Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo apparently consecrated four men as bishops on Sunday.
In so doing, as Ed Peters points out,
HE INCURRED THE PENALTY OF AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION RESERED TO THE HOLY SEE.
So did any of the men he ordained if they were still in communion with the Church.
MORE FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS.
As tragic as that situation is, I fear that an even greater tragedy may be about to unfold.
Since the debacle following Vatican II, the Holy See has been terrified of a major schism occurring that would involve modernist dissidents. For that to take place, a number of conditions would need to exist:
1) There would need to be a large number of laity willing to go along with the schism.
2) There would need to be a large number of priests available.
3) There would need to be bishops available.
4) There would need to be infrastructure available (churches, financing, etc.)
Thus far the right combination of factors has not combined to create a major modernist schism (in the proper sense of the term). There are always lots of tiny little schisms occurring–even personal ones (i.e., individual people going into schism)–but the largest we have had since the Council was that of the traditionalist dissidents in the Lefebvrist movement. The number of traditionalist dissidents, however, pales in comparison to the number of modernist dissidents. There are far more laity, priests, and even bishops with modernist than with traditionalist tendencies.
As painful as the Lefebvrist schism has been, the potential for a major schism on the part of modernists is thus far more frightening to Rome.
Thus far it hasn’t happened, and my guess is that one of the major reasons is the non-fulfillment of condition 4 above. I think a lot of individuals don’t want to face the financial and logistical hardship of trying to set up a major modernist dissident church. They’re too comfortable where they are and are content to serve out their time spreading dissent in their already secure positions of influence. Why should a modernist priest leave the financially secure and respectable position and brave the rigors of an insecure startup venture?
If you want to know part of the reason that the Holy See has been so soft on individuals with this tendency, the desire to avoid a schism is a big part of it. If the people in question are made too uncomfortable then they might decide that pulling up stakes would be worth it, so Rome has cut them substantial slack (far more than in the old days) in hope that the problem can be solved on a generational basis by cooking the frog of dissent slowly, gently reigning them in in a step-wise manner and waiting for the current group to pass from the scene.
Thus we’ve had incremental improvements, like the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to promote authentic Catholic teaching (instead of doing something like the anti-modernist measures popes took in the early 20th century) or revising the GIRM and insisting on new, better translations of the liturgy (instead of just jumping back to the old order of Mass).
But the situation may not last, and what Milingo just did may have made it much, much worse.
At least two of the conditions needed for a major modernist schism are now concretely fulfilled. There are thousands of former priests who have left the priesthood to get "married" (in fact, they are not married due to the impediment of holy orders, but they have discounted this fact), and by apparently elevating some of these men to the episcopate, there are now bishops who are not just sympathetic to this movement but who are part of it and who are not tied to the existing episcopal structure in the Catholic Church. (I.e., they are not occupying positions that Rome appointed them to and which they have reasons to want to retain.)
These men could turn around and start ordaining their own priests–and I assume that this was the purpose of elevating them to the episcopate since they could already perform all the other sacraments–and they could draw upon the pool of modernist ex-priests and, one way or the other, have a large number of clergy for their movement in fairly short order.
The question would then turn to consideration of condition 1: How many laity would be willing to go along with them?
There certainly are a large number of laity who have modernist inclinations, though a lot of these are non-churchgoers. (When you hear reports that frighteningly high numbers of Catholics hold heterodox views, those numbers generally do not distinguish between cultural Catholics and those who actively practice their faith. Regular churchgoers, while they have suffered under decades of heterodox preaching and religious education, are still far more orthodox than the non-churchgoers are.) Non-churchgoers aren’t likely to start going to the local breakaway church just because it has a married priest saying Mass. A few will, but most are too comfortable where they are in bed or watching their TV sets (or both) on Sunday morning.
The number who would go, however, is not inconsiderable. It would still be a smallish minority of Catholics, but enough to produce a larger schism than the SSPX and similar groups have.
If the schismatic bishops can get the infrastructure they need.
Right now the only people who would go to their services are the hardcore dissidents, and while there are plenty of them, in order to have a major schism you really need parishes all over the place. "Location! Location! Location!" as they say. The schism would be able to attract far more of the faithful to it if there were dissident parishes all over the place that looked at least somewhat like Catholic churches and held themselves out as such.
It thus seems to me that the major barrier is thus still the financial/logistical one, but the potential for a larger-than-Lefebvre schism of a modernist dissident type exists, and what Archbishop Milingo has just done has made the situation an order of magnitude worse.
As you might guess, I think that this is a situation that clearly calls for prayer.
I also think that Rome should give serious consideration to establishing the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate as of itself a schismatic act. Thus far it has not done so. (The reason Lefebvre went into schism was that he consecrated bishops not just without a papal mandate but against papal mandate.) The way the law is written right now, one could be consecrated a bishop without papal mandate and still remain a Catholic, though one would be subject to the censure of excommunication. But having rogue bishops who are still in some sense Catholic will gravely harm the pastoral good of the faithful, and it strikes me that Rome may need to make it clear that no such bishops are in any sense Catholic so that the faithful will not be confused. To do that, Rome should consider revising or authentically interpreting the law in such a way that any unmandated episcopal consecration is itself schismatic.
I’ll say it again. I think Washingon diocese’s response, “…this means nothing” was very appropriate. They know better but it is a way, in WaPo speak, to explain this.
What a scary post to start the day. Those four conditions sound a lot like the Rochester diocese. “Clearly calls for prayer” is an understatement.
If the modernists were to go off and start up a schismatic movement of their own, my attitude would be “good riddance”. In the town where I’m based at the moment, one priest is “married” while another has publicly denied Christ’s bodily resurrection from the pulpit. I would be happy to see the back of both those men.
“They’re too comfortable where they are and are content to serve out their time spreading dissent in their already secure positions of influence.”
Yup. Parasites need hosts.
What’s kind of frustrating about the potential for schism is that one could argue that it is largely the modernists that are responsible for protecting priests that were abusing children and now, if they schism and create a new denomination, they would effectively seperate themselves from the penalty of their actions. The Catholic Church would be left holding the bag and paying the penalty for their wrong actions!
Brian:
At first blush your position makes the most sense. These individuals are in essence already in schism, and they’d only be making official what is already a reality.
But the concern is with the future of our Church. If a significant schism occurs, how many people in the future will be led astray by the siren song of this schismatic group? We’re not talking a small group, but perhaps millions. And many of these people might be well-intentioned people who believe the schismatic group to be an authentic Church legitimately upholding the traditional Catholic name.
We should pray that a major schism does not take place, one that would lead too many souls from the right path.
This is a tough one, because I know a schism would grieve the Holy Spirit; on the other hand, I’d like to be rid of the dissidents who are messing up the Church. I’m not sure a large number of souls are being led from the right path the way things are right now. At least a breakaway group would not be able to spread their poison under the auspices of the authentic Catholic Church, like they’re doing now.
“At least a breakaway group would not be able to spread their poison under the auspices of the authentic Catholic Church, like they’re doing now.”
Not so! There would be confusion about which is the authentic Catholic Church.
Folks, there are no inherent positives in schism. (We know that if schism were to happen, that God works for good in all things, but that’s not what I’m talking about, and that shouldn’t be too hard to distinguish.) This “don’t let the door hit your (butt) on the way out” attitude is disturbing to me. One, because it seems like we are giving up on the dissidents and the power of God’s mercy to convert their hearts. Two, because we are naive if we think that actual schism will cause less confusion among the faithful that de facto schism. Look at any schism in history for confirmation.
I can think of one reason why the Holy See might be hesitant about reclassifying the consecration of bishops without papal mandate an automatically schismatic act: China. It would be tantamount to declaring the Chinese Catholics of the Patriotic Association to be in formal schism (in a sense they already are, but not formally so).
When Pope Benedict XVI was Cardinal Ratzinger he wrote that perhaps before the full flowering of the new evangelization occurs the Church must contract i.e. the possibility of schism? This is essentially a spiritual issue and, as Jimmy stated, it is a time for prayer. We have a duty to pray for and help sustain all our brethren in the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. After that and in the end it will be their decision to choose spiritual life or death. In the meantime let us hope and pray that the Bishop Milingos of the world do not take a great many souls with them into the darkness.
Could Moon be behind this in an attempt bring down the Church?
If the dissidents were dealt with properly in the first place all these problems wouldn’t have happened.
The men’s elevation to the Episcopate is illicit. However, is it invalid? If that is the case, any “ordenations” that they would make would be invalid. While I believe that if a schism were to ocurr they would probably take the hardcore dissenters and maybe strengthen the faith and will of the ones who stay I’ll put my trust in the Holy Spirit and pray.
Considering what is happening at the Cathedral in Milwaukee, the Schism has already taken place… just not formally. When it happens be prepared for the Catholic Church to go from 25% of the population to only 6%. The rest will join the schismatic “church” where anything goes.
It would seem that Jimmy’s making something of a to-do about priests who “leave the priesthood” for marriage. (Quotes because, if I understand Jimmy right, they can’t leave … and that fact gets in their marriage)
I understand that, and I have very much tried to accept that and similar teachings I have heard. But I do have some problems, at least from understanding how what I see in practice by the Church herself and what I am told should be true.
Specifically, what I don’t understand is how are these guys any different from Anglican priests who are married and then enter into communion with Rome?
I believe there are something like 4 priests in the archdiocese of atlanta, for example, who are formerly anglicans and are married and are “administrating” (not as pastors, mind you) at parishes in the archdiocese with all the rights and privileges of their Holy Orders.
It seems to smack of … inconsistency. Either the RCC allows you to be married and practice your Holy Orders (both privately and publicly), or it doesn’t. The priests who left their priestly vocation to get married have done, the best I can tell, what the Church asked it to do. Yet here, the Church allows a backdoor for Anglicans.
I don’t know … I don’t even know if I’m making sense … but, it’s kinda frustrating for me to try to take hold of what I would consider a position of consistency such as Jimmy has put forth when the Church seems to kinda contradict itself. If I try to defend what I would otherwise consider to be orthodox around my more liberal friends … this seemingly kind of inconsistency and contradiction almost always comes up.
Any explanations would be greatly appreciated.
