While authorities of the new church-within-a-church will abide by “the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule,” an “ordinary” (a bishop or former Anglican bishop) may also ask the pope for permission to ordain married men “on a case-by-case basis.” This could be a face-saving way to perpetuate the Anglican tradition of a married clergy without saying so, or it could be a warning that married Anglican laymen will be ordained only rarely. Either way, the new Anglican body within Catholicism will not have the autonomy enjoyed by the Eastern Catholic churches.
The more stinging rebuff to Roman Catholic advocates of married priests is this rather mean-spirited provision of a companion document: “Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate.” In other words, if you left the Catholic Church and now want to return alongside other Anglican priests, you are treated worse than an Anglican priest who never belonged to the Catholic Church in the first place.
And who is this Michael McGough so outraged at the Big Blue Meanie Roman Church? A former Roman priest?
Mr. McGough seems to be unaware of longstanding disciplines that have always applied in the Church: each person is bound by the discipline of the jurisdiction in which he was baptized. Each person is baptized in the jurisdiction his father was baptized into.
I suspect these provisions have at times protected the minority rites from being swallowed by the Latin Rite. They also prevent jurisdiction hopping in order to avoid this or that particular discipline.
Imagine how badly served Traditional Anglicans would be by returning liberal Latin priests who had left to get married! That would be a disaster. So, yes, minority jurisdictions do still need to be protected. No surprises there.
Also, to pretend that these would be returning Latin priests are being treated “worse” than new Anglican Catholics is a bit absurd. These are men who once having made a perpetual commitment to ministry, abandoned that commitment to God and Church for the marriage bed. These are not the men who give the example necessary to instill fidelity in the body of Christ. Ordination is never a “justice issue” but a vocation requiring extraordinary commitment.
“…But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”
4. Ah, but SteveCox, you must realize that there remained a difference between the two sons even after the reconciliation. The one who squandered his inheritance was given a party and a welcome, but not more land. If you follow the story through, he must have ended up working for his older brother whose hard work and constant dedication had provided the fatted calf.
Does anyone not know the difference between a married Anglican/Episcopal priest who converts to Catholicism and an ex-Catholic priest who wishes to return to the RCC with his wife?
The former is welcomed with his gifts. The latter is welcomed back but not to circumvent that which he already understood before he left. I don’t see that the ex-Catholic priest as being punished at all. He made his choice when he left the first time. He could still serve the RCC but only as a layman.
Now I do know of a Catholic priest who left the Church to get married, raised a family and when he was widowed he returned to the Church and was re-ordained? After a few years as an associate pastor he has his own parish now. Still a bit odd to hear him refer to his sons in his Homily sometimes.
Tireful and boring.