that means: he was unmarried when he wrote 1 Cor. He may have been widowed. He may have been divorced. He may have married later. We just don’t know. Given the Jewish importance and emphasis on marriage (as witnessed to and attested by…guess what?..Scripture! i.e. the Christian Old Testament) it would be more logical to assume that he WAS married at some point, given the devout Jew that he was, than to assume that he was celibate.

You’re right we’ve always had both married and unmarried clergy - but I made an argument in my earliest post on this thread that it is not advisable at all. In the case of the married priest. There’s a substantial argument to made that the married priest will constantly struggle with being both fully present for his family and his parish. If you were in his place, which one would you choose? Your sick child or your sick parishioner? To whom is your first obligation? There’s a struggle there that I would argue not many can handle. Some can and do (as in the case of the priest who performed our marriage), but this shouldn’t be the norm.

Fine. No problem. Your opinion. I respect it. I have no problem with your thinking that way.

But…and here’s the catch…it’s not Church teaching. So while you may have your preferences, please don’t impose them on the Church.

 

[Cluny]

I don’t understand this apparent contradiction when Catholic priests are not allowed to marry but married priests are allowed to be ordained. Personally, I don’t believe priests should be married.

The Church clearly disagrees with you.

In my city are several married Eastern Catholic priests who are pastors.

The idea is to make up your mind whether or not you are going to be married BEFORE you are ordained.

 

[BootCampJr]

It is this type of attitude that hardens the hearts of those that are not Catholic. Both Marriage and Holy Orders are sacraments that bind our relationship with God. Why would we ever want to take that away from someone? The times are a changing, and we better hop on the bus if we want to catch the ride. If Rome can approve of it, then so shall we. We should embrace this man for his beloved desire to evangelize the word of Jesus Christ through the Catholic faith. That’s what we do. So, why not embrace him?

 

[DrumminFool91]

Nope. Sorry.

First, St. Paul.

Yes, of course he wrote what you noted in 1 Cor. But of course the Bible has to be read and interpreted properly and part of that interpretation involves considering the literary form, the context of the writing, and considering the whole canonical witness.

Literary form: letters are written to one community for a specific purpose in a given set of circumstances. We cannot simply extrapolate what is written in one occasional letter to make it some universal and eternal fact.

Just as a matter of principle: I would think that if one believes that scripture is the infallible word of God, that even if something is stated just once, it is still the word of God, and thus still binding. Personally, I don’t really feel comfortable being able to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in scripture and say “This, this, and this is good for today, but that and that is outdated and thus invalidated.”

Context: It’s often noted by Catholic biblical scholars that the early Church (i.e. when Paul was writing) expected Jesus to return immanently. Like, tomorrow. So much of their thought and guidance was based on that expectation. Such guidance may and can change in emphasis when one considers it’s been about 2000 years and we’re still waiting.

Yes of course the early Church thought that way. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to still think and live that way - Christ could in fact return before I finish this post - no man knows. Also, I could die in a fiery crash on the way home from work and then be face to face with God Himself. But the infallible teachings of scripture are not invalidated just because the early Christians were wrong about the timing of the 2nd coming. I think the point and thought processes made by the early Church are still valid today. We could debate this though.

And here’s a really basic point that I’d be surprised if you weren’t aware of

Now I really could be reading this incorrectly (and if so just please just ignore this next bit with my apologies) I’m getting a sense of a little ad hominem fallicy here. I’m the first one to admit I’m not the brightest crayon in the box, but let’s stick to attacking the argument not the one making the argument.

St. Paul nowhere claims that he was unmarried.

He does clearly in 1 Cor 7:8 by saying, “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do”. Also read the commentary provided at the USCCB NAB website on this.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm#foot6 It segues nicely into your next point.

It certainly seems clear that he was unmarried WHEN HE WROTE 1 CORINTHIANS but that is exactly what that means: he was unmarried when he wrote 1 Cor. He may have been widowed. He may have been divorced. He may have married later. We just don’t know. Given the Jewish importance and emphasis on marriage (as witnessed to and attested by…guess what?..Scripture! i.e. the Christian Old Testament) it would be more logical to assume that he WAS married at some point, given the devout Jew that he was, than to assume that he was celibate.

