Pope opens door to (more) married Episcopal priests

Religion News Service ^ | Nov. 15, 2009 | By NICOLE NEROULIAS

[meandog]

Former Episcopalians who have found a traditional refuge in Catholicism, where the priesthood remains closed to women and openly gay clergy, are applauding the Vatican’s plan to help additional dissatisfied conservatives convert.

But while the welcome extends to married priests — a narrow loophole in the Catholic Church’s celibacy requirement — most of those who have already converted say they want to remain rare exceptions.

“We trust the church’s wisdom regarding the discipline of celibacy,” said the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, who left the Episcopal Church 10 years ago with his wife and recently surveyed his colleagues on this issue. “A man who is married has two somewhat conflicting sets of commitments. "It’s difficult to balance them, and having a family also makes it difficult to move at short notice to another assignment.”

The Vatican announced Monday that new dioceses will enable Episcopal congregations in the United States ...

[meandog]

Take the (Wrong) Rev. Vickie Gene Robinson, Ratzinger...he's wedded to his "partner" (and was once married to a female!)

[Blogger]

Seems if the Vatican would go back to the teaching of Scripture it would solve many issues. Scripture, in fact, condemned those who forbade people to marry and nowhere taught longtime celibacy as something to be practiced by its ministers. That said, since the Vatican includes their own traditions in determining its practice, it seems to sully the issue altogether that they would soften their position in order to grab a few priests.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Blogger, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there are 22 Churches which comprise the Catholic Church: Melkite, Maronite, Latin, Chaldean, etc. Only 1 of the 22 --- the Latin Church --- has voluntarily celibate clergy; the other 21 branches of the Catholic Church have always ordained married men as well as single ones.

Paul recommended his converts not to marry, but to remain single just as he was... voluntarily.

Subsequent early breakway churches (like the Albigensians) "disallowed" or "forbade" marriage, but this was clearly and forcefully repudiated as heresy.

The Catholic Church teaches that if a man and a woman are are both willing, and free to wed each other (one man and one woman, of legal age, not already married to somebody else, not previously vowed to celibacy, of normal mental competence, not drunk or crazy, not acting under force or coercion, etc.) nobody can forbid them to do so.

Nobody in the Catholic Church forbids marriage, or even claims to have the authority to do so. Those who want to be celibate (as our Lord was, and as Paul was) can take such a vow of their own free will, for instance when being ordained a priest in the Latin Church. Nobody ever forces someone to become a priest or to take a vow.

Of course, a man can't a vow of celibacy and then marry. Vowing something and then taking it back is breaking a promise to God.

Do you see what I'm saying? Every bit of it is voluntary. There's no "forbidding" here.

[Erskine Childers]

St. Paul makes it clear that marriage is good, but that celibacy is better.

1 Cor:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The celibate priesthood is shown in glory in Revelation:

Rev 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

I'm a Catholic, but I think that the Orthodox strike a better balance in terms of priestly celibacy. It's favored, but not required. Celibacy is a special gift to which few are called. Celibates should be in monasteries and in the upper echelons of Church leadership. They shouldn't be in parishes ministering to married couples and their children. Celibates generally speaking simply are not equipped for that, by nature and by life experience. Maybe that was less true in former times than it is now, but from my experience the celibate clergy nowadays attracts homosexuals and other physchologically troubled individuals, while healthy, intelligent and sensitive men have all sorts of other career options open to them.

I hate to say it, but I've come to the point where I just assume every Catholic priest I meet is gay until proven otherwise. I'd never let my kids be alone with a Catholic priest - not that I'm accusing anybody of anything, it's just that my vocation as a parent requires that I take that precaution to keep my children safe.

I really believe that we need to jettison the celibacy rule. It just doesn't work anymore.

[Blogger]

I agree on much of what you say for instance Jesus Himself noted that not everyone has been gifted in such a way (Matt. 19:11-12) - and he makes his proclamation in a distinct context (verse 26 indicates much of Paul’s instruction (not a command as he says in verse 6) is what he believes is best for this present distress, not as a normative state for ministers of God).

Celibacy is better because one can pay more attention to the things of God. Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t a bad thing. But it isn’t a command in Scripture, and forbidding to marry is specifically condemned. (1 Timothy 4:1-4)So, the Catholic church derives it not from Scripture but from tradition. If they are going to hold to the tradition, they should do so unwaveringly unless they decide to forsake that rule entirely. They shouldn’t go soft just because they want to open the door a bit further. I would prefer that they allow the priests to marry or not marry as is Scripture’s stance. But I don’t have a horse in that race as I am not Catholic.

The part I disagree with you on is the interpretation of the Revelation portion. It is not a celibate priesthood. It is the 144,000 Jews who will turn to Christ during the Tribulation. Verse 3 is a continuance of their introduction in Revelation 7 where they are specified by tribe.

[Blogger]

I was a history and a religion major, Mrs. Don-o. I’m aware of these other groups and am also aware of word games when I see them.

To the majority of people around the world, when you say Catholic church, they don’t immediately think of the Maronites or the Orthodox or any other group, rather they think of the institution thats doctrines emanate from Rome - which indeed forbids marriage of its priests. For a priest to marry, it is a scandal (because he broke a vow- something else spoken against in Scripture)and he can no longer be a priest. If a married man wants to be a priest, it is not allowed. Married priests are not allowed in the institution most commonly identified with as the Catholic church.

But lets concede your point for the sake of argument. Why the differences between the 1 and the 21 particularly if the 1 is supposedly has had historical primacy over the others? Oh, the Orthodox have allowed marriage but the Romans have not. Why not, if it was the Holy Spirit directing the decision for priests to remain celibate? Did one hear the Holy Spirit wrong or was He just not consulted? Again, sticking with Scripture would solve this issue.

As to Paul’s recommendation - the church was undergoing great persecution at the time. Paul refers to it in I Corinthians 7 as “this present distress” - the same chapter he speaks of remaining single like he was. He knew times would be tough for the young Christian church and did not want the young converts (note - nothing about priests in that chapter) to be overly burdened but that they should be focusing on staying strong in the Lord.

As to what the Albigenses taught, it’s a little hard to say seeing that most that remains of their teachings comes from the accusations of their persecutors. Needless to say, interjecting the Albigenses into the conversation is about as relevant as interjecting what Pentecostals believe in a discussion on what the Catholic church teaches. Not very relevant at all.

[A.A. Cunningham]

You ought to read Scripture and not the abridged heavily edited version.

[Blogger]

Whatever, A.A. Cunningham.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Blogger, I'm a little tired; please forgive me if I have misunderstood some of your points. I will confine myself to these clarifications:

"..when you say Catholic church, [people] don’t immediately think of the Maronites or the Orthodox or any other group..."

Two different groups. Maronites ARE Catholic. They recognize the primacy of the Pope. The Orthodox are not Catholic. They are not under the Pope.

".. rather they think of the institution thats doctrines emanate from Rome"

Celibacy is not a doctrine. That was the point of my post. It is a discipline, i.e. a custom, in the West. It is not a theological requirement for priesthood per se.

" - which indeed forbids marriage of its priests."

No, it doesn't. That was the OTHER point of my post. If you mean "it forbids married men to become priests," Obviously it doesn't do that. The whole thread here is about ("more") married men -- ex-Anglican priests --- becoming Catholic priests, right? There are already about a hundred married Catholic priests in the Latin Rite in the U.S. alone. (Not counting Maronites and Ukrainians and all the rest.) They are not forbidden to become priests. What am I missing here?

"For a priest to marry, it is a scandal (because he broke a vow- something else spoken against in Scripture)and he can no longer be a priest. If a married man wants to be a priest, it is not allowed."

But it is! (What are YOU missing here?)

"Oh, the Orthodox have allowed marriage but the Romans have not."

Not relevant to the present discussion. The Orthodox are not Catholics.

