I have a document that probably sheds a considerable amount of light onto why the authorities of the Church are retaining celibacy as a rule and allowing generous dispensations from this discipline at the same time. I am sure most of our readers are aware that not all Catholics are orthodox or traditionally-minded. Many have exactly the same agenda as the Anglican churches we once belonged to and had to leave for reasons of conscience.
I found a statement on the website of the European Federation of Catholic Married Priests commenting on the Apostolic Constitution, and was quite flabbergasted on reading it. The document in question is a pdf, and can be downloaded from here. Rather than praise what might seem to be the thin end of the wedge towards abolishing celibacy, the attitude is sneering, as we will see from the quotes. It's unfair! – they protest.
Before going on with the appropriate quotes, the uppermost idea in my mind is that celibacy can be compared with the issue of Latin in the liturgy at the Council of Trent. Making of celibacy a dogma or something irreformable would be the biggest blunder the Church could ever make, but that does not mean the flood-gates should be opened at this time. The implications go so far, that a general relaxation of celibacy is simply not opportune. It is a question of a whole conception of the priesthood, as the quotes will illustrate. Many lay apologists make the cardinal error of nominalism – singling out issues and failing to see the big picture or the connection between everything.
The European Federation of Catholic Married Priests made a statement about the Apostolic Constitution and commented on the proposal to dispense from celibacy generously. They firstly manifest their appreciation of the idea of there being a choice between marriage and celibacy, and that this would contribute to a healthy diversity of vocations in the Church. So far, so good.
Here comes the big tamale:
(…) it is difficult to see how this decision by Rome can ever be justified as there is not a shred of supporting ecclesiology to sustain it — that is unless it is also accompanied by the offer of re-admission to ministry of those catholic priests who have married and who wish to resume ministry. More than 100,000 married catholic priests have been prevented from exercising their ministry. Our view is that to consider these latter as traitors while at the same time believing it is alright to encourage a group of married Anglican priests to break their allegiance to the Anglican Communion is hypocritical. When the situations are compared there is clearly a danger that this will give rise to great confusion within our communities.
It is such an arbitrary and difficult to understand decision – unless, of course, we take for granted the fundamentalist and conservative views which are at the core of this group of married priests for whom the Catholic Church is throwing open its doors. They are against the ordination of women and the possibility of homosexuals being priests in the Anglican Communion, both of which were agreed as acceptable by a majority vote of that communion. However, the Vatican seems to have decided that the type of priest in which it places its trust is not one that is aligned with Gospel openness nor capable of reading the signs that the Holy Spirit is at work.
It seems to us that this gesture damages ecumenism because it fails to take account of the many years of dialogue in order to pursue a return to Catholicism. Rather than bearing in mind the progress made during Vatican II and in the ARCIC discussions on the eucharist, ministries, and authority in The Church, the Vatican is dishonestly recruiting by allowing Christians to get around a decision of their own Church. By doing this it increases division in a Church that is already having so much difficulty trying to sort out disputes touching in particular on important issues of morality.
This is quite mind-blowing stuff, considering that those liberals would like to impose their own “type” of priest as normative and compulsory for all. Their argument is that if it is good for dissident Anglicans, it is also good for all those Latin American base communities and their Congregationalist ecclesiology to have their own! Little Jonny has to have four sweets, and little Cynthia has to have four sweets. If there's any squabbling, all eight sweets will go right back into the bag and into the kitchen cupboard. Then it's fair for all!
Now, we have come to the crux of the matter. Is accepting Anglicans into the communion of the Church a matter of just another dose of inculturation to make the bitter pill of the Gospel relevant and meaningful, or is it a question of the revival of Catholic orthodoxy? Well, we’ll have to give it to these liberals: they hit the nail on the head. They’re dead right.
It is a question of a conception of the priesthood. The flood-gates are not being opened because it would be further secularisation in the Church. For the liberals, the ordination of married men (and the marriage of priests) is an issue that cannot be separated from the cause for the ordination of women and same-sex pseudo-marital unions.
That is the reason. About a year ago, I discovered this organisation in France and contacted one of the priest members. My wife was keenly interested in the idea of contacting married (laicised) priests and perhaps learning a thing or two. We entered into correspondence, and invited this priest and his wife to dinner at our home. And very pleasant they were too. However, we soon began to understand the issues. The priest in question is in his late 70’s and was involved in the worker priest movement in the 1950’s. Those men, fundamentally, had concluded that Christianity had run its course and that the only power in the world that could implement the radical ideals of the Gospel was Marxist Communism.
They become “committed”, meaning that they were acquired to the cause of the Revolution and the class conflict between workers and the factory owners and bourgeoisie, etc. This priest’s charming wife had been a religious sister, and they were married in about 1968. We spoke about non-controversial things like children, non-religious interests like sailing or fishing, but we understood that we had nothing in common in religious terms. I was marked by the fact, according to this laicised priest, that the vast majority of married former Catholic priests are so secularised that they have forgotten every last vestige of their vocations. None says Mass (fortunately, not only because they were no longer serving as priests under a Bishop, but also because they had celebrated in lay clothes on the kitchen table when they were in good standing). A good proportion no longer attend Mass or have any identifiable belief. They would not be asking to return to the priesthood as they have gone so far away from orthodox Catholicism.