It is certainly reasonable that he may have been widowed or previously married, but that would most likely be in his past, pre-Christian life. He then, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the letter stating that he was not currently married and that it is good that those who can should remain as he currently was at the time of writing the letter. There isn’t any sort of footnote that states that in case Christ doesn’t come tomorrow or that the times have changed, so we can ignore this. You also neglect the example of Christ Himself. He also is a good Jew, therefore according to the logic you have set forth, it is more reasonable to suggest that he was married at some point. We know this, however, not to be the case.

Fine. No problem. Your opinion. I respect it. I have no problem with your thinking that way.

But…and here’s the catch…it’s not Church teaching. So while you may have your preferences, please don’t impose them on the Church.

I didn’t impose anything on the Church - it was the Church who convinced me of it’s teachings on this issue. The teaching of the Church is clear here and is summed up clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1579. I look forward to your thoughts sir. (I won’t be able to respond until tomorrow - I heading to bed

 

[Usagi]

If the church has no problem in allowing exceptions to the rule (I’m only referring to the Roman Rite here), why not just allow all Roman priests to marry and have done with it? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander (so to speak).

As noted earlier in the thread, the Church does not in any situation allow a priest to marry. In some cases she allows a married man to be ordained, but it has to be in that order.

Even if the Roman Rite discipline of priestly celibacy were to be completely relaxed tomorrow, those men who are currently priests would not be marrying. They would simply be joined by some married men.

The pastoral provision that allows some former Anglican and Lutheran clergy who have converted to Catholicism to receive Holy Orders may indeed seem like a strange exception to the normal rules, but I think it can be understood. A lifelong Catholic who experiences a vocation to the priesthood is already aware that he will not be able to marry, and will act accordingly. The former Protestant clergyman may also be adjudged to have a true calling to the priesthood, which he now understands exists only in Catholicism (and Orthodoxy). However, in accordance with the norms of his former tradition, he has already married, and can hardly be expected to turn his back on that commitment. The Church permits some such men to receive ordination, as a pastoral exception that takes into account their unusual circumstances. Because it is understood to be an unusual situation, there are often restrictions on the situations in which such a priest is allowed to serve. For example, most do not become pastors, though there are cases in which a Protestant pastor and congregation convert together, with the hope that the pastor will be able to continue to lead his parishioners after ordination to the true priesthood.

Certainly, the Church could (and did, until a very short time ago) permit only unmarried converts to seek ordination. But it has seemed good to recent Popes to permit the exception in some cases. Currently, it seems unlikely that the exceptions will lead to a relaxation of the general discipline. Even most of the married priests seem to agree that celibacy makes more sense as the general norm, and that they would not wish the majority of priests to have to deal with the conflicts they sometimes face.

Usagi

 

[diggerdomer]

Just as a matter of principle: I would think that if one believes that scripture is the infallible word of God, that even if something is stated just once, it is still the word of God, and thus still binding. Personally, I don’t really feel comfortable being able to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in scripture and say “This, this, and this is good for today, but that and that is outdated and thus invalidated.”

Yes of course the early Church thought that way. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to still think and live that way - Christ could in fact return before I finish this post - no man knows. Also, I could die in a fiery crash on the way home from work and then be face to face with God Himself. But the infallible teachings of scripture are not invalidated just because the early Christians were wrong about the timing of the 2nd coming. I think the point and thought processes made by the early Church are still valid today. We could debate this though.

Now I really could be reading this incorrectly (and if so just please just ignore this next bit with my apologies) I’m getting a sense of a little ad hominem fallicy here. I’m the first one to admit I’m not the brightest crayon in the box, but let’s stick to attacking the argument not the one making the argument.

He does clearly in 1 Cor 7:8 by saying, “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do”. Also read the commentary provided at the USCCB NAB website on this.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm#foot6 It segues nicely into your next point.

It is certainly reasonable that he may have been widowed or previously married, but that would most likely be in his past, pre-Christian life. He then, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the letter stating that he was not currently married and that it is good that those who can should remain as he currently was at the time of writing the letter. There isn’t any sort of footnote that states that in case Christ doesn’t come tomorrow or that the times have changed, so we can ignore this. You also neglect the example of Christ Himself. He also is a good Jew, therefore according to the logic you have set forth, it is more reasonable to suggest that he was married at some point. We know this, however, not to be the case.

I didn’t impose anything on the Church - it was the Church who convinced me of it’s teachings on this issue. The teaching of the Church is clear here and is summed up clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1579. I look forward to your thoughts sir. (I won’t be able to respond until tomorrow - I heading to bed

CCC 1579 is something I completely agree with and in no way refutes or detracts from what I posted previously. Thanks, though, for asking.

