At the Start of a New Blogging Week…
September 3, 2012 43 Comments
After the fiery comments this weekend on the posts, Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross Contacts and The Continuing Anglican Church in Australia (CACA), off we go…
So I’d like to begin by pointing to a post this morning by Fr Anthony Chadwick, Blogs have their limits… Well yes, they most certainly do. From it:
I have given a considerable amount of thought to the demise of the Anglo-Catholic and the article written by Fr Christopher Phillips to fill in the gaps. That blog died because it had no further purpose. Its purpose evolved in a way with which I could not agree, so I was the first significant contributor to take the exit door. There was a Cistercian monk who wrote frequently, and he seems to have disappeared. With the decisions by Fr Phillips and Deborah Gyapong to go, that was it. Christian Campbell himself set up a new and unrelated blog in which he discusses the things that interest him. I can only applaud this effort and wish him well.
I have often reached “crisis” points in my time as a blogger…
… Until now, I have been prepared to take a lot of flak out of a sense of human solidarity. I joined the TAC in 2005 by writing to Archbishop Hepworth, and he had the kindness to believe that irregularities and difficulties could be redeemed and corrected. I was staunchly loyal to him for nearly seven years. He was a respected Archbishop and Primate until September 2011. Another thing not to be forgotten is that we are both sailors – other people’s lives come first. You always go to the assistance of someone in difficulty or danger. Incivility exists at sea, but I have only found that with one professional fisherman who despised people who mess about in boats for pleasure. The man was tragically lost at sea last May! I believe in the law of Karma. You get what you gave – cause and effect.
I have to admit that some things just don’t add up, but I am still grateful to him for having given me an ecclesial vocation to my priesthood for seven years. Now I have only to ask for moderation in our way of talking about him, and I am hated and shot with venom. At best I pass for someone as “deceitful” as the Archbishop, guilt by association. I have read a number of comments on Fr Smuts’ blog to that effect. We are in France in 1944 – resistants getting even with collaborators. Woe betide the young girl who had an affair with a German soldier! Where is the forgiveness and desire to put the past behind us and rebuild?
Archbishop Hepworth has never done anything bad to me personally, and I have no way of being able to pronounce on the soundness of his decision to allow harrowing events in his personal life to hit the news. I might suspect this or that, but I have no evidence. From my own point of view, I followed him as far as possible, but can no longer do so. That has caused me a considerable amount of pain, but life has to go on. You can only leave the drowned sailor in the sea and make your own way to survival!
In early 2012, Archbishop Prakash wrote a kind letter to me saying that I was not forgotten, and that I was still under proper jurisdiction as a priest. The TAC is only the shadow of what it was in October 2007, because it engaged on an illusory trajectory of asking Rome for something already requested in the 1990’s by Church of England clergy. The remnant is difficult to quantify apart from the bishops who participated in a meeting last March in South Africa. Communications are rare, Canada being the least taciturn with the monthly bulletins. The Australians merely have a directory of clergy and parishes, and we still await a new English website to give news and inform the world what’s left.
I express my own position clearly. I am not (and have not been) involved in any conspiracies, but at the same time I am not sure about staying indefinitely in the TAC if I know next to nothing about whether it amounts to very much in any part of the world anything like near where I live. I am still dismayed about the US bishops and how they handled the old Patrimony of the Primate, not to speak of the debacle of that neo-baroque church in California. At the same time, if the TAC is a “feeding tank” of stragglers for the Ordinariate, no stable consolidation is possible for those who are opposed to the RC Church for doctrinal reasons or are unsatisfied with the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus, notably the rigorist application of the principle that on one who has ever been a Roman Catholic will be admitted to the clergy, and without any consideration of any mitigating circumstances. There must be a parting of the ways, but in a Christian way, not like angry people killing each other just after the Armistice.
The obvious solution would be for the TAC to continue in Africa and India and be folded up elsewhere, asking bishops of other churches to have the kindness to take in the shipwrecked by recognising some validity of their previous Christian lives or priestly ministry.
At this point, I am forced to recognise the total sterility of any further discussion of the TAC and the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus – not only on my own blog, but also in Fr Smuts’ postings and the comments on these subjects. It is unhealthy, even addictive in a certain sense, and can lead only to loss of faith, if not in God, at least in the institutional church.
Unlike previous times, I am not making a dramatic announcement of a more or less permanent hiatus, and I see no reason to close down this blog. I might feel inclined to write something tomorrow, but I must apply ascetic means to resist the temptation to perpetuate this poison killing our spiritual life and candid belief in the Absolute. Many questions in my own life remain unanswered, but I will not discuss them with anyone other than my own family. It hurts, and I limp on…
I have questioned my own vocation for a considerable length of time, and am increasingly alienated by the Church every time I am physically confronted with its reality. I have found the same thing in my experience of stays in the guest house of a monastery. Am I under the influence of evil spirits or someone having almost achieved what Jung called individuation? I won’t find the answers on the Internet. My real vocation was the sea, am I can probably do something about it to a very limited extent. The contemplative life at sea is not without precedent – St Brendan!
What conclusion can I offer? Perhaps I can offer a little advice. Don’t look for relief to our spiritual agony on the Internet any more than in our mailboxes. Don’t wait for Godot, because Godot will never come. We have to go to Godot and our destiny is in our own hands. Many of us will never find resolution in this life and death will come all too soon, the loose ends remaining loose. Wherefore unsatisfied soul? and Whither O mocking life? – as I quoted in another context. We are at the same time our own best friends and worst enemies. We are full of the same contradictions as we find in others, and this is why we often over-react by “projection”. I see that with the “trolls” who are as rude and callous on the Internet as they are in their cars blasting their horns and tail-gating.
And when we hit rock-bottom, and all the rubble gets cleared away, we may discover the meaning of Original Sin, the Redemption and the real Christ. That is our faith and hope in the darkness and the desert. Let us pray for each other. That is the least we can do.
There’s also a question on the TAC on the blog Foolishness to the world - although I see no problem myself.
And the (Ordinariate) formation for of the former Canadian Anglican clergy, is to begin in Advent of 2012.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Thanks for linking, Father, but there is more to my unease than Terry and Robert Ian Williams among the other ghouls in the closet. I live in the wrong place to be able to employ my priestly character in a pastoral ministry. I think the ones best suited to fly the flag are you and Deborah Gyapong.
I hesitate to incur the risk of being characterised as one of Father Chadwick’s “ghouls”, but I think it is not irrelevant to point out that one of the complicating issues in this whole story is the position of [Roman] Catholic clergy who have received major orders in the Catholic Church and then excercised ministry in other churches.
Father Chadwick’s own account of his personal history on Introduction sets out with candour his own history and from the account he gives it is self-evident (i) that he received valid diaconal orders in the Catholic Church; (ii) that his priestly ordination may have been by a prelate in schism but nonethless effective (iii) that he will have incurred automatic canonical penalties under Canon Law and therefore, like Hepworth, he would not have been able to return to communion with the Catholic Church and continue any ministry via the Anglicanorum Coetibus process.
As things stand, as with Hepworth, it is not likely that he or other priests in the like position would be able to return to communion with the See of Rome otherwise than on terms that they live in the lay state.
There are undoubteldy many former Catholic clergy in the same position and not a few of them exercise ministry in different parts of the Anglican Communion and in Churches claiming to be Anglican continuing bodies. Indeed, every time the newspapers print some story or other about CofE clergy joining the OLW ordinariate, some spokesman or other will pop up with a story about Catholic priests who are now ministering as Anglicans.
Comparatively few such former Catholics seem to gravitate to the extreme evangelical positions held by some in the very broad spectrum of Anglicanism. Most feel the need to be in communion with a bishop and many will be just as concerned about recent developments in the theological positions adopted by the CoE (not to mention the US Episcopal Church) as are the many priests and laity who have either switched from Anglican Communion churches to “continuing Anglican” jurisdictions or who are seeing communion with the Catholic Church by one of the different routes now open to them.
I think the time is fast coming when the Latin Church will have to revisit the whole question of universal priestly celibacy. It may not be in my lifetime but I think the time is coming when the Church in the West will have to adopt the discipline of the Eastern churches.
More importantly, I think the time has come for the Church to adopt a more pastoral approach to those former priests who are out of communion and make it easier for them to be reconciled. That is why I was interested in Father Chadwick’s notion of a solidality or some other kind of support network. I think the Church has been over anxious to maintain clerical discipline as opposed to pastoral care and further, I believe that many of these priests had and still have a genuine ministerial vocation and ways and means should be sought to enable them to have a role in the life of the Church.
Btw Mourad, you simply cannot engage many of these issues and subjects without Theology, and certainly a Biblical Theology! Even the Ratzinger/Benedict is seeking some aspect of a Biblical Theology in his books of late, note (Scott Hahn’s book: Covenant and Communion, The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI).
Father Chadwick’s “ghouls – what I call “ghouls” are those who behave like trolls. You write from the point of view of a convinced Roman Catholic, but you are polite and sensitive. I have appreciated your calling for clerical discipline to be tempered with pastoral care. Unfortunately, the powers that be seem to feel dispensed from even recognising some of us as human beings. I do not wish to return to the Roman Catholic Church and I am willing to put my salvation on the line – but I wish to be Christian, kind and good. Choices will have to be made…
Pingback: More TAC news | Ordinariate Expats
“no one who has ever been a Roman Catholic will be admitted to the clergy, and without any consideration of any mitigating circumstances”
This statement is not 100% accurate. Generally, departing the Catholic Church as a child or teenager has not been considered an absolute impediment in case of some UK Ordinariate priests. Moreover, contrary to this statement, Fr. Ed Meeks of Christ the King, Towson (of TAC not TEC!) was actually a Catholic seminarian in the 1960s, nevertheless he has been ordained for the US Ordinariate.
I agree. The actual prohibition is contained in the Complementary Norms at 6.2 “Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate.”
In this context “ordained” must refer to the conferral of major orders: diaconate or priesthood. The absolute prohibition is therefore quite limited.
Just more legal “Judaization”, very sad!
As we know from behaviourist psychology, it is much easier to extinguish a learned behaviour if the stimulus changes from Always to Never preceding the desired event. If the stimulus Sometimes precedes the event, even once in a blue moon, the behaviour resists extinction. After all, this might just be the lucky moment. Although I think that the generally harsh application of the canonical prohibition against ordaining those in delict of schism is intended to close the door on anyone hoping to avoid celibacy requirements, I also believe that the rare exceptions enable the church to exert more psychological power over her erring former members than if there were no exemptions ever.
I know that this is a sensitive topic, and this post is not intended to cause pain or to be trollish. But I also think that it is important to note that in this area of the treatment of (former) Catholic clergy, that the Catholic Church is treating them like rational, intelligent adults, who have chosen to engage in an act which they knew has profound consequences.
These clerics are men who have not just been formed as Catholics in their formative years, but that they are men who have been to seminary, have studied for years, have discerned a vocation, and who are freely choosing to be ordained and public leaders of the Catholic community. They are entrusted with the most sacred of the Church’s gifts – that of its sacraments and its people. It is serious when a Catholic leaves the Church. For an ordained cleric to leave the Church, it is viewed as an act of self-excommunication, schism, a grave and profound breach of trust, and the cause of great scandal – done with full knowledge of the seriousness of the act. To subsequently join another community and function publicly as a cleric is seen as adding to the scandal.
With all respect irishanglican, I think referring to this act as “judaization” does not reflect the seriousness that the Catholic Church views this act or take into account the harm it inflicts on the greater community. I know that it may seem like the “human” element is lost in the Catholic Church’s interactions with its (former) clergy. But actions, and particularly actions of clergy, have consequences. These consequences are listed publicly in the Church’s own law, they are not arbitrary, they don’t change, and would certainly be known by any seminarian studying for Catholic Orders before the cleric ever freely chose to be ordained.
Please understand, I feel great compassion for those who have found themselves ecclesiastically shipwrecked these days. I can only imagine that it is a horrible place to find one’s self. But the known and consistent reaction of the Catholic Church and its treatment of its (former) clergy is a reflection of the seriousness in which the Church views the act and the harm it causes. I don’t know what promises were made pre-Anglicanorum Coetibus regarding (former) Catholic clergy. But certainly the reaction of the Church has remained consistent across the board, with no indications from Rome that its discipline in this area was going to be relaxed.
If one disagrees with the way that these cases are handled then one is certainly entitled to that opinion. However, I think that it is important to understand WHY the Church reacts this way to its (former) clergy, and also to note that this discipline is and has been applied consistently.
This kind of argument does not wash. In civil society and the penal system, every attempt is made to rehabilitate prisoners and those to be released from jail. In the Church, there could be diocesan offices for helping to rehabilitate clerics either in clerical life or in some other fulfilling vocation.
I don’t want to sound bitter, but if civil courts and judges practised the law the way the Church does, we would be back to the days of hanging judges.
In the end of the day, I have a strange sense of detachment when I read about the free-fall in Ireland and other countries. When it has all fallen and is forgotten, maybe it could all start again with a couple of hermit monks…
I would very respectfully disagree with you. In using your own analogy – it isn’t as if the the ones who would be rehabilitated are not able to be brought back into and welcomed back into society. It is just that once you have someone who has been convicted of embezzling funds from the bank, you don’t return that person to being bank manager. You welcome them back, but they have lost the trust that was placed in them when they initially took the position. In civil society, it would be unthinkable to return the bank manager to his former position.
The analogy is apt, because the Catholic Church would view the act of a cleric committing schism in the same way and with the same seriousness. A “felony” has been committed, and you do not put someone who has broken the trust of the community in a position where they could decide to or have the opportunity to do it again. They were entrusted with the most valuable assets the community possesses, and then profoundly broke that trust. So no “hanging judges” here to be found – I think when put in context the actions of the Church make sense, though I do not in any way deny that it would be very painful to be on the receiving end of Church discipline. It may seem like a harsh penalty, but the offense is comparatively grave, and in the eyes of the Church it is a fitting, fair, and sensible penalty for a cleric who with full knowledge committed the offense.
I think finding lay positions for clerics who find themselves in this positions would be a good thing – though I wonder how difficult it would be to be in such close proximity to the office they used to hold, but not to be able to hold it. Would it not be better and less painful for the person to do something else altogether?
Again, I do not post this to cause pain. But it is important to have the Church’s perspective on this. It is not that the Church is trying to be unnecessarily harsh, unjust, arbitrary, or punative and this “side of the story” needs to be explained.
I saw that this exchange made it on to Fr. Chadwick’s blog. I’d just like to say that the only reason for these posts is that if we are going to be describing the policies of the Catholic Church using gallows and death penalty language, then I think it is important that the Church’s position is also expressed to counter that impression. There are rational reasons that the Church’s practice is what it is, and if it is going to be taken to task for it, those reasons should also be presented. Whether I personally agree or disagree with them is frankly immaterial, because they are what they are. But in the interest of fairness the Church’s position should be presented to let other readers make their own decision concerning the justice or fairness of the policy.
It is also known that there are those on this blog who are personally and profoundly affected by these policies, and please understand that I feel great compassion for their situations. I know that it is a horrible place to be – regardless of how one found one’s self there. I do not want to cause pain or added suffering, and I think ad hominem attacks are not in keeping with our Christian beliefs.
So having done what I set out to do, which is to do my best to explain why the Church has such a policy regarding the reconciliation of its former clergy, I’m bowing out of this discussion.
Dear Fr. Chadwick, Forgive me if you perceive this as an attack, it is not meant to be. Now is not the time to present yourself as a victim or a martyr. Far from it. You are also responsible for a great deal of heartache and insults to a good many people.
I would strongly suggest that you put your hand in own bosom and endeavour to calculate the damage done by you with your hot headed and harsh approach to people who did not underwrite your perspective on the developments within the church. Whether it be Catholic or TAC.
