http://news.aol.com/article/vatican-creates-new-structure-to-ease/728295?icid=main|main|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fvatican-creates-new-structure-to-ease%2F728295
Catholic Church Makes 'Stunning' Move
By JAMES GRAFF, World Editor
,
switchFont(1,"smallText");
(Oct. 20) -- The number of married Catholic priests could grow sharply as the result of the Vatican's epochal decision to welcome thousands of disaffected Anglicans and Episcopalians into the Catholic Church.
At press conferences in Rome and London on Tuesday, Vatican officials announced that the Church would set up a special canonical structure that will ease the conversion of members of the Anglican Communion without them having to give up what the Vatican called "the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony." That means not only a body of prayers and hymns, but also a tradition of married priests and bishops.
"It's a stunning turn of events," says Lawrence Cunningham, theology professor at Notre Dame University. "This decision will allow for many more married clergy in Western churches, and that's going to raise anew the question, 'If they can do it, why can't the priests of Rome?,'" says Cunningham. "I can already picture the electronic slugfest on the Internet in coming days and weeks." The Catholic Church already allows clergymen who convert from Protestant denominations to remain married on a case by case basis, and married priests are common in the Eastern Rite, a group that uses Orthodox traditions but is loyal to Rome.
But the arrangement with the Anglican Communion goes much further. Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's top doctrinal official, announced in Rome that the Church would set up a personal ordinariate -- in essence a diocese defined not by geography, but by function, like the division that serves Catholics in the military -- for converted Anglicans.
The move comes amidst discord within the Anglican Communion, which unites 77 million Anglicans and Episcopalians under the loose authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The church has been racked by schisms over the ordination of women and its stance towards homosexuality.
For many traditional Anglicans, known in the U.S. as Episcopalians, the last straw was the 2003 election of openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. In protest, many have broken links with the Episcopal Church and declared themselves loyal to conservative Anglican bishops in Africa or South America. One group of such dissidents said today, "This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion and affirms the decision to create a new North American province that embraces biblical truth."
The news is likely to have a particularly strong effect in Great Britain, where there has been a tendency for years for members of the nominally Anglican majority to join the Catholic Church, from 19th century theologian John Cardinal Newman, poet T.S. Eliot, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Two prominent priests who publicly broke from Anglicanism stated today that after this ruling from Rome, some Anglicans "will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land."
The decision marks a milestone in the relations between the Vatican and the Church of England, which King Henry VIII established in 1534 after the Pope refused to grant him a marriage annulment. Since then, religious and social battles have often marked relations between Catholics and Anglicans. "This would have been unthinkable 200 years ago, and barely imaginable in the 19th century," says Cunningham.
Wallis
Antica Murrina Veneziana
Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti
hmm... well... i'm a catholic; albeit, not a good one.
i don't like the church succumbing to outside pressure to change because many catholics love the tradition of catholicism and it's conservative views.
however, from a business standpoint, this seems pretty savvy to get disinfranchised faithful.
but it does seem like they will have less power to say that catholic clergy can't be married. personally, i think it would be better if they were allowed to marry though.
1There is not that is canonical that separates Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, or Episcopalians
2Actually I see this from another perspective. Many of the extremist terrorists will use this as evidence that other "faiths" are based on the whims of the flesh instead of guidelines set by standards of faith.
They love to spout things like this as evidence that the other "faiths" are merely determined by convenience rather than real standards....which of course fits their extremist agendas....as they feel they are the only "holy" ones on a heavenly mission.
My personal stance on this comes from one of the earliest portions found in the bible. "Men was not created (meant)to be alone" so God created for him a mate. So...I have always thought it was somewhat bizarre to live a celibate life.
This also makes one ponder...what about Nuns? Apparently they will still get none. (sorry...really bad pun)
3Islam has the Same kind of splits as Christians. Like we have a major split Catholics and protestants, Islam has Sunni and Shia, as we have Roman, Greek, Russian, Armenian Catholic, and protestants have Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopal, Shia and Sunni have there sub sects. Jewish tradition is no different, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, they too have sub sects.
4Priest were allowed to marry many, many years ago. It was a stupid man made law that made them celibate. It will strengthen the church and now when you go to your priest with a marital problem he can relate. Correcting a human error in judgement does not show whim it shows growth.
5I think the fist questions were raised in the fourth century, and the debate continued up to the 1545 when the Trent settled the issue on the side of celibacy. I believe that was the same year that The Catholic church settled the issue on whether or not women had immortal souls.
