Former Anglican priest ordained Catholic priest in San Francisco

Catholic News Service ^ | December 29, 2003

[NYer]

SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) -- Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco ordained Father James Livingstone, a married former Anglican priest, to the Catholic priesthood Dec. 20. "He is the first such married man to be ordained a priest for the archdiocese," the archbishop said. Father Livingstone was ordained in the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1975, and has served in teaching, prison ministry and parish ministry. He was a pastor of U.S. Episcopal congregations in New Hampshire and South Carolina before he moved to San Mateo, Calif., in 1990. He headed an Episcopal congregation there until he made his profession of faith as a Roman Catholic. "Since 1998, when he first petitioned me to consider him for Catholic ordination, he has been patiently pursuing a review of Catholic theology and practice with private tutors," Archbishop Levada wrote Dec. 5 in a column announcing the ordination in his archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic San Francisco.

[Catholicguy]

LOL Yes, much better than some of the migratory birds, like the african swallow....

BTW, nice name. I take the opportunity to note that Moses, as the First Inquisitor, bumped-off 47,000 humans in just two days - including women and children; with no trials yet.

Yet listen to our opponents bellyache about poor ol' Torque. It just goes to prove who is the real enemy of those both ancient and modern.

[Catholicguy]

My arguement with him is based upon his violating promises he made and which are limned in Canon Law.

That others are as loony as he is of no consequence to me.

[old and tired]

If one "feels" themselves called to a vocation which has requirements one is not willing to accept, then one is being confronted with the truth one does not really have a vocation.

No one but the Lord knows if a vocation is real. My calling to the Phils, however, is genuine. Why they can't can't use an old man with a fastball probably still in the teens, I'll never know.

I haven't read anyone calling for (sinkspur's) banishment.

No, but a person will only take so much criticism before ignoring it altogether.

BTW, what do you think about Sinkspure violating Canon Law? As a sinkspur-supporting pew denizen, tell me how that is justified. Thanks.

I sometimes agree with sinkspur, and sometimes disagree. But I do think he reflects a large percentage of people in the pew. It would be a disservice to silence any voice not reflective of my own. In the university of all ideas, the truth will necessarily stand out, and the truth will have more impact if every idea has had its say.

[old and tired]

I assume you mean the voice of dissent and disobedience? One who makes their conscience a teacher rather than a pupil?

That description fits lots of folks in the pews, don't ya think?

What the Church needs are manly, devout priests with testicular fortitude. Men who give sermons where some may walk out. Just as some walked away from Jesus. Truth is a sword that divides. Men who denounce error!

I couldn't agree more.

[Catholicguy]

The Lord does NOT call one to a vocation if that vocation has requirements the one called refuses to accept. Good Lord. Is that so difficult to understand?

You never did answer about sink violating canon law and breaking promises he made. I guess that means it is ok with you?

Some of you pew denizens worry me :)

[old and tired]

I would rather have a married priest than an actively homosexual one. However, I'd rather have a celibate woman priest than a married man. And since the Holy Father has told us we'll never have female priests, I guess at some point the pope will need to decide if we should have married priests. I hope it's after my lifetime, though.

[sinkspur]

I do have a question about you being a deacon, sinkspur. I have been lurking on FR for many years, and I had it in my mind that you were ordained a transitional deacon many years ago, but then received dispensation to marry. Is that correct? If so, you are not currently in an active diaconate ministry - is that right?

After a long period of back-and-forth, Rome lifted my laicization a little over two years ago, and I resumed ministry as a permanent deacon. Actually, that's happening more and more; priests who were laicized and whose wives die or have their marriages annulled have also been returning the priesthood.

[sinkspur]

That others are as loony as he is of no consequence to me.

It appears that optional celibacy is a hot topic among even priests. I'll bet even a bishop or two is in favor of discussing it.

Relax, CG. Discussion about non-essentials is healthy.

[old and tired]

After a long period of back-and-forth, Rome lifted my laicization a little over two years ago, and I resumed ministry as a permanent deacon.

Congratulations!

[old and tired]

The Lord does NOT call one to a vocation if that vocation has requirements the one called refuses to accept.

You mean I never really had a vocation to pitch in the big leagues if I couldn't pitch to the broad side of a barn, let alone the strike zone? No wonder the Phils never called me up. All those years - All that bitterness! What a tragic waste.

You never did answer about sink violating canon law and breaking promises he made. I guess that means it is ok with you?

It always makes me sad to see anyone violating canon law. If someone does it willfully, it makes me angry. How has sinkspur violated canon law and broken promises he'd made?

[beelzepug]

"Why they can't can't use an old man with a fastball probably still in the teens, I'll never know."

Eh, speed is so over-rated. It's what kinda stuff ya got that counts. When ya can strike a guy out by makin' him swing cause he's tired of waitin' fer the ball ta get to him, why, then ya got sumthin'!

[Antoninus]

However, I'd rather have a celibate woman priest than a married man. And since the Holy Father has told us we'll never have female priests, I guess at some point the pope will need to decide if we should have married priests.

Why are you setting up all these false choices? This isn't an "either/or" scenario as the liberals within the Church would have you believe. The celibate, non-homosexual, male priesthood will persist and prevail as the only option in the Latin rite, despite the best efforts of all those critters of various stripes who are opposed. And if we get a few more bishops like Fabian Bruskewitz, this manufactured priest "crisis" will evaporate in short order.

If you ask me, the "old and tired" revolutionaries of the 1960s church are in full panic mode, sensing that their "reforms" are about to be turned back by a younger generation that holds a more traditional view of the Church. This attack on priestly celibacy may be their last hurrah before they fade into the oblivion they so richly deserve.

[RobbyS]

There are evidently lots of priests who took their vow of chastity with reservations. If someone marries another with reservations that invalidates the marriage.

[St.Chuck]

It's all about control and pitch location. Greg Maddux's success was all about location, location, location.

[St.Chuck]

Opposition to the Pope's view on celibacy is as serious as disagreeing with the teaching on Transubstantiation, but opposition to the Pope's view on killing somebody is something I can take or leave. Got it.

I don't know if you do. You seem somewhat peeved, and I don't agree that celibacy and Transubstantiation are on the same level. Where would you place the line that a faithful Catholic shouldn't cross? And what is your position on women's ordination? It seems to me that your arguements for married clergy could also be applied to a case for women clergy.

[sinkspur]

It seems to me that your arguements for married clergy could also be applied to a case for women clergy.

Women cannot be priests for a theological reason.

Married men cannot be priests for a disciplinary reason.

Big...MIGHTY BIG...difference.

[St.Chuck]

Women cannot be priests for a theological reason.

Forgive my ignorance. What theological reason would that be?

[Tantumergo]

"What theological reason would that be?"

Women are not valid subjects for the sacrament of Holy Orders, whereas men are - whether celibate or married.

The fundamental reason for this is that in the Judaeo-Christian revelation, priests are fathers. Even in the supernatural order women cannot be fathers.

Those who attempt to make women into priests are effectively attempting to indulge in some perverse kind of supernatural transgenderising operation which defies both the natural law and divine law.

A woman can no more be a deacon, priest, or bishop, than I can be a daughter, or a mother.

After the arguments from nature, there are then all the arguments from Tradition. I think you will find that the EO find Christ's actions sufficient to determine the Tradition and never violate it i.e. Christ ordained only men.

[Tantumergo]

"If you ask me, the "old and tired" revolutionaries of the 1960s church are in full panic mode, sensing that their "reforms" are about to be turned back by a younger generation that holds a more traditional view of the Church. This attack on priestly celibacy may be their last hurrah before they fade into the oblivion they so richly deserve."

I wish that what you say were true, however, I think you underestimate the extent of the liberal infiltration of the hierarchy and the curia.

There is a raging battle going on for the very soul of the Church which cuts right through the Vatican - it is going on right now, and it is a battle that is balanced on a knife edge.

The next Pope is going to be so crucial for how this will play out, and the odds are looking like he will be a weaker man than JPII.

We all need to be praying and doing penance for the fidelity of the hierarchy.

[Catholicguy]

Hve you read the thread? Shesh....