" Needless to say, interjecting the Albigenses into the conversation is ...not very relevant at all."

Fair enough. But I just brought them up to illustrate that the Albigensian doctrine forbidding marriage has never been a Catholic doctrine. Catholics consider such a doctrine heretical.

OK, Brother Blogger, as I said I'm tired and maybe a little thud-headed. Please excuse any inapt stuff on my part: I do not mean to offend you in any way. I'm turning in early tonight. Thanks for the discussion and peace to you and yours.

[Blogger]

Peace to you as well. My only point in jumping on the thread was that they should be consistent and that there is no Scriptural command for priests to not marry. Sounds like we are agreed on that point.

[A.A. Cunningham]

and forbidding to marry is specifically condemned. (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

Those who seek the Sacrament of Holy Orders do so freely. They exercise free will in forsaking all for the Kingdom of Heaven, just as the Apostles did: Matthew 19:27-30, Luke 18:28-30.

Regarding your use of the 1 Timothy 4 crutch, it would behoove you to do some research unless you enjoy coming across as not too bright.

"Chap. 4. Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats. He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Encratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the Church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance." St. Jerome's commentary on 1 Timothy 4:3(emphasis added for your edification)

So, the Catholic church derives it not from Scripture but from tradition.

Incorrect, again.

"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Another fact that you no doubt are oblivious to is that any married Anglican minister who converts to the Latin Rite and seeks ordination; which is not automatic, will have to agree that if his spouse precedes him in death he will then adopt the discipline of celibacy for the remainder of his life. No agreement, no ordination.

[Blogger]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[A.A. Cunningham]

Whatever

Brilliant response from someone claiming to have been a history and religion major.

You fail to mention if a degree was ever conferred but I'd wager that if one was it came from a two bit diploma mill just like James White's Ph.D did.

[Blogger]

I have two Masters degrees. One from a large secular university and one from a well-respected Seminary that has been around for over 150 years and has been associated with some of the greatest theological minds around. I also have a Bachelors with a double major, one of which is History from a medium sized secular university. Not that this means anything, because a lot of folks have degrees and aren’t the brightest lights in the harbor. But, try this one on for size. If you wish to actually discuss a subject, try not starting out insulting the person you are speaking with. Since every post towards me seems to be laced with insults, I am smart enough to deem you not someone I should bother with.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

” Scripture, in fact, condemned those who forbade people to marry and nowhere taught longtime celibacy as something to be practiced by its ministers.”

The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. Men FREELY choose to take a vow of celibacy. It’s their FREE choice to do so.

[Campion]

It is not a celibate priesthood.

The 144,000 are described as not having "defiled themselves with women". The Greek word used specifically refers to one who has rendered himself ceremonially unfit for sacrificial ministry by sexual congress.

The references to "forbidding marriage" in Scripture has nothing to do with the celibate priesthood. Nobody is required to be a priest, therefore, nobody is forbidden from marrying. The historical referent of the passage from St. Paul is to certain Gnostic groups which did, indeed, forbid marriage to all of their adherents without exception.

[Blogger]

The 144,000 are described as not having "defiled themselves with women". The Greek word used specifically refers to one who has rendered himself ceremonially unfit for sacrificial ministry by sexual congress.
That may be, but it still doesn't refer to the priesthood. It refers to the 144,000 mentioned a few chapters before. 12000 out of each of the tribes of Israel (sans Dan). In Israel, only the Levites were ceremonial priests. This is representatives of all of Remnant Israel that will return per Zechariah.

[RobbyS]

You are overlooking what every Protestant minister’s wife knows, that being a “priest’s wife” is also a vocation. Which is why so many Greek Orthodox priests are unmarried. They find it hard to find a woman who is willing to share his relative poverty.

[meandog]

So, the Catholic church derives it not from Scripture but from tradition.

Incorrect, again.
"And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Then why, pray tell, did the church allow married priests until In 1139 (the Second Lateran Council) when it officially imposed mandatory celibacy on all priests?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good morning, and Yes.