Posted on 05/08/2002 8:08:34 PM PDT by Antoninus
Just about now, Joseph Ruane, a married Catholic priest, could be shaking a finger at the church and saying, "I told you so."
But that is not the Christian way.
And make no mistake: Ruane may have resigned his parish post in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, he may celebrate Mass at home or participate in a Mass led by a woman, he may officiate at the weddings of divorced people, he may be married - but he is still a Roman Catholic and he is still a priest.
Ruane, 69, was a founding member in 1968 of a group for priests who left their jobs because they disagreed with the church's insistence on celibacy.
Now, as the church struggles with a sexual abuse scandal and celibacy is being widely debated, the experiences of Ruane and the other hundreds of members of the Federation of Christian Ministries are even more timely.
Ruane and another married colleague, Augustinian Peter McGuinness, 57, are among the married priests on www.rentapriest.com, a database of 2,500 married priests available for weddings and other ceremonies. The Web site is run by Louise Haggett, 61, a Maine woman who in 1992 founded Celibacy Is The Issue, a lay organization working to end the celibacy mandate.
Ruane and McGuinness spoke recently about celibacy, the church, and the confusion and pain brought on by the sex abuse scandal.
Both men prefer not to use the title father because to them it is akin to being placed on a pedestal, and they do not seek to separate themselves from the laity in that way.
They are not "defrocked," Ruane explains, they are laicized, which means they cannot perform ceremonies or administer the sacraments recognized by the church. Their ordinations were not taken away, however. (A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said that office would not comment on their organization or their status.)
They say they are saddened that so many good priests are now subject to suspicion. They are adamant in asserting that abuse stems from immature sexual development, not homosexuality or celibacy, per se. They insist that covering up abuse is itself a crime, and they hope that the current controversy will bring about the return of married men to the priesthood.
In the past, both men say, seminaries were disinclined to talk about sexuality. That created problems for individual priests and can be linked to the current sexual abuse scandal.
"When you expressed a need to talk about it, that was seen as a sign that perhaps you were not ready for the priesthood," McGuinness said. "Maybe you were not prepared, not worthy."
That led to an atmosphere of secrecy - and secrecy is the great enabler of sexual abuse.
Today that's changed. A willingness on the part of a prospective seminarian to talk about his sexuality is almost a litmus test for admission.
In high school, when Joe Ruane thought about entering the priesthood, he questioned the need for celibacy. Married Protestant ministers seemed to do their jobs perfectly well, he thought.
Ruane attended St. Charles Seminary in Overbrook and was ordained in 1962, a time when the nation was in social turmoil. Back then, he said, enormous change seemed possible - even within the church.
But some changes were not to be. Vatican II may have replaced Latin with English, but it did not reject celibacy. Ruane was among the estimated 20,000 priests nationwide who left their posts in what became an exodus from the priesthood in the early 1970s.
Ruane took a leave of absence from the church and went into teaching and graduate school in sociology. He resigned two years later and requested laicization at that time, notifying the church that if and when it accepted married priests, he would like to return.
Ruane was married in 1971, first outside the church and then, with church permission, in the rectory of the Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul.
For a time, Ruane celebrated Mass at home with a group of disenchanted Catholics. Now he is more involved in community action groups.
McGuinness became an Augustinian priest in 1976 and served at St. Thomas of Villanova in Rosemont. He left in 1979 and married a year later.
Celibacy, McGuinness said, was among the issues that forced his decision.
"I felt I could be a more effective minister without it," he said.
Now McGuinness is admissions director at Melmark, a private school in Berwyn for children and adults with special needs. Colleagues know he is a priest, but the sex abuse scandal doesn't come up in conversation.
Ruane teaches sociology at the University of the Sciences in West Philadelphia. He's still active in the Federation of Christian Ministries. And he helps men who have left the priesthood find new vocations. They do not leave their values behind, Ruane says, and many find work in the nonprofit sector. But a good number have gone into the business world.
Both he and McGuinness officiate at weddings. Many of the couples are divorced Catholics; others are interfaith, and some just feel alienated from the church.
The ceremonies are considered sacramental to the couples, but like other civil marriages they are not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.
Nothing in Scripture demands celibacy, Ruane says. "Until the 12th century, most priests were married. To the church, celibacy is purely a matter of discipline."
And for more than a decade, the church has quietly allowed married Protestant ministers to become ordained as married Roman Catholic priests. There are an estimated 100 such priests nationwide.
"That shows," Ruane says, "that the church recognizes that married priests can serve a role."
Still, he says, the church is not likely to drop its celibacy requirement, even though the topic apparently came up when the Pope summoned American cardinals to Rome to discuss sexual abuse.
"I think the church will hold the line," Ruane said. "And it will continue to have too few priests."