Regarding how to interpret Scripture, please refer to CCC para 50-141 for the Catholic approach.

 

[seagal]

As noted earlier in the thread, the Church does not in any situation allow a priest to marry. In some cases she allows a married man to be ordained, but it has to be in that order.

Even if the Roman Rite discipline of priestly celibacy were to be completely relaxed tomorrow, those men who are currently priests would not be marrying. They would simply be joined by some married men.

Usagi

I don’t want to seem argumentative, but I don’t get the distinction between allowing married men to take holy orders and allowing priests to marry. I’m not trying to be disagreeable, just trying to understand.

 

[seagal]

The Church clearly disagrees with you…

That’s ok, I can agree to disagree, we still love each other.

In my city are several married Eastern Catholic priests who are pastors.

The idea is to make up your mind whether or not you are going to be married BEFORE you are ordained.

Again, I don’t get the distinction.

 

[Rolltide]

As noted earlier in the thread, the Church does not in any situation allow a priest to marry. In some cases she allows a married man to be ordained, but it has to be in that order.

Actually… there’s one exception to this rule, but it’s SO rare, that it’s virtually unheard of. If a married man becomes a priest, and has very young children, and the wife should die, the pope himself can grant a dispensation for the priest to get married again so that a mother and stable family can be provided for the children. That said, I can never remember a situation in which this was implemented, but it IS possible, at least in theory.

 

[Georgia]

I want to put another point of view on this that has nothing to do with the debate on canon law. It is that the current system puts priests somewhat out of touch with the families they serve.

Over the years, I have heard so many homilies that are, at best, off target. The priests try to guide us in marriage, in child-rearing, and in family life while they really don’t have a clue. Until you have been a parent, you have no idea, none, about what it is really like. They same is true of marriage. A priest giving marriage advice is misguided, though I have seen it done. You simply cannot understand the dynamics of marriage if you have not been there.

I would love a two-tiered system similar to the Orthodox wherein there are married priests who can only rise so far in the hierarchy. Higher positions are reserved for the non-married clergy. There is no chance of that happening, but it would have the potential to put the clergy closer to the life experiences of the laity.

 

[BootCampJr]

But the same would hold true that I wouldn’t have to be a former addict to know what drug addiction looks like. My not being a former addict doesn’t change the fact that I am a good therapist. Same principle.

 

[seagal]

But the same would hold true that I wouldn’t have to be a former addict to know what drug addiction looks like. My not being a former addict doesn’t change the fact that I am a good therapist. Same principle.

Hear, hear. That echoes my thoughts exactly. I would hate to think that in order to be a good therapist you would have to experience every problem your clients/patients might have. Georgia does have a good point in that if priests are expected to counsel married people they should have good training in that area. I have no idea if they get that in the seminary or not. But then again, they are meant to be “spiritual counsellors” not “marriage counsellors”.

 

[BootCampJr]

I would presume, and think I am 100% correct, in thinking that they have gone through a very rigorous process to counsel those that plan to wed. Marriage is a sacrament. Priests specialize in the area of sacraments, and marriage is no exception. Just to play devil’s advocate for a second here, I was thinking that not being married would allow them a more objective view of the process of marriage. See, when we (as married people) look at marriage, we understand the emotion that goes into being married, good and bad. It is hard for us to objectively look at marriage if we have been there, or are there now. A priest, on the other hand, is like an outsider looking in. He can see the things that we may be more blind to seeing. Why do you think they make Catholics prepare for marriage, as opposed to just saying “yes, I will do it” without thinking twice?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Hear, hear. That echoes my thoughts exactly. I would hate to think that in order to be a good therapist you would have to experience every problem your clients/patients might have. Georgia does have a good point in that if priests are expected to counsel married people they should have good training in that area. I have no idea if they get that in the seminary or not. But then again, they are meant to be “spiritual counsellors” not “marriage counsellors”.

I agree. I think some priests may find psychology interesting enough to take extra college credit in that field, but that would still leave them at quite a disadvantage when compared to a trained psychologist/social worker. I would think Priests are formed, or should be formed, in the seminary, to reflect and advise according to the Catholic teaching of the Magisterium. However, there are plenty of examples of priests that consider their psychological talents more important than their priestly ones, much to the discouragement and disillusionment of their parishioners.

