Ordination of (former) Anglican

[seagal]

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?

I want to re-rephrase my question:

If the Church has good reasons not to call married men to Holy Orders (not just the deaconate but full priesthood) then why does she welcome married priests from different rites to become full priests in the Roman rite? If she does allow married men from other rites to become Roman priests, then why doesn’t she allow married Roman Catholic men to become priests? To my logicial mind it’s inconsistent.

And just as an aside, my bishop does not, as in refuses to, ordain men – married or single – to the diaconate (how is that spelled anyway?). No one seems to know why.

 

[withwind]

I don’t believe a person can be fully commited to 2 vocations.

Have you ever thought about a husband who happens to work? He has 2 vocations - one as a husband and the other says as a teacher, or a doctor … or a mechanic.

Also, in Catholic church at other rite (not Latin rite), some priests are married (althought they are not allowed to married or remarried after ordination). Many Catholic from Latin rite do not know that other rites priests are married.

I am very excited for this soon-to-be priest and for all of us !!!

 

[diggerdomer]

If the Church has good reasons not to call married men to Holy Orders (not just the deaconate but full priesthood) then why does she welcome married priests from different rites to become full priests in the Roman rite?

Well, the only answer I can come up with is that the reasons are not as good as we might think. We know the Church has always and continues to call married men to the priesthood.

I think it is somewhat problematic to admit married men from other Christian traditions who enter full communion of the Catholic Church to the priesthood and yet not admit married men who were born Catholic to the same. I see no reason for what seems a plain inconsistency.

And just as an aside, my bishop does not, as in refuses to, ordain men – married or single – to the diaconate (how is that spelled anyway?). No one seems to know why.

For better or worse, this decision is entirely up to the Bishop, regarding the permanent diaconate. Who knows why some dioceses promote the permanent diaconate and others don’t.

 

[turtle18]

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?

What about women? If a women is called to follow God and go into religious life, she neither receives the sacrament of matrimony or holy orders? So how is her relationship bound with God then?

We are all given all the grace we need to “bind” our relationship with God through Baptism and Confirmation. Marriage and Holy Orders are sacraments we receive to give us the grace to fulfill our state of life. And yes, there are only three vocations according to the Cathecism: single life (includes religious vows/consecrated life), married life and Holy Orders. Your job in life, whether you are a musical director, doctor or whatever–is not a vocation.

 

[turtle18]

Well, the only answer I can come up with is that the reasons are not as good as we might think. We know the Church has always and continues to call married men to the priesthood.

I think it is somewhat problematic to admit married men from other Christian traditions who enter full communion of the Catholic Church to the priesthood and yet not admit married men who were born Catholic to the same. I see no reason for what seems a plain inconsistency.

For better or worse, this decision is entirely up to the Bishop, regarding the permanent diaconate. Who knows why some dioceses promote the permanent diaconate and others don’t.

You’ve made some excellent points here. I’ve never understood how we could ordain converts but not already married Catholic men. It makes no sense. To me, this is just the first step in a gradual process to allow married priests. I don’t really agree with it but I think within the next 100 years the Church will allow priests to be married.

I think the dioceses that promote the permanent diaconate tend to be the more liberal ones–I think it all comes back to it being another step towards a married priesthood.

 

[wanner47]

Seagsl - I think the distinction you’re missing is that married priests, in the Latin Rite, are the exception and not the rule. Not all married convert clergy who apply for the dispensation are granted it. Some former Protestant clergy just become deacons or teachers in the Church – e.g., Scott Hahn.

As a rule, in the Latin Rite, the Church does not allow married clergy. However, under rare circumstances, the Pope MAY grant a dispensation to this rule, if he feels that the man in question does have a vocation to the priesthood that he did not realize earlier due due his Protestant upbringing. But this dispensation isn’t common or easy to get.

In other words, the reason for the exception is because the men in question did not have access to the fullness of Truth at the time they married and/or became clergy in a Protestant denom. Catholic seminarians, and those Catholic men discerning the priesthood, DO have this access and this aren’t eligible foe consideration for the dispensation.

ETA: Think of it this way. Most universities require students to be at least 18 when they enter as freshman. However, many will make a rare exception for 15-year-old prodigies who have demonstrated exceptional aptitude. Does this mean that universities are being hypocritical for not admitting any 15 year old who wants to apply? No, because the exceptional students do not mean that all 15 year olds are capable of college work. This, the standard becomes the rule, and exceptions are decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What about women? If a women is called to follow God and go into religious life, she neither receives the sacrament of matrimony or holy orders? So how is her relationship bound with God then?

