Debate: Should married former Anglicans be allowed to become priests?

Why? We’re constantly being told that no two marriages are the same, that you can’t interfere in a marriage, that nobody really knows what goes on in any particular marriage.

Talk about moving goalposts!

“A man has to put his family first. That is a given. Do you really want priests who have your soul way down their list of priorities?”

Well said. By Catholic definition, a man’s utmost priority in marriage is to ensure that his spouse gets to Heaven. That requires a lot of time, effort, and commitment! Of course, the openness to having children is a requirement of marriage as well – which only adds to the attention a man must give to his family.

The utmost priority of a Priest is to get his flock to Heaven! You might say “well, his wife and kids are part of his flock, so what’s the difference?” But there’s a big difference. To properly and conscientiously ensure the safety of his flock, a Priest must work tirelessly around the clock, even to the point of self sacrifice. This is what the IDEAL Priest does. And shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to shoot for the ideal?!

The Eastern Rites legitimately have married priests – but that is no argument against the inherent contradictions that remain. Let’s not shoot ourselves in our own feet by doing away with the celibate priesthood. It will do none of us any good. It is thanks to the prayers, fasting, and sacrifices of celibate priests that this world is held together at all. We need more of them – not less.

PS – If a Priest is doing everything he should be doing, he will have woefully insufficient time for his wife and children. How is that fair to them?! It’s not. And what happens when the wife gets resentful and wants to divorce him? Then what? We’ll be ok with divorced priests?

This is not so. Fact

Well in the Syro-Malabar Church,Syro-Malankara Church and I think in the Ethiopian Catholic Church three ‘Sui iuris’ eastern Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome(Pope) celibacy in priesthood is mandatory

movement was rooted in thew scdriptures, tradition and patristic theology. Perhaps we are seeing its fruition in these conversions. Pope Benedict is influenced by Newman. His theology, like that of Balthazar and De Lubac, who with Ratzinger founded Communio, is Ressourcement theology as it returns to these common sources. It sees Vatican II as following in the tradition (in the literal sense) of all the other councils. It rejects the liberal trajectory that some call the “spirit of Vatican II”. As such he is at one with the main thrust of the Anglo-Catholic movement in Anglicanism.

Perhaps, Doodler, St Peter was a widow (which many if not most scholars think) or maybe, he and his wife lived out a Josephite marriage after being called to sacrifice everything for Christ. It’s really only our generation that is sex-obsessed and thinks it’s impossible to live without sex – previous generations, especially, I would imagine, those of the first century Christian community who actually knew and spoke to Our Lord, wouldn’t have thought it as big a deal as you clearly do. They may even have found out, to their joy, that there IS life after sex…

Oh really! First step to bringing in women priests? Why, precisely do you think these anglicans are seeking full communion? It is because as full faith Catholics they do not believe the synods have authority to change the male priesthood. Until now, they have bhope to bring the whole C of E. into the fold but the C of E has now opted for liberal protestantism. The supporters of women priests in the RC church deplore the entry of these ex-Angilcans, both married and single. Editor CT, you seem to merely echo the prejudices of certain writers in the Tablet. Is the CT Tablet Northern Edition?

Fair point but I was turned down for the priesthood in 2008. there are still those interested in the vocation of the priesthood

Actually, that Billy Graham did this means a lot. The vibrancy of the “new movements” such as the highly orthodox Frranciscans of the Renewal are in that same tradition.

Will you stop saying that celibacy is a later invention of the Church? That is absolutely wrong. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that “clerical continence” was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.
While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.

Love your username – explains why your post is so hilarious. Oops! Was that St Francis I heard turning over in his grave?

my scriptural memory might be failing me but didn’t St Paul refer to St Peter returning to his wife – or something like that ? I’m too old, too ill and too tired to recall it off the top of my head but maybe someone else can?

Indeed Leprechaun. And I would be very grateful if someone would tell me what Catholic doctrines denied by Anglican Protestants are now accepted by these ‘converts’, or are they being allowed (by the turning of blind eyes) to import heresies as part of their ‘patrimony’. Nothing would make me happier than to see Anglicans, clerical and lay, undergoing a proper course of instruction in the Catholic faith and then embracing it, but I have been disturbed by Anglicanorum coetibus from the outset.