Brief correction:
(Quotes because, if I understand Jimmy right, they can’t leave … and that fact gets in *the way of* their marriage)
Is it possible to initiate a trade with the Episocal Church – wherein the liberal Catholics go there and the conservative Episcopals come back to Rome?
I’m only partly kidding…
My heart aches at the possibility of schism. Many members of my immediate family are fairly liberal Catholics who don’t see the point of most orthodox Catholic teaching. If there is a schism, I can see that my husband, son, and I would probably be the only ones to stay in communion with Rome.
Let my prayer be incense before you; my uplifted hands an evening sacrifice. Set a guard, LORD, before my mouth, a gatekeeper at my lips. Do not let my heart incline to evil, or yield to any sin. I will never feast upon the fine food of evildoers. [Psalm 141]
If a real schism occurred, I think some kind of a name change would occur pretty quickly– they would be “American Catholic” or “New Catholic” or some such thing.
Their organizational structure would probably also change very quickly. NO WAY would these people allow themselves to be ruled by a “Pope.” (Obviously B16 would already be out of the picture, but I can’t imagine these guys elevating an anti-Pope.) Think committees. Think the USCC on a monstrously bloated level. Think of the Episcopalians… 🙂
Additionally, it would be a matter of micro-seconds before this group would start “ordaining women to the priesthood,” and just a few minutes before “elevating women to the episcopacy.” They would go from just schismatic to flat-out invalid in a very short period of time.
Whether the average American Catholic is well-formed enough to catch onto all these glaring problems is another matter.
Jimmy is right– this is a time for prayer, and probably also a time for a friendly catechesis among our fellow Catholics, on the nature of the Church, the priesthood and the hierarchy.
Mary, that EXACT “trade” has been going on for some time now. I’ve seen it often.
I don’t expect a lot of “progressive” Catholics will want to join a movement under Milingo’s leadership; even his support for married priests won’t get them to overlook his history or his association with the Moonies. The Moonies’ politics alone are enough to discourage that.
On the other hand, some existing organization of dissenting/ex-clergy might seek Milingo’s help to establish themselves with some bishops.
AnotherCoward,
I think there’s a huge difference between a man who is already married being ordained a priest (such as a convert in your Anglican example, or married men being ordained to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic churches), and a man who has vowed to remain celibate forsaking his vows and his ministry to marry illicitly and invalidly.
It’s good to note that even in the Eastern Catholic churches that ordain married men, priests cannot usually marry after ordination. Same goes for permanent deacons in the Roman rite – they can be married when they are ordained, but cannot usually marry (or re-marry) after ordination.
There are priests who are laicized, released from their vow of celibacy and forbidden to function as a priest, who do then validly marry. They are still ‘priests forever’ but function as a member of the laity.
Hope that addresses some of your concern. There’s nothing about Holy Orders that is inherently incompatible with marriage, but priests need to be obedient to the Church.
(As a convert, I love hearing about former Protestants in the Catholic Church, especially [former] clergy!)
Dr. Eric up there has a point. There is a large group that has for all practical purposes gone its merry way while still under the radar. It is drawing people really away from the purpose of valid sacraments such as reconciliation. Its numbers are rather large and its determination in self righteousness could gain more influence in the confusion of the day. I would keep an eye out for the making of the next pope – either a valid one accompanied by an invalid one, or just a very liberal one. The group (below) may be populated now by the upper age range, but it’s opening the door. These may be only quasi schisms, but the effect upon the “sheep” is the same.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/rent_a_priest.html
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=21117
There are some 300 members listed on the Rent A Priest Web site. The organization’s founder said there are about 2,500 other married priests she can enlist for service.
snip
“The bishop worked with Father Fisher for over a year in trying to get him to come around, but in the end he felt that this action was needed,” Bagg-Morgan said. “It’s not something he wanted to do, and it’s certainly not something he does every day. Basically, Father Fisher’s excommunication was automatic because he was committing the canonical offense of schism by affiliating with an organization that’s not affiliated with the Catholic Church.”
Bagg-Morgan said Rent A Priest is popular among people who want Catholic weddings but don’t qualify for one. Haggett said Rent A Priest clergymen usually charge fees for weddings, but provide other sacraments – such as baptism and last rites – voluntarily or for donations.
“Someone who was in a previous marriage that hasn’t been annulled, for example, might call Rent A Priest in order to have a priest perform the ceremony,” Bagg-Morgan said.
snip
“You can’t take priesthood away from a man,” Father Wenrick said. “Despite that, I feel very sorry for (Father Fisher). If this spreads, and more of us are excommunicated, then so be it. It won’t stop any of us from doing what we’re doing.”
Father Gray said it’s true that a priest is a priest forever, under canon law. However, he said once a priest gets married, the law is clear that some sacraments, including marriage, are invalid if administered by that priest.
http://www.rentapriest.com/web/?_p=1001
These heretics will keep chipping away at the Latin Church until She has to cave in and ordain married men to the priesthood as She did in the first 1000 years of the One Holy Cathoilc and Apostolic Church, East and West.
But the heretical church will be run by council and committee. It will be awash in bureaucracy and paperwork it will promise much and accomplish little. It will only lead many souls to perdition. Had Rome acted accordingly when this all started, possibly centuries ago, then this could have all been avoided. As it stands, the schism is only a few years away.
St. Michael protect us! O Holy Theotokos pray for us that the schism will be brief and will not lead many astray!
Leah – I think there’s a huge difference between a man who is already married being ordained a priest … and a man who has vowed to remain celibate forsaking his vows and his ministry to marry illicitly and invalidly.
Understood – and if that’s what we’re talking about, then I’d agree.
But … I dunno … still seems kinda … wrong headed to allow some folks to be married and continue in their priestly functions and others not. It’s almost kinda like giving the converts a pass … “oh, poor converted you, you didn’t know what you were doing … so here, have your cake and eat it, too.” instead of “look, we undestand why you did what you did, and we’re not making a judgement about that … but ’round here, this is how we do things … so if you REALLY think this is the place to be, you’ve got to give up being a priest in public life just like all the others.”
If the issue is whether you were married BEFORE you were ordained and that makes everything okay … well, that’s just playing with details behind the real issue to me. The issue is whether the Church wants men to be married AND publicly practicing their Holy Orders … or not.
I mean, honestly, it makes me think that the rumors I hear of young guys running to the Anglican Church to get married and ordained to then return might not be that crazy.
AnotherCoward,
Why not ‘Dox and then come back? Besides the Orthodox have valid Orders and all the Sacraments, and they will EXCOMMUNICATE any heretic instead of letting them corrupt the Church FROM INSIDE!!!!!
Sometimes I wonder why Rome doesn’t act more like Constantinople or Moscow 🙁
To do that, Rome should consider revising or authentically interpreting the law in such a way that any unmandated episcopal consecration is itself schismatic.
But how would that go over with the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
This is what Carol Glatz of Catholic New Service says about this question:
Because of the unapproved ordinations, “both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordained men are under a ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication, according to Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law,” the statement said. A bishop who consecrates a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him automatically incur the penalty of excommunication.
So, according to Glatz, episcopal ordination without papal mandate incurs automatic excommunication. But is it necessarily schismatic?
Dr Eric – Why not ‘Dox and then come back?
More Episcopalians ’round my parts is probably the largest reason why. But just the thought that defection with intent to return as even being possible AND acceptable seems wrong. But apparently it happens if rumor is to be trusted, so …
The Church needs to pick a story and stick with it. Allowing the backdoor makes the Church’s position much more difficult to defend and communicate to people who don’t have a problem with married clergy.
“Old Father Bob, there … why, he’s married! Why didn’t they make him hang up the collar when he converted from Anglicanism like they make our priests who want to be married? I’ll tell you why: because there’s nothing wrong with it, that’s why. Rome is just being an irrational hard ass with its own faithful.”
At which point, all I can say is, “Well, hard ass or not, it’s our duty to be faithful to the instruction they give us. There’s nothing intrinsically morally wrong with the way things are. It might seem to violate fairness, but whoever said life is fair.” Not exactly a winning rationality there.
I forgot to include the link to the CNS story, which names all of the “bishops” that Milingo illegally and pointlessly “reordained.” One of them is George Stallings, who judging from his comments is as arrogant and defiant as ever.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605467.htm
Hi Ed,
I know that individuals have been switching sides for a while (most recently, my sister, Kasia, a former Episcopalian, has begun RCIA classes with Fr. John Riccardo).
I’m thinking of something more along the lines of an official, giant trade. There would be an official period where you could make your intentions known to both your local churches (the Episcopal/Anglican and the Catholic) in writing, and then begin attending the other church. But also, I’m thinking of a pro-sports type trade: Rowan Williams could sit down with Pope Benedict and we could trade: they could have Garry Wills and Sr. Joan Chittister, and we could have…who? And don’t say Spong – I know better!
(BTW, thanks for the compliment you paid me at American Papist a few weeks ago. It made my day!)
Mary
I believe more and more that the persecution of the Church will reflect the persecution of Christ – that one of our own will betray us and plunge the Church into tribulation. Scenarios like this are not far-fetched. One can envision a radically marginalized Roman Catholic Church in America, persecuted by a centrist/populist American “Catholic” Church. It’s hard enough keeping parishes running today. A migration of attending/tithing Catholics to an American flavor of Catholicism (likely not a huge percentage) could still have very adverse effects on just the financial health of most parishes. But the fact that this guy consecrated bishops is a giant neon sign pointing towards creating a flock of Malingo-ists in America.
At any rate, even Benedict opined that the Church may be better off leaner and meaner. I don’t disagree with that, but there’s no telling who among our friends and loved ones would end up in the snares of these anti-bishops.
Considering what is happening at the Cathedral in Milwaukee
While I have no idea what’s happening in Milwaukee right now, I DID get confirmed at Gesu parish a while back. I only recently looked back and realized how liberal they were. It was amazing.
Did you know that the Jews forbade homosexuality for the purpose of increasing their small numbers instead of for moral reasons? Who knew?
Oh yeah, and Jesus was always trying to get away from the crowds because he wasn’t really a people person.
