AmericanPapist Comments
This makes me feel like I did years ago when, as a teen-ager and younger man, I heard that this priest, and that nun who had taught us about fidelity, self-sacrifice, and the keeping of vows, had themselves left
and, in effect, "divorced" us. I feel sorry for the many young people who looked up to Fr. Francis Mary and who listened to him. Now I think he has done a great deal of damage. As with so many people and things connected with the Church these past 40 years, it seems that nothing and no one can be counted on. It's a scandal and just more of the "same old same old." This dredges up lots of bad feelings from the past. I know "that's life", but does no one mean "yes" when they say "yes" anymore? Does "yes" really just mean "maybe....until I get a better offer"? God forgive me if I am wrong to feel and say these things.
Wow. This comes as a real shock to me. It puts a new spin on all those comments he always made on discerning vocations - it's something he always brought up... For how long was this going on?
This really is awful and discouraging. I only hope he makes the right decision and keeps to the promise he made the Lord.
Yes, we know no details. So what exactly is the point of even discussing it?
You can't avoid this going into speculation, even indirectly. It's not right.
Laicization if it is granted means that the priest cannot use his priestly powers (but I believe he can at death beds in emergency) but he can marry without the Church objecting. Pope Paul VI granted thousands of them while Pope John Paul II disagreed with that policy and slammed the door on the process and made it a rarity with 10,000 applications sitting unanswered in 1990. So it varies with the Pope and we do not know how this Pope is on the issue.
Further - this could be about anything, and could resolve itself anyway. Who knows what it is about? Who knows what Fr. will discern? Perhaps he will simply discern that it would be very good to get out of the limelight and off the pedestal he's on as a consequence of his EWTN work. Perhaps..who know?
All I know is that I sincerely doubt his discernment process would be helped by people all over the web, clucking about how disappointed they are, making predictions about laicization, for heaven's sake, and disparaging the parties involved.
Without knowing the facts, even.
Heavenly Father, please help Fr. Francis to stay true to his vocation and return to the ministry that has helped so many. Please strengthen him during this time of confusion and give him your grace. Help him to keep his eyes fixed on you and you alone. Amen.
Without knowing the facts, even.
Fact 1. Fr Francis Mary has taken a vow of celibacy.
Fact 2. Fr Francis Mary put himself in a proximate occasion of sin - see letter to viewers.
Fact 3. People will be scandalised.
The situation is analogous to a married man telling his wife that he wanted time out from the marriage to discern because he had become involved with a widow he was helping.
Well, to me (and evidently to most people) it's pretty obvious that Fr. Francis fell in love with a woman and is considering laicization. He wrote he needed to "discern his vocation" - yes, it could be that he's just considering getting off the limelight, but if that were the case, he could have said it out right instead of in that round-about way.
Expressing one's disappointment certainly isn't going to help, but being blind to the meaning of the facts we do have isn't going to help either. We must accept what's happening and pray for Fr. Francis.
but being blind to the meaning of the facts we do have isn't going to help either
I don't understand why it's even your business. Why is it your or anyone else's business to be disappointed in Fr. Francis or not, to be blind to the facts or not...what does that imply? That his life is about your feelings and your views of his situation?
Let's have someone put blog posts up about Nutcrazical and Sharon's faults and failings and then let the blogosphere pour over them, pick them apart and tell them how "disappointed" we are in them and how oh, we "can't be blind to this failing of yours, you know!" and weigh various scenarios about situations we know hardly anything about.
Incredible.
Huh, Ted has a homepage of Yahoo and Mark has a homepage of Google and they both make the same point. Are you two related?
Sharon
It is not analagous to marriage vows because Rome itself depending on the Pope can give laicization with largesse (Paul VI) or rarely (John Paul II).... which means they do not consider it equal to the marriage vows. What is indelible for priests is the priestly powers which they may not use anymore except at death beds...whereas in marriage, it is the vow that is indelible.
If this particular priest is on the wrong trail, superiors will know that by interviews with him and they will not grant him laicization. But if they do grant it, it means that the interviews showed them that in his case it is reasonable. Some people who enter religious life when they were young perhaps never dated out of fear of the opposite sex and later when they are more adult and that fear goes away, they find out things about themselves that they never knew.
His superiors and those in Rome will not grant him permission to leave if in fact the interviews show that this is a wrongful direction. If they grant him permission to leave, it will only be because they see that in this case it is not a wrongful direction though it may not be the absolute best.
Here from new advent's CAtholic Encyclopedia:
" The Sovereign Pontiff may dispense from the vow, even the solemn vow, of chastity. History contains well-known examples of such dispensations; thus, Julius III permitted Cardinal Pole to dispense even priests who, at the time of the Anglican schism, had contracted marriage; Pius VII dispensed priests who were civilly married under the French Revolution. But such dispensations are only granted for exceptionally grave reasons; and even when a case is one of a simple vow of perpetual chastity freely and deliberately taken, the Holy See ordinarily grants a dispensation only in view of marriage, and imposes a perpetual commutation, such as the condition of approaching the sacraments once a month."
________________________________
I do not care to comment directly on the situation of Fr. Francis. I would just like to observe that he is a public figure (by choice presumably) and he has made his situation public. He did not have to include in his letter the details regarding the widow. Again due to the publicity I believe that other Catholics might have to step up and educate so as not to cause further scandal (as Thomas'post observes). For example I have already learned a bit about lacization from the post and subsequent comments. I don't think this subject should be buried under a rock. The recent history of cover-ups in the Church and outside should have taught us this lesson.
Mark, you could do all that if I decided to send an open letter to everyone on something wrong I just did/might have done/might do, etc. There's nothing wrong on commenting on a piece of news (and it is news as it concerns a public figure who chose to publish it - so it's not mere gossip).
It is one thing, bad enough, to violate one's promises. It is another, worse, to abandon them.
Let's hope neither has, or will, happen here.
Wasn't there a Fr. Augustine who left the MFVA's? Was any reason given?
My sense is that the only "scandal" that might emerge from this, is that many young people might feel misled--LOTR frequently had Theology of the Body speakers on--and although we shouldn't assume a sin occured, people will leap to conclusions and feel lied to. Of course, a very powerful grace could result from Fr. Francis deciding to remain. If he read any of these blogs (including mine) would he feel pre-judged? O now feel like a stone caster...
He did not have to include in his letter the details regarding the widow
How do you know the wording of the letter was his choice and his alone? They are a couple of layers here - his community, of which he is not the superior, EWTN, the bishop...