Therefore it is my opinion that couples would (or should) resort to a priest for spiritual problems related to their marriage, but would resort to a trained marriage counselor for marital difficulties relating to psychology and mental health.

So with this view in mind, the fact that a priest is married or not married has no bearing whatsoever with regard to his capacity to advise Married couples.

 

[otjm]

This week I attended the ordination to the deaconate of a former Anglican priest. In August he will be ordained a priest. He is a married man with a grown family. He and his wife converted to Catholicism 2 years ago and he has applied for and recieved permission from Rome to be ordained in the Catholic church.

I don’t understand this apparent contradiction when Catholic priests are not allowed to marry but married priests are allowed to be ordained. Personally, I don’t believe priests should be married. I don’t believe a person can be fully commited to 2 vocations. A married person has to make their family their priority, a priest makes his parish his priority.A priest should never have to choose between his family and his parish.

Go back, and for each time you say “priest”, say"CPA" or “Attorney” or “Doctor” and change parish to what ever is necessary - patients, clients… There are a lot of things a person can do that are not constrained by a 40 hour work week. There are also a lot of things a priest does that does not require ordination to the priesthood - that is, what he does in the office from morning through evening. Only a priest can say Mass, hear confessions, and give the Sacrament of the Sick. And those three things are not keeping any priest so busy that he would have no time for a family.

Furthermore, whether you think it right, wrong or indifferent, the Catholic Church has had married priests pretty much since the time of Christ - they are in the Eastern rites. The Eastern rites have managed this for 2000 years without falling apart. They are fully committed to two vocations, and seem to manage.

There are prioests who make excellent confessors, and those who don’t; and I can speak from personal experience. There are priests who make excellent counselors, and some who make excellent teachers, and neither activity is intrinsic to the priesthood. And then there are some who don’t; again, personal experience. There are some who are excellent administrators and do an excellent job of running a parish; some who don’t. Administration is not intrinsic to the priesthood. And no doubt some who would make excellent spouses and parents, and some who wouldn’t; and neither is intrinsic to the priesthood. But neither is it contradictory.

If a priest is to lead a parish, the majority of whom may be married, will his being married give him a different perspective on the sacrament of marriage? Very possibly. Would that be good for the parish or bad? Depends on a whole lot of factors; but it does not bear on priesthood.

Priesthood and celibacy are two entirely distinct and different vocations. I seriousl doubt that if the Pope said tomorrow that married men could be ordained to the priesthood in the Roman rite, that we would have a hugh influx. Some, but not hugh. And just perhaps, if this had been the case 55 years ago, we would not have had so many priests request laicization in the last 40+ years to get married - or just leave and do it anyway. Then again, maybe it would not have made a difference. But having seen so many leave to get married, I continue to wonder.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I don’t want to seem argumentative, but I don’t get the distinction between allowing married men to take holy orders and allowing priests to marry. I’m not trying to be disagreeable, just trying to understand.

Think of it this way. Bob the Orthodox man goes to college, dates a few woman, breaks up a few times, then find the love of his life and gets married. Later he and his wife discern that he should be a priest and he is ordained. This is OK.

In the meantime, Tom the Roman Catholic goes to college and then to seminary and is ordained. Now he decided to get married so he starts dating woamn, breaking up with a few on the way to finding the love of his life.

Do you really think it is a good idea to have priests dating???

 

[seagal]

Think of it this way. Bob the Orthodox man goes to college, dates a few woman, breaks up a few times, then find the love of his life and gets married. Later he and his wife discern that he should be a priest and he is ordained. This is OK.

In the meantime, Tom the Roman Catholic goes to college and then to seminary and is ordained. Now he decided to get married so he starts dating woamn, breaking up with a few on the way to finding the love of his life.

Do you really think it is a good idea to have priests dating???

Good point , so let me put it another way. Why doesn’t the Church encourage married men to consider Holy Orders as well as single men?

 

[bilop]

Good point , so let me put it another way. Why doesn’t the Church encourage married men to consider Holy Orders as well as single men?

Well, it does. Married men are encouraged to consider the Diaconate in all Churches and the priesthood in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

It is a discipline of the Latin Church, based on a long tradition coming out of the monastic movement, to require priestly celibacy. This may change in the future, and is open to debate and discussion, as it is not a matter of dogma or doctrine. I personally believe that it might be a good idea on a limited basis (older men whose children are grown). However, at the end of the day, it is up to Rome.

God Bless