If you want to know part of the reason that the Holy See has been so soft on individuals with this tendency, the desire to avoid a schism is a big part of it. If the people in question are made too uncomfortable then they might decide that pulling up stakes would be worth it, so Rome has cut them substantial slack (far more than in the old days) in hope that the problem can be solved on a generational basis by cooking the frog of dissent slowly, gently reigning them in in a step-wise manner and waiting for the current group to pass from the scene.
But do we really know if that’s the reason?
If you’re right, then it means the Holy See made a conscious decision to allow the endangerment of our souls, the souls of our children and the souls of our children’s children (and perhaps a few more generations after that) for the sake of a hypothetical possible future schism that may or may not have happened (and in my opinion was unlikely, for a lot of the reasons you stated).
This speculation also doesn’t make sense since the troublemakers were appointed by the very people who were supposedly working diligently and slowly but surely behind the scenes to neutralize the troublemakers. And often the troublemakers were appointed long after the trouble was already apparent and the troublemakers penchant for making trouble was already established. How does one reconcile these contradictions?
DJ,
Are you talking about Gesu Parish in Detroit, or another Gesu?
I want to clarify one point on the discussion about Episcopal married priests becoming Catholic and getting to be married priests.
It is my understanding that their Episcopal ordination is not valid, so they would be allowed to get ordained (validly) upon coming into the Catholic Church.
Therefore their true ordination would be happening after their marriage. That is the difference.
And I do think it is reasonable to note that they were in good conscience following the rules of the church they were in at the time by being married “priests”. And Catholic priests who get married (invalidly) are breaking their church’s rules. Not in good conscience.
So the situation does not seem inconsistent to me.
Could Moon be behind this in an attempt bring down the Church?
This is perhaps the most significant question asked and should be repeated. Is Reverend Moon’s Unification Church behind this? Is this an attempt to coopt significant numbers of Catholics into that false prophet’s movement? If so, there is potentially a lot of money to back it up and the political connections are significant.
Yet, the Eastern Churches were not allowed to ordain married men because of the encroachments of the Latin bishops who didn’t want married priests to live in “their territories.” Only in the last decade have the Eastern Churches started to ordain married men in America.
The former Anglican and Lutheran ministers who have been ordained are seen as a smack in the face to those who have been prevented from being ordained, when they had every right to be ordained and have been called to be priests.
The reasoning and ruling is inconsistent. Ordain married men in the Latin Church or do not. Don’t let some get in the back door while kicking those who have been faithful all along out the front. And, leave the Eastern Churches alone, let them really be SUI JURIS Churches. Let them rule themselves.
Considering the question of married RC priests. Marriage by and of itself is not an impediment to holy orders. A celibate clergy has always been the preference in the Latin Rite. For over 1000 years it has been mandated by canon law.
the issue is simple. A married man may not be ordained to the presbyterate without a dispensation from Rome. An Episcopal priest who converts and wishes to continue his ministry as a Latin Rite priest must be granted the necessary dispensation and be ordained by his Latin Rite bishop. His episcopal ordination was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII. If his wife dies he must remain celebate as his orders are now an impediment to any furture marriage….God bless.
Louise – It is my understanding that their Episcopal ordination is not valid, so they would be allowed to get ordained (validly) upon coming into the Catholic Church.
Yeah, see, if this is true, then I have to throw every single penalty flag/card I can grab. There’s absolutely no consistency here if our Church validly ordains some married men and not others based on whether they have had a religious affiliation before entering into full communion with the Church.
There is an amazing ability of folks on this blog to argue minutiae of issues that are only tangentially related to Jimmy’s original post.
There really is a big difference between ordaining married men and allowing ordained men to get married. I don’t really have a problem if in certain exceptional circumstances the Latin Church allows married men to be ordained, as long as it remains the exception not the rule and as long as the faithful are educated about the reasons for the exception and the reasons why the general rule against ordaining married men remains in place. It seems this last part is being neglected. That alone is the unfortunate part in my opinion. We should remember the spirit of the law, the reasons for certain disciplins, and thus be ready to make exceptions when it is right to do so. Obviously we should be quite slow cautious about granting exceptions, but this seems to be happening. I for one will let this decision by the Church be for me the decision of my superiors who likely know better than me.
AnotherCoward,
if our Church validly ordains some married men and not others based on whether they have had a religious affiliation before entering into full communion with the Church.
The Church deals with different situations by different actions. Nobody has a right to be ordained a priest, it is up to the bishop to determine if they are suitable. The Latin rite has long held that the value of a celibate priesthood outweighs the value of a married one. The Church may from time to time as circumstances that warrant it allow a dispensation from such a decision. This is the right of the ruler of the Church granted him by Christ. It is patently untrue this “rumor” you hear that men leave the Church to marry and become Anglican priests and then return to become Catholic priests. There is no way the Holy See would allow that. Ordination of married former Anglican or Lutheran ministers is quite rare, and by no means automatic.
As far as schism, there is a material schism widely spread in many areas, for this schism to become visible would be an aid in fighting it. Either way it is deeply sadenning and calls for prayer.
God Bless,
Matt
AMDG
Another Coward –
Keep in mind that the celibacy requirement is a matter of discipline, not of moral doctrine. If the Church finds it prudent to apply this discipline in some circumstances and not in others, this is not being unfair to anyone.
So – hypothetically – should, say, the whole people of a certain faith across an entire region wish to convert en masse to the Catholic Church, (all other things being equal) it would be advantageous to allow their clergy to convert and be ordained, even if they are married.
In addition, Holy Orders is not a right. If the Church has decided that it is prudent to grant ordination to one class of individuals and not another, this is not a legitimate cause for personal grievance, IMHO.
About the possiblility of schism, from my limited experience. I don’t see huge crowds of Catholics flocking to schismatic Churches.
I go to college at one of the armpits of secularism. Most of the Catholics here do not go to mass period (except maybe when their parents come up to visit) but as Jimmy pointed out these Catholics aren’t going anywhere, except perhaps ceasing to call themselves Catholic in the not too distant future.
Amoung those who attend mass, first there are those who are very active. Though sometimes they are hesitant to speak about their ideas most of these in my experience are rather orthodox (sometimes very much so) and would never think of leaving for a liberal schismatic sect. The rest tend to be rather ignorent about the faith, but almost none have a particular grudge against the Pope. They may not believe (or think there is any obligation as a Catholic to believe) many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, but they are at home in the Catholic Church, prowed of aspects of it like its antiquity or its size or its European Cathedrals, and don’t seem like they would feel any need to leave for some quisi-Catholic Church either.
Our priest is very liberal, but he sees the Catholic Church as a big family which there is no reason to leave for any reason, no matter what you do or believe. Again, no real inclination to schism there.
My limited experience of typical parishes has given me the impression that the situation is similar except everyone is more lukewarm and there is less sense of community. Perhaps if the Liberal Catholic Church were particularly exciting or community-like it would attract a section of these, but I think most are quite happy being real Sunday Catholics.
Ultimately I suspect a liberal schism will attract the loonies who spiritually left the Church long ago, and leave most everyone else. Some bad things might happen on an individual level, with individuals defecting to the horror of their relatives for example, but overall I don’t think this will have too big an effect, besides perhaps getting rid of the worst liberal activists, which is a healthy thing I think.
I swear you must read my blog Jimmy because you just answered the question I just raised about why the Bishops and Pope don’t do more about dissent and heresy (of the “modernist” variety)! And your thoughts on why such a high number of Catholics are dissenters are also a little comforting. It didn’t occur to me to discount non-practicing Catholics, somehow.
It seems to me that as bad as schisms are, some serious good would come out of one in spreading awareness of the true teachings of the Catholic Church. It also seems like the Pope and Bishops could do more without provoking schism.
Michael – if you think I’m trolling, I’ll stop. Really isn’t my intent. Marriage of ordained men seemed to central to the characteristics of the schismatics, and so I was wanting to know why that should be central at all. I’ll try to wrap my thoughts up here.
JR – my point is, there really isn’t any justifiable reason that I can see to allow any married man to be ordained if the general rule is to not allow it. The exceptions, from what I can gather, all have to do with previous religious affiliation. But previous religious affiliation should have no bearing on whether a married Catholic man can be ordained a priest or not.
The fact is, I agree with the general rule. But I disagree with making exceptions – especially when the entire basis seems to be about the fact that a man may be a convert (of which I am, though I suspect I don’t qualify being a former lay Prot – if I only I knew then what I know now! j/k). Allowing married converts (i.e. a subset of married Catholic men) to be ordained to the priesthood just confuses the issue and, I believe, contributes to the mess we are in today with the schismatics – which is in part why I was asking for some clarification (’cause I wasn’t sure I had things quite right) and why I thought I was staying on-topic.
Mary – Gesu in Milwaukee
Beutiful Church though (with an organ even.)
Though some might call it a beautiful church instead…
DJ,
Well, I’ll bet Beutelgeuse would call it a beutiful church!
That’s interesting, because we also have a *slightly left leaning* Gesu in Detroit. Ahem.
I say keep praying and trust in God. If this schism happens, I have the feeling that He is already giving us support so to speak. More and more young men are entering the seminary and coming out of it orthodox and loyal to the Magisterium and the Holy Father. Have hope! God will always provide in a time of need. The Church will not be lost in America.
But previous religious affiliation should have no bearing on whether a married Catholic man can be ordained a priest or not.
There is an awful lot of legalism or “this world” fairness being exposed here rather than the logic of finding the intention of the Spirit for those acting in Persona Christi. I believe the benefit offered to the converted of faiths holding some of the same beliefs as the True Church is due to the conversion occurring at a time when life decisions made in good faith were already undertaken – BEFORE the acceptance by the individual of the faith of the Roman Church – and this due to respect for those the man is also responsible for. Just because certain permissions have been granted due to the will of men in particular times that does not mean that seeking the ideal should be jettisoned just as Christ spoke to divorce being permitted by Moses but not intended from the beginning by God. What is the will of God in such serious matters? The Church must never be swayed by the lowest common denominator!
Also … it isn’t as if in any affiliated Church there is no difference in the marriage permitted in it from secular privileges of marriage. There are restrictions imposed.
Celibacy for religious and monastics (brothers/monks and sisters/nuns) and bishops is upheld by both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Christian traditions. In Latin Rite Catholicism, however, all priests remain celibate unless given special permission, while in most Orthodox traditions, and in the Catholic Eastern Rites, priests may be ordained if already married, but may not marry a second time, while bishops must be unmarried men.
In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (which are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained deacons or priests, but may not be ordained bishops, and one may not marry after ordination. The Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East follow the same rules that hold in the Eastern Orthodox Church. While some incorrectly believe all Orthodox bishops must be monks, in fact, according to church law, they simply may no longer be living with their wives if they are to be consecrated to the episcopacy. (The canons stipulate that they must also see to their wives’ maintenance, for example Canon 12 of the Quinisext Council.) Typically, the wife of such a man will take up the monastic life herself, though this also is not required. There are many Orthodox bishops currently serving who have never been tonsured (formally initiated) to monastic orders. There are also many who are tonsured monastics but have never formally lived the monastic life. Further, a number of bishops are widowers, but because clergy cannot remarry after ordination, such a man must remain celibate after the death of his wife.
Correct me if I’m wrong but there have also been the restrictions of marital rights for a time period before the liturgical celebration. Since this a daily sacrifice in the Latin rite the extension of this historical precedent seems logical to celibacy. Even historically there has been the elevated reverence for some separated state for this most blessed calling. Our current times of general disobedience should not be the ones used for the bases for change … that’s for sure!
+J.M.J+
>>>Is Reverend Moon’s Unification Church behind this? Is this an attempt to coopt significant numbers of Catholics into that false prophet’s movement?
If Milingo and Stallings are involved, I definitely believe that this is the case.
>>>If so, there is potentially a lot of money to back it up and the political connections are significant.
True, but other factors might well torpedo this “Moonie Catholic Church”. If the connection with Moon becomes well-known, how many Catholics will want to be a part of it? Will it develop cultish, Unificationist elements which might turn people off? Will members have to recognize Moon as the messiah and his “Completed Testament” (the Divine Principle) as Scripture?
I know liberal Catholics like the idea of a female Holy Spirit, but as incarnated in Moon’s wife??? How many former Catholics are actually going to call her “blessed mother”? Perhaps some former Catholics might go along with all that, but I find it hard to believe that CTA or CFFC -types would effectively make Moon their new pope/messiah.
Just because he wants to do it (and it is completely within Moon’s character to want to do something like this) doesn’t necessarily mean it will be a smashing success.
In Jesu et Maria,
It thus seems to me that the major barrier is thus still the financial/logistical one, but the potential for a larger-than-Lefebvre schism of a modernist dissident type exists, and what Archbishop Milingo has just done has made the situation an order of magnitude worse.
This is from Jimmy’s original post. Please consider that Milingoism may have Moony money behind it and with the large number of church closings, many going for cheap, the infrastructure may be available if they move on it. Also add to that that several bishops may be happy to swith allegiances, the reality of a full blown, independent Amchurch may be in the making.
Major schism? Highly unlikely.
I found the identity of the 4 bishops in question. All previously held illicit orders and were already episcopi vagantes. One is (surprise! surprise!) George Stallings of Imani Temple, who was married in the same mass Moonie ceremony as Bishop Milingo.
Makes me wonder how many loony-tune E.V.’s are going to line up to collect Bishop Milingo’s line of apostolic succession?
AnotherCoward,
What about the situation of a whole Anglican parish deciding to convert, along with their pastor. Suppose the pastor will now be a loyal, orthdox, fervent, charismatic (in the traditional sense) Catholic and supports the general rule of priestly celebacy, but himself has a wife and he and the congregation would really like to stay together with him as the pastor. Suppose some in the congregation might even consider not converting if they see that they will loose their pastor. Should we say to him “too bad, get a job”? It is not a clear situation for me, but if the Church decides to be generous and make an exception for this man who clearly seems to have a gift for ministry I will not argue.
Also I thought I heard something (I guess I won’t say where in case I got it wrong) that these men are required to still live celebately and apart from their wives, while still supporting their wives and children financially. Is this right?
Muhahahahah…everything is playing into my hands…muhahahahahhaha
True, but other factors might well torpedo this “Moonie Catholic Church”. If the connection with Moon becomes well-known, how many Catholics will want to be a part of it? Will it develop cultish, Unificationist elements which might turn people off? Will members have to recognize Moon as the messiah and his “Completed Testament” (the Divine Principle) as Scripture?
It would not have to be explicit just as it is not explicit with the right wing evangelicals he is supporting financially. That has not diminished their stature as it is not well known and most who follow folks like Lehaye do not want to deal with his taking substantial sums of money from Moon’s lieutenant, Bo Pak. If there is such a financial link, condition 4 discussed above could be fulfilled. I do not claim to be a prophet so I cannot dismiss or give the threat of schism too much credit. It is now, however, considerably more likely than before.
Some accounts indcate that some of these “new bishops” are part of the Old Catholic Church which bagan in the late 1800s. This church already ordains women as well as non-Catholic clergy, married and unmarried, and has within its various splinters some Catholic priests who left to get married. They seem to run the gamut from “almost Catholic” to New Agers.
In charity, we should pray for them.
Isn’t the Old Catholic Church in the Anglican Communion now? I read that somewhere.
I also have heard several times that the validity of its Orders are in question. From what I know of its history I do not know why this is (except where women are involved) but I know that the Charismatic Episcopal Church (not connected to the Episcopal Church, more like Pentacostals with a sacramental theology), at first got its Orders from the Old Catholics, but discovering whatever this problem is decided to get everyone re-ordained through a recently excommunicated Catholic bishop to be sure of Apostolic succession. The guy who made that decision later became a Catholic himself and on The Journey Home on EWTN he gave the impression that he still stood by his conviction that the Old Catholics have questionable Orders.
Dr. Eric what exactly is going on at the cathedral in Milwaukee? I might be out of the loop, but I am relieved A. Bishop Weakland has been replaced by A. Bishop Dolan. Are you speaking of the Wreckovation? of the physical cathedral? I’ll accept that: It took me a while to find the tabernacle the first time I entered.
Seems like these folks could find a ready home in the Episcopal Church of the USA.
There are several quasi-Catholic churches in America already that, if you go to their websites, espouse heterodox, if not schismatic views. These would be the Old Catholic Church, the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America, and the American Catholic Church. They provide lists of parishes, and while their number is small, it could provide a germ of a seed to fulfill condition #4.
Here in metro Detroit, there is a heterodox group calling themselves “The Elephants in the Living Room”, and they’ve invited speakers such as Joan Chittister, Rev McBrien to headline their functions. Coming in late October is the founder of “Take Back Our Church” (I can’t recall the man’s name, but he was blogged about here earlier in September). This group is made up of priests and at least one bishop, and sympathetic laity – and Mary from Detroit, I bet you can name the bishop.
Still, Jesus Christ remains in charge of His Church. Heaven forbid that such a schism occur, but let’s not forget the story of Gideon – God led him to victory with only 300 soldiers, vastly outnumbered by the enemy. If the majority of Catholics were to switch sides, then much prayer and fasting is in store for the Catholics who remain faithful. We have to pray for conversion and unity, but we cannot despair. God has already won the victory for us, and as the Church Militant, He will continue to lead the one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church.
I had a nightmare last night that the world will end when there are only 12 genuine bishops left.
Condition 4 can be met through the Moonies, who have considerable funds, have an strong, disciplined infrastructure, and who first enticed Archbishop Milingo on this adventure of his.
And the organization Milingo would head would not merely be a schismatic Catholic group, but a satelite of the Moonie cult.
I remember the man’s name now – Robert Blair Kaiser, and he’s going to be in Detroit October 26 and 27 for two talks.
The Old Catholic Church derives from the See of Utrecht which went into schism after Vatican I. Before that, it was a legitimate See in Communion with Rome. They are not part of the Anglican Communion, but they are in communion with the Anglicans. 🙂 When they broke Communion with Rome (over the dogma of Papal Infallibility), they formed the Union of Utrecht, and this Union established communion with the Anglicans in 1931 per the Bonn Agreements.
A true story:
A young Orthodox man was just given charge of his first parish as a priest. He noticed that he had to celebrate Divine Liturgy every day. He asked his bishop, “Master, if I am to celebrate Divine Liturgy every day; am I supposed to live with my wife as brother and sister, never to embrace, since the canons call for fasting the night before Divine Liturgy?”
The bishop replied, “My son, that’s what the afternoons are for!”
Most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes only celebrate Divine Liturgy only on Sunday and Feast Days. Daily Liturgy is USUALLY (see above) reserved for Monasteries as it was in the early days of Christianity. Also, in the East there is “economy” where the Spirit of the Law trumps the Letter of the Law.
In fact, most Latin Churches actually only have Mass on Saturday Night and Sunday morning as well. Only in the cities is Daily Mass found frequently. Come out to the country, you’ll see.
Why Larry,
A bishop here in Detroit who’s involved with Elephants in the Living Room? I have *no idea* who you could possibly mean. (eyes rolled toward the ceiling and a snarky grin on my face)
If you are a Detroiter, you must know that we have no priests meeting that description here in the AOD! (sticks out tongue)
The rumors I have heard, though, seem to indicate that:
1. Cd. Maida’s retirement is imminent (before 2007)
2. The next Archbishop will be conservative. I have heard 3 names bandied about, and each one has me drooling in anticipation. It’s not a pretty picture.
Here’s hoping.
Say “Hi” to Moe and Curly for me. But not Shemp. I hate that guy.
CaeliDS,
You’re already too late. There’s only 11 left. 😛
There are several quasi-Catholic churches in America
you forgot to mention the Archdiocese of Los Angeles…
Dr. Eric,
In my experience country churches may only have mass once or twice a week, but that is because the country priest has a bunch of parishes. He is still saying mass once a day.
Why are you so intent on having married priests in the Latin rite. That is an Eastern thing. Are you the type to only respect non-western cultures and traditions? Besides, our priests already have brides, the Church! No priest polygamy!
Seriously, marriage and the priesthood are distinct vocations, and celebacy is a gift appropriate to the priesthood. There may be some exceptional situations where this discipline should be set aside, but in general it is both right and the tradition of the West. Don’t mess with it!