When letters like this appear, it is not always obvious who wants what to be said and claimed.
Just...be careful
I don't understand why he went public - why not just go on leave without making a statement? - but ISTM he's trying to be above board about it all. He's not sneaking off while remaining on active duty to have an affair or commit sex crimes!
There's still so much we don't know and it really isn't our business.
Lifetime promises like his are a serious matter. On the face of it the right thing for him to do would be to honour his commitments, tough it out and presumably eventually fall out of love.
But we don't know what his true vocation is.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Laicization if it is granted means that the priest cannot use his priestly powers (but I believe he can at death beds in emergency) but he can marry without the Church objecting.
Correct.
I think there are some restrictions on church jobs a laicised priest may do - I don't think he may hold any kind of church leadership including leading worship, and that includes being a Eucharistic minister.
But a laicised priest is still a perfectly good Roman Catholic.
The late well-known blogger and website-maker Gerard Serafin Bugge (A Catholic Site for Lovers) was one.
Isn't famous blogger Amy Welborn's husband one?
Not a priest but similar: didn't John Michael Talbot found a Franciscan order, get a dispensation from his vows to marry and remain a tertiary in his own order?
...the Holy See ordinarily grants a dispensation only in view of marriage, and imposes a perpetual commutation, such as the condition of approaching the sacraments once a month.
I didn't know that last bit. Thank you! Not so sure about the first part though. Gerard never married.
I haven't read all of the above posts, but I can say this: Sometimes in one's life, it's impossible to not stop and just pray, pray for light. I too, pray that Father Francis will find the strength to remain at the foot of the cross. Sometimes, it seems so hard. I can't imagine the strain he and the friars who have come to count on him feel at this moment. I personally know no priest who is truly after leaving his priestly duties for another life.
P.S. Unrelated to this news I understand the priests recently convicted of sex crimes were deposed (involuntarily laicised).
Young Fogey
Remember on the marriage detail that the new advent encyclopedia is from the early 20th century (there is a New Catholic Encyclopedia which is not free and not on the internet due to earning money currently in the marketplace) and thus the old one is free at new advent and is more conservative than the situation that obtained under Pope Paul VI who in part may have felt that by granting many laicizations, the Church and religious orders at his time would calm down somewhat. However it's detail on marriage may well be relevant now once again as to Pope Benedict's view of the matter but that is not known yet.
Sharon wrote:
Fact 2. Fr Francis Mary put himself in a proximate occasion of sin - see letter to viewers.
Was providing counsel to a widow a proximate occasion of sin? Is falling in love--and we do not that this is case--a proximate occasion of sin? Does providing counsel to a woman with whom one is in love without intention to act on that passion constitute a proximate occasion of sin? We must be careful not presume that sin has occurred, and we must not assume that any sin may occur out of this. This would be the charitable course in addition to prayer for the dear priest. I think the whole "proximate occasion" is precisely the sort of language that would cause and/or exacerbate the scandal of which Thomas speaks.
From the outside (I'm not a Catholic), this does appear to be "business as usual" for the Church hierarchy in such a situation. They have erased all mention of him on the EWTN website and are hoping we will forget he ever existed.
The only reason they read the letter is due to his prominent position as host of LOTR (he couldn't just disappear without a lot of questions being asked) and his position as a leader of the community of Friars.
Yes, I too have wondered about the other Friars and Priests who have disappeared from EWTN over the years, but since they were not hosts of their own television program, there was no need to tell us, I suppose.
I am deeply distraught by all I have heard. I know Fr Francis personally and I feel betrayed like most of his brothers do and even the viewers. Ultimately, we cannot judge and can only offer up our prayers.
So much to say...so sad....
EWTN is hardly the church hierarchy, and I think from what has been posted, things are being handled correctly thus far. I don't know what your complaint is other than to take a shot at the Church. I'm with Policraticus in that we don't know what exactly the deal is, and I don't think it's right to speculate. God works in mysterious ways.
As a sidenote, the Franciscans that run EWTN rejected a friend of mine from the order, angering many at the seminary my friend attended alongside my brother (I would be included among those angered; they lost out on what will undoubtedly be a fine priest). I'm happy to note, though, that my friend found another order in Pennsylvania and, since he had to start the formation process over despite having earned his M.A. in Theology, he's less than two years away from being ordained a priest. There's no zealot like a convert!
Don't despair, there are still many, many good and faithful priests. Not that Fr. Francis is "bad", but he is only human and like everyone else, he is struggling with his vocation. Fr. Francis will could very well come out of this situation with an extra crown of glory. I can't wait to be with everyone in heaven, looking back with 20/20 vision and see God's loving guidance in all of our lives.
The Penitent blogger has sage words to share on this occasion:
http://penitens.blogspot.com/200...strong-
one.html
Thom, I encourage you to read his post.
I saw the show Thur & heard the announcement. Needless to say it left me a little shocked & stunned.
Beyond that, we don't know all the details, just what they felt was needed. So, much of what has been said in the above discussion about the details is pure speculation. & none of our business.
All that is our business is to pray for Fr. Francis Mary & the entire situation as we have been asked.
I was pretty upset about especially since I'm sure Father Francis must be really confused and upset now. I truly feel sorry for all the MFVAs and all of the LOTR viewers. Didn't you notice how Father Anthony and Father Mark's faces were filled with anguish? let's all pray for Father Francis to find himself.
I'd like to jump on this opportunity to agree with Al.
Very interesting to read all these comments about Fr. Francis...but many things need to be clarified. One person noted that the Friars run EWTN. They, in fact, do not run EWTN. Not sure where he got that idea?
I'm not a real fan of Fr. Francis for a number of reasons, but I am deeply troubled by what has happened. I know we must all pray for him.
It seems he has made a decision that has effected many many people.
Please keep Fr. the MFVA's and all EWTN employees in our prayers!
This is a very grave matter for Fr. Mary Francis. We are a family and he is our brother. Perhaps he is a prodigal son. I just don't know, but we need to remember how Our Father wants his children to behave towards our brother. We have to love him and grant him the mercy he asks us for at this time. Perhaps this may be a test for the rest of us. We have the greatest opportunity to set an example for the rest of the world in how we respond to this situation, as Catholics. The critics very likely will use this as another opportunity to persecute Christ's Church. Of course, we can't take this situation lightly, but we surely can take time to plead for proper response on our part. Ask the question, "Lord, how would you like us to respond. What would you do, say or nor say?" Fr Francis is in trouble and what would we want should but for the Grace of God, go we?
