Thread: Of the marriage of Priests Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025019
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I was reading this fascinating but very poignant article in the Grauniad about the priest and cruciverbalist the Revd John Graham (here), and was struck by an aside in which he mentions having to leave his South London parish (in the 1950s, it seems) because he got married. This surprised me, as I had never heard of an Anglican parish which stipulated a requirement for celibacy apart, possibly, from St. Clement's Philadelphia and a few others which are linked to Orders. In addition, the Revd Mr. Graham does not appear from his other comments to be particularly 'advanced' (no use of 'Father' as a title, for instance).

Was this a common occurrence in the past, even amongst MotR parishes? Could it have been linked to not wanting to pay for housing a priest's family? Given what the 39 Articles say, I am surprised a CofE parish was allowed to impose such a rule, especially at that time!

[ 18. January 2013, 17:47: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Certainly up into the 1960s, clergy in the Diocese of Ottawa needed the bishop's permission to marry, and in the 1920s and 1930s, were discouraged before they were in line to get their own parish. However, this is the first I have heard of a mandatory-celibacy parish.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Upto 1950s you needed permission of the principal if you wanted to marry while training for the ministry in the Congregational Church.

There are different reasons for requirement of celibacy. The Roman Catholic one is probably evenly matched with an Evangelical one, where the situation was felt not to be a good one to bring a woman into, either because the parish could no afford to pay a living wage for a family or because the demands made family life very difficult e.g. expected to house the curate in the vicarage as well or perhaps because it was felt family life distracted from giving attention to the parish.

FYI volunteers on Corrymeela promised to be celibate for a their time there right up to the 1990s simply because relationships interfered with the smooth running of the team so much.

So my conclusion is that celibacy was expected by a much wider range of Christian traditions in the past than today.

Jengie
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The dear old Guardian is notoriously unreliable on ecclesiastical issues.

I have heard a woman URC minster complain that in the past if a woman minister married, she was expected to resign.

On the other hand, Lady Lufton in Trollope's Framely Parsonage is firmly of the belief that a clergyman, particularly when she's patron, should be married. I'd have thought that was the MOTR standard.

In Barbara Pym's wonderful A Glass of Blessings, stunningly handsome Father Marius Ransome has to leave St Luke's as curate when he marries frumpy Mary Beamish.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I suspect sometimes the move had to do with accommodation, and sometimes to do with whom one was marrying. Marrying a lady of the parish, for example, could be perceived as potentially difficult, as her status would change, and so best to move on.
 
Posted by aig (# 429) on :
 
Church of England Ordinands in some (possibly all) Dioceses have to get permission from their sponsoring Bishop before they marry. I know this because one of my fellow ordinands had to trail from Cambridge to York for an interview before he was allowed to announce his engagement.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I have heard a woman URC minster complain that in the past if a woman minister married, she was expected to resign.
Maybe old PCE but Congregationalism, married women ministers are almost as long as it has been ordaining women. France Coltman nee Todd the first woman minister married the day after she was ordained. No she did not then resign.

The problem that is true is that until fairly recently if both husband and wife are ministers it is assumed the husbands career takes priority. I say until recently as I am aware of a couple of circumstances where the wife's has taken priority in recent years.

Jengie

[ 18. January 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
Around the same time as the Revd Mr. Graham would have been a curate, the Rector of this Town kept several single curates lodged in the attic bedrooms of his capacious Rectory. A number of them left when they married. Remember in days of yore, the incumbent paid his curates out of his own pocket and it was cheaper for him if lodgings were provided in the Rectory household. Such a domestic arrangement could not accommodate a married man.

Q.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The dear old Guardian is notoriously unreliable on ecclesiastical issues.
Not only The Grauniad. Mr Graham's local newspaper has an article about him in which he is said to have "retired as the reverend (sic) at Houghton Chapel in 1978". Houghton is a small village near Huntingdon and has, I am pretty sure, only one chapel (congregationalist now URC), lately used as a retreat &c. centre. Mr Graham was unable to minister for a while in the CoE between the time of his divorce and the death of his first wife. Even so, it would seem odd if, as the newspaper has it, he occupied a URC charge at that time. Can anyone shed light on this puzzle (no pun intended)?
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I have heard a woman URC minster complain that in the past if a woman minister married, she was expected to resign.
Maybe old PCE but Congregationalism, married women ministers are almost as long as it has been ordaining women. France Coltman nee Todd the first woman minister married the day after she was ordained. No she did not then resign.

Jengie
Interestingly enough the guiding hand behind the ordination of Constance Coltman was a Presbyterian minister in a Congregationalist charge, viz. The King's Weigh House. None other than our old friend Dr (later Fr) Orchard, who must rank as one of the most non-conformist of non conformists.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
This surprised me, as I had never heard of an Anglican parish which stipulated a requirement for celibacy apart, possibly, from St. Clement's Philadelphia and a few others which are linked to Orders.
My understanding is that this sort of thing used to be very common among a certain stratum of really advanced Anglo-Catholics, of which S. Clement's is one of a few remaining examples in the USA. I think it always was more common in the UK than in the US. I've never heard of a celibacy requirement (for lack of a better term) outside of that context.

Would a parish be able to impose such a requirement if it felt it should? I'm afraid I don't know enough about CofE canons to make a judgment there, but I'd imagine a TEC parish could. As noted, S. Clement's does, and there are more than a few conservative parishes which, notwithstanding that they have no formal objection to ordination of women, *just happen* never to have called a woman as rector. Just sayin'.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Rev. Lydia Gruchy, the UCCan's first female minister (ordained 1936) never married. Married women were discouraged from seeking ordination from 1936 until 1965.

The first married woman to be ordained was Rev. Elinor Leard, ordained in 1957 by London Conference against the wishes of the Moderator who sent a telegram to the Conference asking them to stop.

It wasn't until Ma Preacher's time (ordained 1977) that married women were accepted into the ministry without question. Ma and Pa Preacher married in Divinity School.
 
Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :
 
When I was an ordinand I did the right thing by consulting my sponsoring bishop beforehand about my plan to ask my girlfriend to marry me. Shortly afterwards, when I visited my future title parish with my girlfriend, the parish priest said to us that he had heard from the bishop and had assured him that he had objection whatsoever to us marrying.

Of course, that was the first my girlfriend had heard of it...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I know someone who left a curacy at St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol (High MOTR) to get married - 5 years ago.

St. Peter's Streatham (anglo-catholic)used to have only unmarried curates.

It was about accommodation as much as anything else - 3 curates in a clergy house.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
We have a retired priest in our parish who told me that when he was ordained, all newly ordained clergy were advised against marrying or having children while serving their title due to the time constraints these would cause.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I was thinking more about this. Professions used to have more rules about marriage.

I seem to remember teachers, that is women teachers, could not remain as teachers if married, bit I may have that wrong. Similarly nurses were unmarried.

But for clergy it must have been more complicated for not all curates became incumbents in the way they tend to now - at least stipendiary ones.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
There was an unwritten rule here that persisted for a long time that if you were not already married before your curacy began, you couldn't get engaged during it, and in some cases you were expected not to have any relationships. I don't know of any diocese now that enforces it.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I have heard a woman URC minster complain that in the past if a woman minister married, she was expected to resign.
Maybe old PCE but Congregationalism, married women ministers are almost as long as it has been ordaining women. France Coltman nee Todd the first woman minister married the day after she was ordained. No she did not then resign.

Jengie
Interestingly enough the guiding hand behind the ordination of Constance Coltman was a Presbyterian minister in a Congregationalist charge, viz. The King's Weigh House. None other than our old friend Dr (later Fr) Orchard, who must rank as one of the most non-conformist of non conformists.
Yes but when you start scraping the surface that is what you get, a lot of Presbyterian Ministers holding posts within the Congregational Union. Even some of the early women ministers fell into that category others were Methodist in background. The very early women trained at Mansfield.

Jengie

[ 19. January 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I'd endorse the argument that this has nothing to do with celibacy. The army used to impose a similar restraint on junior officers marrying.

Until at least 1939, and possibly well into the fifties, women teachers, civil servants etc who got married were required to resign. Obviously this did not apply to men. Another time, other rules.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
But for clergy it must have been more complicated for not all curates became incumbents in the way they tend to now - at least stipendiary ones.
I think the rule only applied for those "serving their title" i.e. in their "training" parish. If they moved on to another curacy, then it was different matter.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd endorse the argument that this has nothing to do with celibacy. The army used to impose a similar restraint on junior officers marrying.

Until at least 1939, and possibly well into the fifties, women teachers, civil servants etc who got married were required to resign. Obviously this did not apply to men. Another time, other rules.
/slight tangent/
My grandmother worked in a bank in those days where such rules applied. She and my grandfather married in secret at a registry office with a couple of witnesses and she wore her wedding ring on a chain around her neck at work until she was obviously pregnant with my aunt at which point she had to come clean about her marriage and resign! My grandfather was also 10 years her junior which would possibly still raise some eyebrows today let alone in the 1930's! She was a very sweet but very determined lady!
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:



In Barbara Pym's wonderful A Glass of Blessings, stunningly handsome Father Marius Ransome has to leave St Luke's as curate when he marries frumpy Mary Beamish.
A friend of mine (a clergy wife) not long ago was invited to some diocesan do for clergy wives run by a particularly 'meaningful' and controlling bishop's wife (who had clearly never heard of Mrs Proudie). There was a feeling that the wives were expected to attend.

My friend who has always seen herself as having absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with other clergy wives, saw the date approaching on her calendar with trepidation and horror. She managed about 45 minutes of the conference before sending me a text 'get me out of here'.

They were all, with the exception of this single person, frumpy Mary Beamishes.

Lindy Runcie, of blessed memory, was brilliantly refreshing, funny, not particuarly religious although she had a full Requiem Mass at her death, and different. She used to say 'too much religion makes me go pop'.

On the other hand, Archbishop Coggan's wife wrote a book called 'Wife to the Archbishop' a publication many thought should have been entitled 'Archbishop to the Wife' as apparently she was 'viewy' and wore the trousers.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Michael and Joan Ramsey used to refer to Archbishop and Mrs. Coggan as 'Cog and Ma Cog.'
 
Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :
 
Queen Elizabeth apparently didn't approve of married clergy, and wouldn't allow the wives of bishops to be known as 'Lady'.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
St Mary the Virgin Times Square is another TEC parish that has long had only celibate rectors, although curates have at least in more recent years often been married.

Given the numerous gay clergy in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, the celibacy tradition also seems to be breaking down somewhat as these gay clergy are able to be more completely "out" and legally partnered. Clergy who in the past would have been at least publically celibate are now able to be openly partnered/married to a same-sex spouse.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
Given the numerous gay clergy in the Anglo-Catholic tradition [...]
I was having this thought as well, but I left it to the side as I didn't know quite how to properly put it. Thank you for doing so.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Sebby -

I giggled at your last post. I thought a basic premise of feminism was that women were not to be defined by their relationships with men. Your friend's bishop's wife hadn't cottoned on.

The best possible argument for ordaining women is that it breaks the stereotype of vicar's wives.

There is a very good argument for clergy spouses to attend another church than their partner's.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:



In Barbara Pym's wonderful A Glass of Blessings, stunningly handsome Father Marius Ransome has to leave St Luke's as curate when he marries frumpy Mary Beamish.
A friend of mine (a clergy wife) not long ago was invited to some diocesan do for clergy wives run by a particularly 'meaningful' and controlling bishop's wife (who had clearly never heard of Mrs Proudie). There was a feeling that the wives were expected to attend.

My friend who has always seen herself as having absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with other clergy wives, saw the date approaching on her calendar with trepidation and horror. She managed about 45 minutes of the conference before sending me a text 'get me out of here'.

They were all, with the exception of this single person, frumpy Mary Beamishes.

Lindy Runcie, of blessed memory, was brilliantly refreshing, funny, not particuarly religious although she had a full Requiem Mass at her death, and different. She used to say 'too much religion makes me go pop'.