When J. Akin starts up a really good thread, I give him a pat on the back. When he “blows” it, as he has today, I am not going to be silent about correcting him. Let’s see what he wrote:
“As tragic as that situation is, I fear that an even greater tragedy may be about to unfold. Since the debacle following Vatican II, the Holy See has been terrified of a major schism occurring that would involve modernist dissidents.”
Notice that, in the first sentence, James reveals his PERSONAL “fear.” Notice then the inaccuracy and impropriety of what he says in the second sentence, wherein he PROJECTS his personal fear, half-way around the world, upon the pope and hundreds of people who work with and for the pope!
This is a grossly inaccurate phrase: “the Holy See has been terrified …”
What are the errors in the phrase?
1. The “Holy See” is not a person who can experience emotion (being “terrified”).
2. James is in no position to know how many, if any, of the people who work within the Holy See are “terrified.”
A moment’s rational thought should lead any of us to realize that it is unlikely that ANYONE inside the Holy See is genuinely “terrified” about a potential schism. Perhaps a few pessimists are WORRIED about such a possibility. But “terrified”? Highly unlikely, given all that has happened in almost 2,000 years of Church history.
Such shameless sensationalism was at least an act of imprudence, if not serious sin, on the part of Mr. Akin, causing an improper concern in the hearts of some poor readers of this web-log. I look forward to his forthcoming apology.
“Such shameless sensationalism was at least an act of imprudence, if not serious sin”
Wow, free spiritual counsel! You are lucky, Jimmy, to have such generous posters, always ready to point out every foible, and then to be so open to accepting your apology. It warms the heart.
Take note, Jimmy; the use of even the mildest hyperbole is now prohibited in your blog entries. We expect you to treat every post as a carefully crafted theological dissertation, devoid of colorful language.
BTW, Jimmy, your *real* name is James. Your PermaPost, “Jimmy vs. James” is wrong.
Mary – don’t lose your eyeballs, and don’t keep me in suspense. Email me with those 3 names please. If his replacement is half as good as Bishop Carlson in the Diocese of Saginaw, then I’d feel our prayers will have been answered.
As for the Stooges – Moe calls you a wise guy, Curly says “nyuk nyuk nyuk” and Shemp’s feelings are hurt. He also said something about a cream pie with your name on it….
Wow.. you guys must be really secure in your eternal salvation to be telling a Texan he’s wrong! 🙂
So who wants to guess how soon Cardinal Milingo will be a keynote speaker at a Call to Action function?
I feel I simply must defend Shemp. He did a decent job filling in for Curly, and I find him pretty funny.
Now Curly Joe, on the other hand… that was when the Stooges jumped the shark.
Personally, I always preferred Larry, Darryl and Darryl to Moe, Larry and Curly.
There is no way this would last… They would have no leadership, only committies and it would be a few short years and they would look exactly like the Episcopals… then only wackjobs would join them… they would fade into the pool of dissidance… I think this is why they would never leave. They feel too important in the Church and know once they leave no one will listen to them.. They enjoy trying to change from within.. and is why we need to get tough on them…
Actually, Shemp was the original third Stooge, before they got into movies. Curly replaced him. Then, after Curly suffered a stroke, Shemp rejoined Larry and Moe.
Joe Besser(“Stinky” on “The Abbott and Costello Show”) then replaced Shemp for a very short time. He was dumped after he informed Larry and Moe (in the middle of filming a short) that he wouldn’t take a pie in the face. Makes you wonder if he ever actually saw the Three Stooges before he agreed to join them.
Joe Derita (Curly Joe) replaced Besser. He was no Curly, nor even a Shemp, but he was an improvement over Besser.
“Now me and my friends, we love Larry and Moe. We love Curly’s brother Shemp and his big clone Joe”, but we don’t like Besser!
Let’s not forget that Shemp was THE original Stooge.
JR,
Let’s be clear on one thing, the practice for the first one thousand years of Christianity was to have two types of priests: celebate monastics and married secular ones.
The bishops of Spain at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea tried to enforce manditory celebacy on all priests, when St. Paphnutios from Egypt spoke out to reaffirm the Apostolic Teaching everything was settled, having both kinds of priests. St. Paphnutios, having been celebate his whole life and lost his eye and use of his leg for the Faith, was a trusted voice for orthodoxy.
I am not pitting East versus West, but since the ephebophilia scandals with our priests sexually abusing teenage boys, maybe we should reconsider having married secular clergy. Let’s be real here, over 90% of all cases involved homosexual contact. The Orthodox have only had one major scandal involving homosexula contact at a monastery. Married secular priests can be trusted with your sons as can married secular deacons.
Another thing, if we can have married deacons (which is the Apostolic practice;) and the Sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred upon a Deacon by a bishop, aren’t we already 75% of the way there in the Latin Church any way?
Last, either the Latin Church allows married men to be ordained or She doesn’t but allowing some converts to be ordained while ignoring her native sons is a slap in the face. I am asking for consistency. Of course the Eastern Churches have never departed from the ancient discipline.
Just signing in to your blog for the first time, I appreciate your view, and especially your direction, namely, that this mst be attended to in prayer. You will be in my prayers as well.
Oops, Bill912 beat me to it!
+J.M.J+
Michael writes:
>>>It would not have to be explicit just as it is not explicit with the right wing evangelicals he is supporting financially. That has not diminished their stature as it is not well known and most who follow folks like Lehaye do not want to deal with his taking substantial sums of money from Moon’s lieutenant, Bo Pak.
So what you would need is a bold reporter to expose the connection. Then Catholics who might otherwise join up may think twice. Some members of Imani Temple protested when they found out about Stalling’s connections to Moon:
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/moon_may23.htm
Not everyone is going to cherish the prospect of becoming a semi-Moonie.
>>>If there is such a financial link, condition 4 discussed above could be fulfilled. I do not claim to be a prophet so I cannot dismiss or give the threat of schism too much credit. It is now, however, considerably more likely than before.
I agree, it may just happen. I do believe that Moon wants to exploit the dissent in the Catholic Church in order to increase his religious power base. I absolutely believe he is going to give this his best try. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will surely succeed on a huge scale. The Moonies have had failed ventures before; even lots of money doesn’t ensure success.
As Hammerbrecher points out, many of the most vocal dissidents have stayed within the Church precisely because they hope to “change it from within.” So long as they think they have any hope of doing that, they will most likely stay put. Leaving would be tantamount to an admission of defeat. Also, those liberals who are in positions of bureaucratic power within the Church would probably be less willing to give up that power and start afresh in a new organization under the likes of Moon, Milingo and Stallings. I mean, imagine for just a second what it would be like to be a cog in a bureaucracy administered by a cult leader with messianic delusions, a loopy demon-busting renegade and the man who believes he is “a god” and who counts the “Pope of Pot” among his students:
http://skspress.com/testimonies.htm
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/print/news_2006-05-0508-007.shtml
Talk about Three Stooges! Frankly, I’m wondering how long that triumvirate of immense egos could run a sizeable American Moonie Catholic Church together in harmony.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Also, Moon’s connection to certain American Evangelicals has never been widely reported in the press, while Milingo and Stallings’ 2001 Moonie wedding got considerable coverage. So I’m sure many Catholics are well aware of the latter, even if most Evangelicals are unaware of the former. So if Milingo and Stallings start up their own church, people will naturally suspect Moon is behind the venture.
Also, Moon, Stallings and Milingo may be getting along swimmingly now, but what if a major schism does occur, with millions upon millions of Catholics in North America and Africa defecting to join a cult headed by Bishops Stallings and Milingo, under the aegis of Sun Myung Moon. Think of the immense power Stallings and Milingo will suddenly possess – religious authority on a scale they never had before! Don’t you think that these two great egos may eventually begin to chafe under Moon’s headship? Power corrupts, after all.
In Jesu et Maria,
Let’s be real here, over 90% of all cases involved homosexual contact.
Are you saying that there wouldn’t still be allowance for those men who wish to make the offering of celibacy (thus remain single) if married priests are permitted? Since that would therefore not change any of the milieu that permitted active homosexuals to enter, this would not remedy a thing. What was really missing was in the training in obedience, spiritual life, and dismissal of those not suited, from the seminaries. Permitting marriage would not solve that problem nor should such change of important qualities of the Latin Rite be based on such a negative foundation. Plus, those good men who would continue to be available 24/7, offering a total self giving could be subjected to prejudice and judgment, questioning their motivations. Not a good thing at all especially for a Church that has been lacking in its emphasis on the eternal spiritual dimension over the past 4 decades. We need more of that emphasis … not less – the sacrificial model of Christ worth the reward.
Last, either the Latin Church allows married men to be ordained or She doesn’t but allowing some converts to be ordained while ignoring her native sons is a slap in the face. I am asking for consistency.
How can there be consistency when dealing with two completely separate situations? They themselves are not consistent examples. The consistency now is that once those permitted to be ordained under special circumstances enter into the single life again (through death or separation) they too are then subjected to the same. Of course no one has even begun to discuss the economics of support of large families, the time limitations and split attentions – in an atmosphere of debt, closing parishes, need for evangelization in all parts of the world – especially where there is great danger, etc. Even with prosperity, charitable giving should always be in favor of the world’s poor, evangelization, while those choosing to marry can serve in so many other ways without dependency for support.
Let’s be clear on one thing, the practice for the first one thousand years of Christianity was to have two types of priests: celebate monastics and married secular ones.
There is no evidence of an established Church allowance for two types of priests in the early Church. There may have been confusion during formation in those times but the emphasis was the teaching toward the example of Christ and such was toward the request to leave everything, take up the cross and follow Him. You sound like those apologists for women priests who say that because women were hostesses in homes for the early liturgies or made the bread that they too must have consecrated; or that because they offered teaching or counseling that they also heard confessions!
Perhaps the future Church will be more in line with the expectations of P. Benedict – a smaller (remnant?) one but one that still adheres to Church teachings in obedience … until the even more serious times of dissent, schism and persecution that P. JPII warned of even to the point of the need for a preparation for martyrdom arrives. The very self-centered boldness of such antics as are seen in the Milingo case or in those priests who have left and are literally forming their own churches demonstrates the appropriateness of those warnings and prophecies. People should not be making convenient spaces for dissidence, blatant disobedience and scandal to continue and grow in a Church whose strength has been built on the blood of martyrs and saintly offerings of total self sacrifice.
