Posted on 06/02/2008 11:02:49 AM PDT by Aretaphila
As reported in the Santa Fe New Mexican, Archbishop Michael Sheehan ordained three priests at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi here in Santa Fe yesterday, and one of the three was Jeffrey Whorton, a married father of five.
(Excerpt) Read more at moraliablog.com ...
I thought this was going to be about some bishop breaking the rules.
I'm not Roman Catholic, but I have a problem with this. If this Archbishop isn't going to follow the rules from the Pope, he should shift to a denomination where he will follow the rules. He is setting a bad example (even though I agree with his view that women can and should serve God through ministry).
Father Whorton’s ordination does not mean that the Catholic Church has abandoned the celibacy requirement for priests — at least not for all priests. In 1980, Pope John Paul II established a special dispensation called a Pastoral Provision under which Episcopalian priests, who are permitted by their church to marry, could be ordained as Catholic priests while remaining married. Father Whorton is one of this small group of former Episcopal priests who have sought communion with the Catholic Church.
I find the Pope's decision odd, but in light of that decision, I'm okay with the Archbishop's actions.
I understand that people who are married before the priesthood can remain married, or perhaps this applies only with former Anglican/Episopalian priests.
Long time ago, there were plenty of married RCC priests.
I’m just glad he’s married to a woman...
This guy was an Episcopalian convert. Anglicans - like Orthodox - get special arrangements, because they were married before they even began thinking about the Catholic priesthood. The celibacy of the clergy in the Western Church is a disciplinary thing, based on Jesus’ words about those who have surrendered everything, who have become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and has been incorporated into Church law.
The second generation is not allowed to marry (if his sons want to be priests, they will have to be celibate). This is a provisional situation.
If the candidate has never taken the vow of celibacy, then he not breaking the vow. Hence, the ability for married men to become RC priests.
The creaping incrimentalism of married priest. ;~)
Should she pass on (or otherwise leave), he won't be entitled to another wife. He'll be subject to the same rule as other priests.
“Theoretically, the priest shortage (to say nothing of the paedophilia problem) could be taken care of in short order if any devout Catholic man could have a wife and a Roman collar too.”
I find two faults with your logic. First, there are plenty of pedophiles who are not Catholic priests, many of whom are married. In fact, most of the abuses by Cahtolic priests were by homosexuals in the priesthood who preyed on young post-pubescent males between 12-18 years of age. This is a typical homosexual pattern.
Second, if a man is a devout Catholic (or for that matter, a devout Christian), the last thing he ought to do is prey upon children, married or not.
It’s the latter. I’m a married Catholic and therefore could not become a R.C. priest (although I’ve been informed that widowers can become priests even if they have children). Only married priests from a non-R.C. denomination can make the switch while married.
My pastor is a married Episcopal convert. Brought his associate and 3/4 of his parish with him into the Catholic Church.
It’s not new, but it seems to be happening more as men leave the Episcopal church over “gay clergy” and join the Catholic church.
The Catholic Church changes it’s rules to suit it’s needs on a regular basis. This dispensation for Anglican priest has been ongoing for quite a number of years. Having different regulations for different classes of people is the hallmark of this Church... after all, you can’t remarry in a Catholic Church if you were previously divorced unless your name in Ted Kennedy, etc. Unless you pay to go through their “annulment” procedure for the purpose of extracting funds from you to make the first marriage go away in the eyes of the church. Not much more than a sham!
Rome does. This man was ordained - not received as a priest. It was not a conditional ordination either, so it is an admission on his part that he was never really ordained a priest in the Church of God. That's why very few Anglican priests take this route. It is very difficult for most men to make that "admission." IMHO, it is a tremendous act of humility on his part, and it is a tremendously charitable pastoral provision on the part of Rome.
These men who come from Protestant denominations are nearly always ordained unconditionally... their previous ordinations are in fact considered invalid. There may be a small few who can demonstrate valid orders though Orthodox or Old Catholic bishops, but they are very few and far between, and would probably be ordained conditionally.
If that's the case, it seems that the role of these men should not be as ordained priests, but as lay ministers, like Scott Hahn, for example.
Lay ministers are not 'ordained' in any sense. However, those who had been Protestant pastors, including Dr. Hahn, could seek ordination under the pastoral provision. (I doubt that Dr. Hahn ever would.)
Other married protestant ministers who have converted and been ordained; like former Lutheran Richard John Neuhaus, were done so under a dispensation from the vow of celibacy granted by the Holy See, not the Pastoral Provision. The Pastoral Provision applies only to Anglicans.
For more information see: Pastoral Provision
An important omission from your post, while there were married priests they were expected to adopt the discipline of lex continentiae, total continence, within their marriage and live apart from their wife. See Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira for more information.
Theory is, more often than not, disproved by reality. If ordaining married men would solve the shortage of vocations to the Priesthood then the 21 of 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church wouldn't be experiencing a shortage of Priests and seminarians, which they are. Also, there wouldn't be a shortage of Priests in the Greek Orthodox Church, which there is. Your argument is specious, at best.
One other point. Very few of the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church actually involved pedophiles. The overwhelming majority were ephebophiles - homosexuals engaging in sex with post pubescent males. Allowing homosexuals to masquerade as married heterosexual men won't solve that problem either. Just look at what two "marriages" did to cure Michael Jackson. Following the February 1961 ban on ordaining homosexuals and pederasts will.
That is why they receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders and are ordained as Catholic Priests.
You have no business commenting authoritatively on something you know extremely little about.
You wrote:
“Having different regulations for different classes of people is the hallmark of this Church...”
God is no different. He treated His priests in one way, and His priestly people (Israel) differently.
“...after all, you can’t remarry in a Catholic Church if you were previously divorced unless your name in Ted Kennedy, etc.”
Nonsense. What about Joseph Kennedy? His annulment was ultimately DENIED.
“Unless you pay to go through their “annulment” procedure for the purpose of extracting funds from you to make the first marriage go away in the eyes of the church.”
1) The costs charged to the person seeking the annulment neither influence the outcome nor even come close to covering the actual costs involved.
2) People are charged little. Most go through the process for only a few hundred dollars.
3) Those who can’t pay simply don’t. In other words, if you’re poor, you pay NOTHING.
4) Every diocese admits it loses money on the whole annulment process. The fee charged NEVER covers the real costs. I learned about this directly from one of my oldest friends who is the chancellor of a diocese in the Midwest and sit on a marriage tribunal. He knows all about the costs and laughs when he hears people make comments like your because they have nothing to do with reality.
“Not much more than a sham!”
No sham at all. Sciolism is not your best crutch in this effort.
On another note, Ukrainian Catholic priests can be married.
Ukrainian Catholic is part of the Roman Catholic Church...
They are probably following the rules... It is just an unusual rulebook.
It wasn’t an “omission” it was just flip remark about a historical oddity.
Now that you brought it up, though, I would note that the priests of that yonder day sure fathered a lot of children for being abstinent!
(And no, I have zero opinion on the pros- and cons of RCC non-marriage for priests. Every denomination can do whatever it likes, IMHO.)
Totally right. The same with permanent deacons.
**The Catholic Church changes it’s rules to suit it’s needs on a regular basis. **
Not so.
What church has staunchly stood against abortion, euthanasia, homosecuality, embryonic stem cell researc h, etc. etc.
What church does the media always bash? The Catholic Church — the one that the gates of hell will not prevail against.
Please think about it.
The Anglican priests must take classes along with other candidates; theology, scripture history, history of the Catholic Church among them.
No obedient and orthodox Catholic bishop could do that.
Usually, I think you'll find that the "Roman Catholic Bishop" involved is in some state of schism.
On another note, Ukrainian Catholic priests can be married. Ukrainian Catholic is part of the Roman Catholic Church...
To be precise, the Ukrainian Catholic Church ordains married men to the priesthood. Neither any Catholic nor any Orthodox church permits men to marry after ordination to the diaconate.
And the Ukrainian Catholic Church is not really "Roman Catholic"; they're a sui iuris Catholic Church of their own, in communion with the Pope of Rome.
Rules can change, doctrines cannot.
Unless you pay to go through their "annulment" procedure for the purpose of extracting funds from you to make the first marriage go away in the eyes of the church.
An investigation for a decree of nullity is a legal procedure to determine whether the parties involved contracted a sacramental marriage. There aren't any free legal procedures, whether you're talking about civil law or canon law. Lawyers, of either kind, don't work for free.
Not all married protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism are ordained as Priests. The vast majority are not and the vast majority do not even seek ordination.
why can't a married Catholic become a Catholic priest.
As I explained earlier, he can if he is an Eastern Rite Catholic. The Latin Rite of the Church ordains, as a norm, single men.
Some, by no means all or even a majority. You're the type who doesn't let the facts get in the way of being a buffoon. It might be endearing around the water cooler but here it makes you appear like a cretin.
BS
“Some, by no means all or even a majority.”
You were there? In the bedrooms of pre-medieval priests?
Methinks you have a chip on your shoulder about the priest-celebate thing.
I have zero opinion or care on that issue. Various denominiations of Christianity do all sorts of things that are valuable to that denomination and considered silly or stupid by other denominations, and the RCC is no better or worse than any of the others, in that regard.
Happy you like it, and hold those beliefs close to your heart.
“What church does the media always bash?”
Southern Baptists and Orthodox Jews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.