The day this vital distinction will be made, and it is understood that married Anglican priests moving towards the Ordinariates and the married laicised men described above have nothing in common, it will be possible to help people understand what superficially looks to the average journalist like hypocrisy.
The issue, in short, is not whether or not we priests have wives – but whether or not we are Catholic in our doctrine, spirituality and understanding of the Catholic Priesthood.
Amen!
Roman priests who have been secularized are not supposed to say mass, are they?
Of course. However, some have done so through remorse and regrets. It is clearly wrong to exercise the priesthood without a canonical mission from a bishop, but it has been known to happen.
There is something we should all know, that a defrocked priest can and should administer the Sacraments to a person in danger of death. If giving the Eucharist (viaticum) necessitates saying Mass, then this Mass would be both valid and licit. In concrete circumstances, the dying person would be in the process of being taken to hospital or being surrounded by doctors and nurses. Usually, the best one can do is give Absolution using the short formula.
Father,
The issue (that you very tactfully avoided) is that these laicised Roman priests simply dishonored their vows. They chose to openly reject a commitment made to the Church and to Christ to serve as celibate clergy. Anglican priests were ordained without that restriction and Rome has accepted married clerical converts for a very long time. It simply follows the rational practice whose secular counterpart is often called the “Grandfather Clause”. It simply means that something licitly done under an earlier set of laws remains untouched when those laws change.
It sounds as though their logic is as flawed in this area as it was concerning their commitment and vocation.
I think in the vast majority of cases you are right, since they already believed in the "secular Gospel", and it was only a short step.
Vows? Only regulars make vows. For secular clergy, celibacy is implicit on accepting the diaconate. There is no explicit promise or vow.
There may be some cases in which a laicised and married priest may be readmitted to ministry. Mitigating circumstances would be considered, and also the sincerity of the man's belief in Catholic doctrine and the Church's conception of the priesthood. There have been cases, and there doubtless may be others.
Fr. Chadwick,
I'm afraid Jim is right. During the Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite the bishop asks: "you that are ready to live in celibacy: do you want to keep this will [of celibacy] because of the Kingdom of Heaven in service of God and men in a sign of your total dedication to Christ the Lord?" Then, the ordinand answers: yes I do.
I am no cannonist, but it sounds like a vow to me. If it is not, it is still a solemn and public promise. In my humble opinion, promise and vow may be cannonically different, but I think they are both spiritually bounding.
I was unaware of this formula in the 1968 Pontifical. It does not figure in the old Pontifical.
Since the promise exists, I have no doubt about its being binding. Promises usually do bind!
For the definition of vows and promises in their differing degrees of solemnity, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm
Fr. Chadwick,
You are right: there is no such dialogue in the Rite of Ordination to the Diaconate in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. But, in the Rite of Ordination to the Subdiaconate, the bishop admonishes the ordinand with these words:
"Filii dilectissimi, ad sacrum Subdiaconatus Ordinem promovendi, iterum atque iterum considerare debetis attente, quod onus hodie ultro appetitis. Hactenus enim liberi estis, licetque vobis, pro arbitrio ad saecularia vota transire; quod si hunc Ordinem susceperitis, amplius non licebit a proposito resilire, sed Deo, cui servire, regnare est, perpetuo famulari, et castitatem illo adjuvante, servare oportebit, atque in Ecclesiae ministerio semper esse mancipatos. Proinde, dum tempus est, cogitate, et, si in sancto proposito perseverare placet, in nomine Domini, huc accedite."
So, in my opinion, here lies the promise of celibacy in the old Pontificale Romanum because the bishop states "quod si hunc Ordinem susceperitis … castitatem illo adjuvante, servare oportebit". In other words, if I understand properly, the promise of celibacy is a conditio sine qua non to the ordination to the Subdiaconate and, accepting the ordination is ipso facto an acceptance of the obligation of a celibate life. So is the mind of the old Pontificale Romanum that the rubrics state that this admonition is to be said unless the ordinands are religious ("nisi omnes sint Religiosi, quia tunc ista admonitio omittitur") because they are already bound by the vow of chastity in the religious order. The Rubrics of the Ordinary Form, instead, insist that the dialogue take place even if the ordinand is a religious (in the Portugues version, I have no Editio Typica) but not if the ordinand is to be ordained a Permanent Deacon. I think this means the following: if I am a religious priest I am bound by my vow of chastity and the promise of celibacy (and if I want to get married, I have to get dispensation to the religous vow of chastity and the promise of celibacy, even because the obligation of celibacy is not dismissed simply by the "secularization" according to the Law); if I am a secular priest, I am bound by my promise of celibacy; if I am a permanent deacon I made no promise of celibacy at all, but if my wife dies, I cannot marry without proper dispensation not because I am bound by a promise (I made none) but because of the Law (Cannon 1087) that states: "invalide matrimonium attentant, qui in sacris ordinibus sunt constituti".
I hope I may have helped anyway and not bothered you, Father.
Many thanks for the information. I have of course understood that the new rite of ordination simply makes explicit what is implied in the old rite. The promise of celibacy is the same.
After that, for questions of dispensations, it is up to the cleric's Bishop and / or the Congregation for the Clergy, or the CDF in serious cases involving canonical problems.
Naturally, for Anglican readers, we are discussing Roman Catholic canonical procedure.
As sacerdotal ordination in the Latin west can only be conferred at the price of promising not to marry, such a promise is exacted under duress. It is not truly a free choice for celibacy, as it would have been if made pursuant to the Eastern discipline. It cannot therefore be a vow, but is merely a promise of questionable legal force.
