Replies

There are plenty of ex-lutheran and ex-anglican/episcopal men that are married and are priests in the Latin Rite. And yes, these have to be ordained because they have no valid orders.

If a Protestant is married and was not assigned to a priestly office in their former denomination, then they cannot be ordained priests in the Latin Rite - although I'm sure there are some by indult. In this day and age, Rome doesn't seem to like being too "authoritative" on things.

I am a married Deacon who has taken the same vow of obedience. Not sure what this has to do with being married? It certainly doesn't ill effect either of my vocations.

The office of Deacon, while being ordained clergy, is not the same as the office of priest. Your vow of obedience made to Rome contains no stipulations regarding the celibacy of deacons.

Married men were in the Latin Rite since the beginning, absent for the last 1000 years but only in the Latin Rite. But women have never been, nor can they ever be ordained simply because the priest serves In Persona Christi and women are not men.

Celibate men were also in the Latin Rite from the beginning and was encouraged. It wasn't until later that it was made mandatory, but that does not mean Rome never supported the practice prior. It has always been in the Church.

I know several married priests, either ex-lutheran or ex-anglican, and they are all superb priests, very loyal to the Magisterium. As protestants they were married and later ordained as ministers. Years later when they converted to Catholicism they were ordained to the priesthood through a dispensation. They had a call to the priesthood. Unfortunately the same doesn't hold true for a man raised in the Catholic faith in the Latin Rite.

These men weren't being "re-ordained" any more than a Protestant coming into the Church has to be "re-baptised" - its more of a validation of their prior ordination. If they had not been ordained ministers prior to entering the Church, they could not be ordained in the Latin Rite. Except for maybe an indult as I mentioned earlier, but I am not aware of this happening.

When all is said and done, my friend, it is not marriage or celibacy that makes a good priest, but rather how the man's heart is configured to the Lord. I know too many good priests, both celibate and married, to say any different.

Rome does not issue disciplines arbitrarily. If they did, those would be "works of the Law" as condemned by Paul and forbidden to be followed. Rome opted to make mandatory the ancient practice of celibacy because it makes them better priests. Otherwise, they would have absolutely no reason to do it and such a discipline is meaningless. Can a married man be a good priest? Absolutely. Would celibacy make him a better priest? Absolutely.

...its more of a validation of their prior ordination.

Unless my sacramentology is off...these men were NEVER ordained in the strict sense of the word. Yes, they were "ordained" according to their Protestant denomination. But not sacramentally as we understand the sacrament of Holy Orders. So, yes, mike, they had to be ordained because they never received Holy Orders as protestants. It doesn't exist.

Your vow of obedience made to Rome contains no stipulations regarding the celibacy of deacons.

Well, that's for sure because I remain married and part of the clergy. The vow of obedience is a separate vow from the vow of celibacy.

...it makes them better priests

Ya think? I suppose it made the pedophile priests better? And celibacy makes the 30 to 60% of homosexual priests better? And those celibate priests who have worked so hard towards heterodoxy in the liturgy and faith and morals? I am convinced that neither marriage nor celibacy has anything to do with making a man "better" at serving God. God gives grace through both sacraments and the man uses or abuses that grace.