Leaving to Get Married

Dwight,As the Scot who instigated this debate, may I offer a few comments?Let’s leave Fr Francis Mary aside. Let’s talk about you!Its often said priests cannot marry because they are totally devoted to God and at the complete service of the faithful. Their life is a contradiction to the world. They are married to Christ.I know you are married with children. Young children? When you take them to a ball game or the school swimming gala, are you being unfaithful – to God or your parishioners? Are you any less a priest? I don’t think so.When you and your wife show God’s gift of love to each other in the proper context of married life, are you any less a priest? I don’t think so.When you, your wife and children are sitting round the table at dinner as families should, are you betraying your parishioners? If you all go away for a day to the zoo, are you renaging on your promise to be of complete service? Is God jealous? I don’t think so.I can’t imagine one of your parishioners who is concerned about a personal issue and about to knock on your door, suddenly turning away because they’ve just rememebred: ‘Fr Dwight can’t help me, he’s married.’I can’t imagine a Catholic wanting to discuss a theological issue with you, or hoping you’ll lead a Bible study or youth group, suddenly saying: “Oh, there’s no point asking Fr Dwight, he’s married.’Just because you’ve fallen in love with your wife and children, are you any less a priest?On the other hand, I often watch Fr Benedict Groschel’s show on EWTN. From what he says, he’s never wanted to marry or have children. Is he any less a priest? I don’t think so.Suddenly, this man made rule of ordination equates with celibacy, seems, well, just wrong. The real trheat to celibacy comes not from priests (and here I am certainly NOT thinking of Fr Francis Mary) who have illicit affairs and secretly father children; the real threat comes from people like you who fall in love.And you are any less a priest for doing so? I don’t think so.BlessingsJames

Dwight,With respect, this sounds more like an argument than a belief.I fear the danger with such theological language is it quickly melts into contrivance; our relationship with the God-man, Jesus, become over symbolic and super spiritual. Yet we know he was flesh and blood, not just spirit. It is so easy in trying to understand the Infinite, that our language becomes too vague; rather than an aid to dispelling the mist, words and phrases congeal so the mist becomes a fog.The Jews believed God was too distant, too Divine to approach, so they hid him behind a veil in the temple. Jesus comes along and uses the word Abba. What an insult to the carefully crafted theological language of the religious teachers of the time!Scripture tells us that when Jesus died, the veil in the temple was ripped apart. We now have access, through Jesus to the Father; we can walk right in. We need to ensure our language about God does not effectively stitch the veil back together.If your church really believed what you wrote, it would not make any dispensations whatsoever to allow married Anglican clergy to become priests. However, with ‘traditional’ vocations so low, its hand has been forced.Once they are allowed, the very fabric of your intellectual argument starts to unwind.A tear has appeared in the veil.Blessingsjames

I am a priest. I made a vow to remain celibate. I did not take a vow to remain celibate unless or until I “fall in love”. I would not expect that I should be dispensed from a vow freely taken.Meeting someone who attracts me is not an excuse to “ask out”. Sorry if I am not minding my own business. I think public vows in Church are the business of all of us on various levels. This is not just a private, emotional matter.

Anonymous priest at 10:46The fact is that the Church does laicize priests. So obviously the Church doesn’t agree with you, and finds ample reason to dispense priests (and we’re not talking about the criminals here) from their vows. Are you opposed to declarations of nullity as well?

James Hastings–are you aware that your comments these days are increasingly aggressive?Please don’t suggest Catholicism is vulnerable to symbolism or abstraction. The Church teaches that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. It is impossible to get more real than that.Also, the Jews were quite right to think God was too Divine to approach. If any of us stood before the Holy Trinity we would surely die. The veil in the Temple was not the idea of the Jews but it was God’s instruction to them for their benefit. When the Second Person of the Trinity became Incarnate He veiled His glory for our sake, just as He veils Himself in the Holy Eucharist.Catholic teaching is ‘simple to understand’ but ‘hard to believe’. It requires faith. So have some faith! We do believe in priestly celibacy. Moreover, the Holy Father has authority–supreme, full, immediate and universal–to give whatever dispensations he believes serve the good of the faithful. The fact that Fr Dwight is a Catholic priest (and celibate though married), is a great blessing, and not just for Catholics.You are welcome to pick fights with Catholics. But I hope one day you come inside and give a finer defence!

James M,To quote Dwight in his last com box – lighten up!I put forward some theological points. I did so in Christian charity. Feel free to disagree but I fail to see how I am in any way’increasingly aggressive.’ Dwight, (and anyone else)A question.1. Is the priestly vocation superior to the lay? I ask because I have heard priests on EWTN state this. I accept each vocation is different, has its own gifts etc, but that is not what I’m asking. Is it superior?Dwight stated earlier that “the first rank of the saints are those who are celibate.” Does that mean the celibate will enjoy a higher state in heaven?I ask these questions in charity because I sincerely want to understand what Catholics believe.BlessingsJamesBlessingsJames

A person who is celibate is not necessarily more holy than a married person, however, if you could say that in all other things both were equally conformed to the image of Christ, then the celibate would be more Christ-like because Christ was celibate.

Don’t engage in detraction, and if you have, know that it is a mortal sin. As Father Groeschel pointed out, even if something is true, it can be a mortal sin to pass it along. First, what is detraction? From the CCC: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. The detractor becomes guilty: * of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; * of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them; * of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning themFr. Groeschel reminds us that detraction involves revealing faults that may very well be true. Because they are true, does not mean, unlike what secular society teaches us, that they are to be disclosed. This is a fallacy that belongs to the world and the media, which earns a living off of gossip.http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2007/11/fr-benedict-groeschel-admonishes.html

James, Sometimes I do wonder at your questions! There is no comparison between celibacy and masculinity or race. Celibacy requires a choice and self discipline. Jewishness or maleness are not chosen.The relationship between St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin was unique because the Virgin’s relationships to Jesus Christ was unique.There are precedents for married couples living a celibate life by choice together, and this self discipline is to be honored, but not expected or demanded.

Dwight,You’re picking and choosing again, brother!Jesus also selected married men, not all celibates, so why does the Catholic church differ from Jesus? How do you feel about kkollwitz saying: “St. Paul cautions that the married person’s attentions will be necessarily divided between wife and God.”As a married priest, are your attentions divided? For 1,000 years the Catholic church had married priests – were their attentions similarly divided?Celibacy is certainly an honourable and valuable gift; but ordination equates with celibacy is man made.BlessingsJames

James Hastings said:”Celibacy is certainly an honourable and valuable gift; but ordination equates with celibacy is man made.”I believe you didn’t read Fr. Dwight’s post very well as he certainly affirmed this statement here:”The celibacy of the priest is not an ontological condition. It is a discipline of the church which can be dispensed by the Church.”Discipline does not equal dogma or doctrine. Furthermore, this discipline is for the Roman Church specifically and not for the Catholic Church as a whole. Eastern Catholic Churches allow a married priesthood.

Fr. Longenecker,”james m” states you are “celibate though married.” It is my understanding (the dictionary), that celibate can mean one is not married or one abstains from sex. Clearly you are married so is the latter definition true in your case? I hope my question is not to personal; if so,feel free to tell me to mind my own business. Best regards, gravey.

Been following this, and learning. Questions can become blockage to seeing the answer.Goes without saying, we need to get away from the purely negative understanding of priestly celibacy, sort of like in the same way that we need to get away from the purely negative understanding of imploring for mercy. Some Christians don’t implore Christ’s mercy because, well, we already know He has mercy on us so…thus we are led to a purely negative view of mercy. It becomes merely the withholding of condemnation. We can say over and over again that priests are married to Jesus, and therefore…and give all the reasons, and others simply say, “well, that’s nice”, as though it’s just some “theological truth”, as though it were really no more than some decorous symbol that is “beautiful” and all that, but still has no real bearing in reality as having authority to be obeyed. This is a result of not understanding the sacred, of divorcing symbol from meaning – indeed, symbol from the spiritual reality it imparts. Essentially, if you do away with (mandatory) priestly celibacy, demanded of course of those in the Roman church who are single prior, you will basically do away with the priesthood; not because non-celibacy (or that is, chaste sexual marital relations) has any changing power over the reality of the priesthood, but because you would be embodying – the Church would be embodying, by way of decree, only a negative understanding of priesthood. It is first the positive reality of the priesthood which, resultingly, organically, ontologically, makes demands in “the negative”. ie, you cannot marry, etc.This is just repeating what has been already said here, but these things need major emphasis. The rending of the veil is not an injunction that nothing is sacred…on the contrary.

“A married Christian is therefore chaste, but not celibate.”Should it be said instead that all married people should be chaste, but are probably not celibate? There are occasions when married persons are forced, perhaps by distance, illness, or injury or some other condition, to be celibate. And not all married persons are chaste. Pornography, adultery, lusting after someone in the heart are all examples of not being chaste.

This is giving me a headache.James H – I really do wish you would quit calling Father Dwight just plain “Dwight”. It lacks respect and sounds a bit condescending.

Dwight,Ouch! You know how to hurt a guy…calling me pope!I wonder if you or your other bloggers agree with kkollwitz that the celibate on earth will enjoy a greater vision of God in heaven than the non-celibate? Dwight, maybe if I post my questions a second time, you’ll have had time to look up some heavy tome for the statutory answers. Here goes:1. Jesus also selected married men, not all celibates, so why does the Catholic church differ from Jesus?2. How do you feel about kkollwitz saying: “St. Paul cautions that the married person’s attentions will be necessarily divided between wife and God.”As a married priest, are your attentions divided? For 1,000 years the Catholic church had married priests – were their attentions similarly divided?kkolloiwtz:I don’t understand how you can claim married person will be more distracted but not married priests? Adrienne:I’ve stated before, I prefer to address people by their Christian name. But if someone specifically asks that I use their title, I will. Blessings to you allJames

Dwight,Answers….of a sort.I’m leaving again (no cheers please) as I’ve a book to finish by the end of March or you won’t be able to buy a copy by the end of October.It a biog on a good Catholic guy who went from being a drug addict and alcoholic living as a tramp in London to becoming an Oxford dean and a fully committed Christian.God bless all you lovely, stylish, super-intelligent, full of faith Yanks. We Brits love and appreciate you all. Well, apart from Hiliary.James

All this talk about where we will be placed in Heaven. God has taken care of me up till now. Wherever he places me will be fine as long as it’s Heaven. We are all called to a vocation. It is where it is. Wherever God wants me, I am there.

firstly, before I forget, an aside: there’s a very distinct danger in equivocating the notion of a sacrificial priesthood with it being solely from a utilitarian perspective???To go all aristotelian for a change – there’s the distinct tension between being the celibate [thus emulating the life of Christ] and being chaste procreating parents [where if I may remind you saint Paul says [para] within Human lovemaking we are most ‘God-like’ in sharing in his creation and unifying love]In the end we are accorded our judgment and reward grounded upon how much we have loved – and this includes the cross we are requested to take up ; the sacrifices asked of us.Whether in a celibate or married life these differ in form and intensity ; whether priest or lay depends on many other conditionals as to how well we are about the Lord’s business.James H asked both valid and fallacious questions ; for instance St Joseph and Our Lady were both aware of and deliberated upon fulfilling a prophecy [the virgin will conceive and bear a son – matthew categorically states this and thus compels us to deduce Our Lady’s perpetual virginity [ref Infancy narratives by Rev BM Nolan CM] ; their marriage was exemplary in spite of it not possessing a subsequent procreative fulfillment; their relationship , to use the words of His Holiness , was another example of the anticipation [and no I do not mean expectation – I mean a preliminary manifestation] of our redemption which heralded the kingdom of God [other examples of this anticipation being the immaculate conception, the transfiguration, the real presence within the eucharist at the last supper etc – all these being reverse ‘burstings through’ the space-time continuum of Our Lord’s sacrifice upon calvary.a married priesthood is a very distinct phenomena which makes specific and divisive demands upon all the individuals concerned – it’s why the latin rite has made it practically mandatory except for very limited exceptions [remember canon law changed in ’83 – [without dispensation] ordination while married is now invalid, not illicit] and it’s also why eastern rites do not have married bishops ! the fullness of priesthood requires one to be the servant of one master….May I also remind everyone what the catholic dogmatic position is regarding ordination : One ‘is’ ontologically different – technically it isn’t a becoming at all – the nature and efficacy inherent from the dawn of time to the end of days – it is apeironic -an aspect of the beyond ; a reflection of the kingdom of God – it transcends space and time and works in the same way prayer [and regrettably sin – thus [as His Holiness and von Balthasar remind us] we all conspire in the actuation of original sin – our scarring through it is an effect of our causal actions [i.e. we’re all responsible for ourselves and our neighbours – think of the augustinian defence against pelagianism] Thus the actions and ministries of a real priest cannot be limited by mere protestant perspective of their ‘merely ontologically human and therefore of that limited temporality’ ministerial counterparts .It’s a little too awesome to consider for any length of time – but metaphysically speaking priests are a little bit ‘more human’ [from a perspective of Christ being the archetype] than we lay mortals are [for the time being anyway]

