MOMM and its role in married priesthood

THE MOVEMENT for the Ordination of Married Men seeks to foster informed discussion on this matter in the Catholic community. In no way is this an attempt to railroad the bishops, but rather to help the sensus fidelium to articulate itself.
In the short-term such discussion will be necessary to prepare parishes to accept fittingly convert married clergymen and their families. In the longer term we will have to arrive at a sympathetic appreciation of this older tradition if there is ever to be corporate reunion with the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.
Patrick Foot, July 5, rightly raises some practical problems. Some call for a change of attitude on our part. It should not be in any real sense a scandal if the child of a married priest rejected the faith. Rather it should provide a sermon in action as to how a committed Christian parent might struggle with such a problem, or indeed with any of the stresses of family life.
Other questions which Mr Foot raises can only be answered adequately in the longer term in the context of a very different style of priesthood.
A married priest might support his family by undertaking secular employment after the style of St Paul's 'tent making ministry', or of • LIKE Kevin Hartley, July 5, who is known to me, I found that I did not possess a double vocation to priesthood and to celibacy. Because I entered into marriage, I had no alternative, as matters presently stand, but to leave the active priestly ministry.
I did not wish to do so. Indeed, I am sure that both my wife and myself could have continued to be of real service to the Church as a married couple.
Not only have I had to leave the priesthood, but, in order to participate more fully and actively in the life of the Church, I have had to apply for a dispensation from celibacy.
This process is similar to the nullification of a marriage. It involves the attempt to prove that no vocation to priesthood (and, presumably under the present discipline, no vocation to celibacy) ever existed.
In my case, I think this will be very difficult to prove. I left the priesthood simply because I wished to marry, and for no other reason. It may therefore be that a dispensation is refused in my case. In such an event. I will be even more "marginalised" than Kevin Hartley and others!
It makes me sad, therefore, when I read of the arguments on the one hand upholding an exclusively celibate priesthood; and on the other hand preparing the way for the inevitable ordination of married men, and justifying ordination of convert married clergymen. This is double-think Courd it not be that the Lord is saying other things to his Church? First and foremost, the Church needs to be declericalised and the laity to take their proper "forefront" role.
Name and address supplied Anglican non-stipendiary clergy. (Forget the pejorative use of the term 'part-time priest': such an individual would still be bearing priestly witness in his place of work after the fashion of the priest workers).
Finally, with regard to the availability of clergy, and the needs of 'difficult' inner city areas, what many envisage is that an individual, married or not, who had given evidence of Christian leadership in a particular community might be ordained to serve that community.
There is a mountain of evidence establishing the pastoral desirability of pastoral care by 'like to like' (including married to married? and allowing for the occasional alien prophet).
If such an ,individual moved house, he might well cease to operate as a priest in his new community. (Forget the pejorative phrase 'temporary priests': present ecclesiastical rules have suspended from priestly practice over 40,000 priests who married, with or without permission, during the last twenty years).
Michael B Caine
Staff House, Christs College, Woolton Road, Liverpool