Amen.
Schönborn knows that, and of course Benedict, as one of the leading Vatican II theologians knows that, too. Remember that the Latin West was quite near to abolish the celibate requirement during and after the last Council. Things then were not ripe enough yet. But something will have to happen soon. There were 10,171 active Priests in Germany in 1998, there were 7668 active priests there in 2007. Just make a counting in which year active priests in Pope's homeland will simply disappear…
Your argument is ridiculous – as if the Pope "knows" that the provisions of the celibacy requirement are wicked, and yet maintains them, making him an utter hypocrite and the slayer of men's souls.
And the nonsense about "Vatican II" almost accomplishing what "the Spirit of the Council" and no doubt "Vatican III" (chaired by a very ancient Hans Küng, one assumes) will in the end deliver.
The plain fact is, the decline in priestly numbers is due, not to "the inhuman demand of celibacy", but to a decline in belief and practice of the Faith. Everyone knows that fewer and fewer Westerners (especially Europeans) believe the Catholic Faith, let alone follow its tenets. so it is hardly surprising that the numbers of priests (who must believe, practice and teach the Faith) have dropped away.
Put simply, if hardly anyone (let alone any young men) goes to church (let alone has firm and hearty belief in the doctrines of the Faith), no one is going to have any heartfelt desire to serve God as a priest at the altar.
It's not ridiculous at all.
The pope knows that the Novus Ordo Missae, is, to say the very least, sub-optimal. Yet, while possessing legal power to do so, for reasons of prudence, he cannot just abolish the Novus Ordo at the stroke of a pen. Does that make him evil?? Sometimes, evils (the so-called "law") or "imperfections" (the Novus Ordo) have to tolerated for a time. And, it's almost inconceivable that Pope Paul VI did not know that the way he was behaving, yet he went on anyway and did what he did, and, into the bargain, it must be said, persecuted Archbishop Lefebvre (with whom I do not agree on absolutely all points either, although with most) …
So don't give us this rot, as you seem to do, equating the church's indefectibility with impeccability in general, or infallibility in matters other than faith or morals!
And, some celibates suffer from a very spiteful sour-grapes or dog-in-the-manger syndrome – including episcopal ones. Further, most popes since Trent don't even appear to have turned their minds to the issue, so it's quite possible that they were adhering to a disastrous practice quite innocently!
The Church has again and again – in the face of a scoffing world – reiterated the positive value of priestly celibacy. It has hardly ignored the question.
Have you read, for example, Pastores dabo vobis, or Sacerdotalis cælibatus (among many other Roman documents)?
Everyone knows that there was far more raucous dissent about just after the Council, and yet even in the darkest days of the 1970's the Church, not just the Pope but the Synod of Bishops, reaffirmed the discipline of priestly celibacy.
If some celibate priests are moody or suboptimal, that proves nothing – "abusus non tollit usus". One may as well drag out the red herring about "forcibly' celibate priests at times being driven into crime by their pent-up desires. (What insulting nonsense!)
Again, whatever you say, there is absolutely no chance this age-old discipline will be changed – if it survived the greatest reordering in the Church for over half a millennium (at and after Vatican II), it is obvious that it will hardly be changed in this dawning era of returning the Church to older and more traditional ways after the immediate postconciliar excesses.
I detect a spirit of pride in your continual assertion that you have a superior insight on this question to the Hierarchy.
Are you perhaps a man frustrated at not being able to be a priest because you are married?
Nah, you don't get it. Do you know that line of St Joan of Arc's, "About Christ and the Church, I just know they're one thing and we shouldn't complicate the matter"? If, being Latin rite, God calls you to the priesthood, He calls you to celibacy. Like a religious vocation – no matter how sure you are that you have one, if the community you think you're called to won't have you, then you're wrong about being called to it. God works in reality, not in our fancies or plans, and He speaks through the Church. It's like sermons – no matter how crap, there's something in it God means for me to hear this Sunday. Or confession – even if the priest gets hold of the wrong end of the stick (within reason, I mean) and I completely misunderstand what he's said, it can still be that I walk away having heard what God would have me hear. No-one's called to be a monk except for the obedience bit, or a permanent deacon except for the not-getting-married-again bit, or indeed to marriage except for the until-death-to-us-part bit. Likewise no-one (among Latin-rite Catholics) is called to be priest except for the celibacy bit.
Have you ever come across the line of St Joan of Arc's that goes "About Christ and the Church, I just know they're one thing and we shouldn't complicate the matter"? It's really true.
(anyway, where's the duress? No-one is forced to become a priest (that I know of – do you know any cases of people submitting to ordination for fear of their lives or some such?)
What impertinent nonsense, thinking (as do notorious modernists and dissenters) that you can judge the Church.
The Church has the power to bind and loose, and has determined this matter of clerical celibacy for its Western Rites.
As I wrote before, and as I see Berenike has stated, for the Western Rite, if God calls a man to be a priest, he calls him to celibacy also (with the special exceptions made for ex-Anglicans, etc.). Otherwise we would be in the ridiculous position of arguing that God calls some whom the Church rejects, in which case the Church would be opposed to God, and be a false church to be rejected. In other words, a reductio ad absurdum argument demonstrates that your theory is false.