The same as it is for a man who enters religious life who does not receive Holy Orders.

We are all given all the grace we need to “bind” our relationship with God through Baptism and Confirmation. Marriage and Holy Orders are sacraments we receive to give us the grace to fulfill our state of life. And yes, there are only three vocations according to the Cathecism: single life (includes religious vows/consecrated life), married life and Holy Orders. Your job in life, whether you are a musical director, doctor or whatever–is not a vocation.

How you live within these vocations is the vocation, some people do so as doctors or whatever.

 

[Sr_Sally]

First of all I think we need to remember that the married converts from Lutheran/Anglicism who become priests are actually few and far between. Their stories are often well-publiziced so that it seems that there are more than in reality.

The permanent diaconate is an ancient vocation that was relatively recently reinstitued. I don’t know that you can categorically state that diocese with permanent deacons are automatically more liberal.

 

[diggerdomer]

Seagsl - I think the distinction you’re missing is that married priests, in the Latin Rite, are the exception and not the rule. Not all married convert clergy who apply for the dispensation are granted it. Some former Protestant clergy just become deacons or teachers in the Church – e.g., Scott Hahn.

As a rule, in the Latin Rite, the Church does not allow married clergy. However, under rare circumstances, the Pope MAY grant a dispensation to this rule, if he feels that the man in question does have a vocation to the priesthood that he did not realize earlier due due his Protestant upbringing. But this dispensation isn’t common or easy to get.

In other words, the reason for the exception is because the men in question did not have access to the fullness of Truth at the time they married and/or became clergy in a Protestant denom. Catholic seminarians, and those Catholic men discerning the priesthood, DO have this access and this aren’t eligible foe consideration for the dispensation.

ETA: Think of it this way. Most universities require students to be at least 18 when they enter as freshman. However, many will make a rare exception for 15-year-old prodigies who have demonstrated exceptional aptitude. Does this mean that universities are being hypocritical for not admitting any 15 year old who wants to apply? No, because the exceptional students do not mean that all 15 year olds are capable of college work. This, the standard becomes the rule, and exceptions are decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances.

The example doesn’t quite work for me, though, because for half the Church’s history married priests were not the exception, the “rule” was that either married or celibate men were ordained. After 1000 years or so, one part of the Catholic Church (Roman) decided to adopt a more restrictive rule. So, yes, currently in the Roman Rite married priests are obviously the exception…but that’s due to choices the Church made, and the Church could easily decide otherwise.

 

[wanner47]

The example doesn’t quite work for me, though, because for half the Church’s history married priests were not the exception, the “rule” was that either married or celibate men were ordained. After 1000 years or so, one part of the Catholic Church (Roman) decided to adopt a more restrictive rule. So, yes, currently in the Roman Rite married priests are obviously the exception…but that’s due to choices the Church made, and the Church could easily decide otherwise.

Sure, the Church could eventually decide to reinstate married clergy, but for the time being She has decided that celibate clergy makes more sense, with rare exceptions granted for those who did not have access to the fullness of faith prior to their marriage.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sure, the Church could eventually decide to reinstate married clergy, but for the time being She has decided that celibate clergy makes more sense, with rare exceptions granted for those who did not have access to the fullness of faith prior to their marriage.

Not true. The Church has always had married clergy. There would be no “reinstate” involved.

 

[wanner47]

Not true. The Church has always had married clergy. There would be no “reinstate” involved.

Reinstate in the Latin Rite, then. Right now, married clergy is not the normative state in the Latin Rite and has not been for several hundred years.

 

[diggerdomer]

Reinstate in the Latin Rite, then. Right now, married clergy is not the normative state in the Latin Rite and has not been for several hundred years.

Yes of course. I think that’s pretty obvious. I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with or not know that.

 

[ProlifeMD]

Regarding not allowing priests to marry.

We have to consider the wisdom of the Church in recognizing that a person may make a bad choice of who to marry. If the man is married before ordination the Church has a chance to vet the proposed priests wife also. Many protestant seminaries encourage their students to marry before they finish and become a pastor. There are often classes for the candidates wife in these churches.

Choosing a spouse is a dangerous and difficult task. People change. They are not who they appear to be, and sometimes not who they thought they were. But for God’s grace, Christian marriage would be impossible. And we don’t always cooperate with God’s grace. Because of the this difficulty, not allowing priests to marry after ordination is a very wise position.

Can’t handle two vocations? Some people can handle more than others. If God gives the vocation to be married and the vocation to be a priest, he will provide the grace necessary to do both.

There is no absolute immutable law that priests cannot be married or marry or even that bishops cannot marry. We need to be open enough to change that we do not loose the faith in the unchangeable traditions because we believe and cling to changeable traditions, however good, that are in fact changeable. There will always be a Catholic Church. Our faith is in Jesus, not a list of how it has always been done.

 

[LUKBAN]

Apparently there must be an addendum to the celibacy law adopted during the Lateran Council for priests of the Roman Catholic Church or Latin Rite, that consider married priests from closely related Protestant Denomination like the Anglican Church who desires to be admitted and ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t know the rationale of this, but I guess an authority on this subject can explain this to us. However, I was told that ordained married priests has some restrictions in the conduct of their vocation. They cannot head a Parish Church, they are limited to hospital and hospices visits and catholic school duties. I don’t know how true is this esp. now that there’s a priest shortage. There’s no restrictions on the performance of sacramental duties. Ordained married priests were allowed to keep their family. That’s why the question, “is there a married Roman Catholic Priest active in his vocation?”. The answer is yes - the married Anglican Priest ordained to the catholic priesthood.

 

[otjm]

Regarding not allowing priests to marry.

Choosing a spouse is a dangerous and difficult task. People change. They are not who they appear to be, and sometimes not who they thought they were. But for God’s grace, Christian marriage would be impossible. And we don’t always cooperate with God’s grace. Because of the this difficulty, not allowing priests to marry after ordination is a very wise position.

Your comment would carry weight if it were the practice of the Catholic Church; however, it is not - the Eastern rites have allowed married men to be ordained for 20 centuries. However, neither the Eastern rites nor the Wesstern rits has allowed priests to marry; they allow, or have allowed, married men to be ordained.

 

[otjm]

Apparently there must be an addendum to the celibacy law adopted during the Lateran Council for priests of the Roman Catholic Church or Latin Rite, that consider married priests from closely related Protestant Denomination like the Anglican Church who desires to be admitted and ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t know the rationale of this, but I guess an authority on this subject can explain this to us. However, I was told that ordained married priests has some restrictions in the conduct of their vocation. They cannot head a Parish Church, they are limited to hospital and hospices visits and catholic school duties. I don’t know how true is this esp. now that there’s a priest shortage. There’s no restrictions on the performance of sacramental duties. Ordained married priests were allowed to keep their family. That’s why the question, “is there a married Roman Catholic Priest active in his vocation?”. The answer is yes - the married Anglican Priest ordained to the catholic priesthood.

I suspect you were told wrong about the parish part; it is true that in many circumstances they are shnunted off to non-parish activities but that may be more the issue of the bishop worrying about the impact of a married priest on the faithful (they might start questioning mandatory celibacy). We have a former Presbyterian minister, married, who was ordained and he is a pastor of a parish.

 

[Chris_Duncan]

Wouldn’t someone who had only two vocations be an extremely limited person?

I am a husband, a father, a university professor, a son, a friend, and yes, a poster on these forums. Aren’t all of these vocations?

Edwin

I don’t think they are VOCATIONS so to speak. They ARE, commitment, responsibility, etc. Each with it’s own special kind of JOY. Each with it’s own implied behavioral perimiters. No offense, being a DAD (Father)+(husband) is something…I don’t know warmer than a vocation and being a Priest is something warmer still. Peace in Love, Chris

 

[jbowler]

I suspect you were told wrong about the parish part; it is true that in many circumstances they are shnunted off to non-parish activities but that may be more the issue of the bishop worrying about the impact of a married priest on the faithful (they might start questioning mandatory celibacy). We have a former Presbyterian minister, married, who was ordained and he is a pastor of a parish.

My sister is married to a parish priest.

 

[LUKBAN]

I was also told several years ago that married priests are not given a parish to head. This ruling is not written in stone. That ruling I think can change with circumstances like shortage of priests. It was just a policy during that time when celibate priest were plentiful. As a catholic, I have no problem having a married priest as my Pastor. Probably he can better understand human circumstances than a celibate priest.