I see no benefit in married priests from the point of view of reducing sexual molestation. A molester is a molester is a molester. Married or single doesn’t make a difference. In 18 years as a police officer in a large department, I’ve seen a whole lot of married sexual predators.
I meant to add: chris K has the right idea.
I think Bill is right. Has anyone seen Reformation.com with all of the news reports (838 in total, to date) of ministers who abused children? These are Protestant ministers who are allowed to marry, mind. (My point isn’t to pick on Protestants).
Quote from the site:
+J.M.J+
Fr. James Porter was a notorious Catholic priest who molested hundreds of children. He then left the priesthood and got married – but continued to molest children.
Marriage is not a cure for pedophilia or homosexuality. If we marry off priests with those tendancies, we will just end up with a bunch of unhappy priests’ wives whose husbands have no interest in them sexually but pursue perversion instead. Worse yet, if the pedophile priests actually manage to impregnate their wives (by fantasizing about children?) then they will have their own children to potentially molest!
It’s a recipe for disaster, folks.
In Jesu et Maria,
Also, if we have a lot of married priests, then we will have to pay them enough so they can support their wives and children. Unless you have some way of guaranteeing that every family in every parish is going to increase its donation to caover that expense, you have a major problem.
I never said that those who are called to the celebate life should not be ordained. Nor do I support any teaching that is opposed to the Faith and Morals of the Holy Catholic Church. But the eveidence IS there that there were married priests in the “good ol’ days” and that they lead holy lives of heroic virtue.
As far as economics are concerned, if the Church can afford to pay billions and billions of dollars in settlements, She could pay for a married priest and his family. Even better yet, parishioners should actually TITHE. I have been asked to take up collection and I know that a family of 5 makes more than $20.00 per week, why are they giving only $2.00? (I know I’m not supposed to look, but sometimes I accidentally see.) A married priest could work a secular job like deacons do or his wife could work. The economic excuse is a red herring.
Instead we have priestless parishes run by radical feminist nuns or “administrators.” Would you rather have a married man as a priest or none at all. Wake up, the seminaries are empty… Except for the conservative ones, but actually how many are there really.
I am asking consistency for all married men who wish to be ordained, not JUST for converts.
I wonder why this is a problem. St. Peter was married as was St. Gregory Nazianzen the Elder, and a Holy Martyr for the Faith, Blessed Emelian Kovc who was killed by the Nazis.
And the Orthodox have a myriad of saintly married clergy, including Alexis Toth who left Catholicism because,among other things, bishop John Ireland and his cronies tried to expell all of the married priests and Eastern Catholic clergy from America. In fact, half of all Orothodox Christians in America are descended from the Eastern Catholics who joined the Orthodox Church after bishop Ireland tried to force his will on them and banished the married clergy from America.
When your parish closes or is run by an “administrator” maybe you’ll think differently. But I can’t imagine how our local parish priest is supposed to serve 4000 families by himself.
Eccl. 1:9 “there is nothing new under the sun”
So many issues, so little time.
ANOTHER COWARD: “Specifically, what I don’t understand is how are these guys any different from Anglican priests who are married and then enter into communion with Rome?” The Pastoral Provision is just that – a provision being made. In allowing these men and sometimes whole congregations to become Roman Catholic prists it helps to breach a schism and to heal and reunit the faithful. It is a situation where relaxing a discipline for the sake of unity can reap greater good. It is also the case that those men enetering the priesthood in that way are coming from a non-Catholic background to begin with, and before they fully understood the necessity of communion with the Catholic Church, they had made good efforts to bloom where they were planted.
“I mean, honestly, it makes me think that the rumors I hear of young guys running to the Anglican Church to get married and ordained to then return might not be that crazy.” Actually they are just that crazy and they are just rumors. It does not happen.
Roman Catholic men who run to the Episcopal Church to get married and ordained, to my knowledge, are EXCLUDED from coming back to Rome as Catholic priests. I have known a handful of married Latin priests who took advantage of the Pastoral Provision – none of them did as you say. In each case-by-case instance investigations into the history and claims made by a candidate presenting himself for ordination is made. It would be determined in very short order that a man had left the church to break a rule and try to take advatage of a loophole. It is not done. One instance of a convert ex-Episcopalian being examined for RCC ministry
LOUISE : “It is my understanding that their Episcopal ordination is not valid, so they would be allowed to get ordained (validly) upon coming into the Catholic Church. Therefore their true ordination would be happening after their marriage. That is the difference. “
It is not the difference. Some men considered validly ordained and married have returned to Rome. Some Episcopalians ordained to the priesthood a la Graham Leaonard, former Bishop of London are ordeained “sub conditione”. I remember some liberal Catholics pointing to that VERY case as though it were proof positive that Episcopal orders must be valid because it was conceded some might be valid.
The issue of Episcopal orders being valid or invalid has near nothing to do with the Pastoral provision. There are married men ordained from time to time outside of the RCC who are admitted to communion with Rome as priests. Some have even made arguments that certain Episcopal lines may be valid because they included bishops of break-away Catholic Church that Rome viewed as having valid but illicit orders. The (in)validity of those orders have nothing to do with why Rome admits married ex-clergy to the priesthood upon conversion – in some instances.
DJ: (Quoting a liberal parish tongue-in-cheek) “Did you know that the Jews forbade homosexuality for the purpose of increasing their small numbers instead of for moral reasons? Who knew?”
Moravians
An excellent example of a misleading HALF truth. Natural Law and Divine Law go hand-in-hand. I have heard this statement before and it is true… but not the whole story. Homosexuality does not have an openness to procreation because the sex in homosexual relations can no more make a baby than a dog and a cat could make a kitten. Or a puppy. Not even a kippy. Natural law tells us what it cannot do. Moral law tells us what we are to do with what can be done!
JIMMY AKIN: “These men could turn around and start ordaining their own priests–and I assume that this was the purpose of elevating them to the episcopate since they could already perform all the other sacraments–and they could draw upon the pool of modernist ex-priests and, one way or the other, have a large number of clergy for their movement in fairly short order.”
This concearn, I should think, is no more than it ever has been. As it stands right now these folks could go to the Polish National Catholic Churchfor the same, they could go down to Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church , or go the Charismatic Episcopal Church which has already gotten orders from Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church .
Most modernist priests I have dealt with actually scoff at Apostolicae Curae . (Pope Leo Xiii’s 1896 proclamation of the nullity of Anglican orders). When asked privately for their opinions on the matter, I suspect the vast majority of dissidents are so unconcearned with form and substance that they would already believe Episcopal orders are as valid as their own.
The opportunity for droves of modernists to seek ordination or consecration or form a truly independent AmChurch under the leadership of a dissedent bishop has been there since the founding of the Church, it has certainly been there in the past several centuries.
“Why not ‘Dox and then come back?” The Orthodox would put up with this even LESS then Rome. But they would also be fractured much further. At this point in time a good deal of Orthodox Churches have breakaways over issues of calendars, ecumenism, old rites and the like.
The disunity of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in the US, several groups like monasteries and individuals have gone jurisdiction shopping from ROCOR, the OCA, the GOA, and to various Old Calendar and “Independent Orthodox” bodies variously being kicked out or leaving one after the ohter.
JR Stoodley: “Isn’t the Old Catholic Church in the Anglican Communion now? I read that somewhere.”
In fact they were and then some weren’t and then some were and then some still are. Got that?
More accurately the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholic Churches of Utrect have been in communion with each other since the Bonn Agreement of 1931 . UNTIL…
We fast-forward to PECUSA ordaining women to the priesthood here in the US in 1976 and Old Catholics (especially the Polish National Catholic Church– the only body in the US that is part of the Utrecht Union of Old Catholics until 2004 ) broke communion with PECUSA, but maintained communion with some of the rest of the non-female-priest-ordaining members of the Bonn Agreement of 1931 . communion.
(For the most part, bodies claiming to be Old Catholic trace their orders back to one or two “Episcopal Vagantes” and are mostly made up of clergy (not laity) who give themselves grand titles, consecrate each other over and over again, and have no real property. With the exception of the Polish National Catholic Church, almost no one seems to have been born an OC.)
Fast forward again to the 1990s when Utrecht Union of Old Catholics ) started to Ordain women to the diaconate and priesthood. Now the Polish National Catholic Church, is no longer in communion with Utrecht Union of Old Catholics bodies that are ordaining women, but it is presumed that Utrecht Union of Old Catholics bodies would be in communion with the rest of the Anglican world also ordains women.
What I do not know is weather the Utrecht Union of Old Catholics were also in communion with the Swedish Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church of Finland You see the Swedish Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church of Finland were in communion with the Anglican Communion since at least 1922.
I further do not know if the Utrecht Union of Old Catholics and the the Swedish Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church of Finland were also in communion with the Moravians . The Moravians are in full communion in turn with the United Methodists and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Here is where it gets fun again… the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America just entered into communion with the Episcopal Church in America which is in communion with the worldwide Anglican Communion (for now) which is in communion with several Lutheran bodies in Northern Europe…
Now, with the acceptance of the The Porvoo Common Statementthe Anglican Communion has entered into communion with a number of Luterhan bodies which do NOT have Historic Apostolic Succession (except for the Luterhan Church of Sweden & Finalnd). So it can be presumed that the Old Catholics od the UTrecht Union COULD be in communion with the Anglican Churches that have the same policy (yea or nea) of women’s ordination, but may no longer be interested in communion because the Anglicans are in communion with the Lutherans, but, on the other hand, MAY be interested in having communion with the Lutherans and the Anglicans now that under the terms of the Anglican-Lutheran Communion, all future Lutheran and Anglican bishops will be consecrated by at least 3 Ang and 3 Luth Bishops, grand-fathering the Lutherans into Historic lines of Apostolic Succession. Confused yet?
In the end, I believe that given how very little most modern dissidents seem to care for the actual Faith, I don’t think they can be bothered to get a divorce. See, unless they could take buildings, trusts, and treasures with them, and continue to live in the old convents, rectories, monasteries and the like… IT would be a whole lot of effort. Look at groups like Joan Chrtisiter’s Erie Benedictives, filled with contempt for the Church, the would be very happy and welcome in Episcopal Church
DR. ERIC: “And the Orthodox have a myriad of saintly married clergy, including Alexis Toth who left Catholicism because,among other things, bishop John Ireland and his cronies tried to expell all of the married priests and Eastern Catholic clergy from America.”