Of course, if you do believe the Catholic Church is opposed to God, then presumably you are not a member of her, and have no interest in joining her – perhaps you are an agent provocateur, here to drive away Anglicans from these Personal Ordinariates?
Joshua,
The genesis of your problems with clerical marriage seems to be that you are an (extreme) ultramontanist.
If memory serves, the decree explaining the dogmatic definition of infallibility at Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, deals with the proper limitations on papal power. In other words, your ideas about the power of "binding and loosing" are not those of the church.
And it's not judging the church to question the wisdom of disciplinary practices that prima facie are unjust or otherwise imprudent, falsely premised, at one time justified but later, due to changing circumstances, no longer viable, or just downright disastrous. If this were so, Summorum Pontificum would never, ever have issued in the first place!
As for this idea that God calls candidates to the priesthood in the Latin church to celibacy, well, that relies on the premise that He draws a line half-way through Europe and says, "to the west of this line I call candidates to ordination to celibacy, and to the east I don't!"
I'm sure you don't really believe such a thing.
Oh give me strength – I'm a traditionalist, not an extreme ultramontanist (if I were, I'd be some neocon like that Weigel person).
"I" have a problem with clerical marriage?! I support the Roman position on this, as a faithful son of the Church. What are you?
I find it rude to be lectured about my supposed misbelief.
The Church's disciplinary practices, my friend, are not about to change, as has been ceaselessly reiterated by Rome. It is you who are causing scandal by dissenting.
I mean, really, have you any possible chance of seeing good Pope Benedict suddenly saying (having read your contributions to this blog), "O, I see at last, let us haff ze married priests"?
I find your arrogance breathtaking.
And what offensive impudence to claim that the Church's holy traditions are dangerous – so you're wiser than the Pope and the bishops put together? they certainly think differently to you – nay, "right then, wrong now": I fail to see that man's nature has changed of late.
Priestly celibacy is a tradition of the Roman Church that ought be valued, not denigrated nor maligned as a cloak for vice.
The "idea" that this applies to the Western Rites only is quite correct; the Eastern Rites have their own godly discipline, which is God's will for them.
May I ask, are you at present in communion with Rome, or were you, and/or do you plan to be in the future?
P.S. Please do not take any of this personally, just as I am sure you do not intend any personal affront.
I find your silliness frustrating.
And if I didn't know better, I'd say you held your opinions in bad faith.
Impudence? Don't be ridiculous. Stop using confusion the articulation of emotions with rational argument.
You produce no proof – all you do is go on and on making various assertions.
Dissenting from disciplinary practices, is, where good reasons justify doing so, quite legitimate: Archbishop Lefebvre himself being
Stop emoting, start reasoning, if you're going defend compulsory celibacy – I mean you say:
"The Church’s disciplinary practices, my friend, are not about to change, as has been ceaselessly reiterated by Rome."
Get real – they HAVE changed. One example is the married diaconate, which would have been unthinkable one hundred years previously. And as you know well, the diaconate is part of the sacrament of orders, so it is a concession in principle that there certainly could be married priests or bishops.
And yes – where a law, such as the canon of Lateran II enjoining compulsory celibacy – demonstrably rests upon error – an implied assertion that the sexual act is unclean – then, to that extent, the pope and bishops are wrong.
This is not the most important issue in relation to the document of the European Federation of Catholic Married Priests but I feel that a distinction must be made, since they use it twice in their document. Right at the beginning they say:
"…to allow married Anglican priests and their communities to be integrated into the Roman Catholic Church under certain conditions."
And in point 6:
"…the Anglicans can organise themselves and celebrate in their own way while still being part of the Roman Catholic Church"
While assisting the Synod in Guatemala, Archbishop John Hepworth repeated several times: "We will NOT become a part of the ROMAN Catholic Church. We are about to become the 29th Catholic Church in union with the Holy Sea."
There might have been some problems with the English-Spanish translator. It is clear that groups of Anglicans, including the TAC, will obtain the possibility to establish Personal Ordinariates and for them to be canonically erected by Rome.
If the Roman Catholic Church is the entire worldwide Communion of all rites in communion with the See of St Peter of Rome, then we will be part of that Roman Catholic Church. We will also be part of the Latin Rite.
The difference will be in the jurisdiction of the Ordinariates which will be exempt from Diocesan jurisdiction. That is the only difference other than the dispensations from celibacy and the liturgy, together with some other characteristics of Anglican patrimony.
We wouldn't want our beloved Archbishop accused of telling lies! I'm sure this is a translation problem.
Dear Father Anthony,
again a couple of distinctions:
>There might have been some problems with the English-Spanish translator.
I sure have many problems, but in this particular case, I didn't have any. I was the translator in Guatemala and I got Primate's message right.
>If the Roman Catholic Church is the entire worldwide Communion of all rites in communion with the See of St Peter of Rome, then we will be part of that Roman Catholic Church.
The worldwide communion of all rites in communion with the See of St. Peter is not called Roman Catholic Church, but Catholic Church. Never tell a Ucrainian, a member of the (Uniate) Greek-Catholic Church, that he is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. If you do, you are in a big trouble.
See also: Abp. J. Hepworth, Pastoral on Constitution, 20/1/2010:
"I might add, lest there be any confusion, that I use the word Catholic Church as the formal entity headed by the Bishop of Rome, and which consists of a number of Rites, some in the East and some in the West, of which the Roman Rite is the most populous."
