Pope’s Offer Raises Idea of Marriage for Catholic Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
ROME — In making it easier for traditionalist Anglicans to become Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI once again revealed the character of his papacy: to reach out to the most fervent of like-minded believers, even if they are not Catholic. Yet some observers wonder whether his move could paradoxically liberalize the church — or at least wedge it open — on a crucial issue: celibacy.

nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22church.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
 
NYT article said:
“If you get used to the idea of your priests being married, then that changes the perception of the Catholic priesthood necessarily,” said Austen Ivereigh, a Catholic commentator in London and a former adviser to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster.

“We face the prospect in the future of going to a Catholic church in London and it being normal to find a married Catholic priest celebrating at the altar, with his wife sitting in the third pew and his children running up and down the aisle,” he said.
Click to expand...
“Now we’re opening up a whole structure within the Latin rite, within the Western rite, which will allow married priests to function,” said Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Seminary at Georgetown University and a liberal Catholic commentator.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute… maybe I don’t understand, but won’t the the new Anglican-Catholics be using a distinctive liturgy from their own tradition? If so, is it correct to consider them Latin Rite? And won’t it be obvious to Catholics in the UK, and elsewhere, whether they were attending a mass in the Latin Rite or a mass with the new “Anglican” version?

How is this any different from the Eastern Catholic churches in Western countries?
 
The Anglican Use has existed since the 1980s in the U.S. and is an expression of the Latin Rite. The Book of Common Prayer, is, I believe, based on the Sarum Use, which was one form of the Latin liturgy in the Middle Ages. Married convert clergy from Anglicanism have been allowed ordination (for the first time, validly) in the Catholic church through a special dispensation from the western discipline of celibacy. So, it’s nothing new if married, convert ex-Anglican clergymen are allowed to be ordained and it’s typically disingenuous of the Georgetown pundit to suggest that it is. What would be new is if married men, who haven’t been ordained as Anglican ministers, were allowed ordination as Catholic priests under the Anglican Use. This remains to be seen. Of course, in the Eastern rites, married men can be ordained but, an ordained celibate priest cannot marry, in contrast to the situation in Anglicanism.

Overall, this is something to be thankful to God for and to be prayed for fervently as the Oxford Movement and the sacrifices made by many in its wake come to fruition. Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman pray for us, St Edward Confessor, pray for us, St George, pray for us, Our Blessed Mother of Walsingham pray for us, may God bless us, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 
Dale_M said:
Wait a minute… maybe I don’t understand, but won’t the the new Anglican-Catholics be using a distinctive liturgy from their own tradition? If so, is it correct to consider them Latin Rite? And won’t it be obvious to Catholics in the UK, and elsewhere, whether they were attending a mass in the Latin Rite or a mass with the new “Anglican” version?

How is this any different from the Eastern Catholic churches in Western countries?
Click to expand...
I can see how it isn’t different, as it is a different Rite. On the other hand, I don’t think that differences between the Eastern Rite and Latin Rite can be compared to the difference between the Anglican Rite and Latin Rite. After all, the Anglican Rite comes from the Western Tradition

Anglican Use is currently a Latin or Roman Rite, after all…as are Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc. 🤷
 
The Pastor of a former parish I lived in is a former Episcopalean. The most obvious difference isn’t that he is a husband with a wife and kids but that his pastoring style attracts a following and his homilies are more often about his personal faith experience than the gospel of Christ.
 
Benadam said:
The Pastor of a former parish I lived in is a former Episcopalean. The most obvious difference isn’t that he is a husband with a wife and kids but that his pastoring style attracts a following and his homilies are more often about his personal faith experience rather than the gospel of Christ.
Click to expand...
hmm…if he is tying his personal experience to the Gospel reading of the day, it is probably okay. However, if he is ignoring the day’s reading and just “preaching,” then he isn’t a good homilist.

Heck, our Children’s Formation Director asked our priest to use Mass as a time to address Reconciliation to the parents of First Communicants, and he said “no” because it wouldn’t be proper…unless the day’s readings tied-in to Reconciliation.
 
future priest will not be allowed to marry. but what about women priest in which they have i wonder what will happen to them. the women can no way become priest
 
I think it works like this:
  • If you’re a married Anglican priest and you convert, you can keep your missus and be a Catholic priest, but you can’t become a Catholic bishop.
  • If you are a married layman, Anglican or not, you can’t then become a Roman Catholic priest.
  • If you are currently a Catholic priest of whatever rite, you can’t then marry.
  • If you are a married Anglican bishop, you may become a Roman Catholic priest if you convert, but you may not become a Roman Catholic bishop.
Bishops are unmarried, in any rite of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

This one I’m not sure about:
  • If you’re a married man you may become a priest in some or all of the non-Roman (Eastern) Catholic rites.
 
rlg94086 said:
I can see how it isn’t different, as it is a different Rite. On the other hand, I don’t think that differences between the Eastern Rite and Latin Rite can be compared to the difference between the Anglican Rite and Latin Rite. After all, the Anglican Rite comes from the Western Tradition

Anglican Use is currently a Latin or Roman Rite, after all…as are Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc. 🤷
Click to expand...
it may be true that The Anglican Tradition comes from the wider Western rite but they have been seperated from the Papacy for hundreds of years now and have developed there own unique traditions. they should be allowed to maitain married clergy due to the fact they have diverged from the Roman Church and disipline centeries ago.

plus lets face it…the bible says priests are allowed to marry…(or that married men can be ordanined priests) and whilst our Tradtion/disipline is important; it is not more important then what the bible says on the matter…thus they should allowed to maintian a married clergy…heck maybe it should be used as a trail run to see if it would would for Roman-use Catholics, afterall its worked in the Eastern Catholics without incident
 
aussie_melkite said:
…heck maybe it should be used as a trail run to see if it would would for Roman-use Catholics, afterall its worked in the Eastern Catholics without incident
Click to expand...
Well, KIND of… You might have noticed that the Eastern catholic churches, for all their glorious contributions to catholic theology have been rather moribund in terms of the Great Commission for centuries. The celibate Roman rite, on the other hand, was free go go off and be martyred in the mission field and whole civilizations (continents!) converted as a result. And this isn’t meant as a slam on the easterners, nobody in history was a more effective evangelist than St. Paul, CELIBATE St. Paul. See the pattern?

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but there are STILL whole civilizations needing conversion. Maybe we should stick with what has consistantly worked…
 
I think people are reading too much in to this, the Church has previously allowed ministers of other faiths to become priests even though they are already married under certain conditions. This is unusual only in the numbers, but it’s not a signal of a reversal in the policy regarding preistly celebacy.
 
When one from another church converts to Catholicism, what the Church is doing is recognizing Holy Orders, if properly conferred upon the individual . Some protestant religions do have valid Holy Orders. It is these and only these which are allowed to be “Catholic” priests. It will not change the character of the priesthood, as one who is ordained prior to marriage, cannot become a priest. In many instances, where one converts to the Catholic faith, they actually bring most or all of their congregation with them. I know of several instances such as this and in fact know several such priests. Their testimonies are indeed powerful. Where an individual does not have valid orders, they are still accepted into the Church. Scott Hahn (sp) and Jeff Cavins (sp) are two such examples. They teach in Catholic universities, and indeed are astounding teachers.
 
crazzeto said:
I think people are reading too much in to this, the Church has previously allowed ministers of other faiths to become priests even though they are already married under certain conditions. This is unusual only in the numbers, but it’s not a signal of a reversal in the policy regarding preistly celebacy.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
jesus4ever said:
future priest will not be allowed to marry. but what about women priest in which they have i wonder what will happen to them. the women can no way become priest
Click to expand...
Women priests don’t have valid Holy Orders, therefore after conversion they will remain part of the faithful.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
When one from another church converts to Catholicism, what the Church is doing is recognizing Holy Orders, if properly conferred upon the individual . Some protestant religions do have valid Holy Orders. It is these and only these which are allowed to be “Catholic” priests.
Click to expand...
Not really. The Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican holy orders and yet married Anglican priests who convert are ordained as married Catholic priests. I’m not entirely positive but I do believe that Church also makes similar exceptions (on a case by case basis) for Lutheran ministers who convert as well.
 
Yet some observers wonder whether his move could paradoxically liberalize the church — or at least wedge it open — on a crucial issue: celibacy.[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
I’ll be curious to see what the Apostolic Constitution will have to say about Anglo-Catholic Rite seminaries. Will future Anglo-Catholic Rite priests be married or just current ones?

While the Church will not be ordaining any married men to be bishops, it could be interesting what they do with whoever they chose to be the “head” of the Anglo-Catholic Rite. Technically speaking they could make a married priest a Cardinal and place him in administrative charge of the Rite. And wouldn’t that be interesting, a married Cardinal electing a Pope!
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Not really. The Church does not recognize the validity of Anglican holy orders and yet married Anglican priests who convert are ordained as married Catholic priests. I’m not entirely positive but I do believe that Church also makes similar exceptions (on a case by case basis) for** Lutheran** ministers who convert as well.
Click to expand...
Yes…and Presbyterians. I’m not sure where the line is drawn.
NewEnglandPries:
Technically speaking they could make a married priest a Cardinal and place him in administrative charge of the Rite. And wouldn’t that be interesting, a married Cardinal electing a Pope!
Click to expand...
I’m starting to think you are a novelist. Are you writing a new paperback? 😉
 
I can’t help but notice that this thread is discussing speculation by the New York Times. After the British press, the NYT is probably the most anti-Catholic organ one could encounter (the late Fr. Neuhaus once observed that to them, the only good Catholic was a bad Catholic) in general circulation, and they seldom, if ever, show any evidence at all that they know what they are talking about with respect to the Church.

Nothing to see here, folks. Just the NYT using any excuse at hand to stir the pot, and make the Catholic Church look bad, or troubled, or unstable, or anything non-positive.

My advice: Laugh in their faces, and move on.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
rlg94086 said:
hmm…if he is tying his personal experience to the Gospel reading of the day, it is probably okay. However, if he is ignoring the day’s reading and just “preaching,” then he isn’t a good homilist.

Heck, our Children’s Formation Director asked our priest to use Mass as a time to address Reconciliation to the parents of First Communicants, and he said “no” because it wouldn’t be proper…unless the day’s readings tied-in to Reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Well, he did tie the readings to his experience but usually as a tool of introduction. From that point, more often than not the subject matter in the readings weren’t recognizeable in the homily. I could go on but out of respect of the Priesthood I will not. Needless to say I was very disappointed by this priest’s protestant slant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top