If I had to guess, DE, I would say that you are a rather zealous new Byzantine Catholic like I was 14 years ago. I agree some of what you say, and want to see the married presvyterate restored fully to the Eastern Churches that have always enjoyed that tradtion. I am not sure I think Alex Toth saintly.
My radical moderate suggestion is to allow the Eastern Catholic Churches in the US greater latitude in ordaining married men, and remove the impediment against Roman Catholic men transferring churches to become married priests. Let the Latins maintain their own disciplines, let us do the same, and do not inhibit or impeded RC’s from becoming Eastern Catholics.
JIMMY AKIN: “I also think that Rome should give serious consideration to establishing the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate as of itself a schismatic act. Thus far it has not done so.”
Jimmy I agree but I have to be honest… This story is most noteworty for being just plain odd.
As odd as it is, we need to remember there are something ike 4000+ bishops in full communion with the Pope of Rome… And this happens how often?
With all the dissident groups inside and out of the Cahtolic Church, all the retired folks, all the temptations, this really happens very little. It is newsworth especially for being so atypical of the behavior of most Catholic Bishops.
There have ALWAYS been a few renegades out there who have done this sort of nonsense. That is how we have groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church , the SSPX, the SSPV or the Charismatic Episcopal Church …
“The economic excuse is a red herring.”
So do “you have some way of guaranteeing that every family in every parish is going to increase its donation to cover that expense?”
I will pray for God’s will to be done through this very trying time for the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks in the US would like to see Catholic priests able to marry in light of the abuse scandal. They feel (incorrectly) marriage–and with it, the regular ability to get laid (pardon the crudeness)–would prevent a recurrance of the said scandal.
I will pray for God to bless B16 with His divine wisdom and that He will work through all of the leaders of the Church.
I will pray for all Catholics to keep their eyes on Jesus.
Bill912,
I don’t have a way to guarantee that members tithe. But if they want to support a married priest, they’d better do it or he’d have to leave or charge more at the Fish Fry!
Simple Sinner,
I’m a Latin Catholic, so far… but I love the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
Anyone who has the patience to read through a post as long as the post by A Simple Sinner’s will surely cut some time off of his stay in purgatory 🙂
David B,
Glad I cut some time off ANYONE’S stay in Purgatory. Sometimes it takes more than a soundbite.
I have always admired Jimmy & the gang for being thorough and well thought out. While some bloggers prefer snippets, Jimmy & Co. always do a good job of being balanced, charitable, and articulate well-thought-out positions.
Also, suffering from insomnia doesn’t help.
Here comes another one…..
A Simple Sinner,
I read and appreciated your post (yes! less purgatory!) but see Da Rulz (in the permaposts section). Jimmy has a rule against long posts.
Dr. Eric,
About 14 years ago when I “discovered” the Byzantine Catholic Church (the church of my grandmother) as you are now doing I felt very much the same way you did. I too felt it was a “slap in the face” that the Latins now had far more married priests and exponentially more married clergy (counting deacons) that the Eastern Catholics EVER did.
For a time, I even flirted with leaving the Roman communion to become Orthodox via the Russian Church.
Time & tide tempered my tendencies, appreciation for the Petrine Ministry grew and a little more understanding of the historical and current situations of the Eastern Catholic Churches were developed. Friendship with older lifelong Byzantine Catholic Faithful and priests over the past 14 years have helped me to have a little more insight.
If I may share….
Divisions due to ethnicity. In some instances some of the divisions we trace back to Cum data fuerit had certain secondary causes. Those who had experienced a certain disaffection with the hierarchy in the US, or were concerned about the ethnic identities of the Rusyn, Lemko & Ukrainian people of the diaspora in the US used this “last straw” as a rallying cry. We don’t know for certain how all the details worked, but it is certain that nationalism and ethnic identity (a huge part of many Eastern Catholic/Orthodox communities) played no small part in this division above and beyond Cum data fuerit.
What started out in the US as a single hierarchy for all Byzantine Catholics from Slav churches was divided between Ukrainians and Rusyns (with the Hungarian & Slovak & Slovenian ethnic parishes parties – though only a few – being attached to the Carpatho Rusyn Hierarchy.)
Divisions due to misunderstanding. At a time in the history of the US when the Latin Church was being homogenized into a single church for all Latin Ethnics – Irish, Pole, Slovenian, Hungarian, Italian, etc. There were many divisions made at the parochial (parish) level while all these ethnic groups were under the diocesan jurisdiction of a single Latin Catholic Bishop. (Some have suggested that the disparity of ethnic representation of various immigrant groups in American Catholic leadership played a major factor in many of the LATINS also losing faithful from breakaway groups such as the Polish National Catholic Church, the Slovak National Catholic Church, the Lithuanian National Catholic, and a myriad of protestant sects and congregations as well a significant number of faithful simply and quietly quitting any practice of any faith. In dealing with this microcosm of Old World sensibilities I hope we can find it in our heart to afford some understanding to the Latin Catholic bishops who were already dealing with a whole host of ethnic, monastic and religious orders and groups they were unsure of how to deal with. Maybe we could cut them the smallest bit of slack for not being as “enlightened” as we are today.
Divisions due to Church property ownership are something that are frequently forgotten. But this was no small issue among groups of faithful that formed pious lay associations in an effort to raise funds, build a church, and get a priest. In some instances, when the Catholic Bishop requested/demanded ownership of the parish, the lay associations – for a myriad of reasons – refused, and left communion with Rome. This was a major factor in the Ukrainian split.
Orthodox agitation and proselytizing. It is funny that a good deal of the history of these scandals and divisions are written by Orthodox parties. These histories tend to gloss over or omit some of the efforts made on the part of certain Russian Orthodox priests & bishops to “return the Uniates to Orthodoxy.” While much hay is made of Latin efforts to win Orthodox over to Roman Communion, I find little mention is made of the active effort of some of the Orthodox clergy to do exactly the same. Let’s just be honest – it worked both ways, and it divided faithful people, parish-by-parish, family-by-family.
Changes in attitudes of Eastern Orthodox Bishops. There was a time when certain Orthodox leaders would have had refused to admit to the priesthood a celibate Catholic priest who had left the Catholic Church, gotten married and attempt to become an Orthodox priest. To marry after ordination (even a Catholic Ordination) was an impediment to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church. With time, many bishops in the Orthodox world relaxed this practice and justified accepting these ex-Catholic-celibates to the altar. Even though a Greek Orthodox bishop in America would likely never dream of incardinating an ex-Russian Orthodox monk-priest who married as a priest, around the turn of the century, in an effort to attract more clergy and laity from Greek Catholic Churches, they did just that.
(I have heard the argument made that an Orthodox bishop is free to do so because the Roman Catholic Church is – in their opinion – already uncanonical so this aberration among “non-Orthodox” priests may be overlooked and they may be incardinated to canonical Orthodox jurisdictions sweeping away this impediment in the same way – dare I say it – that you object to ex-Anglicans becoming Latin Catholic priests.)
Attitudes of some Eastern Catholic Bishops. Why the Eastern Catholic bishops in America have not fully returned to the free practice of the married presbyterate also has a little to do – at least – with some hesitancy on the part of the Eastern Catholic Bishops.
Some of them – not naming names – were so very latinized by nature they opposed it in general. (We have to understand those bishops are very much products of their culture… in “turf wars” with Orthodox jurisdictions that attempted to recruit priests and parishes into non-Catholic [Orthodox] jurisdictions, a mentality arouse that to be a good Byzantine Catholic, one had to be almost more Latin than the Latins.
(One Byzantine Catholic Bishop who was a product of this culture, actually spent years in civil litigation when his own congregation split with half going to a rival Orthodox Jurisdiction. The question of which party got to keep the parish church – the Catholic or the Orthodox took years to settle out. In McKees Rocks, PA, what started out as ONE Greek Catholic communion was (all on or near the same block) broke into at least FIVE parishes – all of which have seen better days. We have there, a Ukrainian Catholic, a Ruthenian Catholic, an OCA Church, a Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Church and a Ukrainian Orthodox Church. (With the Polish National Catholic parish one block away!) If you look at the rosters of these churches you will see all the same family names – they are all cousins, in laws, siblings, parents & children and the like. Sad.
One of the things Rome had implored the Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic Churches time and time again to do – maintain their own distinctive identities – ironically became something Catholic parties in the Rusyn and Ukrainian Church did NOT do.
Attitudes of Eastern Catholic Clergy & Faithful who grew up in a Latinzied culture. To prove they WERE Catholics to the Latins and NOT Orthodox to the newly formed non-Catholic (Orthodox) jurisdictions, rosaries, side altars, statues, adoration to the Sacred Heart & Eucharistic Adoration were added to the practices of the people making some of those Churches look far more Latin than the Roman Churches after Vatican II.
In a further irony, in recent years when attempts have been made to re-introduce authentic practices listed below, many Byzantine Catholics – laity & clergy alike) saw it as an affront to their “true traditions” Not realizing that these “true traditions” were totally Latinizations. Such restorations include:
· infant communion,
· removing statues (Latin) to return to icons (Greek)
· removal of communion rails and side altars for Iconostasis
· removing Stations of the Cross to return to the authentic Byzantine liturgy during Lent (The Great Fast) The Liturgy of the Presanctified This service, Divine Liturgy because it contains no consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The holy communion that we receive at a Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts is the specie of consecrated bread only. This special service, a combination of Vespers and a communion ritual, is traditionally celebrated on Wednesdays and Fridays of the first six weeks of Great Fast, and on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Week. Its authorship is sometimes attributed to St. Gregory Dialogus who prior to becoming Pope of Rome served in Constantinople as a papal envoy.
· ending the use of Latin honorifics like “monsignor” to return to “Archpriests” and “Mitered archpriests”
· Removing baldechinos over altars which were a Latin practice, do build more traditional Greek altars.
Are we surprised that even a small percentage of Eastern Catholic faithful (including priests & bishops) formed during or after this tumultuous time are leery of abandoning what they know for what they do not know but is more authentic?
