Yeah, it is. Many of them leave because they can’t keep their pants on. Then when they leave they discover all they really knew was how to run a church so they become Protestant preachers and even sometimes become stridently anti-Catholic to become well known and make money.
Charles Chinquay was the perfect example, but there are plenty of others out there. It’s interesting to me how former Protestant ministers usually have nothing bad to say about their former sects. They became Catholic because the Catholic faith is true. Protestant anti-Catholicism is filled with liars and frauds. It’s just like John Henry Newman said: Protestants have to lie.
Usually meaning they marry, but which is the norm in Scripture, and is not impugned, contrary to Rome. While not being continent does not necessarily prevent men friom remaining as priests.
Then when they leave they discover all they really knew was how to run a church so they become Protestant preachers and even sometimes become stridently anti-Catholic to become well known and make money
So this is fact and is the norm for ex-roman-catholic priests, and some former Prots who became Catholic could not be charged with the same?
In any case, it is the norm to RCs here to impugn the motives of any who leave Rome for evangelical churches, imagining they do so because Rome is too strict, which is not their testimony overall but that they found Rome deficient in grace, while converts to Rome are earnestly sought after to enliven their dead pews.
The fact is that it is liberalism that Rome most effectually fosters, and counts and treats them as members in life and in death (like Ted Kennedy).
Protestant anti-Catholicism is filled with liars and frauds. It’s just like John Henry Newman said: Protestants have to lie.
Actually, Rome itself is substantially guilty of being a liar and a fraud, though she infallibly declares herself otherwise, and has made good use of forgeries (Donation of Constantine ; Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals , etc.)
And it is because of the lack of clothes for this self-proclaimed assuredly infallible "emperor" that Newman had to resort to his specious extrapolations. As your EO brethren state,
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith [context] and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs....
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
For history is seen as showing the deviations of Rome from it, which is why Newman had to work at the theory of the Development of Doctrine due to lack of actual unanimous consent ” of the fathers.
For as conveyed by Manning (and provided here), history is what Rome says it is,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus rather than objective examination being the means of assurance of truth, the RC is to rest upon Rome and her premise of her self-declared (if restricted) assured . Newman again,
the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html