>We will also be part of the Latin Rite.
That's right. We will not be a separate rite, like the Maronites or Armenians. We have been 500 years ago part of the Latin Rite and we will be it now.
>We wouldn’t want our beloved Archbishop accused of telling lies!
I think the issue is not about telling lies, but rather, it's an issue of optics (and rightly understood church "politics"). I understand you. And I understand the Primate, too, and I understand the context (in Guatemala) in which he said that we would become the 29th Catholic Church in communion with the Holy See and that there might be a 30th Catholic Church in the case of some Lutherans now, who petitioned the Vatican like as we did in 2007. Strictly speaking, in terms of a separate rite, not, but in terms of an "ecclesial ethos" (different liturgy, different discipline, different history etc.), sure we can speak about becoming a 29th Catholic Church or if you like, put it into quatation marks, a "29th Catholic Church" in communion with the See of Peter. If the Primate reads this, he might confirm or disapprove this, but my feeling is that it was more a "political" than an "ecclesiological", but nevertheless fully plausible statement, underlining the autonomous character of our future Latin American Ordinariate (remember the RC accusations of "false priests" and "false church" in the past in Central America directed in the past to Bishop Rodriguez and his people there).
So, strictly speaking, yes, we will become a part of the Roman Catholic Church, but with a great amount of autonomy, a "quasi-rite" within the Latin Rite.
HTH.
And again, thanks for your wonderful service here at theanglocatholic, Father.
God bless you all folks,
Father Waldemar Labusga
Argentina
http://www.tacargentina.net
Thank you, Father, for your careful explanation. You will certainly be aware that we are under close scrutiny by Anglican groups and Catholic individuals who would indeed like us to be labelled as "false Catholics".
In Argentina, there is a sect with a leader calling himself "Pope Alejandro (Alexander) IX". http://icaremanente.blogspot.com/ They use photos of St Clements Church, Philadelphia! Of course, this Episcopalian parish has nothing to do with the sect.
I now understand the spirit in which our Archbishop explained the notion of a 29th Catholic Church in communion with Rome. We can understand this in the analogical rather than canonical sense. You have well explained the canonical reality of being a kind of "quasi-rite" in that we will have our own USE of the Roman Rite.
Again, thank you – and no hard feelings. Your brother in the priesthood. Fr Anthony
"…in the case of some Lutherans now, who petitioned the Vatican like as we did in 2007".
Well, that sounds interesting.
Do you know who they are?
I understand these Lutherans are the Nordic Catholic Church in Norway, with Apostolic Succession from the Polish National Catholic Church. There is also an American Lutheran group under Archbishop Gladfelter – http://www.anglolutherancatholic.org/.
I would recommend reading the Book of Concord. We would be quite surprised by the Augsburg Confession and high-church Lutheranism. It's a world waiting to be discovered.
Thank you very much.
I've read that a Swedish bishop (Lutheran?) was present in the last Forward in Faith Assembly.
I thought that you could be speaking about them.
The Nordic Catholic Church in Norway? I guess I'll have to take a look.
Thanks again.
Antonio,
Well informed sources speak also of the Lutherans from Latvia (the tiny Baltic state between Lithuania and Estonia).
I would guess either the Nordic Catholic Church or the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church/Augustana Catholic Communion.
"We are about to become the 29th Catholic Church in union with the Holy Sea.”
I seem to remember that similar has been been implied in the past at other venues. Perhaps our Archbishop will clarify once and for all if he has meant this to be the case, as I certainly have not deduced such from AC, that this is the case. In this way we can once and for all lay such interpretations to rest, or, validate them! One thing I do hope is, that he is not telling lies – to much is at stake for that to be true.
I doubt that he is telling any falsehoods willfully. He probably sees the difference between a sui juris church and an ordinariate as a "technicality" to the audience — the idea being to get across the point that Anglicans will be "united, not absorbed". Some discreet rephrasing is probably in order just to avoid arguments over inside-baseball.
I do not accuse anyone of falsehood. This sounds like a misunderstanding of some kind. I believe in our Archbishop's integrity and truthfulness. But, there is the concept of our being united without being absorbed, through belonging to canonically exempt jurisdictions. Perhaps one day, the Ordinariates may be able to become full-blown Particular Churches, when the conditions are right and satisfy the Roman authorities.
Yes, these technicalities are difficult to explain to the ordinary faithful. American and English lay apologists know an awful lot more about canon law than your average Argentinian yokel!!!!
I love this one! Is the Holy Sea the English Channel where I do my sailing during the fair season?
Fr Chadwick,
I know a number of former Catholic priests who are now married. Most of them are gnostics, frankly. When a priest of the Catholic Church turns his back on his priesthood, he is rejecting an enormous amount of grace.
Your point on the concept of the priesthood is well taken. Again, frankly, I must say that even though there are some Anglo-Catholic priests (like yourself) who may be very near to the mind of the (Catholic) Church, they are not truly 'sensus Ecclesiae' until entering into full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
You obviously know about the laicised-priest scene in the US. They are a motly lot here in France as I mentioned.
I can't speak for Rome, but I don't think my article will be far off the mark.
What you say about sensus ecclesiae is right. That is why our Bishops got together and decided to write the petition to Rome, which with similar requests from other groups of Anglicans obtained the response we all know about, the Apostolic Constitution.
But I should say that the laicised priests were once in full communion with Rome and did not have the sense of the Church, thinking the Kremlin had more wisdom than the Vatican. We wait, and the whole point of this blog is to bring people happily into communion with the Successor of Saint Peter.
One of the questions involved in whether to grant a "dispensation from the clerical state" (i.e., allowing a priest to marry), is an evaluation of his psychological state, both at the time of his ordination and afterwards. In fact, as my canon law prof. explained it (in a course on Canon Law for Roman Catholic seminarians), the process has something in common with applying to a Marriage Tribunal. Only in this case, one's ordination is not declared null – however, one's promise of celibacy might be.
The idea is not to allow someone to walk away from their vows. However, it is intended to ask whether this particular priest's spiritual health and sanctity is best helped by his continuing to live a celibate vocation, or whether the church has grounds to – as an act of mercy – permit him to marry. For many, celibacy was something that they embraced with a tremendous amount of reluctance, genuinely wishing to serve as a priest, but unsure of whether they were really suited to celibate life. This is something that seminarians I know grapple with so much – they often feel such a strong pull in both directions. But since they have to pick one…
Now, for someone who is secularized, who has abandoned orthodoxy anyway, this process of being officially dispensed doesn't matter. But the process is extremely important for those who feel that they need to leave, but want the church's dispensation to do so.
However, the consequences are pretty extreme. If one wishes to remain a Roman Catholic in good standing upon receiving this type of dispensation, he has to submit to rather severe restrictions. Someone mentioned that, in an emergency, he may give a dying person the Eucharist and absolution. However, outside of those circumstances, he isn't permitted to do many things that laity generally do within a parish. I don't think he's even allowed to read a lesson at mass.
In a sense, a priest who has been dispensed from clerical celibacy (if he doesn't leave to join another church), is really not permitted to continue his priestly vocation. He generally has to take a secular job (rather than work for the church in a job that's open to laity), and is basically – as far as I can tell – asked to live a life of quiet penance.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If what I said is true, I can understand how what we're doing may rather hurt the feelings of any priests who have left the clerical state to marry, if they have remained faithful to Catholic teaching. Some of them, I think, really do want a way to carry on their ministry.
I think that, although a general relaxation of the norms of celibacy would not be a good idea at this time, there should be some process for priests who wish to apply for a dispensation to marry, to be allowed to also continue their ministry.
If a priest is heterodox, he should not be in the ministry, whether married or single. But if the issue really is of a faithful, orthodox Roman Catholic priest, who has struggled with his commitment to celibacy for years, and is judged by the church to be better off as a married man, the church should find a way of addressing that problem without it ruining his ministry.
“We are about to become the 29th Catholic Church in union with the Holy Sea.”
I love this one! Is the Holy Sea the English Channel where I do my sailing during the fair season?
When I copied this direct from Waldemar's+ comment. I wondered who would be the first to come back on it having spotted the obvious mistake and make a comment – took some time though!
It could well be where we go to find bargains in the July Sails! Starboard tack, haul in the mainsail, centreboard down, close to the wind!
Actually, Fathers, my first thought was not of the "English Channel", but of "La Manche", which was the first name I knew of that part of the world.
I like it very much when brothers have some fun… but beg at the same time your kind understanding; English is obviously not the mother tongue of all the visitors of this forum, and some of them do not live in an English-speaking country either. Besides, from a non-English perspective "see" sounds very much like "sea", and Falkland Islands for example sound very much like Islas Malvinas.
Father Chadwick, as English-French-English translator will understand very well the pains and joys of writing in a foreign language.
Cheers!
Thank you for this posting, and thank you all for your learned and informative comments.
I would say that the need for clarity on this point is urgent as we enter a crucial phase. Lay to rest or validate, exactly! All we seem to have at the moment is "I see the Ordinariate as…" which doesn't help anyone discern the way forward.
I won't respond in Fr Westby's place, but I must say that we often have to say "I see the Ordinariate as…" because things are often obscure and vague, and we are still trying to discern fully what the Pope intends. Many things are yet to be made clearer, so please don't think we are displaying a "cafeteria Catholic" attitude.
Perhaps Rome has provided enough latitude in the AC for you all to make of the Ordinariate as much as you possibly can in the the cause of building up the Kingdom of God.
The Church exists in order to evangelise, so anything that is within the bounds of the law and does not infringe on orthodoxy or pastoral harmony is potentially possible for you. In the devising of the Ordinariates you have been presented with a largely blank piece of paper with some outer boundaries marked out for you, but the detail of the picture you paint has been left to you to fill in. Rome tends not to get involved in the micro-management of local issues these days – with a Church of 1.2 billion souls (nominally at least) and only 1,500 bodies in the Roman curia, it just can't.
It will be your own ordinaries who will have the biggest say in how the Ordinariates develop, though I am sure there will be lots of well-intentioned advice thrown their way whether they want it or not. Just keep your lines to the CDF open and don't get bogged down by any of the other lot.
Fr. Boyle in the CDF is a very intelligent British priest who can keep you clued in about what the Pope intends. Why not invite him to make some contributions to this blog? He used to edit the Faith magazine so his journalistic experience could be very useful here as well.
This is an excellent comment and, I believe, spot on! Archbishop Hepworth made just this point in the recent ACA HOB meeting and we have been trying to hammer this home on The Anglo-Catholic from its inception.
