Married Priests and all that jazz.
I picked up a copy of the Tablet in Church this morning, not to buy, but just look through. After a few article headlines I came to the Letters page and found there a letter from a former Bishop. Since we share the same birthday and he is just a year older than me I feel that I am not disrespectful in taking him to task.
The bishop was talking about married priests. It had the usual slogans. It was inevitable, it is the mind of the Church, etc, and he mentioned he had during his ministry had some connection with the movement for married priests.
I remember when he was bishop how we had heard from the altar from some clergy that it was all going to happen. Indeed the bishop himself set up pastoral areas to warn us that we had to be prepared for only two priests working in those areas and sharing the Churches, unless of course we had married priests.
In my own parish the magazine we had at the time published an article on the need for married priests, and reminding us that married priests had existed until about the 13th century. To those who do not 'look behind the headlines' this argument seemed a clincher, however I upset the applecart by giving a reply. Whereas it was true that we had had married priests the law of the Church was that if a married man became a priest he was called to a celibate life refraining from intimate relations with his wife. I quoted the Council of Elvira and other Councils in the early Church where the matter was raised that many clergy could not live up to this and the rule should change. The answer was "we cannot change what has been handed down to us by the Apostles and other Eminent Men" The question therefore was not marriage but celibacy. When seminaries for the training of priests were established the Church decided it would no longer recruit married men for the priesthood and that is the position today. When the Orthodox Church broke away from Rome in the seventh century at the Council of Truro they decide they would allow married priests under certain circumstances WHICH THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO WHEN ATTACHED TO ROME.
But let us get back to the Bishop's letter. The main movement for married priests was an organisation called ADVENT. I went to one of their meetings where a priest was giving a talk. This priest, a prominent member of Advent. He was the priest who was appointed by the late Cardinal Heenan to lead Corpus Christi College in the ways of Vatican II. The priest had no intention of talking about Vatican II, but gave teachers and administrators from all the Dioceses of England the revolutionary Spirit of Vatican II, the deceit and dishonesty which has been a characteristic of the Church for the last 50 years. Of course turning away from the idea of sin and other out of date ideas it was not long before he ran off with a nun and got married as did other priests at that time. With such a vested interest why was this organisation taken seriously by the Bishop. The evening was one of laughing at Church customs and cruelty. I began to laugh with the supportive audience and this was taken as support. After the meeting a priest approached me and asked my views of the speaker. Perhaps uncharitably I remarked that I had heard more sense from a Jehovah Witness. I left the meeting with shouts of "Pharisee" ringing in my ears.
The bishop in his letter said something which was utter nonsense. He suggested that Pope Francis had said that on this question of married priests, he would deal directly with Bishops Conferences. I found this extraordinary. Was the bishop saying that this was not a matter for the Universal Church and the Pope had said this? So we could have married priests in England but not in Spain, that the teaching on a celibate priesthood introduced by Christ, the Apostles and other Eminent men could just be cast aside in one part of the Catholic world if the Pope wished. There certainly has never been a Pope so badly misquoted as the present one, but I can assure the bishop that the Pope does not have the power to do this.
On the matter of candidates for the priesthood I notice that the Diocese of Portsmouth last year had 11 men training for the priesthood. This is wonderful considering the number over the past 50 years and perhaps the former bishop would like to think about this, there is no need for married priests in the Diocese - yesterday, today, or tomorrow.
The bishop was talking about married priests. It had the usual slogans. It was inevitable, it is the mind of the Church, etc, and he mentioned he had during his ministry had some connection with the movement for married priests.
I remember when he was bishop how we had heard from the altar from some clergy that it was all going to happen. Indeed the bishop himself set up pastoral areas to warn us that we had to be prepared for only two priests working in those areas and sharing the Churches, unless of course we had married priests.
In my own parish the magazine we had at the time published an article on the need for married priests, and reminding us that married priests had existed until about the 13th century. To those who do not 'look behind the headlines' this argument seemed a clincher, however I upset the applecart by giving a reply. Whereas it was true that we had had married priests the law of the Church was that if a married man became a priest he was called to a celibate life refraining from intimate relations with his wife. I quoted the Council of Elvira and other Councils in the early Church where the matter was raised that many clergy could not live up to this and the rule should change. The answer was "we cannot change what has been handed down to us by the Apostles and other Eminent Men" The question therefore was not marriage but celibacy. When seminaries for the training of priests were established the Church decided it would no longer recruit married men for the priesthood and that is the position today. When the Orthodox Church broke away from Rome in the seventh century at the Council of Truro they decide they would allow married priests under certain circumstances WHICH THEY WERE UNABLE TO DO WHEN ATTACHED TO ROME.
But let us get back to the Bishop's letter. The main movement for married priests was an organisation called ADVENT. I went to one of their meetings where a priest was giving a talk. This priest, a prominent member of Advent. He was the priest who was appointed by the late Cardinal Heenan to lead Corpus Christi College in the ways of Vatican II. The priest had no intention of talking about Vatican II, but gave teachers and administrators from all the Dioceses of England the revolutionary Spirit of Vatican II, the deceit and dishonesty which has been a characteristic of the Church for the last 50 years. Of course turning away from the idea of sin and other out of date ideas it was not long before he ran off with a nun and got married as did other priests at that time. With such a vested interest why was this organisation taken seriously by the Bishop. The evening was one of laughing at Church customs and cruelty. I began to laugh with the supportive audience and this was taken as support. After the meeting a priest approached me and asked my views of the speaker. Perhaps uncharitably I remarked that I had heard more sense from a Jehovah Witness. I left the meeting with shouts of "Pharisee" ringing in my ears.
The bishop in his letter said something which was utter nonsense. He suggested that Pope Francis had said that on this question of married priests, he would deal directly with Bishops Conferences. I found this extraordinary. Was the bishop saying that this was not a matter for the Universal Church and the Pope had said this? So we could have married priests in England but not in Spain, that the teaching on a celibate priesthood introduced by Christ, the Apostles and other Eminent men could just be cast aside in one part of the Catholic world if the Pope wished. There certainly has never been a Pope so badly misquoted as the present one, but I can assure the bishop that the Pope does not have the power to do this.
On the matter of candidates for the priesthood I notice that the Diocese of Portsmouth last year had 11 men training for the priesthood. This is wonderful considering the number over the past 50 years and perhaps the former bishop would like to think about this, there is no need for married priests in the Diocese - yesterday, today, or tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment