I think a great deal of the confusion came because of statements made by John Hepworth, the archbishop for the Traditional Anglican Communion, when he was being interviewed by "The Australian," a newspaper in his native country. Here's the first mention:
Inquirer: How do the Pope's proposals mesh the Latin celibate discipline for all clergy with Anglicanism's longstanding acceptance of married priests and bishops?
JH: Bishops in the new Anglican structure will be unmarried. This is out of respect for the tradition of Eastern and Western Christianity. But priests who come from Anglicanism will be able to serve as priests in the new structure, whether married or not, after satisfying certain requirements. The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future. It is anticipated that Anglican bishops who are married when they joined the new structure will still be able to serve as priestly ordinaries, exercising some of the responsibilities of bishops.
Then the issue is brought up a second time:
Inquirer: Critics who insist on seeing the Pope as God's rottweiler will be hard pressed to explain the fact that he is prepared to create a parallel jurisdiction with married Catholic priests. Even more surprisingly, the option won't just extend to the present crop of married men in Anglican orders, which most observers expected, but to future generations of clergy.
JH: The Anglican tradition has had married clergy for 500 years. It has a long experience of having a clerical family at the heart of the parish. Apart from Ireland, it was only with the expansion of the British Empire that the situation arose where married Anglican clergy worked in the same place as celibate Catholic clergy. The two traditions will continue to live side by side. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine how an Anglican tradition within Catholicism could sustain itself in the long term without married clergy. Permitting it is not in any way intended as a challenge to the rule of celibacy, but it is allowing the vision of a family at the heart of the parish to flourish at a time when the family is under great stress. On the other hand, Anglican Catholics are going to have to relearn the value of the celibate vocation. The TAC already has a number of celibate bishops and celibate communities of priests and nuns, so perhaps the lesson has begun to be learned.
When I first read this interview on October 24th, it seemed odd to me. I didn't think there had been any indication that the Holy See was considering a change in the discipline that presently governs the Pastoral Provision; namely, those Anglican clerics already married would be considered for a dispensation from celibacy, and those who are unmarried would take a vow of celibacy. Additionally, any future candidates for priestly ministry would be celibate men, and if a married man is widowed, he may not remarry. This always seemed to us to be a reasonable and pastoral solution. But when I read the interview with John Hepworth, I was very surprised at his understanding of what was now being offered by Rome. I commented to several people that it didn't sound accurate, but perhaps he knew something we didn't know.
As it turns out, he was indeed mistaken. I can't imagine where he got the idea that future candidates for the priesthood could be married men. If he thought the Apostolic Constitution was going to apply the discipline of the Eastern Rites to Anglicans, that was a very large and imaginative leap indeed. We're not from an Eastern heritage; we're Latin Rite Catholics. Canterbury traces its roots to Rome, not Constantinople.
Anyway, I'm glad it's cleared up. Now we can get on with more productive discussions about the upcoming Apostolic Constitution.
9 comments:
And what is even better: the Apostolic Constitution will be published soon.
Then it will be time for the Traditional Anglican Communion and probably othr groups of anglo-catholics to discern.
Let's continue praying for them.
Thank you for this wonderful blog.
Yes but...a commenter on my blog has pointed out that the second part of this second paragraph does seem to indicate that perhaps married men (who are not already ordained) may be presented for ordination to the presbyterate on a case by case basis. The crunch will be what the 'objective' criteria' consist of.
The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.
Fr. Longenecker, I think when we see this in the full context of the Constitution, we'll find that there might be a consideration of laymen who are Anglican seminarians. I believe the intention will be clearly stated in the law that the possibility of the ordination of laymen (and let's face it: every Catholic ordination administered absolutely, is, by definition, the ordination of a layman) would apply only to those who are coming into the Church, and not those who are already Catholic, even if they are a member of an Ordinariate.
If that is what is made clear in the Constitution, it'll be a not-so-subtle statement about Anglican Orders; namely, that there's not much difference between Anglican priests and Anglican seminarians.
And as we look into the future, I think the pool of possible converts will be shallow indeed, as much of Anglicanism moves further away from a resemblance to Christianity.
If I'm correct, I win a lunch date with Mantilla the Hon; if I'm wrong, I'm forced to eat lunch with Todd Unctuous.
I had heard from an Eastern Rite priest some years ago that their tradition had been something to the effect that a marriage would be arranged for a seminarian by the bishop from a pool made of of the daughters of priests that went to special schooling to become priests' wives. Perhaps if they added something like that to the Apostolic Constitution, that in the future married men could be considered for ordination if their spouse was chosen by the bishop, that would put an end to it.
I think the key phrase here is "married seminarians already in preparation." This means that we should read the earlier phrase "future seminarians" in the sense that there are now no Anglican ordinariate seminarians but that those who are currently studying for the Anglican priesthood and join the ordinariate will be ordinariate seminarians in the future. This would seem to mean that presently married Anglican seminarians MAY be granted a dispensation but that those entering the ordination process in the future will expected to be celibate.
Br. Stephen, I'm quite certain that's correct.
Daniel, I think the idea of bishops choosing wives for their clergy is a little outside the Anglican patrimony...
Yes, I'm sure. I was suggesting a compromise for those that keep referring to the eastern tradition.
I agree with you Fr. Phillips about Hepworth's interpretation of married priests. From all the posts I have read this seems to be what he has been telling his flock. Now that the Pope has made the offer to them, many are just waiting to see what the Consitution says. If it doesn't say what Hepworth has promised it appears that many will back away. I have always felt that they want to be Anglican Catholics not Latin Rite Catholics.
If in fact, the Church were to give them what they want, the Latin Rite priests and Catholics in general would be outraged. This has been an issue within the Church for many years.
TAC members should look at the history of the Catholic Church in England before Henry the Eighth. There never were married priests and yes there was the Sarum Use, I believe done in latin, but all I have read are demands made from TAC as if they are the ones who are going to allow the Church to follow Anglican traditions, not the other way around. The Holy Father has been generous to offer them to bring some of their Anglican patrimony with them.
I have suggested that they go to the Orthodox Western Rite. Their complaints about the Immaculate Conception is unfounded, in the Orthodox Church although they do not define a time when the BVM was made sinless, they do believe that she was sinless. I think they will be very surpised at the adoration given to her in the Orthodox Church.
From what I have seen it is sour grapes from many of the Anglicans. Before they started negoiations with Rome they should have made sure they understood what it means to be Catholic. They also don't appear to believe in the primacy of Peter.
I pray that the TAC Bishops haven't done too much harm to their people. I see so much pride within these communities. That is the one thing that the original priests who were able to have the Pastoral Provision established did not have. They went with a humble heart to Rome and accepted the Church on its terms, not their own.
Post a Comment