Married, ex-Episcopalian ordained a Catholic priest in California

The eastern Catholic churches (the other 22 churches) have by and large allowed married Priests, but not married Bishops. But there are exceptions to that general rule as well, mostly in Canada and the U.S. where married eastern Catholic Priests are about as common as hen's teeth.

Not so. The Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church does accept married men to the priesthood but does NOT allow them to serve outside of Lebanon. As already pointed out in post #29:

Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronites of Lebanon, said (at the October Vatican synod):

“Half of our diocesan priests are married. However, we must admit that the marriage of priests, even if resolving one problem, also creates other serious problems. A married priest has the duty of taking care of his wife and children, to ensure their education, to secure for them a certain social standing. The priesthood was also a means of social promotion in Lebanon. Another problem arises for a married priest, that of not having misunderstandings with the parishioners. Despite this, it can be the case that the bishop cannot transfer him, due to the impossibility of his family to move with him.”

The Eastern Catholic Churches have much smaller congregations in the US, than their Latin cousins. In the Maronite Church, ONLY CELIBATE PRIESTS may serve outside of Lebanon. The Maronite Church is the 2nd largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

" But the celibate lives of Mary and Joseph"

The Celibate lives of Mary and Joseph must have been a surprise to Jesus' numbeous siblings, James notable among them.

It is believed that Jesus also had 3 sisters and at least 2 brothers, none of them were from celibate parents.

The Celibate lives of Mary and Joseph must have been a surprise to Jesus' numbeous siblings, James notable among them.

James was his cousin.

It is believed that Jesus also had 3 sisters and at least 2 brothers, none of them were from celibate parents.

Really? Where did you read this?

I would refer you to this interesting link

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/sisters.html

I realize now that there is a difference of opionion betweeen Roman Catholics and Protestants on this subject.

I realize now that there is a difference of opionion betweeen Roman Catholics and Protestants on this subject.

This is not a question of opinion; it is fact. You need to go back to the original texts of Scripture as written in the original languages.

While the Bible does mention the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), they are never called the sons and daughters of the Virgin Mary because they are not her children. Mark 15:40 mentions a woman called "Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses". James and Joses are two of the "brethren" of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55, so this woman is clearly their mother, not the Mother of Jesus. This "other Mary" (Mt 28:1) is mentioned in John 19:25 as "Mary the wife of Cleophas", the "sister" of Jesus' mother ("sister" here probably refers to a sister-in-law, since they are both called Mary).

So James and Joses are the sons of Cleophas and the other Mary, who are most likely Jesus' uncle and aunt on Joseph's side. Since Simon and Jude are mentioned with James and Joses, they must also be Jesus' cousins. The fact that the Bible calls them "brothers" does not contradict this. In that culture, as in many Middle Eastern cultures today, the term "brother" was used for many relatives who were not full siblings, such as half or step-brothers, brothers-in-law, nephews, cousins of various degrees, etc. So Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were really His cousins; Scripture calls them "brothers and sisters" in accord with the custom of the time.

In the Gospel accounts of Jesus' family, we discover a definite pattern which indicates that He was indeed an only child. The Bible portrays the Holy Family as consisting of three persons: Jesus, Mary and Joseph. No more, no less. Only Jesus, Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt (Mt 2:13-14); only these three return a while later (2:20-21); only these three go up to Jerusalem when Jesus is twelve (Luke 2:41-43); and these three alone are mentioned after that event (Luke 2:51-52).

None of these episodes in Jesus' childhood mention the birth or existence any brothers or sisters. So at best, any hypothetical half-siblings would have to have been born after the trip to Jerusalem. The oldest of them (James?) would have been thirteen years younger than Jesus, and only seventeen when Jesus began his ministry.

Yet this is inconsistent with the portrayal of Jesus' "brethren" in the Gospels. They speak and act very disrespectfully toward Him (Mark 3:27; John 7:3). Such behavior toward an elder brother would have been inappropriate in that culture, for the firstborn commanded respect from younger siblings. Their tone toward Jesus makes it more likely that they were Jesus' elders, in which case they could not have been Mary's children.