I know that it is frustrating for many of us that we do not presently have the answer to every last question about how the personal ordinariates will function, but we must be patient and understand that, ultimately, it will be up to our own Anglican communities to answer many of these questions for ourselves. The Holy Father has determined only the most basic ground rules; it is left to us to make the new personal ordinariates our own.
Father writes that a key question is:
"Is accepting Anglicans into the communion of the Church a matter of just another dose of inculturation to make the bitter pill of the Gospel relevant and meaningful, or is it a question of the revival of Catholic orthodoxy?"
I'm sorry, I may have missed something, but why on earth would it be intended as the latter? I don't see the connection at all: 'How are we going to revive Catholic orthodoxy? I know! Let's get some Anglicans on board!' Sorry?
You need to read what I wrote in context. My intention is to characterise the attitude of the liberals who wrote this document. For them, the Gospel needs to be "made relevant" for all cultures. I believe that, from the Pope's point of view, the idea is not mere 'inculturation' following the ideas of liberals – but rather to use the particular Anglican patrimony we can offer as one tool among others to effect his work of revival in the Church. This is HIS (the Pope's) work, not ours.
Have I been a little clearer?
Clearer, yes, thank you.
Ithink it's very obvious that the Gospel should be presented in ways relevant to the culture and society you're working in. Anglican patrimony is of course culture as well as religion, certainly.
I don't see any conflict there, but I still think it's a bit grandiose to imagine that we're part of some scheme to revive the Church, it's just good pastoral management to make some provision.
Most Roman Catholics wouldn't begin to know what you're talking about with Revival and return to Catholic Orthodoxy, and I don't think they're missing anything to be honest.
Laicised priests knew that they took vows of celibacy before ordination. We presume these were freely taken. In applying for dispensation from the celibate clerical state, they also knew they did it free from compulsion.
So it's a matter of justice after all. It would be very unjust to celibate ordinands from the Latin and married ordinands from the Anglican tradition to allow the laicised priests resume their ministry.
Two articles for reflection:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7058376.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7058065.ece
They are from The Times and Ruth Gledhill is a liberal. Take the articles for what they are. It should be considered that Cardinal Schönborn, whatever may be thought of him, still occupies one of the most important Sees in Europe.
Don't shoot the messenger!
I sometimes imagine what the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury discuss, since the faith is not shared. The Pope might want to hear about married clergy. A few sobering points. The cost of a cleric in the Church of England is at least three times that of a Roman celibate – and since he must make time for his family, he is less available. So married priests would cost (say) four times as much – and where is the money to come from? There is abuse of children in the Church of England – married priests is not a magic bullet. And though the Church of England still recruits more men to training for the full-time ministry than the Roman Catholics manage in England, the difference is not enormous (and declining as the ministry becomes feminised). Ignoring the "ordination" of women, the Church of England achieves greater male clergy numbers by using less-trained non-stipendiaries. So the Pope might learn that abolishing the requirement of celibacy in the Western use will not solve the problem of a lack of priests. It is just possible (but I do not rate the argument highly) that the Ordinariate will show that some use can be made of older, married, non-stipendiaries.
I know that Roman seminarians are very carefully instructed that they must have no illusions – indeed, they must declare that they freely choose to be priests and therefore will live celibate lives. No one is forced to be a priest! But if you will be one, you must declare that you will abide by the discipline of the Church. And guess what? Anyone who's been six years in a seminary, living a chaste single life, will have some idea if they are able to live a celibate life, I should think. Furthermore, as we know, if one promises to live a celibate life, God (via St Paul) promises that He will give grace to live without falling into sin: for in all situations God gives the grace to avoid temptations; it is for the recipient to correspond to this grace and let it not be given in vain. If this were not true, it would be the sheerest folly to undertake a vow or promise of celibacy. But the Holy Roman Church teaches, and has reiterated down to the present, that instead celibacy is a positive good, not a danger or folly. Believe the Church!
Lurking beneath this contempt of the Roman discipline I detect Protestant notions of total depravity and limited grace – as if man is such a beast as not to be able to live chastely (which is rather a slight upon marriage, by the way, which in such a mindset is viewed as a means of calming the beast, rather than as a holy and godly state of mutual friendship and union).
In this context, the usual dredging up of cases of abuse by members of the clergy is a red herring: those who have gravely sinned are a minority of the clergy (indeed, a smaller percentage than the percentage of married folk who commit the same crimes), and to tar with the same brush the vast majority who live good lives is quite wicked. Obviously, the offences committed, both by celibate clergy and married laity, are sinful actions forbidden to all: a person who preys upon the young is unlikely to be "satisfied" by marriage!
Just as with marriage, so with the clergy: in both states of life, normal, healthy persons trust in God's grace to live good lives. If a married man or woman breaks his or her vows, we do not say that marriage was at fault. Similarly, the priest is not some enchained beast who breaks free and commits evil (for that is what those who claim celibacy is an unfair restriction are saying) – what a warped view.
If any unworthy candidates, planning not to keep their vows but to use priesthood as a cloak for crime, have slyly intruded themselves into the sacred ministry, then they ought be weeded out and condignly punished.
