| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why can't a former vicar not become a Catholic bishop if he has a wife?; He can be a priest | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 9. July 2012, 20:34 (460 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. July 2012, 20:34 Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
In 1994 Graham Leonard, Church of England Bishop of London, was received into the Roman Catholic Church and conditionally ordained priest. I am not sure whether his wife was alive at the time of his ordination. If she was he would have been allowed to be a priest, but not a bishop. Where is the logic in allowing married former Anglican priests to be Catholic priests, but not bishops? Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It seems such a waste of former Anglican bishops' experience as bishops, to restrict their service to our Church once they are ordained to be Roman Catholic priests. Similarly with parish vicars, it could be some of them are better equipped than some of our celibate priests, to be diocesan bishops. EDIT: Post edited to correct date of Graham Leonard's reception and ordination. I mistakenly typed 1974. It was 1994. Edited by Rose of York, Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:59.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Monday, 9. July 2012, 20:43 Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
Ast happened I worked with this man's on at one time. My bet is that he was such a prize that if his wife had been alive at the time we would have come up with one of thos acracedabra Catholic solutions probably along the lines of "this was never doctrine just tradition". John |
|
|
| Derekap | Monday, 9. July 2012, 20:58 Post #3 |
|
Were not some of the Apostles not married,including St Peter? However, we don't hear of them. Did they leave their wives at home or did their wives travel round with their husbands? |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:36 Post #4 |
![]()
|
The Rt Rev Graham Leonard was a kind and holy man who was 73 when he became a Roman Catholic. He was made a prelate of honour but the prohibition on Married Bishops was not lifted but it was discussed. As with Priestly Celibacy it is a matter of church discipline not theological or historic doctrine. The church is free to relax the discipline without the need to resort to any magic "acracedabra" tricks. That it did not do so in the case of Graham Leonard says a great deal about his humility and acceptance of the sensitivities at the time. He was a loyal servant of the church, a friend and counsellor to many priests and bishops. Had Cardinal Ratzinger been Pope at the time I suspect the Ordinariate would have been formed then and its existence today owes something to the respect that Cardinal Ratzinger had for him. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/6943119/The-Rt-Rev-Mgr-Graham-Leonard.html He lived to see the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS published which I am confident would have brought him great joy. Edited by Penfold, Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:50.
|
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:42 Post #5 |
|
|
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:46 Post #6 |
|
Thank you OsB! |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:48 Post #7 |
![]()
Administrator
|
John I can no longer hold back my annoyance. I am sick to death of your mocking attitude towards decisions made by the Pope regarding the reception of former Anglicans into our Church. Catholics learn to live with ridicule from non church goers who do not understand our ways, I do not expect to get it from one of our own. It is a fact that celibacy of the priesthood is not doctrinal, it is a discipline. Please note I post this in my capacity as a member of the forum, not as a moderator. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. July 2012, 21:57 Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
So, in the past, centuries ago, when priests were allowed to marry, so were bishops. Now a married man can become a priest but he cannot be a bishop. Bearing in mind that it would be unusual for a priest to be raised to the episcopate before his children have grown up, why one rule for convert priests and another for convert bishops? A priest can bear the responsibility for a parish, even if he has ten children to care for. A priest with a wife, and whose children have themselves married, may not be a bishop. My opinion? It's bonkers. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Monday, 9. July 2012, 22:03 Post #9 |
![]()
|
Little steps but steps are being taken, perhaps when we have learned to walk more comfortably with the return of married priests we may be able to talk with our fellow Catholics of the Eastern Rites and agree a way forward that will enable us to reintroduce married bishops, but first we must learn to walk. (Who knows one day we may learn to skip and jump alongside women bishops, as Her Holiness greats us from the Balcony in St Peter's. )
|
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 9. July 2012, 22:05 Post #10 |
|
She couldn't be Pope as that is derived from Papa. The Mome of Rome? |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Monday, 9. July 2012, 22:07 Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rose, I don't think I have mocked but rather questioned. And who couldn't question, looking at the history. To be honest, I am not impressed by this switching from administrator to member from time to time as and when it suits your stance on an issue. John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. July 2012, 23:04 Post #12 |
![]()
Administrator
|
John I AM a member. My posts are generally made in that capacity. We don't do moderating in public. If I were not a moderator I would have felt the same way. If you were questioning and had phrased your post as a question, you might have got an explanation from somebody. The difference between doctrine, tradition and discipline has been explained on this forum, many times. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. July 2012, 23:06 Post #13 |
![]()
Administrator
|
With subservient husband hovering in the background, keeping an eye on their baby. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 08:37 Post #14 |
|
Why are little steps needed when the vast majority of the Church seem to have no great issue with celibacy? I get the distinct impression that most resistance to it is entirely concentrated within the Vatican. Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 08:52.
|
![]() |
|
| Eileenanne | Tuesday, 10. July 2012, 08:58 Post #15 |
|
Where is your evidence for that Mairtin? Is it based on the small sample of your own acquaintances? Eileenanne |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








)
8:38 PM Jul 11