Father is not in grave danger unless after deciding to leave..if that happens at all, he then circumvents the Church's process which is laicization by which process the Church allows some to leave and She dispenses them from their vows without sin taking place at all.
It helps to remember that the sacrament of Holy Orders is separate from the vows. The sacrament and the powers it gives are unconditionally eternal and the Pope cannot remove them if he tried.... but the laicized priest agrees to never use them except in extreme emergencies.
But the vows of clergy (not marrieds) are not unconditionally eternal and can be dispensed from by the Pope or whoever he delegates to do so. Pope John Paul rarely did it. Pope Paul VI allowed thousands.
The vows of clergy (not marrieds) can end with the permission of the Church; the powers of the priesthood cannot end but the priest who leaves must agree to never use them except at death beds.
Father Francis also took a vow of poverty but diocesan priests like the Popes usually and your parish priests who are not in a religious order....none of them take the vow of poverty and they can thus inherit from their parents or have dinner at a local restaurant without asking anyone whether they can. Cardinal Mahony has a cabin near Yosemite and Fr. Greeley has a small sailboat and the Pope has accessories that he can have.....none of them are under the vow of poverty like the Franciscans are and that should help you separate the vows from the sacrament...two distinct areas.
Bruce:
To answer your question...Fr. Augustine Mary, formerly a member of the MFVAs, did leave the order to become a diocesan priest. He now goes by his original name, Fr. James Hedderman, and is a priest in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama.
Unfortunately, when priests have left in the past, whether for good (as in the case of Fr. Augustine) or bad (as APPEARS to be the case with Fr. John and Fr. Francis), EWTN said nothing and erased any record of their existence from the network. I do not think that this was the best way to handle it; however, I'm not so sure that the way they handled the case of Fr. Francis was any better. I would hate to have to make such a difficult decision myself. I don't know that there really is a good way to deal with such a difficult situation.
We do need to pray for Fr. Francis. We still do not know the whole story. Let us pray that he follows God's will and makes the right decision.
We also need to pray for their superior, Fr. Anthony Mary, that he will be given the prudence to deal with this situation correctly. One can't imagine how difficult this must be for a young priest like him.
James--thanks for your answer. I was a totally secular wall street yuppie who rediscovered his faith after JPII died. I have been a EWTN addict/supporter--so much so I have been frightening my 4 teenagers! The Catechism has been a light of truth for me (I attended Columbia U in the 1970s and read tons of philosophy, but never found the truth until I read the Catechism). With all the truth in the Church, why oh why do they feel the need to "hide" things--sex scandal, etc. Even if Fr. F. got this woman pregnant (the tone of the Friars is definately funerial) why not come out with it and use it as an example of showing that only Jesus and Mary are without sin? They never indicate the "roster" of MFVA's--probably in fear that if some left, they'd have to account for it. I seem to remember a Br. Bernadine and don't see much of him around either. It would be healthy for them to show witness to it all IMO. Who was Fr. John?
Maybe the vows of marriage and the vow of celibacy are not completely analagous.
But, look at it this way- I could decide as a a married man to leave my wife and children, and go live alone becasue I have decided that my true vocation is to the single life. I wouldn't re-marry or commit adultery. However, I would not be living up to the responsilibities I undertook and for which people are depending on me. So, I wouldn't do it much as I might want to go and live a solitary life to which I even "feel" God has called me. Even this is not completely analagous but it points out that people should not be lightly released from their vows.
There does have to be a place, though, for release from vows that people took when they were immature or not properly disposed, analagous perhaps to a decree of marriage annulment.
Re: the letter mentioning the widow
Unfortunately, I'd say they had to make it clear that he wasn't leaving because he'd been fooling around with kids. Also, I'm sure that the rumor mill at EWTN and associated groups was churning. If you give people a little info, even if it's not strictly their business, you can help keep people from imagining anything more terrible.
I wouldn't assume that anything sinful has happened. Clearly, however, the situation is serious and Father has to think and make decisions. Having him leave his duties and the area for a while is probably the most prudent thing.
A lot of men who like to help people and are very responsible (my little brother's one) find it very hard not to love someone, or do huge amounts of work for someone, who needs help. Even if they don't really like the person. Even if they can't stand them, they feel sorry for them and feel guilty if they can't do everything.
My brother let an annoying girl he hardly knew _use his address_ for packages. He drove her around. He fixed her car. He ran her errands. It took like a year before she left him alone and quit sending her things to his house, because he couldn't bear to tell her off when she needed help.
So who knows? It may be as simple as, "This woman needs a husband and her kids need a father. I like them. I could love them. Who am I to remain a priest in the face of this need? Shouldn't I take it that God has sent me to them to do just this?"
Similarly, I wouldn't assume the worst about the removal of pics from the website. A lot of people feel that's the prudent thing to do when anybody is in trouble or controversial, to keep people from linking anything nasty. It's certainly not wrong to do it; plenty of companies remove pictures of people who've left to take another job, just because they're not affiliated there any more, or so as not to mislead people looking for them there.
Shrug. I'd say wait and see.
Sharon wrote:
Fact 2. Fr Francis Mary put himself in a proximate occasion of sin - see letter to viewers.
I simply must ask - how is it possible for anyone to avoid any possible proximate occasion of sin?
When thinking about it from my own perspective, having to interact with human beings all day every day can present many proximate occasions of sin. Even if I interacted with no one, I could become lost in my own thoughts - and that, too, could be a proximate occasion of sin.
Hey, let's all just do what Almighty God told us to do - 1) Love Him above all things, and 2) love our neighbor as ourselves.
I'm simply praying that God's will be done in Fr. Francis' life, the widow, her children, Pope Benedict XVI, my family, etc... We'll just add them to the daily rosary intentions.
Bruce: Fr. John was an MFVA back when I started watching EWTN in 1995. I was told that he left for a woman that he had been counseling. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE. As I said before, no one ever said anything.
Any priest who has been ordained for a while knows that this is a common trap that younger priests fall into. It's real easy to get into an inappropriate relationship when a priest counsels a woman, especially if she is very needy at the time. Priests need proper formation to find appropriate ways of being a man without opening themselves up to dangers to their vocations. (I think it is Fr. Groeshel who calls this "chaste expressions of sexuality". They need a good older priest giving them advice so that this kind of things is less likely to happen in the future.
When I saw how sad Fr. Anthony and Fr. Mark were--it broke my heart--it seemed like a family who just had a divorce. I hope that Mother Angelica doesn't despair at this point in her life. In Fr. Francis' defense--might we have heaped on too much expectation from him? He shined more from his charisma--maybe we all should be taken to task to like the "cool" or good-looking jock. I hope he doesn't read these blogs in his discernment and think--wow--this "family" really turned on me. Hopefully the story will have an outcome very soon so either way we can all move on. Bummer for those guests from Australia; and unfortunate it came out during the release of Bella (not to mention All Saint's Day).
Tonight, Marcus Grodi has on the original host of LOTR.
Sad is all I can say... I am really sad. I am a catholic who occasionally seeks spiritual guidance from my pastor. In the Catholic Church priests will always be male and I will always be female. What I need from him is good sound spiritual advice, but with all the recent scandals it is going to come to the point where I as a female will never be given that opportunity because every priest will wonder if I am only out for sex. I keep faithful to my vows of marraige and expect my priests to be the same.
Fr. Augustine Mary, formerly a member of the MFVAs, did leave the order to become a diocesan priest. He now goes by his original name, Fr. James Hedderman, and is a priest in the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama.
I used to know him, when he was still Brother Gus training for the priesthood. One of the nicest, seemingly holiest men I've met.
I remember an anecdote about St. Dominic. Supposedly he reproached himself for sometimes having be more willingly to converse, even on a holy topic, with young attractive women rather than older women.
Obviously, priests, and married people, must be scrupulously careful about potential attractions which can threaten a sacred commitment.
Since the human heart is always prone to sin, and never fully satisfied by anything or anyone in this life, it would seem prudent to always question one's motives, even when one seeks to do good for another person.
Moreover, sometimes we must reject the highest value of our culture, that of being "nice." Fr. Groeschel points out that nice is from the Latin "nescire" meaning ignorant or naive. Sometimes it may be necessary to be exceedingly formal and almost cold to someone to whom there is a danger of developing an illegitimate attraction.
Saint Michael the Archangel-
Defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
By the way, I caught the homily and prayers of the faithful on EWTN that same day, and they explicitly prayed for Fr. Francis Mary and his discernment.
So this nonsense about EWTN "covering things up" is unfounded.
we now understand why people inclined towards homosexuality must have a very difficult time in seminary..and why the vatican admonished seminaries to not accept those with strong homosexual tendencies
All we can do is pray and resist the temptation to speculate. =-(
There have been other priests and seminarians who have left EWTN. There was a priest who was an excellent homilist in 1988 who was superior of the fledgling order. He was an excellent speaker. He left and went to Rome to try to get the permissions to found another order.
The second brother to enter also left to become a diocesan priest.
These things happen. Not everyone seems to discern at first what order or not they are called to. Also there probably were and are disagreements between the superior and the foundress, Mother Angelica.
It is too true that often Catholic orginizations are more interested in protecting their pristine reputations rather than caring for souls.
I have seen this too many times, and the abuse scandels in the Church are a direct result of such behaviour.
Fr. Francis at least had the courage to admit he was struggling with something. He decided to step away from his public teaching image and go into a time of discernment and reflection. And he told people why.
To me that is brave, it is honest.
Frankly, the comment 'No one is beyond God's redemption' is odd. Why would you say such a thing? You say such a thing about Hitler, or serial murderers who have not repented of their crimes publicly. But, here we have a priest who is seemingly trying to do the honest, and right thing.
Smells of reputation saving to me.
Didn't Christ say that we should not be scandalized by others sin? After all there is nothing new under the sun. If Catholics really believe that priest don't struggle with their vocations often, that they don't 'fall in love' then they are just wrong. At least this man is honest about it, and says that he is struggling. We shouldn't be teaching our children that priests are beyond temptation, beyond sin, beyond feelings of love, lust and lonliness. We know the consequences of such teaching...denial and shock when we find out that priests are indeed human, some too human, some downright sinful and destructive. Which is not what I am saying Fr. Francis is...but the attitude of hand over heart or on mouth and 'Oh my, I can't believe it! He is a priest!' And all the cries of losing 'faith' because of the actions of this particular priest, or any priest is not a true reflection of the reality of living faith.
I don't know and don't want to know this man's confession. But, I pray that he comes to peaceful decision about his vocation.
Check out Fr Eric Richsteig's take on this matter.
http://orthometer.blogspot.com
While you are praying for Fr. Francis please consider praying for Fr. John Mary Klobuchar, former Franciscan Friar and priest at EWTN. He likewise abandoned his brother friars and the priesthood for a widow/grandmother. His departure caused much pain and shock. I knew him personally, but I haven't heard from him in ten years. He suddednly abandoned everyone who cared about him.
Consider the fact that this has much to do with an ongoing spiritual battle between Heaven and Hell that Our Lady of Akita warned about in some of her messages:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY.../MARY/
AKITA.HTM
I thought the ministry of the MFVA's was the network--why all the work with widows? Maybe we Catholics should understand the massive temptations offered to the rich/famous/powerful in Hollywood et al and realize that if a committed Friar can chuck it all for attentions of a widow, how much more difficult is it for matinee idols, etc. On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't recognize virtue for lack of opportunity.
As Fr. Richsteig points out, the time for discerning a priestly vocation is during seminary and not after ordination. That is the normal routine laid down by the Church. The Church gives candidates years to discern a vocation which includes daily prayer, study, psychological evaluations and spiritual counseling. When a man is ordained he is immeditately entrusted to the laity who become their adopted spiritual sons and daughters and so priests truly become our spiritual fathers as St. Paul taught. This is one reason why it is so unprofessional and sinful for a priest to go beyond his fatherly duties as a priest and become personally involved in the type of relationship Fr. Francis Mary fell into.
Priests ike Fr. Francis have their Father Guardian (in religious orders) bishops and fellow priests to turn to whenever they enter into any sort of crisis. The Church is always there to offer guidance for priests and laity alike.
Evidently, some significant changes need to be made at EWTN. This is the fourth time in ten years that the network has faced a terrible issue involving one of its priests (this doesn't even include the departure of some of EWTN's most treasured brothers, like Br. Angelo Mary, who left the Franciscan Friars of the Eternal Word in anger and later became an editor of a secular newspaper in the Hanceville/Cullman area of Alabama.
My favorite priest on EWTN, at least 10 years ago, was Fr. Augustine Mary who left to become a diocesan priest in Birmingham. Thanks be to God he is still a priest!
At least some of the original brothers like Fr. Dominic Mary, a holy, humble priest, is still with the network. He is very professional when dealing with the laity and he is also zealous when it comes to these types of issues.
Joseph
Why did Br. Angelo leave in anger? I have been watching EWTN very regularly, but only for the past 3 years. I am a contibutor to EWTN and buy into the family concept--but a family is supposed to be open and warts and all, etc. It seems like the force of Fr. Francis' type-A personality overwhelmed the others. Should leadership in a religious community be determined by social charisma?
Protestants reading these posts shouldn't gloat. Married clergy are more often the problem than the solution.
Some years ago our Senior Pastor dumped his wife of 25 years for a woman in the congregation. When asked point-blank in a Session meeting if he was having an affair, he denied it. Out of the state for a church convention, he was found to be registered in a hotel room with a woman (not his wife) and was forced to resign his position. A few months later, he popped up as the interim pastor in a nearby town where he announced his engagement (presumably with the woman with whom he was not having an affair) a month later.
This man, either directly or indirectly, was responsible for breaking up several marriages in his original congregation, including that of a man who married the Pastor's ex-wife. The congregation is now about one quarter the size it was prior to all this.
Clergy like this have a lot to answer for. I can’t in my wildest dreams imagine that Fr. Francis could have done anything worse.
Bruce,
I am not permitted to speak about the reasons why Br. Angelo left. I hope I won't also be accused of the "cover up" allegation, but this has to do with trust. This is different compared to speaking about Fr. John which actually became public knowledge after a long period of time.
All I can say with regard to Br. Angelo is that some internal problems existed at the time that he decided to leave and the reasons why he left were, in my opinion, completely selfish. He left for good after he became a "lay brother" at the shrine in Hanceville. I know this issue deeply hurt Mother Angelica because Br. Angelo was considered to be her most beloved brother. They shared much in common.
again--I am a relatively new viewer (~3 years) but from the video it seems like Fr. F. is one of Mother A.'s favorites as well. I hope it doesn't break her heart. At least it seems like the MFVA's who left did not do so for the reasons that caused the Church scandal in recent years. I never visited EWTN--always want to--but would be more motivated if there was a retreat center as part of the pilgrimage. Maybe the charism of the MFVA's should shift to that?
Sadobserver,
What you wrote is well documented (e.g., regarding sexual abuse among clergy and other professions, click on the following link: http://catholicleague.org/specia...ports.php?id=1)
.
Unfortunately, negative news concerning members of the non-Catholic clergy and other professions is rarely reported by the mainstream secular media unlike stories concerning their favorite target: Catholic priests.
OK, I'll be honest--I don't watch EWTN and have no idea who this priest is. God bless and guide him.
What I'm I'm curious about, however, is the idea of spiritual guidance. I read somewhere that it's preferable for women to seek spiritual direction from women. Yet it seems that only men (priests) are available for spiritual direction. How do we find holy women to guide and direct other women? And if we had such directresses, would it be easier to avoid these situations that, it seems to me, can't help becoming emotionally intimate? I mean, doesn't one HAVE to be completely open with one's spiritual director? Is it a good idea for vowed celibates to be so emotionally close to members of the opposite sex?
Honestly, I ask because I don't know. I've never been able to find a spiritual director, man or woman. I'm theorizing about the relationship between director and directee.
Prayer for Priests
O Jesus, our great High Priest, Hear my humble prayers on behalf of your priest, [Father Francis Mary]. Give him a deep faith, a bright and firm hope and a burning love which will ever increase in the course of his priestly life.
In his loneliness, comfort him
In his sorrows, strengthen him
In his frustrations, point out to him
that it is through suffering that the soul is purified, and show him that he is needed by the Church, he is needed by souls, he is needed for the work of redemption.
O loving Mother Mary, Mother of Priests,
take to your heart your son who is close to you because of his priestly ordination, and because of the power which he has received to carry on the work of Christ in a world which needs him so much.
Be his comfort, be his joy, be his strength,
and especially help him to live and to defend the ideals of consecrated celibacy. Amen.
John Joseph, Cardinal Carberry (+1998 ). Archbishop of St. Louis 1968-1979.
The guy is struggling and he is being honest about it. In the past this went on and the church and everyone kept quiet about it. The parish priest I had growing up was having sex with many of the ladies of the parish, everyone knew about it but everyone still acted like he walked on water. It might be good for the young people he is mentoring to see that priests are still human, they still need the help of God and they still need the support of the community. And most importantly, they need to be honest about their failings, There is no shame in being honest..the shame is on the hypocrites who hide their human feelings and act like they are saints (until they are caught of course.)
I love the Church--it's truth--it's many fine people. I hate the fact that it attracts low-life bottom feeders like this Chicago Jesuit McGuire who do the most unspeakable sins. Why doesn't the good Church dispel them like oil on water instead of trying to sublimate them? Wolves among the sheep? At least Fr. F is attracted to a widow with children--a reasonable and plausable attraction. I returned to the Church hoping that we return to a smaller, more authentic church (Fr. C. John McCloskey). This requires OPENNESS and NOT sweeping things under the mat where these scum just keep feeding on the innocent and repelling members of the flock. As I watch EWTN I am enthralled and enlightened by Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Marcus Grodi, Jonnette Benkovic--all married. If this was an option to Fr. FM maybe we'd still be looking fwd to his charism on LOTR. And the Church shouldn't throw lightening bolts at those who suggest the option.
Bruce, how would allowing for married priests have prevented this issue?
Deacons can be married, but they must be married prior to their ordination. Do you think things like this don't happen to them? Protestant denominations that have married pastors have had issues as well (see the post by Sadobserver above describing one such incident.)
Fidelity is the issue, regardless of marital status. One must remain faithful to ones vows, whether they're vows of celibacy or vows of marriage.
Yes, it is about fidelity, and toatl self-gift, which once given, cannot be rescinded. Seems to me that the granting of laicization is akin to annulment - granted because of a want of due discretion at the time the vow was made - a cause of invalidity - not because of a change of heart later on. This is where Bishops/Superiors have a huge responsibility for discening the readiness of their candidates.
A great book to read is "Hedges" by Jerry B. Jenkins, which "tells you specifically how to plant hedges against temptations...temptations that can ruin a marriage (I would claim, to the Church or another person)and bring devistation to a family in the blink of an eye".
A lot of denial and rationalizing goes on during little steps along the way before a vocation is finally threatened....we all need to stay very faithful to brutaly honest self-examination and have someone to whom we are accountable in matters, especially, of the heart.