6Grandpa, I remember hearing or reading that the Church changed the rules because priests were willing and transferring Church property to their children and family members. Can you confirm / elucidate?
I don't consider myself a Catholic, although my father's family is and I was confirmed. Still, I suppose I want to see the Church stand as a reliable standard for morals and ethics in the culture, and when they fail or cave in to "modern standards", I am disappointed.
7I didn't know that they used to be allowed to marry, Sam! That might make me change my stance on this issue. I agree with Haus that I don't like the idea of the church succombing to outside pressure, and changing traditions. But if they used to be allowed to marry, I wonder what changed?
8I don't see it as caving but more self preservation. They are loosing priests and those studying for it. The seminaries are suffering their worst enrollments. Married men can relate to families better. They can understand more of the worldly issues that affect their flock. It will also mean less transfers. A married priest will be more of a member of the community as a whole.
9I agree Sam, what I meant was I'd rather Catholics do it for themselves instead of just for the reason of caving. You know?
10yes i do.
11Yeah, I totally see your point. My husband agrees with that as well. I don't know. I just always thought of it as tradition, and I do know that celibacy is the other way (besides marriage) that you can become closer to God in the Catholic church.
12Tiff it was Pope Gregory (enter some number here) that made the rule of celibacy. I am with Haus, I am not against priests marrying, although I think it is a very hard life to be married and raise children within, but I wish they were doing this out of what they thought was truly right, not just going with society.
There is a quote from the Bible which I can't remember word for word, but basically it says to be of the Lord, don't have the Lord conform to what your "needs" are.
13"Grandpa, I remember hearing or reading that the Church changed the rules because priests were willing and transferring Church property to their children and family members. Can you confirm / elucidate?"
You heard correctly. Technically all church property in any particular diocese is held in trust by the bishop of that diocese. The Vatican works of art, and library belong to the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome. If the pope chose to move his office to let say, New York. He would be the Bishop of New York, and the new Bishop of Rome would have responsibility for the Vatican Museum et al. The Greek Orthodox have similar rules. If a man marries before ordination, he can still be a Greek Orthodox priest (and many of them due), but they are then precluded from ever becoming a bishop. That position requires you be single and celibate.
14Wow, this is interesting. I agree with those who have said that Catholics should have done this on their own and not just cave into what society wants.
I've been Catholic all my life, baptized, confirmed, have been going to church every weekend since I was born....until recently. I've just been overall annoyed with how it's been going. They keep saying they want to revamp the church, do all these new things, and get more of the 'young people' involved. Well, I haven't seen that.
I get bored with the services....I've been to a ton of other church masses, and there is nothing as boring and long as a Catholic mass. It's just the way it is. My point here is that if they can change such a huge thing as letting priests get married, why can't they make mass more interesting?! Oh, wait, it's tradition...and it's what they've always done... Doesn't make much sense to me anymore.
15Also, in the news here in the last week, a priest has been put on suspension (with pay) for the recent discovery that he was married before and had a child with his ex wife.
16I've only been to one really engrossing Catholic mass and thats because the priest was in his mid 30s and hilarious! We need more of those people!!
17The priest we have at the church I go to now is young. I know he's younger than 40. We just have a huge shortage of people wanting to be priests, and literally, the last two priests we had were committed for being depressed.
18The priest at my church is guatamalen... lovely man... can't understand a word he says.
19haha, we have substitutes like that. Our deacon is wild too, but his sermons are soooo long. He has the very deep, loud voice that commands a room all on its own but he still insists on using the microphone...
20The Roman Catholic church has been involved heavily in infighting between secular and spiritual foundations since the early 60's and of course the roots extend far past this. Still this is a principle issue in the modern church simply because so many other denominations have caved in on secular issues. However, with that said, barring Paul's comment about it being better to marry than to burn, I can see no Biblical dictum against marriage of priests. In addition, many people take this phrase to mean that one will burn in hell, but I think a more reasonable interpretation is that one should not possess a high degree of sexual ardor while doing the Lord's work.
21Despite the Council of Trent in 1563 which cemented the issue of priestly celibacy (which means simply unmarried rather than unchaste or immoral) there have been modern examples of accepting priests from other faiths. A church I attended with a friend in NC on occasion (although I am not a Catholic) had a married priest who had been an Anglican. He told me that it was not uncommon although it was kept quiet.
Still I hardly see that marriage of priests is cause for concern: the RC church has been plagued by the very human sexual difficulty which St Thomas goes to great length to discuss concerning human "tendencies" in both male and female. It is interesting to note that he believed that prostitution was a necessary evil for this reason. It's a pretty interesting read, should anyone be disposed. St Thomas was a doctor of the church which is of course significant in how Catholicism regards their teachings.
Although I support the greater Biblical teachings in context and certainly support the case of marriage as that between a man and a woman for those reasons, I am glad that the Roman Catholic church remains steadfast and conservative in its teachings on a broad range of issues, despite some areas where I might have some disputes. I am glad that those departing the liberalized faiths have a place to go wherein God's word is still celebrated as more significant than man's.
It was all downhill after they eliminated the Latin mass. As a child i learned the Church was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The "catholic' in this case meant universal. The one was that you could got to mass anywhere in the world, and go to mass and understand and participate. Now, unless you speak the language it is mostly a waste of time.
22Our priest has horrible homilies (sp?). He is so "fire and brimstone" talking about damnation, etc. It is the worst that I have seen. He also talks politics, which I don't like (even though I guess I agree most of the time). But church just isn't the place for that.
23The pulpit is the place for "faith and morals", not politics. Abortion is a mortal sin, in the eyes of the church, and an appropriate topic, if they stick with church teachings, beyond that they will only piss off some significant part of their flock", no matter liberal or conservative political views are being preached
24Agreed, GP.
25I am inclined to believe this is a positive event. While this decision does come as a surprise to me, I would think since marriage is Bibilical, it seems a natural thing that God permit his earthly representatives to marry and have a family. Might qualify my comment by saying I am not a Catholic.
26Tiff, same here about the politics at mass. A few of the priests we've had have pulled out that card and I walked out of mass. He kept going on and on about it, and it was so annoying and not what I came to church for.
27It's been great to read so much of the history you all know. I throw my two cents in and say it's about time they were allowed to marry. I'm not a Catholic but it seems to be addressing a senseless antiquated law. Perhaps they feared too many changes would make them look foolish, and quite frankly they already do to the rest of us out there. The thing that got me was when Pope John Paul admitted in public that it was a lie that Mary Magdalene was a wh*re, and that the lie was perpetrated by some other pope a long time ago. In 1969, shortly after the conclusion of Vatican II, the Catholic Church officially disclosed that the enduring belief that identified Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was not based on any factual or scriptural evidence, henceforth clearing her name. Yet when I mentioned this to some Catholics I know, they don't have a clue. I'm glad I'm not a part of a religion so steeped in traditions and lies. That's the attitudes of Protestants. And quite honestly who wants to be treated like a second class citizen in the church of God? As a woman I don't believe men are closer to God with Popes and Bishops and the hierarchy of men they have. Women have the children don't they? To me it's addressing the discrimination of women since the dawn of time. Now they're backtracking.
28One would always like to believe that one changed one's attitude for all the right reasons, but I doubt this is very often true, especially in social issues. However, in the case of Mary Magdalene, I have always thought it humorous that modern women objected to her being a prostitute. I believe that this is another case of changing the ruling according to the political climate.
In Luke 8:2, Jesus casts out 7 demons from her. Assuming that we understand what demons are (or still believe in them and haven't redefined their existence) I merely ask which 7 demons one might have as a woman which had nothing to do with sexual immorality. I have spent some time thinking of such things, and I am unable to find more than a few …and certainly find 7 highly unlikely to have avoided sexual issues.
While it is true that I have a much narrower interpretation of what demons mean than many and have a more conservative view of sexual immorality, (despite others reminding me constantly of my avatar,) I am at a loss to imagine what these seven demons might have represented without including sexual issues. Yes, she might have burned lentils when she cooked or snarled at others or been epileptic or lame or even smoked cigars, but one is hard put NOT to include some sexual deviance in seven demons.
Additionally, having had demons removed from one (by Jesus or anyone else) does not mean that one cannot invite them back. Although you may look at me askance in believing that the issue of demons is antiquated nonsense, I maintain that having had demons once, it is always tempting to take up with the like again. Although sometimes demons inhabit us by accident, usually we should not have been tempted in the first place if we did not find the sin appealing.
Even without agreeing on this point, I do not understand why attempting to lessen her sexual immorality and general level of corruption (and demons are certainly equated with a sin without being equivalent to the sin) is something which anyone ought to do. It seems to me that the greater the sins Mary Magdalene overcame should raise our opinion of her. Indeed, we ought not to argue about where she came from in sin, but where she arrived out of sin. That place is very prominent in the Christian faith indeed.
Lastly, recall that when the apostles have given up to their sadness, it is only the women who attend the tomb after his death. One cannot take away the fact that it is the women who are more steadfast in their faith. This remains the norm rather than the exception in Biblical teachings and women in Christian teaching generally are granted an equality far exceeding their normal social position at the time. In the present age, especially, I am proud that women have taken up the armor of God where men have shirked their duties through insecurities and sadness. Although we have done so without a great deal of fanfare, it remains that women have done a great deal more in support while men have been given the credit. I suggest that this is, perhaps, more in keeping with true faith, but I could be mistaken.
29dikke, we can discuss theological beliefs and traditions, but please refrain from denigrating others sincerely held beliefs.
30Laura i used to find mass boring but don't anymore. I find it more of a time of meditation and self reflection. I go every Sunday and definitely have the Catholic guilt thing if I don't go. I do agree that they need to do something to get the youth more involved. As long as they don't change the foundation and teachings of the church I say go for it. I also really enjoy the priests at my church and have a very active parish.
The best Priests I have had have been at a Church I went to in Jersey. Such great personalities, that keep you in the mass with wonderful sense of humor.
As for politics in my sermon, I DESPISE when they do that. Church is not to send me your personal political philosophy. Luckily I have not had to deal with it too much.
I find it interesting that two of the priests in Laura's area were depressed. There was a recent study that showed that Catholic Priests and Nuns were the happiest with their "careers" and felt the most fulfilled in life.
31dikke, there are obviously quite a few Catholics on this board, perhaps you should be a bit more sensitive with how you reflect your views.
I am a very proud Catholic, but no religion is perfect. They are created by man, and as man is not perfect neither can religion. I prefer to look at all the good Catholics have done not only in the past, but especially in the present.
32I also find it interesting when you wrote: "I'm glad I'm not a part of a religion so steeped in traditions and lies. That's the attitudes of Protestants."
I always here so much bad mouthing of Catholics, yet not in all my years of being a Catholic have I ever been taught to dislike or speak poorly of another religion. In fact during mass we pray for people of all other religions. I guess that is one of the many reason why I choose to be a Catholic.
33"I always here so much bad mouthing of Catholics, yet not in all my years of being a Catholic have I ever been taught to dislike or speak poorly of another religion. In fact during mass we pray for people of all other religions. I guess that is one of the many reason why I choose to be a Catholic." YES, exactly.
Another thing, cine, being a 22 year old church goer, there's really nothing that's keeping me there... I do consider myself one with my religion already. It's just that there are always groups for the high school kids and even for the older people of the parish. There's really nothing for people like me....unless you decided to take on a youth group while in high school and you've stuck with it. I'm just sad that I seem to be getting skipped over with everything. I feel like it doesn't matter if I go or not. I'll go back to mass when I feel like I can get more out of it than what I already read/think/do on my own.
34laura, I totally agree with you that 22 is a strange age for church. It is like this in between stage. I didn't not go regularly at 22, in fact I did not start to go back weekly until about 26, and interestingly enough I am finding more and more people around my age going back to church. Well at least at the parish I am at now.
What really got me going back was not the priests or anything like that, it was more I would tell people that I did not need church to be closer to God, I could do that in my own home throughout the week. But the more I thought about it, I never did take the time out to reflect or even really pray. And when I did pray it was FOR something, and I started to think to myself, "why would God do something for me, if I don't even take 45 minutes out of my week for him." And now I actually enjoy it. Although we did get a new priest from Ethiopia whom I can't understand, which is annoying. I also decided since there was nothing for our youth at the churches I went to, I wanted to take a more active role in the church. I figure I can't complain about something I am not trying to fix. Since I move so much it takes me a while to find a church. I go to a bunch of different masses and find ones with people my own age or younger.
Anyway, I am not trying to get anyone to go back to church, it is such a personal decision, just sharing my own experience.
35Oh and above 'here' should have been 'hear'.
36Yeah I second cine, 22 is an odd age. I luckily found a campus Christian group but even that was awkward sometimes and felt forced. Just wanted to let you know you're not the only one who thinks the whole young adult age is awkward in terms of church-going.
37Sounds like "this a is a time that tries mens souls"
38On another note, I think that my faith was actually the strongest as it had ever been because I was suddenly forced to make these decisions on my own and not with my parents.
39"On another note, I think that my faith was actually the strongest as it had ever been because I was suddenly forced to make these decisions on my own and not with my parents."
I agree 100%!!!
40Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.