On the other hand, Archbishop Coggan's wife wrote a book called 'Wife to the Archbishop' a publication many thought should have been entitled 'Archbishop to the Wife' as apparently she was 'viewy' and wore the trousers.
Yes but what about clergy husbands??
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Michael and Joan Ramsey used to refer to Archbishop and Mrs. Coggan as 'Cog and Ma Cog.'
They did. And when ++Robert Runcie went to Lambeth, Ramsey sent him back the Eucharistic vestments from the Palace chapel which he had taken with him when he retired on the grounds that 'Cog wouldn't have known what to do with them, and Ma Cog would have turned them into cushion covers!'
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
My belief in the Blessed Michael's unworldly innocence has taking a beating, but my respect for him has increased even more.

Archbishop Coggan was the one who sitting on the throne of St Augustine above the altar of Canterbury Cathedral during the Lambeth Conference eucharist, turned his back on the altar, knelt down and buried his face in the chair for the consecration.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
My belief in the Blessed Michael's unworldly innocence has taking a beating, but my respect for him has increased even more.
[Overused] [Angel]

quote:
Archbishop Coggan was the one who sitting on the throne of St Augustine above the altar of Canterbury Cathedral during the Lambeth Conference eucharist, turned his back on the altar, knelt down and buried his face in the chair for the consecration.
[Disappointed] Why wasn't he presiding? Or [Help] was he???!
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
No he wasn't presiding. At the altar was an African Archbishop, presumably as a nice gesture to show we aren't colonialists any more. (And of course, we don't do con-celebration.)

Given the logistics of Canterbury Cathedral, this meant that the presider behind the altar would have been visibly under the feet of Dr Coggan, except the Archbishop's endearingly innocent old fashioned eucharistic piety meant that at the climax of the principal act of Christian worship, the focus of visual attention was on the Primate's be-coped backside.

Surely you remember it?
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I do remember it. May I just add a little pickiness? I know we have been taught for some time to see the whole laos as 'celebrating', but I have a problem with 'presider' and 'president' - the latter as I always think of Obama, or worse, Bush. It also brings back memories of Series 3 and All That.


In these Common Worship days when we all know that the whole people of God celebrate, might we not return to the more elegant 'celebrant'?

Secularists seem to have no problem with it. I am told that those who offictiate at the local crem for the non religious are called 'life celebrants'. Life Presiders?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
'Principal celebrant' is OK with me. I think if I was preparing a parish mass book or leaflet I would just use 'priest'. 'President' is theologically (and politically?) correct but it does have connotations. Though not being American I don't immediately think of POTUS.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I am told that those who officiate at the local crem for the non religious are called 'life celebrants'...
I've not encountered that euphemism before. If there was a euphemism award, it would have to be entitled to one for its denial of the simple fact that you don't get centre stage at a crem unless you are dead.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Not sure it is a euphemism - generally a humanist service will be about a celebration of the life of x, if only because those there probably don't believe there is anything afterwards.
 
Posted by Wyclif (# 5391) on :
 
*cough*

As a married Anglican clergyman with offspring, I've always found this piece from Uncle Martin valuable of the question of clerical marriage:

Martin Luther, “The Estate of Marriage” (1522):

http://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/LutherMarriage.htm
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
No he wasn't presiding. At the altar was an African Archbishop, presumably as a nice gesture to show we aren't colonialists any more. (And of course, we don't do con-celebration.)Surely you remember it?
A photo or two here here.

Thurible
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
The celebrant was Archbishop Sepeku of Tanzania and a photo of the very scene remembered by some of you is here, although it does seem as if there was some limited concelebration after all.

Thurible

[ 21. January 2013, 13:43: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Not sure it is a euphemism - generally a humanist service will be about a celebration of the life of x, if only because those there probably don't believe there is anything afterwards.
Interesting. So who do they get in to deal with the grief and sadness of the mourners? The 'grief coper' or 'death acknowledger' or 'pain emcee'? Or are atheists not allowed to be sad when their loved ones die? Are they really compelled to 'celebrate' everything about their experience of being bereaved in such a ceremony?

More seriously, I'm quite sure that even 'life-celebrants' are expected to help mourners cope with tragic accidents and diseases, cot-death etc. At least during their service. But as you describe it, it rather sounds as if 'celebration' is the only option for a humanist funeral. A little one-dimensional surely.

It's also an interesting point that theistic funerals - with a perspective that death isn't the end - should be perceived as being gloomier and less positive than a funeral which essentially says - 'well that's it, wasn't it great, but now it's over.'
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I've attended four secular funerals in the last 18 months. Two contained features that I found disturbing. One was to do with the choice of music. I realise from what Anselmina has just said what it was that underlay the disturbing element in the other. I won't describe it in detail, but after a number of respectful eulogies, the end was rather 'Always look on the bright side of life', or

'Pick yourself up,
shake yourself down, and
start all over again'.

It was as though having unfortunately been reminded that in the midst of life, we are in death, we'd better forget about it quick in case anyone in the family might be tempted to grieve.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've attended four secular funerals in the last 18 months. Two contained features that I found disturbing. One was to do with the choice of music. .... after a number of respectful eulogies, the end was rather ....
'Pick yourself up,
shake yourself down, and
start all over again'.

That'd be a good one for Buddhist funerals, or for anyone else who believes in reincarnation [Smile]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Or are atheists not allowed to be sad when their loved ones die? Are they really compelled to 'celebrate' everything about their experience of being bereaved in such a ceremony?
Tangent

You may be tougher in rural Ireland, but here in England "celebration of the life of.." is standard.

The last funeral I went to in church was where the surviving family (the deceased was my age, poor man) was determined that it was all a celebration, and to get the message over the body had been disposed of at the crem that morning and was not present in the church.

Well, if it's what helps people in grief, but I have my doubts. The trouble is the middle class MOTR English don't cry.

I'm strongly tempted to specify I want an open coffin at my funeral, following standard West Indian practice. And clouds of incense.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

The last funeral I went to in church was where the surviving family (the deceased was my age, poor man) was determined that it was all a celebration, and to get the message over the body had been disposed of at the crem that morning and was not present in the church.

Well, if it's what helps people in grief, but I have my doubts. The trouble is the middle class MOTR English don't cry.

That reminds me of the funeral of a deeply devout and Catholic-minded member of my former congregation. Her very middle class family insisted on a private cremation in the morning (at which they stood bolt upright in dark coats and kept their lips and tear ducts tightly buttoned) followed by a funeral/memorial service in church, without the body, in the afternoon.

It struck me that was neither a celebration of life nor a permission to grieve. Fortunately with the rest of the congregation we were later able to do both in a splendid Requiem.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I'm not quite sure how we got from the marriage of priests to funerals...
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
The celebrant was Archbishop Sepeku of Tanzania and a photo of the very scene remembered by some of you is here, although it does seem as if there was some limited concelebration after all.

Thurible
Some of it quite sinister. I thought the concelebrants used their right hands, even if on the chief celebrant's left?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Yeah, I'd forgotten that funerals are sometimes labelled 'a celebration of the life of...'. And to be honest I've no quibble with that. I've done it myself and we always seek to give thanks for the life of the deceased, and make that an important point of the tribute.

I think it was just that 'life-celebrant' seems such a stupid title, to me. And also seemed to imply that no-one was around to deal with the 'death' side of the situation! I'm sure that's not true.

Humanist service or not, while I want to be thankful and remember the great things about those who have died, I don't want to feel that I have to be 'celebratory' when I might be feeling sad about their death as well, even if it was the most appropriate and natural thing to happen.

It sounds a bit like: 'Pity about that awful dose of leukemia that killed him off at 26, but, hey, wasn't he great at dominoes?!'

Don't worry, readers. I know NO-ONE would do a funeral or life-celebration like that. I'm just exaggerating to make my point. Which is, after all, only my personal opinion.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm not quite sure how we got from the marriage of priests to funerals...
Ooops. Sorry. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The opinions of Mister Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh on the matter:
quote:
“My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish; secondly, that I am convinced that it will add very greatly to my happiness; and thirdly–which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular advice and
recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of calling patroness. Twice has she condescended to give me her opinion (unasked too!) on this subject; and it was but the very Saturday night before I left Hunsford–between our pools at quadrille, while Mrs. Jenkinson was
arranging Miss de Bourgh’s footstool, that she said, ‘Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry. Choose properly, choose a gentlewoman for _my_ sake; and for your _own_, let her be an active, useful sort of person, not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way. This is my advice. Find such a woman as soon as you can, bring her to Hunsford, and I will visit her.’
There you go. Who would argue with Lady Catherine de Bourgh?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
To have a patron such as Lady Catherine would be the dream of most single young clerics.

I recall hearing that the late Ernest Reed, when Bishop of Ottawa, had a clergy list where some members had WHM (wife has money) was placed alongside their names.

These days, a bishop's challenge is that a professional spouse (doctor, executive, public servant, etc.) has limited mobility. Sending a curate off from Ottawa to Pembroke (180km) away makes it impossible for their researcher spouse to commute from the rectory. Given that the spouse may be the more established and better-paid (e.g., with a professorial salary of $120k), the cleric then becomes the childraising element in the partnership, or the bishop has to settle with the reality that their curate can only be deployed in a certain zone. Even so, I do not hear of bishops wishing or expecting to return to the days of the celibate unmarried cleric.
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The opinions of Mister Collins and Lady Catherine de Bourgh on the matter:
quote:
“My reasons for marrying are, first, that I think it a right thing for every clergyman in easy circumstances (like myself) to set the example of matrimony in his parish; secondly, that I am convinced that it will add very greatly to my happiness; and thirdly–which perhaps I ought to have mentioned earlier, that it is the particular advice and
recommendation of the very noble lady whom I have the honour of calling patroness. Twice has she condescended to give me her opinion (unasked too!) on this subject; and it was but the very Saturday night before I left Hunsford–between our pools at quadrille, while Mrs. Jenkinson was
arranging Miss de Bourgh’s footstool, that she said, ‘Mr. Collins, you must marry. A clergyman like you must marry. Choose properly, choose a gentlewoman for _my_ sake; and for your _own_, let her be an active, useful sort of person, not brought up high, but able to make a small income go a good way. This is my advice. Find such a woman as soon as you can, bring her to Hunsford, and I will visit her.’
There you go. Who would argue with Lady Catherine de Bourgh?
Wonderful !

Who indeed could gainsay such a Personage as LAdy Catherine.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I read Pride and Prejudice for the umpteenth time recently, and I'm still giggling at Lyda's quote.

As a vicar's daughter, Jane Austen knew what she was talking about. And like Barbara Pym, it's not hard to see why she never found any man to marry. She could see right through them.
 
Posted by Rampant Wonder (# 11159) on :
 
Just a small bit of updated information:

St Clement's, Philadelphia, certainly has a tradition of celibate clergy. However, for the past year, they have had Fr Ethan Jewett as their curate. He arrived in 2012 as a deacon and was ordained to the priesthood at St Clement's in August of the same year.

It was known when he was interviewed that he is an openly gay man and legally married to his partner. While I gather - from my far-distant perch - that there was some controversy regarding his hiring, by and large his ministry and time there have been positive and successful.

Fr Jewett's personal blog can be found at http://315-cross-train.blogspot.ca/
(Apologies for my lack of knowledge on how to do linky-things.)

The times, they are a-changin'!
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rampant Wonder:
Just a small bit of updated information:

St Clement's, Philadelphia, certainly has a tradition of celibate clergy. However, for the past year, they have had Fr Ethan Jewett as their curate. He arrived in 2012 as a deacon and was ordained to the priesthood at St Clement's in August of the same year.

It was known when he was interviewed that he is an openly gay man and legally married to his partner. While I gather - from my far-distant perch - that there was some controversy regarding his hiring, by and large his ministry and time there have been positive and successful.

Fr Jewett's personal blog can be found at http://315-cross-train.blogspot.ca/
(Apologies for my lack of knowledge on how to do linky-things.)

The times, they are a-changin'!
As some in the LGBT community might call-him a "Muscle Mary"! (Seems strangely apt for an Anglo-Catholic Priest actually...) He seems a very intelligent and worthwhile Priest from having just read through some of his blog. Seems St. Clement's is loosing a very good Priest but whichever Church he ends up in Chicago is gaining one...
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0