Father Dwight, I would like to ask a question re the ordination of married men such as yourself, and I don’t mean this in any way disrespectfully, it’s just something that has confused me since the Church allowed some ex-Anglicans to be ordained. If the Church teaches that Anglican orders are null and void (which I thought it did, and that is why Anglican clergymen can not confect the Eucharist, but I could be wrong) then what difference is there between a married Anglican clergyman once he becomes a Catholic, and a married Catholic man? Why can one be ordained and not the other? I would be grateful if you could enlighten me. God Bless, and Thankyou.

I love this blog and I read it once a week or so, but I really must say that as a reader I find the posts of Mr. James Hastings to be deliberately bating, condescending, full of willfull misunderstanding, and otherwise annoying. Fr. Dwight and others who enjoy (?) the exchanges, you are welcome to them. But I’ve read my last one involving him. Just wanted to voice my opinion, in case anyone else felt the same and wondered if he/she were alone.Gail Finke

“a married priesthood is a very distinct phenomena which makes specific and divisive demands upon all the individuals concerned – it’s why the latin rite has made it practically mandatory except for very limited exceptions…”Most people in the latin church have ended up, thanks to the accumulated (and largely disastrous) influence of three instalments of neo-platonism – at the times of the the patristic age, the Gregorian period and the counter-Reformation – in confusing the priesthood with monasticism. They essentially have nothing to do with each other.The kind of “distractions” experienced by a married priest sre similar to those experienced by a married lawyer, accountant, doctor, architect, builder, paramedic, policeman, etc, etc.I can’t remember anyone realistically arguing that most people ought to avoid marriage because it distracts them from i) doing their job, or ii) neglecting to fulfil their duty to God (although their once was a spiritual director at Econe who wished that human beings would stop procreating – Father Ludovic-Marie Barielle. I suspect he suffered from French Jansenism).Married bishops endured in the latin church far longer than the eastern church. In fact, there was one, a south American, present at Vatican II as a council father.

Besides, the essence of being a priest involves offering the sacrifice of the mass. A married man can do that just as well as a celibate one.

Father, IMHO are not empty arguments with James like throwing the “pearls before the swine?””Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient.” Ephesians 5:6

I don’t think that anyone here has an appreciation for what Fr. Stone was dealing with when he decided to leave his religious order to care for the widow in question. It is not clear if his intention is to marry or to merely clear his head. If one hasn’t lived the life of a priest, one would not adequately understand the torment that this person was going through. I certainly hope that his order treated him well with regard to the decision that he made. I would probably say that his order didnot treat him well or fairly, but they rather chose to ostracize him for committing the cardinal sin of falling in love and being true to oneself as a human person. It seems that Holy Mother Church treats the criminals in the priesthood, i.e. the pedophiles and child pornographers much better than those who are trying to be true to themselves by not leading a double life, by honestly leaving the priesthood. I would like some statistics on those who are not faithful to their vows or promises byut yet still remain. Unfortunately we will never know this data. I say this because I left the priesthood and married. I have not been laicized nor do I intend on pursuing such a thing, because to me it is irrelevant. However, at the same time, my leaving was being true to myself and I like many others before me was ostracized by the “billion dollar boys club” aka the Roman Catholic Priesthood. I too will pray for Fr. Stone that he will keep the courage to be true to himsel in spite of the vituperative remarks stated by persons who have no appreciation for or any ideas of the struggles that one faces in the priesthood. For them it is easy and conveient to judge, point fingers, and question the degree of one’s masculinity. That is the easy way out. Perhaps they should take the higher rode and try to appreciate the struggles that Fr. Sone, myself and others have gone through by being true to ourselves in the way God would wnat us to be.,

Father Dwight, thankyou for answering my question, and please forgive me for being so dense as to not be satisfied with your reply – I really am trying to get my head around this matter! I hope you don’t mind me questioning you further – Do you think that an Anglican minister is better formed in the Catholic Faith than a Catholic layman who has been well instructed in the “fullness” of the Faith? having shared in the Sacramental life of the Church, including confession, Holy Communion, and Confirmation (which would not have been available to the Anglican)? What about, for example, a seminarian of six years training, who leaves and gets married? Is he not in a better position to become a married Catholic priest than an Anglican? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but from the many Anglican clergymen I have met (some of whom I’m good friends with) I can’t say I have met any who have served in a Catholic manner. Does not the married Catholic layman who perhaps lectures in Theology, and has received the Body of Our Lord, and the other Sacraments, have just as much (or even more?)of a formation in the Faith, which could thus qualify him to become a Priest?I do so want to understand this, (partly because I have to explain it to my son, who was quite shocked to read about a married man becoming a Priest – when we’ve been telling him that Catholic Priests can’t get married!!)so thankyou for taking the time to reply.

I’m curious if those who favor married priests would likewise favor married nuns.- No, but you might be interested to know that their have even been (up to the time of St Bernard) married monks in Ireland, and also married crusading knights in Spain (they weren’t bound by a vow of celibacy – the Order of St James, and were technically, “friars”).

Do you therefore believe the celibate will enjoy a higher state/experience in heaven or a greater vision of God, than those who married?Yes…There’s no proof of this.

“I expect then, that those who embrace the heavenly state of not being married for the sake of the kingdom, are saved, and are rewarded according to their works, may be among the first rank of saints for that reason.”Sorry, didn’t mean to imply they are saved by being celibate, but that if they are celibate, and then if they are saved…Consistent with Paul & Jesus speaking well of celibacy, I expect it to be a work worth a distinctive reward in heaven, commensurate with their recommendations and the sacrifice required.”…in heaven no-one is given in marriage…Irrelevant.”It may be relevant if you intend to imitate Christ by giving up marriage for the sake of the kingdom: “there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

“It may be relevant if you intend to imitate Christ by giving up marriage for the sake of the kingdom: “there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.””No, it’s not relevant, for if you have the charism of celibacy, you’re not making a particular sacrifice in not marrying, you’re are merely acting in accord with such a grace. No special reward could be thereby earned.

It seems quite sad that almost NOBODY stated Biblical truth for the chaste life of priests!!!!! Everyone had their opinions, but few refered the readers to many things said on the subject in the N.T.1. In the words of our Savior, “some have forsaken marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God, those who can, ought to accept it.”2. In the words of Paul, “those men who are single think of ways to please the Lord, while the married man thinks of ways to please his wife. The interests of the married man are divided.” Along with, “He who marries his virgin does good, he who does not marry her does better.” And lets not forget, “It is good for you to remain as I and not touch a woman, but it is better to marry than burn with lust.” It would be thoughtful if us Catholics actually picked up our Bibles and read what the Word of God has to say about the matter…

Ah well, he can always become Orthodox or Episcopalian. Many former Catholic priests who married there. A former Catholic priest friend of mine established his own church, the Catholic Anglican Church. It’s in AR so it’s not too far from Birmingham AL. There are options.James, your beef isn’t with the Church, it’s with Jesus. He said that certain men would receive the call to be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Paul confirmed God’s Wisdom with his teaching about wholehearted, undivided service for the Lord in 1 Cor 7.And yes, James, there is something as a Josephite marriage. My aunt had a Josephite marriage (and she wasn’t even Catholic). In our hypersexualized culture, celibacy is a hard pill for modern pagans to swallow, but that reflects more the depth of their obsession with what is merely earthly.I am celibate but I am not a priest or religious. Imagine that.Yes, a higher degree of glory in heaven is for celibates…it’s in the Book of Revelation–John the Beloved Disciple actually saw Heaven and told us that.You don’t know your Bible very well.