Take your mind back and recall your exceedingly angry response to a blogger using the pseudonym ‘Ghislieri”, whom you labled as an imposter of no brains. IP address in the Vatican. Did you ever deign to establish the identity of that commenter? I guess not. Well, then please take the time to consider the implications of that singular action.
Rather than always lamenting the fate of Archbishop Hepworth, consentrate on constructive criticism.
Convert souls Father, THAT is why you are a priest.
Ooh, you are a bitter so-and-so, more than I would ever be!
I suggest you empty your bag about Ghislieri. I haven’t the foggiest idea who he is – either a whacked-out traditionalist or a curia official, perhaps the Pope’s butler behind Vatileaks. I’ll let you into a little secret – I don’t care.
Might also have been Prof Gianfanco Ghirlanda !!! Think about that.
Prof Gianfanco Ghirlanda? As I said, a whacked-out traditionalist. It serves him right for trolling on blogs!
He was not a troll. In fact, he was very polite. But, as he did not quite agree with your rosy, Hepworthian world, he like the rest of us who saw through Hepworth, got branded a troll. And now you use the term ghouls. I love how your holiness shines through.
You try and come across like some holy man who’d been hard done by, but in the end, your underlying viciousness comes bubbling up automatically. Just look at your replies to …into the fire. It’s no wonder you never got your nulla osta. Your credential were probably dodgy in the first place, and as you continue to show, you have no compassion and no clue in how to be a proper priest. You just sound like a very, bitter man who didn’t get his own way. Why don’t you let it go, eh? Take your worries and anger to the cross and let it go. Show the world that you know how to really be a priest, and not just trying to blog like one.
Sorry, got Ghirlanda mixed up with Gherardini. Still, Jesuit theologians don’t troll on blogs.
If they happen to have been responsible for writing up the Complementary Norms to AC, it is not improbable.
Look at the response we got!
Incidental?
Likely not.
Quite honesty, mate, I’d love to know what you’re smoking. You sound really whacked out!
Hello !! you in fire. Stop. !! Father has repented !!. Give him that and he is part of the TAC like Father Smuts. Fire is hot and burning my blogging priests is not good.. Let us move forward even if it without Father Smuts on the blogs..
But that is bad for the TAC..
I have sensed an ebbing away of Fr Chadwick’s faith in many of his posts, which is saddening. But Terry is correct in pointing out some aspects of his tone in times past which always provided an unsettling contrast with much that was insightful.
I know its hard for some Ordinariate people, as too “some” traditional Roman Catholics here at least, to see and get it, that there are actually many of us former Roman Catholics, that simply have no desire to go back to Rome, and especially the great “Judaization”, that Catholicism can often suddenly set forth! One would have to be quite full of just Roman zeal (what we used to call Roman fever), not to see this “spirit”. This is not really an attack, as just being real, and seeing reality in some of Roman Catholicism!
You are mistaken, Fr Robert. Before Hepworth’s world came tumbling down, our dear friend Chadwick was all for the Ordinariate, and pro returning back to the Catholic church. He believed there would be corporate reunion, as Hepworth assured him, and I think he believed he would get some position of authority, being so close to Hepworth. He even started calling himself Monsignor on the web but after some readers called him out on it, he stopped. Nothing to do with Roman fever or the lack of it.
I think the sad thing is, Chadwick can’t admit that he fell for the con hook, line and sinker. He lost face, and was made to look a fool, and for someone with his pride and arrogance, that must have really angered him. Hence, the bitterness. Sad, very sad.
I was not speaking for Fr. Chadwick strictly. And everyone should know that when it comes to the priesthood for Roman, they move on a one on one basis. So nothing is ever sure there, I have seen men not cut the Roman muster for being too theological and independent at end of their education.
I think the Monsignor self-designation was from another phase of Fr Chadwick’s career significantly predating the TAC years.
Btw, I must confess I know little about Fr. C myself, i.e. his history etc. This is not an negative from me, just my personal ignorance.
I certainly accept that there are some former Catholics are happy in their schismatic state and of course they generally also espouse beliefs which many Catholics would regard as heretical. You describe your position:-
“I am always a conservative, both biblically/theologically (this includes being a “Biblical” Zionist, historical and premillennial). Right now, I am inclined to the Post- trib. position on the so-called rapture. But I am pressed towards the Progressive Dispensational position at the moment. I cannot escape some kind of dispensational scheme, though I am certainly covenantal & reformed on the Doctrines of Grace. I have changed my views here somewhat, and will continue to grapple with the biblical text on this subject. The Church and culture is certainly moving closer into the great eschatological end!”
Progressive Dispensationalism! Still, I suppose there is a precedent.
Did not the utterly dotty John Nelson Derby, father of the Dispensationalism nonsense, also start out his ecclesiastical career as a Church of Ireland clergyman?
Have you signed up for After the Rapture Pet Care ?
@Mourad: Awe, you have found my own blog, do you really want to engage me, or just take ad hoc pot-shots? I have always sought to engage clearly, intellectually..certainly biblically and theologically with you and Catholicism! (YOU, have yet to answer my points to the Roman problems of “Judaization”!) And if you knew something of the Eschatological subject, you would have more respect for it, but you don’t! There is no need for “pet care” in the Post-trib position! Again, another ad hoc, if not really ad hom attempt!
My last name is Darby, but no connection with JND however. But yes, my greatgram was a PB (Plymouth Brethren, so-called, in Ireland). She later went to England, and died among the so-called Open Brethren (check out F.F. Bruce here). SHE was one the greatest Christian influences on me… from her I learned to love the Holy Scripture, she could quote whole blocks and chapters of the KJV, what a women of God she was, RIP! (Died when I was 15) So learn Sir to tread lightly, or you just might be made to look even more foolish!
Indeed as to John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882), yes he was an Anglican at one time, and an Irish clergyman. But of course become one of the so-called Father’s of the PB’s…Plymouth Brethren Movement. And yes, he is considered to be the father of modern so-called Dispensationalism. His literary efforts were quite massive, even translating the whole Bible into English: The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages. And yes, I have this traslation myself. It is quite seen as a very good literal Bible Translation, with textual notes, etc. So again, before you move into any ad hoc and ad hom with and towards JND, beware of looking ignorant! I have too JND’s very large Collected Writings (my great grams). In his time he was a very able Bible commentator and apologist! So if your not ready to engage worthly, historically and theologically, ya better stow it mate!
And btw, Darby was educated at Westminster School and Trinity College, Dublin where he graduated Classical Gold Medallist in 1819. And btw, he was also trained as a lawyer, but chose ordination as an Anglican… “lest he should sell his talents to defeat justice”.. (his words). In 1825, Darby was ordained deacon of the establised Church of Ireland and the following year as priest.
And btw, let me share this link for the PD…Progressive Dispensationalism, note I would be closer to both Darrell Bock here, and also Robert Saucy (note, Saucy’s, now classic book -1993… The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism, The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology), the latter is still a profound and full theological study!
I send this for those who might have interest and open mind!
http://www.theopedia.com/Progressive_dispensationalism
While I accept that Wayfarer’s post represents the traditional justification for the approach the Church takes to schismatic clerics, I question some of the premises he puts forward.
For example, I can think of quite a number of priests of my generation where the issue of whether the choice was truly a “free” choice must be questionable. The Church has in recent years made some quite radical reforms in how it assesses the suitability of candidates for ordination including the use of psychological assessment to determine whether a candidate has the right temperament for the priestly life and is more ready to defer ordination to test a vocation than was formerly the case. Candidates are encouraged to take a “gap year” before their higher education. Precautions worth taking rathe than trying to force square pegs into round holes. Likewise the Church has made it easier than once was the case for a priest to apply to be dispensed from his vows so as to be able to live in the lay state and perhaps marry. Not uncommonly, a sensible bishop witll encourage a priest to take a sabbatical as part of the process of discerning what is the right personal solution.
I suspect many of the problems of schismatic priests were exacerbated when some bishops stopped regarding their priests as a spritual extended family and running their dioceses as if they were corporations.
I do not doubt the need for discipline when a member of the clergy commits as grave an offense as schism. But while one should hate the sin one should love the sinner. Justice should be tempered with mercy. Just as it is the case that whole life sentences for murder are rare, a whole life depriviation from ministry should be equally rare. Why not the kind of graduated approach which is adopted in many penal systems ? As a rough example, (i) return to the Church and live a life as a layman for a period – with the guidance of a spiritual director; (ii) undertake a prescribed number of periods on retreat in a monastery or other house in the lay state – living in a community but benefiting from the daily group observance of the canononical hours; (iiI) be permitted to progresss to (say) assisting in a parish under the supervision of an experienced pastor mentor (iv) graduating to diaconal functions (v) eventually assistant priest under supervision or whatever might be prudent.
Some of the readers may remember “the Nun’s Story” with Audrey Hepburn. Remember the Belgian priest who had had an illicit carnal relationship and received an appropriate sanction – but who was permitted to resume his priestly function on terms that he went to minister to a leper colony. “Once a priest, always a priest” means what it says. I’m certainly not for making re-integration easy – but NEVER is too harsh. And very possibly a waste of a precious resource.
Mourad, I respect what you say, and think you likely have a point. Times and methods of seminarian evaluation have come a long way, and I think our seminarians are much better prepared these days for the ministry they undertake.
However, the only problem with questioning whether the priest was truly free in choosing his ordination is that if it really is the case that he was not free, then you have a case of invalid Catholic orders, in the same way that if you enter into marriage but it is not freely chosen, you have an invalid marriage. And if the cleric’s orders are invalid, then ever sarcadotal act that he ever performed that required the exercise of orders is equally invalid.
This leaves the Church with a bit of a quandary – with that reasoning you either have a case of invalid orders from the get-go, or you have a case of clerical schism with the penalties that go along with it. Both unfortunately lead to the same place.
Again, I don’t think that this has anything to do with “loving or hating the sinner.” It has to do with the gravity of the offense that leads to a very grave penalty. There may be extraordinary circumstances that would mitigate this permanent penalty, but given the gravity of the offense I can only think that Rome would exercise that option infrequently.
@wayfarer: You make a great point, any man that God’s calls to Holy Orders and Ministry, simply must be free in making that choice, the church alone does not make that call, but in some degree does of course recognize and authenticates that validity, in the call of God. It is here I have always thought of the work and ministry of John the Baptist! Btw, here we can see that tension in the OT between priesthood and prophet. In reality all historical churches have had this problem, recognizing not just the “priestly” office of the presbyter, but indeed the “prophetic” and pastoral call of God, and note this simply always includes the pastor-teacher, (Eph. 4: 11).
I don’t think your objection on the defective intention necessarily follows. For example, where a marriage is annulled for want of intention, that does not make the children illegitimate.
Here I am talking about priests who are not in schism but who wish to be released from their vows. Here there is no likley issue of the consecrating bishop not having the correct intention and very possibly the ordinand too thought he was consenting and therefore the release from the vows need not be retroactive. I don’t think it would be beyond the wit of canonl lawyers to work out a proper formula.
We can agree to disagree about the need for a perpetual prohibtion on ministry after schism.
@Mourad: Wow, this slicing and dicing over the so-called canon law, is just again my point as to the “Judaization” of the Law of God in the Catholic Church. Without mercy and grace, we simply cannot reason or do proper judgment here, and also here is where we simply MUST do biblical theology! (John 1: 16-17 / Gal. 5: 22-23) “canonical lawyers & proper formula”? Ugh!
@Post Dispensationalist Robert:
“It is easier for a camel to pas thought the eye of a needle, than is for the Rapture Ready to penetrate the gin & tonic belt of the home counties
@Mourad: I wondered when you were gonna get to just plain old ad hominem! And again, your lack of theological ability is quite evident, there is no such thing as “Post Dispensationalist”! Very sad for a church lawyer, you really should know better! I think you should quit commenting theologically, as you are really exposing your ignorance!