As to what the pope thinks, we may glean some hint from Ministerium Novum No. 5 August 2005, p. 3:
"During the ad limina visit of the bishops of New York State in June, Pope Benedict XVI sked the bishops: 'What do you think of the restoration of the tradition of a married priesthood?' For some moments there was an amazed silence. The the Pope asked the question a second time: 'I really would like to know what your people think on that issue.' Then one bishop, Michael Clark of Rochester, responded: 'It is strange, Holiness, that you should ask this question, because we just had a synod in our diocese, where over ninety per cent of the laity voted in favour of a married priesthood.' And the other bishops joined him in saying that a great majority of their faithful is in favour of married priests."
Ministerium Novum is the organ of the group Fr Anthony Chadwick refers to above. I harbour the same reservations as to their positions on theology generally. Nevertheless, it seems that this could well be an accurate report.
Here is a most excellent critique of Cardinal Stickler's book purporting to prove that continence within clerical marriage was an apostolic tradition:
http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm
In regard to this, even a contributor at Angelqueen(!) has the wit to note:
"Most of what I have read in recent years either fails to quote primary sources, or assumes that since something happened in one corner of the Church, it guarantees that it happened throughout the entire Church at the same time. Elvira, for example, is often cited as though it had the authority of an Ecumenical Council! (Elvira also prohibited paintings in churches–certainly not a universal Catholic doctrine.)"
Let us not forget that the main cause of decline in numbers of priests (which has now been reversed worldwide, as has been the case for several years now) is not "the horror of forced celibacy" (roll images of Chinese eunuchs), but the loss of Faith in the countries of the West.
What you mean of course, is usus not tollit usUM (accusative case).
You're long on rhetoric, and short on facts, Joshua.
I just wonder where you did your theology studies, Joshua – not Holy Cross Goulburn under Father Peter Scott??
Perhaps the FSSP??
Well, I'm not married right now, although, God willing, I will be, but I'll tell you something: I'm a traditionalist too. And so are some of my friends, a good number of whom are not in favour of compulsory celibacy. Further, some traditionalist priests I know are – all three were high up in a tradtionalist group, two still are.
All your petulant, emotive attitude does is reflect poorly on your "pro-celibacy lobby": if you could produce argument and proof rather than erroneous and emotive assertions, you would have.
No, thank God, at a modern faculty in Melbourne.
I am simply amazed that anyone could dare condemn this tradition of the Church: I may not have argued well, since all of this is just off the top of my head, but I sure as hell am horrified and scandalized that any supposedly orthodox Catholic would argue against it.
Your attitude sickens and revolts me.
As for your mockery of the "pro-celibacy lobby": may God forgive you for mocking the holy traditions of the Church. To give such scandal is sinful and wrong.
I find your dissent frustrating.
I resent being called silly.
What on earth is "bad faith"?
I conform my belief to the standard the Church sets – go try it yourself. I do not think myself better-informed than the Church, but strive to learn from her, our Mater et Magistra.
You too have gone on asserting you know better than your betters.
The diaconate is another matter entirely. Quite frankly, it had all but fallen into desuetude; and after all, Trent had called for the minor orders (below diaconate I know, but the parallel is intriguing) to be opened to married men, so I see this as an incremental change within tradition.
I reject your setting yourself up as judge of Popes, Councils, bishops and the lot of them. You should be obedient to your betters.
And it is scandalous to speak of the canons of Ecumenical Councils in such a way. Shame!
You clearly are no Catholic.
I have said everything I usefully could at this stage – let Joshua, a self-appointed champion for what he seems to understand to be orthodoxy, rage all he likes!
It will be all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I am glad to be abused for defending the Church.
Go seek your own proper place.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
Gentlemen,
While you squabble and call each other names, and as Catholicism in the west crumbles away before our very eyes, The Anglo-Catholic is being attentively read by Anglicans, lapsed or uncommitted Roman Catholics and others thinking about a return to the Church. In other words, Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
I already had to put my hand up when someone wanted to discuss a purported infiltration of Freemasons into the Church during Vatican II. Conspiracy theory goes a long way, including stories of shape-shifting reptiles disguising themselves as the British Royal Family, the US President and suchlike, and living in a cave under the Antarctic ice. If I allowed this, we would end up with arguments about various sedevacantist 'positions', the question of whether of not the Vatican has revealed the Third Secret of Fatima, the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus of Fr Feeney, The Dogma, as some call it. And, lo and behold, we will find we have been taken over by people who represent neither Rome nor the kind of Catholic-minded Anglicanism that founded this blog.
Please, a little common sense and reserve…
The violent rhetoric and the fact that nothing is being achieved are tiring. It is possible that some people may be so upset by these squabbles that they may decide not to have anything to do with Roman Catholicism and either to remain Anglicans or decide to drop out of religious practice altogether.
I see no discernible process of learning through this debate, so, again, it is time to end this thread.
extra ecclesiam nullA salus
)
(seems like a revenge for "sea" and "see", but is not, Father
My error – mea culpa. I haven't been sailing yet this year – too cold as yet! I need a bit of sea air to blow the winter cobwebs out of my head!
PS. Correction made to my comment.
Exactly.
That's why I decided to cease this "dialogue".
It was getting nowhere.
Joshua,
I appreciate that you are trying to defend the tradition of the church, which is admirable. However, the language you are suggesting suggests that Eastern Catholics are not truly "catholic" – as you suggest we are not catholic for requesting the same discipline as they have.
Furthermore, your tone goes a little over the top in spots. I enjoy this type of discussion in a pub over a brew, but we must remember that stuff posted on the internet is effectively written in stone, and should be measured.