Caritas, caritas. First of all, the man is trying to follow proper channels. Unlike others who have broken their vows (I assume he has, although I may be wrong) he is not running around alibing for his behavior, or telling us the Church is all wet. Also, his impulses are normal and understandable. I'd much rather have this kind of "publicity" than the other kind that the Church has unfortunately experienced in recent years. Like most of you, I pray that somehow Father Francis Mary can see his way through this very difficult crisis and remain in the priesthood. However, he isn't the first and he won't be the last priest confronted with this. Tom
Well said, Tom. Father, we pray for Fr. Francis and for all priests. In this, as in all things, Thy will be done.
Matthew--
As I see it; we cannot deny our sexuality. Priests are asked to sublimate it on the basketball court, etc. If one is homosexual, the position of a seminary poses enormous challenges, yet some remain faithful. I know of a few who don't, but they don't need to worry about a scandal like getting someone pregnant. If one is heterosexual, and sees the intimacy that some of these less than chaste men enjoy, they become disillusioned and angry--again I know of one (ME) who stopped pursuing seminary in the 1970s as this was flagrantly practiced. If a heterosexual is allowed to be open and honest to his calling and wants to serve God as a priest, he should be afforded the option. THe Church allows married clergy from Lutheran and Anglican conversion--and they don't have cooties. I think you allow all varients--but insist on CHASTITY. Instead, we have disallowed SOME heterosexuals but allowed ALL homosexuals, and those who are able to hide their perversions (like molesters). An untapped but potentially HUGE and HOLY segment could also be "elders"--older folks who have had families and are now faced with 20 or 30 years of productive years they could dedicate to the priesthood. I still think a person disposed towards total commitment would be awesome--consecrated virgins, celibate priests--but even the Church has cracked the door a bit allowing good married men to be priests (converted clergy). Why not open the door a bit wider?
PS --ST. Augustine got a girl PREGNANT. If instead he married her, instead of leaving her, would we have been denied his wonderful witness? Why not reward virtue as opposed to ostracising those who pursue it. I think the thing that bothers me (and probably others) is that Fr. F. seemed so "all-American Male", but couldn't stay on the track. Yet we know more than a few wierdos (not MFVAs) who seem to have no problem sticking around and God knows what they do to alleviate their "needs"> THROW OPEN THE WINDOWS and let the "SON" SHINE.
Re: laicization. Marriages can be annulled, too. Does that make it all right if you "discern" that you're meant to be with a man other than your husband, WHILE you're still married to him?
Bruce, you need to read some "Theology of the Body." Either the original or one of the many wonderful ways that it's been brought to the "common man." Priests are not denying their sexuality. Your oversimplification of human sexuality is quite disturbing!
Anon--Trying to surpress sexuality is like trying to be "perfect"--an unattainable goal. Also, unnatural--the Church (correctly) urges life (no contraception, no abortion, no euthenasia, etc)--nothing to stop the propogation of life-- but requires the surpression of life amongst it's priests.The downside to this is the repression and waywardness we've seen these past years. you write: Your oversimplification of human sexuality is quite disturbing!--what is the function of any life form--reproduction. Again the Church insists on it.
St. Augustine lived with that woman for 10 years and tried through natural rythmns to avoid all children but the classical rythmn method was incorrect and that is how they as a ten year couple got pregnant.
Here is Augustine upbraiding his former heretical leader about birth control through the natural means:
“ Didn’t you warn us before to watch as carefully as possible for the time after the monthly period, when a woman can be expected to conceive, and to abstain from intercourse at this time, lest a soul be enclosed in the flesh? It follows from this that,in your opinion, marriage was not intended to beget children but to satisfy desires.” St. Augustine…”The Morality of the Manichaeans” 18,65.
Later he left the woman who said she would never love anyone else as long as she lived. His mother then found him a young woman from the upper class to marry but Augustine could not wait til she was of age and so he took yet another mistress.
Jerome was super strict in the sexual area also...because like Augustine, he was not always strict with himself in his past:
Sect. 14 LETTER XLVIII. TO PAMMACHIUS.”I extol virginity to the skies, not because I myself possess it, but because, not possessing it, I admire it all the more.” ...Jerome.
As I understand it though, Fr. Francis is not thinking of leaving for the type of thing that both Jerome and Augustine were involved in...but still, he is getting barbequed on various Catholic sites.
After Ad Extirpanda, we became adept at the barbeque....then stopped....now it is reappearing on the net. Pass the ketshup.
neither Augustine nor Jerome was married..? hmmm
Is there more than one person making comments with the name Bruce?
If not...
Bruce you stopped making sense about five posts ago. I don't think that your being very honest considering that you said you are a contributor to EWTN and want to visit and then let loose with all of this stuff about married priests and that people cannot be perfectly chaste. Either your dishonest or very confused.
what's the matter James--one can't be a contributor to EWTN and have concerns about non-chaste clergy given the recent news about Fr. Mcguire and Fr. Francis? I am not dishonest--
These "confused" people are what we are discussing. And shame shame for casting aspersions and/or judging me (being dishonest or confused). That would be a sin.
Bruce:
There has been no reputable information (that I know of) about Fr. Francis being unchaste. And yet you just lumped him in with Fr. McGuire, SJ. Shame on YOU for judging.
Fr. Francis himself indicated feelings of unchastity--hence his leave of absence. I am not judging him--rather I am trying to understand how such a public figure who knows how such an action as he's taking might be felt--still feels he must disengage and search for direction. I have no respect (and, I guess I am judging) creeps like McGuire who quietly feeds on the innocent until he is outed. I posted the blogs to wonder if the structural requirements of celibacy attracts McGuires and repels Fr. Francis types. The celibacy model works for some, but not for all. I hoped to gather guidance from those more experienced than I on how to deal with it--Fr. Benedict Groeshel (who I go to for spiritual guidance) is the one who told me about the protestant converted clergy being allowed to be ordained. I am not saying that broadly allowing priests to marry is the answer--I ask, if there CAN be exceptions, why not for priests like Fr. Francis?
Bruce
On strong comments e.g. that Fr. Francis indicated feelings of unchastity, you should supply the quote and date and publication from the man's words himself.
Up closer to the top, Nathan wrote: >> EWTN is hardly the church hierarchy ... I don't know what your complaint is other than to take a shot at the Church.
Oops, here's the continuation of my comment:
I did not mean to suggest that EWTN is the church hierarchy. That would be a rather silly statement, as you will agree.
My thinking was more along the lines of what another person has written at another blog:
"I would be cautious about making too close an association between what Fr. Francis is doing and the wording of the letter. Any letter would have been vetted by the friars, EWTN and the bishop, and would indicate what they think should be said, above anything Fr. Francis might have wanted to say."