Yeah, there's a surprise.
He's a twit who never believed the Church's teachings to begin with (that goes for all liberal, "I'll pick-and-choose what beliefs to follow" Catholics too).
Then the Church will simply have to sell what it does not need. You don't need to maintain services for one hundred when 99 are gone.
But if he officiates at anything as a 'priest', those sacraments or masses are not valid! And he attends 'masses' celebrated by women? Shows you what kind of 'Roman Catholic' he is!
"When you expressed a need to talk about it, that was seen as a sign that perhaps you were not ready for the priesthood," McGuinness said. "Maybe you were not prepared, not worthy."
Yep. This was exactly the practice at Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving, Texas in the early 70's. The only admonition we got on celibacy was "If you're called to it, you can handle it. If you can't handle it, you can leave." I had a spiritual director who left me with the impression that I was the only 20 year old in a seminary of 100 men who was having a problem with chastity.
And for more than a decade, the church has quietly allowed married Protestant ministers to become ordained as married Roman Catholic priests. There are an estimated 100 such priests nationwide.
Yep. If you're a married Protestant minister, you can become a Catholic priest. Lifelong Catholics need not apply.
"I think the church will hold the line," Ruane said. "And it will continue to have too few priests."
Those who think "Wow. If we just kick the gays out of the seminaries, we'll be flooded with normal heterosexuals who want to live celibate lives" are naive in the extreme.
Maybe we can lure enough Protestant ministers into the Catholic Church to make up the difference.
But we've got to maintain that jesuitical requirement for "mandatory celibacy" among men who've spent their lives in the Catholic Church.
You won't. No priest in his right mind is going to be driving people out of the Church.
The Pope doesn't drive people out of the Church, bishops don't drive people out of the Church, priests don't drive people out of the Church.
Only on Free Republic will you witness Catholics wanting to push other Catholics out of the Church.
Of course, we've also got Freepers who want to drive people out of the conservative movement because they're not conservative enough.
This is a Heaven's Gate crowd around here.
You left out the part about the admissions panels no longer turning away heterosexual, orthodox candidates.
Maybe we can lure enough Protestant ministers into the Catholic Church to make up the difference.
Many Anglican/Episcopalian priests are crossing the Tiber since their church has been ordaining women.
I'm not pushing Catholics out of the Church. I'm pushing heretics out who publicly and with great glee flout the Church's teaching. From your comments you seem to be just fine with liberals infesting the Church.
1. Homosexuality is caused by what if not immature sexual development?
2. Isn't the abuse of post-pubescent boys by men homosexuality?
3. Are X-priests credible sources of information on human sexual dysfuntion/perversion?
I don't expect you to answer these questions. They just popped into my head as I read that statement.
If admissions panels took in every heterosexual who applied, you still wouldn't have sufficient numbers to minister to the number of Catholics who are converting. That's not necessarily bad; married deacons and lay people can play the roles they were always meant to play in the Church.
Many Anglican/Episcopalian priests are crossing the Tiber since their church has been ordaining women.
Yep. And if this continues, smart Catholic boys will quietly leave the Catholic Church, join the Anglicans, be ordained in that Church and then, after five years or so, petition to join the Catholic Church.
Before you scoff, don't think there aren't a majority of Catholic bishops who would play that game in a minute. They need BODIES to celebrate MASSES for CATHOLICS who want to receive the EUCHARIST and go to CONFESSION.
At some point, you advocates of mandatory celibacy are going to have to justify to Catholics who support their Church why they can only go to Mass one Sunday a month and have to settle for Eucharistic Ministers conducting services the other three Sundays.
Meanwhile, we'll wink and puff out our chests and tell the world "We've preserved mandatory celibacy for priests."
At that point, nobody will care.
Celibacy is a discipline. It is not a "teaching." One is not a "heretic" because he believes the Church ought to allow married men to be priests, especially when the Church allows married men to be priests (i.e., Anglican converts)!!!
Uhh, you mean, like, the Church? Oh, that old thing. Quite archaic, you know. Pish posh.
Celibacy is a discipline. It is not a "teaching." One is not a "heretic" because he believes the Church ought to allow married men to be priests, especially when the Church allows married men to be priests (i.e., Anglican converts)!!!
Re-read some of the Rent-a-Priest's comments, specifically: "he may celebrate Mass at home or participate in a Mass led by a woman." Or do you think this is just dandy as well?
From good old Dave Armstrong:
"In the Catholic Church, married people can be deacons, religious instructors, professors, lay apologists like myself, writers, missionaries, priests in the Eastern Rites, even a monk."
Why, then, do these men not become one of the above if they know they can't stay celibate? The guy in the article already knew he didn't want to be a celibate priest before he entered the priesthood!
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.
But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).
This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today. (from catholic.com)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.