Again, in the account of the Wedding Feast at Cana, we read that Mary was present (Joseph was evidently deceased by then) and that Jesus and His disciples were also invited (John 2:1-2). Yet no mention is made of His "brethren" being present, or even being invited (though they come into the picture again in vs. 12, after the feast ends). If these "brethren" were also Mary's children, it seems odd that just one of her sons would be invited to the wedding with His followers, while absolutely none of the rest of her children were invited! Yet if He were an only child, and his "brethren" were actually more distant relatives, this would make more sense.

Finally, while on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary into the care of St. John, telling them to regard one another as mother and son (Jn 19:26-27). Christ would not have done this unless she had no other sons to provide for her. This is further evidence that Mary had no other children.

And finally, some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

"Why do people keep bringing in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Churches, etc. This is just a red herring, and meant to confuse the issue."

Well, I disagree. What we think of as "The Catholic Church" is actually a consortium of churches, all of which are in communion.

My intent is not to confuse, or offer up a red herring. By way of full disclosure, I happen to go to an eastern Catholic church, as do several other FReepers who regularly post the religious threads.

"The Roman Catholic Church is the dominant Church in America and South America, so let's not bring irrelevent information about other Churches."

Relevance is a matter of perspective. From my own personal perspective, what the western (Roman) Catholic church is up to is usually irrelevant, since I don't attend church there.

I would have to agree that the western (Roman) Catholic church amongst the Catholic churches is dominant as to numbers of parishioners and economics. But it's debatable as to whether the western church is actually dominant on theological issues at this point and time. The eastern churches have more influence than their relatively small numbers would lead you to think.

"Not so. The Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church does accept married men to the priesthood but does NOT allow them to serve outside of Lebanon. As already pointed out in post #29."

Perhaps my way of stating it was notso hotso. Both of our eastern Catholic churches have married men who have been accepted to the priesthood, but neither allow them to serve in the U.S. I think that'll change, but not in the immediate future.

I doubt this will change. Go back to the documentation from the October Synod and read the comments from Patriarch Sfeir regarding the problems with married priests. Those problems are axacerbated in today's society.

"I doubt this will change. Go back to the documentation from the October Synod and read the comments from Patriarch Sfeir regarding the problems with married priests. Those problems are axacerbated in today's society."

I respectfully disagree that this will change, although I do think that the Maronites will be about the last eastern Catholic church to have married men as Priests in the U.S. The Maronite Patriarch had some very good words about the problems with having married Priests, however, I think that the cat is already out of the bag.

The Melkites are already ordaining married men in the U.S. I can't recall but I think either the Ukranians or the Romanians have done so as well. The Byzantines will likely follow within the next 5 years.

The internal dynamics for each of the churches are different, as we'd expect from sui iuris churches.

The Melkites are already ordaining married men in the U.S. I can't recall but I think either the Ukranians or the Romanians have done so as well. The Byzantines will likely follow within the next 5 years.

Again, we're talking about very small churches with close knit communities and an established precedent from the East, where marriage is still viewed as a lifelong commitment.

This is not the case in the West, where more than half of all marriages end in divorce. The Latin Church has enough problems dealing with those bishops who allowed homosexuals to become priests. Imgaine the scandal if they are allowed to enlist married men into the priesthood, who then turn around and divorce their wives. Already in the East, the Sacrament of Marriage is beginning to lose its sanctity. That is what Patriarch Sfeir attempted to address before the Synod. You solve one problem while creating another. The Latin Church can barely support its celibate priests; how would it support a married man with wife and children?

Even in the protestant denominations, married clergy has not resolved the shortage of priests.

What has worked (so far) in the East, does not ensure that it would be effective in the West. As Patriarch Sfeir also noted, the celibate priest offers greater mobility and flexibility. He clarified to all assembled that in the East, celibacy is considered the greatest treasure of the Catholic Church.

Should you still entertain any doubts, I would refer you to the links provided by our good friend, freeper Salvation, here

"What has worked (so far) in the East, does not ensure that it would be effective in the West."

I think perhaps you misunderstand my position. I don't consider changing the traditions of the western church with regard to Priestly celibacy to be my business. For all practical purposes, I no longer have a dog in the fight. And I wouldn't be keen on the idea in any case. The western church has a long and largely successful tradition in this regard. My advocacy for having married men as Priests is restricted to the eastern churches.

While I would oppose forcing what is essentially an eastern tradition of married Priests on the western church, I also oppose continuing what is essentially a forced western tradition within the eastern churches in the U.S.

What's good for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.