@ Progressive Dispensational Robert
As you will have well understood I meant to write “Progressive” rather than “Post. As for not engaging in theological debate, you now it my practice not to debate such matters with those whose beliefs I regard as heretical. I’ll leave that to the professionals,
But I do no regard dispensationalism (any flavour) as being anything other thah “lunatic fringe”
@Old School Traditional Roman Catholic Mourad,
Well since I classify as one of “the professionals”, I will press on and wade-in “theologically” and biblically, as such in fact, really, are all Christians in reality called to do!
Btw, I should state that I have held to both the classic Amill and too for awhile (years back) the Post-Mill also (see the Hebrew Catholic blog, ach@hebrewcatholic.org). – This blog is Catholic and Jewish friendly, and holds to the position that God will swing back, in/with the Covenant, to the Jewish people and Land of Israel, after the Gentile Apostasy! – And of course there are variations in those positions, not to mention full Preterism, and parcel Preterism, etc. So, my change to the PD has been personally responsible and certainly theologically Biblical (of course as I see it!). I would of course admit to the history and effect of Modern Israel here too, and both living and teaching in Israel in the late 90′s. I am certainly not ashamed to be called a “Biblical Zionist”! It took me years of both study and experience to get to my position, and I thank God for it, most certainly! So to place the PD (Progressive Dispensationalist theology) in the “lunatic fringe”, is most certainly theologically ignorant and bigoted to say the least! But, so you Mr. “Mourad” have constantly shown yourself to be!
Here’s the link for the Hebrew Catholic blog…
http://hebrewcatholic.org/AboutheAHC/index.html
The problem for many TAC clergy is not that they ever held Roman Catholic orders of any kind, it was that they were run-of-the-mill lay people (or in some cases seminarians but never ordained) who left the Catholic Church as adults. Now if someone leaves the Catholic Church with the motive of getting around celibacy requirements in hopes to be accepted back as a Catholic priest with a wife in tow years later, that might be one reason to give pause, but for most ot these guys I would hazard a guess that as Catholics they were not all that well catechized about the nature of the Church, were troubled by the excesses after the Second Vatican Council and fled the Church because they felt they had to leave to find Jesus elsewhere. They found the TAC and gradually became evangelized to the point where, yes, they realized the need to be reconciled with the Church. Yes, the position on those who had already been ordained is understandably strict though I still think that in cases like Hepworth’s (where he fled the priesthood because of continuing and long-standing sexual and psychological abuse) mitigating circumstances should be considered. I believe Fr. Anthony may also have mitigating circumstances. But to impose this kind of strict view on lay people who might have not known right from left at the time they were in delict of schism I find deeply unpastoral and obviously, those who were able to get a proper narrative conveyed to CDF and the powers that be did get their cases handled differently than the harsh letter from Cardinal Levada that the ACCC’s five priests received.
I think it is worth emphasising that the only absolute bar expressed in the texts is that those who have been ordained as Catholics, may not use the process of Anglicanorum Coetibus to become Priests of the Ordinariates.
The logic behind that is plainly that of “once a priest, always a priest”. If orders have once been conferred, that process is irreversible, they cannot be conferred a second time. Every RC cleric is “incardinated”, that is to say he has a religious superior – a diocesan bishop or, if in a religious order his Abbot, or equivalent superior. No lay person has a right to be ordained, but once ordained, the incardination process means that there is a life-long bond between the priest and his superior which goes both ways – for example the superior is bound to povide for the priest in daily life, in case of sickness and in old age. So, in the case of priests who have, so to speak, “gone AWOL”, those mutual obligations remain and the way to reconciliation is via that superior.
For former Catholc laypersons who have received Anglican Orders, the position is different because the Church considers those Orders not to be valid, thus their cases can be considered under Anglicanorum Coetibus – which involves a consideration of the entire personal history of an applicant and is always discretionary – just as it is for catholics.