This is the reality of the situation. If you think they would read such a personal and potentially scandalous letter on the air for the entire world to hear (!) before it was reviewed and approved (and possibly written) by someone "up the ladder" -- well, I think you are very much mistaken.
Bill--from Fr. Francis' comments: "I have been personally involved with helping a widow and her struggling family. Over the course of time, the mother and I have grown very close. As a result, I am compelled to take some time off to prayerfully and honestly discern my future." you're right; lets substitute "grown very close" with "feelings of unchastity". I wonder what everyone thinks about the fact that while Fr. Francis didn't consider this while he was discerning the priesthood, similarly, a married Lutheran pastor never discerned converting to Catholicism and becoming a priest when he was at seminary. Now that Rome has allowed very limited ordinations of married individuals who convert, why not allow it (in very limited cases) to guys like Fr. Francis? By allowing the limited married priests, Rome has de facto indicated that it is possible to be married and be a priest--again in limited cases. Don't we feel like Fr. Francis has proved himself a credible servant of the Church? Just because he was a cradle catholic...
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the letter was actually written by others, but I would certainly agree with you that superiors likely approved the letter. It's only sensible that they would. The Church has been less than competent in matters of public relations in recent years, but we are getting better, and this seems like a solid PR move--not covering anything up yet protecting Father as he goes through a trying period. Well done.
"Anon--Trying to surpress sexuality is like trying to be "perfect"--an unattainable goal."
Once again, Bruce, you show a profound misunderstanding of the nature of celibacy. Read Christopher West's "The Good News About Sex and Marriage." Chapter Nine addresses everything you've said in this combox.
And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that "convert priests" cannot remarry, should their wife proceed them in death . . .
Bruce
"Grown close" has nothing to do with stating that one had feelings of unchastity. That is why good schools demand quotes in quotations and sources of those quotes. Good schools don't accept paraphrases in matters of intimate good and evil.
I remember in novitiate our novice formator said quite frankly that we should never be surprised when we see someone else leave religious life. All we see is the final result, the leaving, but it's the end of a long process. We don't know what has gone on inside the person and we can't judge it.
It does happen at times that people end up in religious life or priesthood when they're not really suited for it. Difficult and painful as it may be, in such cases it's better for them to leave. That's why the Church has a process of laicization for priests.
There was a Jesuit at the Gregorian (now deceased), Fr. Luigi Rulla, who studied very carefully the whole psychological dynamics of entering and leaving religious vocations. All of us who enter it have high ideals. But we also have emotional needs that are usually--if not always--unknown to us. We can act out of those needs unawares. For example, I might think I'm doing a great work in helping the poor. But maybe it also satisfies some need I have to give nurturance. This is normal because it's part of human nature. But the goal of discernment is to uncover my human motives so that I don't act only out of those motives. I need to purify them and act for God. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes a lifetime.
At least this Fr Francis Mary didn't just elope or something. It seems that he's following the procedure he needs to follow. I do think, though, that there was no need to tell his whole TV audience about the woman he's fallen in love with. He should have just said he was going on a leave of absence for vocational discernment.
Ooops. That was meant to read "precede," not "proceed."
If the wife PRECEDES her "convert priest" husband in death.
good schools? a profound misunderstanding of the nature of celibacy? I went to Columbia undergrad, and Princeton graduate school in economics where I attended many seminars using the socratic method to talk out ideas. I guess I am not used to ad hominum, parochial debate. Good luck preaching to each other in the choir.
Also--why don't you "purge" any of my discussion of celibacy along with the purging of records of abuse?
The truth should not provoke such defensiveness. I will do you a favor and leave the site so you can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Bruce,
WHO IS BEING DEFENSIVE???????
Bruce,
In reading the posts that precede yours it seems that some people disagree with you. That is o.k. You are the one that seems to have a need to share your academic credentials and make the snide comment about the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Defensive?? Look in the mirror!
Bruce, I certainly have no interest in making any attack against you or Fr FM, but I think that you are incorrect in many of your arguments. First, Priests do not "deny" or "suppress" their sexuality. They make a decision to accept the gift of celibacy prior to ordination, after (hopefully) much prayerful discernment. In the case of Fr FM, he also made vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. My opinion is that one should honor one's vows, taken solemnly before God. I pray that he will choose to do so--if he does not, it is not for any of us to try to exclude him from the Church or the sacraments, or to gossip about him.
I believe that the Church has never allowed ordained priests to marry--if I am incorrect, please correct me. Married men were ordained, and are still ordained in Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, but one who is ordained may not marry. Could the Holy Father change the Latin Rite rules to allow ordination of married men? Of course--celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine of the Church. Will he? I am confident that he will not, but this sort of decision is above my pay grade.(Thank you, Lord!)
Bruce, do not assume that you have the truth and the rest of us are simply rejecting it. The Church has the Truth-we should listen to Her and learn. Both Jesus Himself and St Paul spoke approvingly of celibacy, so one must assume that it is a good thing.
Kathy
Thanks for pointing out my fault. I will indeed look in the mirror. I don't mind disagreement--I was hoping for a dialog but instead he said, "That is why good schools demand quotes in quotations and sources of those quotes. Good schools don't accept paraphrases in matters of intimate good and evil." I quoted Fr. Francis directly. in quotations, with no paraphrase.
mary margaret--THANK-YOU for your humble, well written response! Seriously, I understand your argument and appreciate it. I came to the Church from a very secular life, and while I love the Church, I am trying to understand why certain things are the way they are. Because of my past non-catholicism, maybe I look at things in reverse--like, hey--why is there a vocation problem? What harm would there be in letting priests marry on a provisional basis. As you write "celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine of the Church"--I simply wonder whether, on balance (given the scandals and the paucity of vocations) a case such as Fr. Francis' would allow revisiting the issue. I can see many cradle Catholics are not flexible on even discussing this. In NO WAY do I think I know the truth or the answer, I just think it's a shame to lose people like Fr. Francis--and keep less desirable members who don't express desire to have a family. I apreciate your gentle, non-judgemental response.
Bruce
Not in the relevant post you did not at all but did so when I asked for the source of your (feelings of unchastity)phrase.
Bill
My attempt in this blog was to question whether not allowing married priests (and losing Fr. Francis types)is worth it, when the church has tolerated, up until recently, homosexuality and pedophiles, when the central theme of the Church is defense of life and protection of the innocent. I love that BXVI is trying to clean up the seminaries. I simply posed the question of whether it made sense to extend the married priest exemption (available to clergy from outside the Church) to people like Fr. F--a 15 year priest (even assuming he wanted it!) Again, as a later convert, I am not culturally disposed toward a non-married priesthood. I apologize for angering people on the blog, but I am trying to discuss and was not prepared for the personal attacks. Sorry to all.