Concern over possible internal resentment on the part of celibate Byzantine Clergy. Most of the celibate priests I know serving the Eastern Catholic faithful in the US have privately pointed out to me, that although it would not bother THEM, some of their struggling brother priests and those that left to get married might be resentful of now seeing a rule change. The bishops of the US are already presiding over a strongly demoralized clergy. The prestige and respect has disappeared, only to be replaced with stereotypes of predator-priests and imbalanced, out of touch loaners. I don’t envy the men trying to serve Christ sacrificing so much to be thought of so poorly. Many bishops, understanding this, have been slow to really push the issue.
Difficulty in implementation. Also, it is not surprising, when one looks at the state of the Byzantine Churches in America, that there would or could be hesitancy on the part of some bishops to ordain married men. Simply, some have not done it at all, others have limited experience with it. Many of them are ruling over diocese that cover as many as 12 or more states – the Eparch of Passaic covers New England to Florida… The financial situation in some is dire, and the attendance numbers are not great. I cannot blame some of them if they have felt overwhelmed. I do not envy what they have to deal with.
Roman scandal. While this may seem the least important reason that the married presbyterate hasn’t been truly re-invigorated in the US… it is a reason. Weather we perceive it as just or not. Due to the GREAT deal of scandal and dissent in the Latin Church in the last 40 years, I think the Roman Catholic Bishops have expressed privately to their Eastern brothers, reservations they have about having to deal with Byzantine Married priests down the street from their own celibates. I suspect Eastern Catholic bishops, not wanting to push the issue tried to be charitable and not cause scandal.
Married priests are out there. Remember, Dr. Eric more married priests than are advertised are in the Eastern Catholic Churches in North America. When modern eparchs ordain married men in America – as they have the right to do – they have, more often then not, done so quietly. Sometimes in weekday Divine Liturgies, not announcing it till after the fact, and downplaying that the man ordained was indeed married. There are more married men serving as priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches than they generally discuss.
Dr. Eric, I do agree that it is sad that the practice was impeded here in the US. I do agree that it should be restored. I do agree that how things were handled was not always right. I am glad to see the slow gradual return to our old practices.
Too many people have painted the conflicts we suffered as being simply “The big mean pope suppressing the poor Eastern Catholics.”
It is a little more complex than that. If we don’t take our time to really think about it and examine all the factors that went into it, making certain inflammatory & over-simplified statements could simply lead to more scandal.
We Byzantine Catholics are all stocked up in the department.
JR,
Sorry you are right. I had read that a long time ago and forgotten it. We take a little more liberty in some of our postings at the other place I participate in. (when I get going I secretly want to be Jimmy!) Sorry.
ALSO JR, while your post reminding me of rule #3, appeared before that second long post, I did not readed till after I posted the second long one. Did not mean to seem flip. Honest. Sorry.
I thought that when married priests were allowed in the West, those priests still had to be celibate and that the wives often became nuns.
This is decidedly not the norm among Eastern Catholics (or the Eastern Orthodox, for that matter), but I thought that it was an oikonomia granted them because of their long-standing practice of ordaining married lay clergy (Rome would prefer the term “secular clergy” rather than the Greek “lay clergy”) and not requiring celibacy.
What’s the real story?
Why are we debating the relative merits of married priests? This is the domain of the pope, and bishops in communion with him. We have no canonical standing in this matter. I believe our canonical right is to appeal to the appropriate authority when someone is not fulfilling their canonical or moral obligation to us. This is not the case.
The pope has made a decision in this matter, we should support the decision and not ally ourselves with dissenting groups who see a married priesthood as the thin end of the wedge toward eliminating the distinction between clergy and laity, and the ultimate ordination of women.
The Church is NOT a democracy.
God Bless,
Matt
AMDG.
A Simple Sinner,
I don’t mind loooooonnng posts by non-JA.O Bloggers. I just don’t read them, however good they may be.
P.S. I’ll Pray for ya ’bout the insomnia thing.
Well said, Matt.
Simple Sinner, I intend to come back and read the rest of your post. I understand Jimmy’s point and people skipping over long posts, but I also enjoy well thought out posts.
In the past there have been special cases where Roman Catholic married couples have gotten permission to live monastic lives aprt from each other. I recall reading that one married couple in the 30s sought and recieved permision for the wife to join a carmelite monastery and the man to join The Jesuits. Those are some rare, VERY rare cases.
The Ex-protestant ministers or non-Catholic priests who are reconsicle to the RCC are not expected to live as monks if they are ordained or accepted as priests.
In the Czech republic some men who were ordained to serve the underground Catholic Church as priests were – when they were revealed in the late 1990a – compelled to either join the Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic Church or to serve in the function of deacons in the Latin Church. In the case of the folks who did not join the Greek Catholic church on the CR, I guess the best way to describe there state is similar to that of a “priest simplex”. A “priest simplex” was a priest who was ONLY permittited to say Mass, but not to hear confessions. These men are, in essence, priests who are only givin facilties to assist at Mass in the office of Deacon.
Celibacy among the clergy is a discipline that is sometimes relaxed in the west, and not always the norm in the east.
Some men who are ordained to the priesthood outside of the Catholic Church, simply are recieved into the Church as laymen. This is the case with numerous converts of the Charismatic Episcopal Church . Men ordained to the priesthood in that body may very well indeed have valid orders because the bishops in that communion were all ordained by the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
“Some men who are ordained to the priesthood outside of the Catholic Church, simply are recieved into the Church as laymen”
Simple Sinner,
I believe that all of these men are received as laymen, but after some time of investigation, are ordained to Holy Orders, correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Matt,
Yes and no.
Orthodox clergy are recieved as priests.
Anglicams are recieved as laymen generally and are admitted to the priesthood AFTER making a petion to be ordained as RC priests.
NOW, the tricky part is when men ordained as priests in groups that are questionable are admitted to the priesthood. I have in mind the Charismatic Episcopal Church. It is a group of Evangelicals that sought the historic episcopate and its bishops submitted to the Apostolic Catholic Church of Brazil for orders. That is where it gets tricky.
The Apostolic Catholic Church of Brazil was founded by an ex Catholic bishop in the 1940s. Generally, men ordained therein have been recognized by the RCC as having valid orders. One of its bishops, Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was reconciled to the Catholic Church In December 1959 by Pope John XXIII. He attended the Second Vatican Council. He was married with 7 children when he attended the council.
(see: http://priest2b.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_priest2b_archive.html)
So I guess the question is, how does Rome treat orders conferred upon converts before they converted. If a priest of the Polish National Catholic Church was recieved into the RCC but as a laymen, and his wife died, would he be able to re-marry without impediement?
There is one thing that people here seem to remember. Long before he got “married” and made an issue of it, Milingo had been in hot water with the Church because of his open use of African magical rituals and other unorthodox and superstitious practices. This, not any desire to marry, was the reason why he was removed from his see and ordered to Rome. There, unfortunately, he started “ministering” to superstitious Italians. It is a sad fact that some strata of the Italian population have an insatiable appetite for magic, wizards and other nonsense; confidence tricksters catering to this unwholesome passion flourish to the extent that they can advertise in the the Rome Underground and in regular newspapers. Instead of having time for repentance, Milingo became, if anything, more prosperous and well-known in a first-world country where there was money aplenty and media attention. It was only after repeated Vatican attempts to get him to stop these pernicious activities, that he joined forces with the Rev.Moon (another person who caters to superstition) and get “married”. Even so, he made a show of coming back to the Church and renouncing his “wife”, which suggests that he found open schism uncongenial in spite of his numerous canonical crimes. It took decades of heterodoxy, pandering to superstition for money and popularity, and repeated offences, before Milingo could nerve himself to take the final step.
What I am saying is that Milingo and Stallings are about as bad a couple of candidates to lead a left-wing schism as anyone could well imagine. Both are guilty of the most extraordinary displays of superstition and irrationalism. One can hardly imagine the Richard O’Briens and Susan Chittisters of this world – whose views, however shallow and superficial, must at least be called rationalistic – taking as their leader a man who has confectioned magical remedies for superstitious Italian housewives. And the presence of Moon, a name which is not so much a matter of hatred as of laughter to both Catholics and dissidents, does not make them exactly more credible.
Here is an I told you so. Darn those are annoying.
Ousted archbishop thanks Rev. Moon
The Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.10.2006
PARSIPPANY, N.J. — The renegade Roman Catholic archbishop who was excommunicated by the Vatican after he installed married priests as bishops acknowledged Saturday that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon was supporting his crusade against mandatory celibacy.
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/159738
To much time and effort is wasted on the question of married priests. The priesthood should be confered on any male who has the love of Christ and his neighbor at heart and is capable to function as a priest.
Even if God isn’t calling him?
“The priesthood should be confered on any male who has the love of Christ and his neighbor at heart and is capable to function as a priest.”
And to add to Bill912’s comment: And then the male submits to the teaching of the Church that he remain celibate when he becomes a priest.
Mary Kay, what are you refering to when you say “Those four conditions sound a lot like the Rochester diocese?”
How is this dated Sept. 26? It is only Sept. 23.
Patrick, unless you have travelled back in time, today’s date is 9/23/07. This post is dated 9/26/06.
If you have travelled back in time, next time you go take me with you. Oh, the money we could make in the market!
“the keyword is “and is capable [of] function[ing as a] priest.” Guys who want to marry shouldn’t vow to devote their entire lives to God alone.
:^) at Bill.
Patrick, are you the Patrick who lives (or did live) in Japan? Or are you a second Patrick? I find it curious that in a thread with over 100 posts, you ignore the main topic and zero in on my post from a year ago.
What was I referring to? Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you must know that Rochester is known across the country for being one of the most liberal dioceses.
Sorry Mary Kay, I have never been east of California. For some reason this post came up when I logged on. Hey Bill maybe we can make this a business! As to Rochester, didn’t the local bishop get rid of that Corpus Christi crowd who allowed mere females to be on the altar, everyone to receive the Eucharist and blessed people who wanted to be together (not married) even if they were not sexually different? How more right wing can you get? What are you talking about?
Patrick, for someone who has never been east of California, you seem to be well informed of what happens in Rochester.
Opps, west.