Technically, the Roman church requires priestly celibacy. If a priest marries, he will be excommunicated. He has to choose between priesthood and marriage.
There is, however, an easy way to do an end-run around the official policy. If you marry before you swim the Tiber, if you were ordained in a Protestant denomination, then convert to Rome, there’s a grandfather clause. You can be a married priest with wife and kids.
So that’s the smart way to game the system and beat the system.
What if the priest comes from one of the liberal Protestant denominations that supports gay "marriage" and is "married" to another man? Does the same clause apply?
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be no because the church doesn't recognize such "marriages".
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean then won't eventually, though.
This isn't really an "end run". You don't even need to have been protestant - look at the Byzantine rite.
ReplyDeleteSure it's an end run. It would be easy to cynically circumvent the policy. Just plan ahead. First get married. Then "come home" to Mother Church.
ReplyDeleteI suspect this explains the (to me) mystery of why so many High Church Anglicans tarry before swimming the Tiber, when it's obvious a long way in advance that they're going to end up in Catholicism. Lack of enthusiasm for the Western Rite's priestly celibacy (or, more accurately, ban on existing priests taking new wives) is one of very few points on which Anglo-Catholics disagree with Roman Catholics. (The other is whether Anglican ordinations have ever been "absolutely null and utterly void". Many - not all - Anglicans would like credit for their prior service).
ReplyDeleteSure it's an end run. It would be easy to cynically circumvent the policy. Just plan ahead. First get married. Then "come home" to Mother Church.
ReplyDeleteBut I just pointed out, you don't need to "come home" because you don't need to "leave".
Byzantine rite. When I was a kid, the 'priests can be married in this rite' rule was more common. I believe it's back again.
I'm given to understand (and one of Triablogue's army of EO lurkers correct me if this is wrong) that this is something of a problem for the EO church - priests can bring a pre-ordination wife with them, but not marry after ordination, so often young seminarians either marry in haste or delay their ordination until they's a-done courtin'.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, EO bishops can never be married, so beating the deadline with an Indiana Jones-style save does limit one's career advancement within the hierarchy.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI'm given to understand (and one of Triablogue's army of EO lurkers correct me if this is wrong) that this is something of a problem for the EO church - priests can bring a pre-ordination wife with them, but not marry after ordination, so often young seminarians either marry in haste or delay their ordination until they's a-done courtin'.
As far as I know, that's the case. No marriage post-ordination. On the other hand, it's not like ordination is something that happens 4-6 weeks after you mail off the check and the advertisement you clipped out of the back of the bulletin.
OTOH, EO bishops can never be married, so beating the deadline with an Indiana Jones-style save does limit one's career advancement within the hierarchy.
Career advancement? Seems like the wrong way to think about it, no matter whether one's protestant or catholic.
True, Crude, we are fallen creatures and I am quoting what I've come across some EOs complaining about.
ReplyDeleteLikewise I've come across some RC clergy and laity at times complaining that Prot ex-pastors can spend years teaching heresy in false churches, then skip across the Tiber and get [re-]ordained while bringing a wife with them. I have heard the explanation given that Rome takes pity on ex-prot clergy and assumes they are not good for much except preaching, sermons, baptisms, weddings, and other clerical duties, and that it'd be harsh to expect them either to retrain in mid-life, or to revert to being laymen in T-shirts in the Catholic pews (even though, from the RC POV, they were previously laymen in fancy vestments in the Anglican/ Baptist/ Calvinist/ Lutheran/ etc pulpit).
We definitely are all fallen creatures. I'm just saying, especially given the nature of the job, it's weird to think in terms of 'career advancement' when it comes to this. It would be for a protestant pastor as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that explanation you give seems real far off the mark. Again I stress: I'm Byzantine rite Catholic. We've had married priests in the recent past, and I believe in many areas we have them now. There's no "they aren't good enough" at play here. The question of married clergy is very distinct from the question of, say, women priests. According to the Church, women cannot become priests, period, end of story. Can the Church one day allow married priests in a more widespread, even universal, way? Absolutely. Even the most hardened traditionalists will typically grant that, even if they think a celibate clergy is the absolute best rule.
You're wrong on the RC POV as well: the Catholic Church makes a distinction between illicit and invalid holy orders. Full on orthodox, I believe, are regarded as validly being priests, but not licitly. It's similar to a schism: if a bunch of priests break away from the Church, are they still priests as far as the Church is concerned? Yes. Are they licit? No. My understanding is this is a case by case issue with the Anglicans - they too can be valid, but the women clergy thing has made this more complicated.