Even if the Church were to allow priests to marry, this particular case would seem like an extraordinarily poor reason to allow it. From what we know of this particular circumstance, I don't really see any compelling reasons for there to be a "priest-marriage" here.
Fr. has been "personally involved with helping a widow" and has "grown very close" to her. But having a desire to help a widow is not IMO, a good reason to marry her, and I don't think it would be wise for the Church to encourage that line of thinking by allowing marriage in these circumstances.
The reality is, Fr. Francis is married. He has told us that endless times in his homilies and television programs. He is married to the Church.
I suspect Fr. Francis could do more good as a priest than as a husband. Any number of men could step in and be a good husband for this lady. But how many men can step in and fill Fr. Francis' priestly shoes? Not too many.
Bruce, I think your question is a good one, rational and thoughtful deserving of any repect you may have gotten in this thread. Many people for two millenia have asked your question, and it has received lots of debate in and outside of the Church. That is good. The fact is Church is not afraid of questions, and doesn't demand that they be asked in a particular way either, but, ideally at least, respects the questioner. The answer of the Church after debate is that celibacy remains a prophetic discipline, a counter-sign to the world's fixation with material goods to the detriment of the world's soul, so to speak. As Jesus Himself gave up His all, even material goods such as wealth, career, home, family, and the possibility of sexual expression, for our sake, men are called by God to do the same. Such a vocation is a gift from God to the man, to the Church, and to the whole world. But the Church's consistent stance on celibacy doesn't mean she doesn't understand that with each new generation it will have to be explained, to cradle Catholics and to converts alike. God love you and peace, brother.
Sr. Marianne:
I am very interested in your comments. My natural reaction is to ask: Then what is the point of making a perpetual (and in some cases, a solemn) vow if one does not intend to keep it in spite of later emotional upheaval or challenges? Is it not fair to make a comparison to a marriage vow? Although the application may be different, it is still a public vow.
Canon Law considers lack of intent to remain faithful to marriage vows as grounds for annulment. Although the Church allows for annulments and they are very common, it should be seen as a grave error on the part of one of the spouses. Why shouldn't the request for dispensation from religious vows be considered the result of a grave error?
Perhaps I am reading more into your comment than you intended; however, I think that it is dangerous to automatically assume that dispensations from vows are somehow neutral or normal just because they are allowed by law.
As an admittedly extreme example, Canon Law provides for someone to legally declare that they are no longer a member of the Catholic Church. This is allowed by the Church but that allowance does not make it a good thing.
Bruce,
Lighten up! I don't think anyone was personally attacking you. People can disagree with us or question what we say. It is not the end of the world. Keep up the discussion. Ask the questions. Put your ideas out there. But, if you do, don't expect everyone just to agree with you. I think everyone who disagreed with you did so in a rational way. I don't think there was anything said that constituted a "personal attack."
Ok Kathy, I'll lighten up.
No one forced Fr. Francis to be a priest or to make a perpetual vow of chastity. He chose it of his own free will. If he didn't think that he could live up to those vows, he should not have professed them. The Church did not force him.
Bringing up the issue of priestly celibacy is not appropriate to this topic. Fr. Francis is not a secular (that is, diocesan) priest. He is a member of a religious community that professes vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. He had to profess these vows independantly of seeking ordination to the priesthood. Even if he had not been ordained a priest, he would still be obliged to chastity. He rule out the possibility of marriage for himself completely independant of his choice to become a priest.
I think that my previous comment calling into question your honesty started a bit of a fire storm of comments. I apologize. I really thought based on the differnce in grammar in some of your posts that there might actually be more than one person of the same name making comments.
I understand that you are trying to grow in your understanding of Church doctrine and discipline. I commend you for that.
Priestly celibacy, as I explained in a recent comment, is not directly relevant to this discussion because Fr. Francis (regardless of his priestly ordination) already made a vow of chastity when he entered his religious community.
thanks for your answer John. I guess I never looked at it that way--as Christians we are all trying to live the way of Christ-priests indeed have a higher calling and--especially today--are so much more conspicuous when they sin or have issues of discenment--especially one on TV! Remember all those pastors in the 1980s? We expect more from our priests, and as such, we should shower them with prayers and support.
Oops!
The entry that I made at 8:42PM was directed to Bruce. I didn't make that clear.
Bruce
Change on that issue would be a miracle in your lifetime. The original Christian clergy were (some of them) married:
Catholic NAB version of I Cor, 9:5...Paul says: "Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
After the word "wife" up there, Jerome points out that some manuscripts also have "sister" next to it which is more appropriate to Paul himself. But the passage shows that Peter and other apostles brought wives on their journeys.
I just think Benedict and John Paul were far from allowing it and they have picked together many of the cardinals that will vote next time for the next Pope. As you and I leave this world, I'm betting there will be zero change on this so personally, I would still forget about it if I cared as you do. It's like when you own a stock that been downgraded and it's CEO has just sold 1 million shares and you hold on to it anyway....it'll cost you. I once zeroxed every Bishop in the country plus auxiliary Bishops on my personal issues and received not a form letter back from any of them. But I receive donation pleas every single week of my life...I'm kinda feeling used.
But remember when it comes to changes, Catholic Popes always have to worry about keeping the far right and the far left within the Church since when the far right schisms, they do not like Protestants start their own church....they proceed to call themselves the real Catholic Church and start their own seminaries and confuse some laymen.
As a result, change is very slow in Catholicism.
James
Thanks for that explanation of relevancy. A previous post also suggested that for all intents he was married to the church (he even mentioned in his show). I must've missed that reference. I've met some totally awesome priests and have been guided by one special priest who is a living saint. As margaret mary said earlier, the Church does in fact possess the truth. Maybe the married Deaconate will offer a way for the Fr. Francis' of the future. Deacon Bill is awesome. I just hate to lose Fr. F. and am stung by the effect it will have on his community, EWTN, and young people. Watching Fr. Mark fly solo was one of the most painful things i've seen in a while. He is so kind and good---and looked like he was in great pain.
There is a book published by Ignatius Press on the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy by a scholar whose last name is Cochini. Before you get too confident about the state of the clergy in a time very different from our own, you might want to read this book.
He makes a very convincing argument in favor of the view that the married deacons, priests, and bishops were not allowed to have sex with their wives after their ordination. He also cites St. Jerome and St. Marti