If I were a betting lady I would lay odds, St. Alban, that you didn’t apply to one of the traditional orders. Being fully and vocally orthodox, according to the experiences of acquaintances of mine who ‘tried for the priesthood’, was what got them turned down.

Sorry to post again, but I have a question to anyone who can answer:

What do Anglicans believe regarding the Eucharist? On EWTN, I have heard some former Anglican priests say that, as an Anglican priest, they believed they were confecting the Eucharist. I have heard other former Anglican priests say that they had always believed they were performing a symbolic consecration of the host. How could there be so much confusion over the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE? Can anyone out there clear this up?

How can we be accepting Anglicans en masse amdist such serious confusion? I never hear Anglicans say “I had to convert to the Catholic Church because of the Eucharist.” Why is this always ignored? We say “Sure, come into the Catholic Church because you don’t want to share the altar with women priests…” How about “Come into the Catholic Church because you realize that we have the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ and you know you cannot live without that.”?

CBar, your second paragraph says it all!

This is in response to everyone commenting so far in this string. The former Anglicans in most respects are more firmly grounded in the Catholic Faith than most Catholics. They accept without reservation ALL that the Catholic Church teaches, and specifically EVERYTHING taught in The Catechism of The Catholic Church. I don’t know a single Roman Catholic who is willing to say this. The Anglicans coming into the ordinariate will be a force helping Catholicism to return to its Catholic roots.

No, the swear word bloody comes from using “Jesus Blood” as a swear word.

I have read through the posts below. It seems to me that the uncharitable nature of many of the remarks, and the anti-Anglican stance of many of the commentators, provides additional evidence of the need for the Ordinariate so that Catholic Anglicans will have the ability to come into communion with Rome in a manner that welcomes them and allows them to continue those aspects of the Anglican tradition that are not contrary to Catholic Teaching. A married priesthood is not contrary to Catholic teaching.

Absolutely spot on, Christina. Spot, as they say, ON!

William Wheatley, the fact that celibacy was a tradition in the Church from the beginning is precisely the same thing as saying it was a requirement. Councils only pronounce definitively on matters of faith and morals when there has been some kind of dispute or infidelity. You have fallen for the lie that celibacy was “introduced” for financial reasons. Not true. Baseless propaganda for those agitating for an end to celibacy.

You people who scream “lack of charity” at every turn NEVER give an example. What’s uncharitable about expecting alleged converts who are coming in to the Church en masse, to expressly reject their former errors and heresies? Only someone who lacks elementary intelligence would fail to wonder how they all of a sudden overcame their antipathy to papal infallibility.

And you are wrong – a married priesthood IS entirely contrary to Catholic Tradition – Our Lord was celibate and He is the model for the priesthood.

I know that’s sure to keep you awake at nights, but there it is. Like it or (more likely) loathe it, if priests are to imitate Our Lord, to be an alter Christus in the world, they must be celibate.

Visiting their parishioners once in a blue moon would help as well, mind you.

You are correct I was turned down by a certain English diocese for the diocesan priesthood in 2008 so it was not a traditional order. However the reasons why I was rurned down were varied and complex. I have to try to see it as a test of my vocation I suppose but the galling thing about it all was that for most of life i have had to listen to increasingly desperate calls for more priests……..

In the Anglican tradition the vicar has many lay helpers to carry out his ministry much like our church has developed this idea by allowing lay people to take on the duties of the priest who is called away too often to meetings etc.
I always thought that the priest was married to the Church which is the Bride of Christ as St. Paul says ….
It seems to me that the modern church is quite happy to take on married Anglican clergy because there little difference now between the modern church in the UK and the Anglicans. You cant see the join! Lord have mercy on us.

The examples of Malabar, Malankar and Ethiopian Churches are sad evidence of Latinization, and should be deplored. In my view they should start receiving into priesthood the married man and disregard the Roman aparatchicks. As for the Anglikans, the sooner they obtain the status similar to that of the Eastern chuches, and become completely independent of Latin bishops – the better for the reunion of all Christians.