As discussion over the en masse conversions of Anglican priests and parishes continues to swirl (and the media continues to misrepresent, intentionally or unintentionally, the significance of the influx of married priests), a recent op-ed by Fr. Scott Hurd, the Vicar General of the new Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, stands out as a rebuff to those who want to enroll the incoming clergy in a battle over the future of priestly celibacy. Fr. Hurd writes that:
None of us, to my knowledge, want to be “poster boys” for a new paradigm of priesthood. Instead, we wished to be obedient, and wanted an opportunity to serve. We’re deeply grateful for the opportunity we’ve been given.
In our day, debates about celibacy swirl in Catholic circles. This ancient and biblical discipline has both its defenders and critics. Speaking for myself, I feel uncomfortable when circumstances like mine are used to further an argument or make a point. I’m simply honored to serve the Lord I love while being blessed with a family I love.
Of course, it would be difficult for Fr. Hurd to publicly say anything more, but why should he? Understanding that his primary role is pastoral, he offers something generally lacking in these kinds of arguments: the perspective of someone actually affected by the changes.
Fr. Hurd’s unease with the politicization of his role should be a reminder that Church politics and reform are quite unlike those of the secular realm. Questions of how to reconcile a grand tradition to the circumstances of the moment (and how best, when necessary, to alter that tradition) should arise naturally, over a period of time, and out of a genuinely felt need; never as the result of an ideological itch.
January 17th, 2012 | 10:36 pm
I can certainly understand what Fr. Hurd is saying, but I can also understand why accepting as Catholic converts (and priests) Anglican priests who are already married might raise in people’s minds questions about requirements for priestly celibacy for men who were ordained Catholic priests or would like to be ordained Catholic priests but also would like to have the option to marry.
January 18th, 2012 | 2:55 am
Firstly, celibacy is a tradition and not an institution.
Secondly, just like the Church of England, the Catholic church is facing a demographic time bomb in relation to the number of priests and following in the anglican path where churches are mergeing under one priest. The Church of England went down the road of ordaining women, where will the Catholic church turn, allowing married priests, which therefore may have to include priests with secular employment as in the Ordinariate, more lay distribution or women priests. I know my preference. See how the Ordinariates function and evolve, do not close you mind to it and at some stage debate the issue, debate is healthy.
January 18th, 2012 | 10:26 am
Matthew,
Why do you say say that the current calls for allowing marriage in the priesthood are an “ideological itch” as opposed to a “genuinely felt need?” Those who want to allow marriage in the priesthood don’t seem to be “ideological” in the way that proponents of female or practicing homosexual priests are—they’re not being motivated by contemporary secular politics.
January 19th, 2012 | 2:53 am
The celibacy issue does not have to be an either/or it can and is a both/and.
There will always be people called to celibacy and those called to the married state. Figure out which ‘you’ are called to and leave others alone.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact