Anglicans, Married Priests, and Contraception
A friend of mine, a former Anglican actually, brought up an issue that I hadn’t thought about with respect to the new Anglican rite: contraception. In 1930, the Lambeth Conference declared that contraception was not always immoral, and could be used (for serious reason) to regulate the number of children that a married couple had. That declaration prompted a negative response from the Roman Catholic Church–the encyclical Casti Connubii, which declared that the use of contraception was never morally permissible. As most people know, that stance was reaffirmed by Humanae Vitae.
Now, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the prohibition against contraception is not a matter of “rite” or religious practice–it is a matter of natural law, binding not only upon Catholics, but upon all persons. So Anglicans who join the Catholic Church will be expected to conform to the prohibition There is no such thing as a dispensation from the strictures of negative moral absolutes. It’s true, of course, that many Roman Catholics make their own decisions about this matter, and come to their own private peace with God in the “internal forum” of their conscience. But the new influx of Anglicans will include people who will not be able to come to a purely private peace–the married members of the clergy, who will be required to follow Humanae Vitae no less than other married persons.
As far as I am aware, however, the morality of contraception under certain circumstances has been more or less a settled issue among Anglicans–even traditionally minded Anglicans. How will this change work out? Are Anglican priests prepared to balance the demands of a big family with the demands of a big parish? What about the wife of the priest? I know a number of Anglican priests whose wives (and husbands, but that is not an issue here) work full-time to supplement the salary. Are wives willing not only to convert, but to convert on the matter of contraception? Are Roman Catholics willing not only to see, but to support financially and in other ways, married priests with six, seven, or eight children?
From a theoretical perspective, this is an important question. If Anglicans are fleeing their communion because they reject the ordination of practicing homosexuals, they need to see that the Roman Catholic Church rejects contraception for much the same grounds that it rejects homosexual acts–it’s against the natural law as authoritatively interpreted by the magisterium –the Pope they wanted and now have. (Incidentally, what I call the “everybody’s suffering” argument has been a major defense on the part of traditionally minded Catholics to the charge of discrimination.) Anglican ethical analysis has reached a different conclusion, in my view for two reasons. First, they tend to focus on the broader relationship between a husband and wife, and not the single acts that traditional Catholic moral theory does. Second, they tend to give more weight to Scripture, which they view as condemning homosexual acts but not contraception. Traditional Catholic moral theory–based in natural law–doesn’t parse the question in the same way.
Some argue that NFP is very reliable–but many have argued that it’s not. I’ve also come across traditional Catholics who complain about the “contraceptive mentality” of their fellow Catholics in the pews, citing the fact that they only have two or three children as evidence.
Whatever problems the celibate priesthood has, at least we have been spared speculation about the contraceptive practices of our priests.
This ought to be an interesting social experiment.
Of course part of the reason that Anglican clergy have been drawn to Roman Catholicism is the continuity of its teaching, including its teaching on conraception.
The answer to the question youpose is not a total mystery. There are scores of former Anglican priests, now RC, with families, serving in parishes in his country. Some of them even have blogs. You could drop them an email and ask them the quesetion yourself, instead of just speculating. They don’t live in cages, incommunicado.
Cages? Who said anything about cages?
Speculating? I see nothing wrong with speculating–pointing out possible ramifications of this move, which is different in scale than the case-by-case accommodations made previously. Nor do I think I’m required to interview blogging ex-Anglican priests before raising questions on dotCommonweal about the differences between Anglican and RC approaches to moral issues. For one thing, that’s a matter well within the realm of my own scholarly expertise.
Incidentally, even if each and every Anglican who crosses over accepts the prohibition of contraception wholeheartedly (which I doubt will happen, in part because I’ve never heard of any traditionalist Anglicans threatening to leave because of the 1930 Lambeth Conference), then there is still the matter of how the RC Church is going to support the priests’ families–which will need to be worked out as part of the policy, it seems to me.
I don’t think any Anglican priests who swim the Tiber with their wives in tow will be much different re birth control than other Catholic husbands, and that’s generally to give lip service to Humana Vitae and let their wives deal with the details as they will. Gives them deniability at the Pearly Gates: “Honest, St. Pete, I had no idea she’d had that tubal after Baby #5.”
If anecdotal information from long-time Catholic women friends is any indication of how church teaching plays out in real-live marriage, Catholic husbands consider their duty done by asking, “Is it safe tonight?” If they’re ignorant about what their wives are up to with contraception, their consciences are clear.
But I and many of my Catholic girlfriends will happily eat crow if anyone can show us an official, quantitative study out there that shows that the majority of Catholic men are enthusiastic and active participants when it comes to family planning issues.
But Jean: why would an Anglican woman–who’s used to having more options–and more honesty –willingly go along with this scenario–especially if her husband’s a priest?
In my experience, either both parties are into HV (traditionalists), or they both recognize they’re using contraception and use it without a lot of worry (most everyone else). I haven’t met a lot of people who go along with it out of guilt or fear–either they both accept it or they both treat it as not binding. (Part of is it that post-Vatican II education isn’t really fear-based.) But I am at ND, which may not be the best sample.
Being born into Catholicism is one thing –it seems to me it’s easier to ignore the teaching in a way–you can portray it as a family quirk. And leaving over it seems, well, a bit too much. But to convert seems to me to be harder–you’re choosing it.
Plus there’s the culture. I wonder how that will work. Conservative Anglicanism, is in my experience, compatible with accepting contraception. Conservative RCdom, in my experience, is not.
Cathleen, sorry if my answer was flip (though I think the extent to which Catholic married couples “work” the whole birth control issue would be an interesting study …).
I suspect that wives of Anglican priests will be under some scrutiny during the conversion and ordination process, perhaps in the same way that wives are considered when Catholic men seek the permanent diaconate. Only more so.
I doubt the Church will ordain men whose wives are unenthusiastic about converting–or living up to the Church’s teachings about marrriage and procreation.
Have you read A. N. Wilson’s op-ed in today’s NYTs? 20 years? Is that possible?
You raise interesting questions. I’ll add a few.
How does the church support the married convert priests that we currently have? How do the Eastern Rite churches support married clergy?
An Anglican convert married priest teaches at Providence College, and serves as a diocesan priest. He had about 5 kids before converting. Last time I was there, they were living in a house owned by the college, at a reduced rent, I presume. I don’t believe his wife was working because of illness, and he was not tenured at the time. I suppose they were getting by.
I don’t know about percentages, but I know of at least one formerly Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism, and when he stated his reasons for making the switch the Lambeth Conference was right at the top. (And he brought a chunk of his congregation with him.)
The question of whether we’re willing to support priests with families, especially big families, is an important one any time we talk about married priests in the Catholic church. But I don’t think of it as a directly birth-control-related issue. (I’m uncomfortable suggesting that adhering to HV automatically means more kids — or that people who are OK using artificial birth control might not still choose to have lots of kids.) Family size is supposed to be a matter of discernment, after all; the church doesn’t require that couples have as many kids as possible (pace those “contraceptive mentality” scolds), but it does respect their right to decide how many kids to have. We’ll have to learn from the Protestants how to handle that if married priests become more prevalent in the Catholic church.
Surely, though. in the minds of many who oppose making clerical celibacy optional the question of family size is a “pragmatic” and usually unspoken consideration. If Fr. and Ms. Smith have the common number–two or three children–will not tongues wag and our old friend scandal rear its ugly head?
Mollie, you’re right. But what I’ve seen is that a significant chunk of the people who advocate HV also advocate a rigorist interpretation about the reasons necessary to postpone kids or limit family size. Maybe that’s part of the polarization.
Joseph, a friend who is familiar with conservative Catholic circles says, jokingly, you need at least four kids –or a plausible explanation –to prove your HV bona fides –in part because it’s increasingly being interpreted prophetically see Burke’s latest thing on this. If this is even half true, I bet that this aspect of traditional Catholic culture will be new to traditional Anglicans.
But maybe I’m wrong–maybe significant numbers of traditional Anglicans will swim the Tiber on board with HV. If anyone could point me to an article by a traditional Anglican taking issue with 1930 Lambeth, I’d be grateful.
Cathy’s point about choosing is a very good question. It is not the same as being born in to it. At the same time it is appropo to point out that contraception is the most single issue of hypocrisy in the RCC. The bishops do not get excited even when they know that the vast majority of Catholics practice it. They hypocritically refer to the “internal forum” as Benedict has done when confronted with the question. Maybe the Anglicans can make them honest.
We have 17000 married deacons, most ordained in middle or senior age. Count the number of children in rheir families? If we had married priests, cheapskate Catholics would have to pony-up.
Most converted Episcopal priests with families seem to hold academic jobs in Catholic colleges and HS.. to get academic salaries? as opposed to the diocesan $25K at most..
Interesting, Ed. You’re right–I don’t think anyone ever bothered to count deacons’ kids. I wonder why not.
I suppose it’s the fact of conversion –and one of the stated reasons for conversion has to do with sexual morality.
Just to underscore the timeliness of Cathy’s questions, the USCCB will be voting on a new pastoral letter on marriage and family in November, which reiterates that contraception (along with cohabitation and homosexuality) is “intrinsically evil”. NCR has the text of the proposed letter here: http://ncrnews.org/documents/marriage_divine_plan.pdf
“If we had married priests, cheapskate Catholics would have to pony-up.”
We don’t have to. They could work like everyone else. My view is all priests need more work. They don’t work enough. Yes, many do work. But by and large most of them are like retirees right after ordination. Especially in the parishes.
That’s one reason for me to rejoice: because of these new special structures, we will have more married priests soon. I hope that as a consequence, in the long term the sexual morality official line will become less hopelessly disconnected from reality.
As to supporting the children of priests financially, I have no idea how much Catholics are willing to pay for that. But won’t it be a long time before the numbers are large enough for that to make a difference?
Any Catholics planning hallelujah parties in anticipation of huge numbers of Anglicans swimming on over to Rome might want to leave the date on those invites open.
Contraception was OK’d at the 1930 Lambeth Conference due to pressure from the laity, which is pretty typical in Anglicanism and, more than individual teachings on contraception or anything else, stands in the way of Anglicans embracing Roman Catholicism wholesale.
For those interested in more info:
The teaching on contraception has not changed since 1930. It was not what I’d call a highly controversial decision; it passed by a 193-67 vote. Many caveats were included in the 12 resolutions on marriage that made contraception OK within fairly narrow confines.
Of special interest on the contraception resolution are:
Resolution 13: Seeing that the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children, it believes that this purpose as well as the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control should be the governing considerations in that intercourse.
Resolution 15: Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
I might add that a specific proscription on abortion was added as a related resolution on marriage at the 1930 conference. And that teaching has not changed since 1930, either.
I recommend lambethconference.org for anyone who wants to follow the development of Anglican teaching on this and other topics.
Many thanks, Jean.
It’s hardly a blank check for the “contraceptive mentality.”
What percentage of Anglican clergy hold second jobs to support their families? What professions or occupations are most represented in such jobs?
Mark wrote: “There are scores of former Anglican priests, now RC, with families, serving in parishes in his country. Some of them even have blogs. You could drop them an email and ask them the question yourself, instead of just speculating. They don’t live in cages, incommunicado.”
David responds: Mark, in fact part of the deal of the pastoral provision is that ex-Anglican married convert priests not draw attention to themselves, and hence most are very shy about talking publicly. The reasons behind the codicle are easily surmised. Interestingly, these convert priests also cannot be pastors–only assistants. But as in so many places, the shortage of celibate priests has meant the convert married priests are pastors de facto.
If anyone could point me to an article by a traditional Anglican taking issue with 1930 Lambeth, I’d be grateful.
Simon Heans, “Sex and Lambeth 1930,” The Church Observer (Easter 2008), pp. 26-31.
Link was right, but citation was wrong. Should be: Simon Heans, “Sex and Lambeth 1930,” The Church Observer (Easter 2008), pp. 20-25.
Fr. Heans was at the time the editor of The Church Observer, the quarterly of the Church Union, which is the oldest Anglo-Catholic organization.
Here is his conclusion from his editor’s introduction:
“My own belief, arrived at not without some heart-searching and contrition over a number of years, is that the abandonment at Lambeth 1930 of the nearly 2000 year consensus of Christendom in the matter of contraceptives was an absolute disaster for Anglicanism. Never mind that it put Anglicans at odds with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, though that is surely not a matter Anglo-Catholics will want to take lightly, the real problem is that it set in motion a steady and inexorable retreat from Christian sexual morality which will no doubt continue at Lambeth 2008. From this perspective, the essence of gay sex is that it is contra – against – conception. The conclusion is inescapable: one does not have to be homosexual to have had, or be having, gay sex.”
Oh, and here is the set of classic Anglo-Catholic sources contra Lambeth 1930 to which Fr. Heans refers.
Interesting that Bishop Charles Gore wrote about contraception in the same tones of instinctive horror as some Anglican bishops today write about homosexuality. Two phases of the same process, indeed. But where some see a process of decadence others see a process of enlightenment.
Simon Heans believes that “the essence of gay sex is that it is contra – against – conception.”
I’m not gay, but even I recognize such a statement to reflect intrinsically disordered thinking.
Straight couples do not as a group get married to beget children. They get married, inter alia, well…….you know. Children are a byproduct for couples able to conceive.
Church teaching in this area is so rigidly narrow — to the point it lacks credibility among most Catholics.
I’m not sure I agree with Bill that many priests retire post ordination in parishes – I think that’s pretty harsh. I do think many of the younger clergy are pretty rigid and there has been some evidence of a divide between them and the older VII clergy.
The issue here is going to be on more complex grounds and while speculating is good to a point,
The issue that I see most coming out of this is how divisive this issue will be in the Church and also the Anglican community, especially in this country.
If we’re divided along lines in the Church(es) about contraceptiopn already (and also women, clericalism and other good things) won’t the opening sharpen the division among those n the real right and left, while those bound essentially to the institutuions but critical thereof will be left in further painful helplessness.
I think Crystal is right: it would be far better if there were consultation, with real listening, all the way down the line.
Re No-Milk’s interesting posts: It’s interesting to look at the Lambeth Conference’s 1920 resolutions, which put contraception in there with pornography as slippery slopes to immoral sexual acts.
Something changed between 1920 and 1930 to encourage the clergy to turn its ideas around and create a very careful context in which contraception could be considered between married couples unable to limit their families through abstinence.
No-Milk, ideas?
I’m stymied about why Catholics here find the notion of supporting married clergy with children such a big deal. Episcopal priests have spouses who work–just like most other married people in the U.S. They also may teach part-time at a college or fill some position in the diocese that offers a few extra bucks. There are also retired supply priests who live mostly on their own incomes.
Moreover, I’m guessing that the priests MOST likely to convert to Roman Catholicism are Anglo-Catholic priests–and a good number of them have already taken vows of celibacy, which are optional among Angllican clergy.
“I suspect that wives of Anglican priests will be under some scrutiny during the conversion and ordination process, perhaps in the same way that wives are considered when Catholic men seek the permanent diaconate. Only more so.”
FWIW – when my wife and I were going through deacon formation, we weren’t asked any probing questions about our use, or not, of artificial contraception (at least not that I recall). But the formation programs vary from one diocese to another, and they change over time, so I suppose it’s possible that candidate couples are given the third degree these days.
At the same time: our experience of formation was that it was a time when all sorts of aspects of our lives were frequently and frankly discussed, in class, in small faith groups, etc. So it’s entirely possible that, if a candidate couple was vocal about using contraception, it would have filtered up to the powers that be, and that couple might have been invited in for a chat. Not aware of that ever actually happening, though.
The candidate doesn’t progress from one milestone (e.g. lector, acolyte, ordination) to another without the wife’s explicit consent each step of the way, given in the form of a letter to the bishop. If the wife has serious reservations about her husband pursuing this path (e.g. because she and her husband practice artificial contraception), she has the option of not writing that letter, or expressing those reservations in her letter. That would derail or delay her husband’s journey, and many wives would feel pressure to keep him on track no matter what, so it would put her in a very difficult position. But it’s something that everyone – the couple and the formators – would need to work through.
Jean – agree with you. We have basically changed our school system from primarily run/staffed by religious to lay run/staffed – vast majority are married with children. Yes, it would require financial changes but these are not impossible.
On the other hand, stats indicate that at the last big Anglican decisions (1992) roughly 441 priests went over to the RC side. It appears that more than 50% have left or returned to the Anglican side?
Reasons – can only speculate but current Anglican-RC directive does not allow these guys to become pastors; they remain, in a sense, second class citizens in the diocese they serve; there have been some personal stories told about the difficulties with the transition, current service, etc.; how they are treated by RC priest colleagues; etc.
Here is a good summary of the history and current status of ARCIC: http://vatican2voice.org/92symp/boulding.htm
Bill, yes, I’ve read that the recidivism rate among Anglican-RC convert/priests is about half. To paraphrase Mark Twain, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are people divided by common beliefs.
Jim, thanks for that info about the diaconate. The overall point I derive from your post is that that this is something that husbands go through with the consent/participation of their wives, and I would imagine that something similar–and perhaps more rigorous–is required for married converts seeking the priesthood.
(Can husbands become deacons even when their wives are mouthy lapsed Catholics? Write to me off line if you have any thoughts about this. Raber feels a calling, but thinks my backsliding would be a deal breaker.)
Hi, Jean, sent you a note offline – which of course is where a lot of the best dotcom conversations take place :-).
I’m not sure, but I think the author agrees with a concept that she attributes to Anglicans, namely, the focus on the “broader relationship” of husband and wife, rather than focus on individual acts.
If a husband is faithful to his wife 99% of the time (but commits adultery 1%), we wouldn’t say he is faithful. If a woman is caring and nurturing toward her child 99% of the time (but is abusive and violent 1%), we wouldn’t say she is a good mother. Individual actions do matter!
In response to dissenting theologians who came up with fancy “-isms” (e.g., consequentialism) to justify the commission of intrinsically evil acts, Pope John Paul II laid out in some detail an explanation of Catholic teaching regarding the assessment of the morality of a human act. See Veritatis Splendor, starting at paragraph 71. Here’s a link: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
There were some other problematic things said. For example the comments on NFP lack any real evidentiary support. The effectiveness of NFP (coupled with the remarkable “success rate” of the marriages of NFP couples) has been scientifically demonstrated.
Re Gibson’s comment, my experience is very different. The former Anglican priests who took advantage of the “pastoral provision” that I’ve met are not afraid of talking about their situation–or Catholic truth, for that matter!
One married priest in particular, who for a time was my spiritual director, has told his story on network TV and has written on the subject for national publications. And not only that, he’s a staunch yet ever pastoral defender of Catholic teaching, especially in matters of sexual morality.
I happen to know many of the leaders of the two groups that requested such an arrangement, the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Forward in Faith group in the Church of England, and they all want to become Catholics in full fidelity to the teaching of the Church as given in the *Catechism*. Indeed the leaders of both groups formally signed the *Catechism* as a kind of symbol or pledge of their seriousness. One doesn’t know what all their followers want or will do, of course, but the problem presented in the post is not a real problem. These ministers will not be a force for Anglicanizing Catholicism.
Some commenters referred to a rumor that half the Anglican ministers who convert return to Anglicanism. That claim has been floating around the internet, but there is, as far as I can find, no basis for it. It is certainly untrue of those ministers who were later ordained, though there are cases of ministers who weren’t ordained and left. But if the case of the one who wrote last year in Forward in Faith’s magazine *New Directions* is representative, they probably shouldn’t have become Catholics in the first place.
David Mills, at the risk of taking Cathleen’s post in far flung directions, your point is well taken: Figuring out who’s still in the Church and who’s out is a vexed question. The Church considers me still in, even though I removed myself from the communion line some years ago.
I also heartily agree that many of us converts should never have become Catholics in the first place, and some of the fault lies with RCIA programs that attempt to make Catholicism “go down” fairly easily. The program I went through soft-pedaled around the marital and sexual issues. Yet a about 10 percent of those who go through RCIA in the local parish are still practicing after a year or two.
I wonder if the Church would do better if it tried to make fewer converts and more “friends of Catholicism.” I think Pope John XXIII, who called himself “the Pope of Everybody,” and Pope John Paul II, who met with clerics in other denominations and faiths in a spirit of openness and charity, have done more for the faith than current efforts to cut deals with Anglo-Catholics.
OK, yes, thread-hogging now, so am offa here.
This is a very important topic, and I’m surprised, frankly, that not very many people have picked it up. Of course, the Anglicans will have to submit to the Church’s teachings on contraception, but I suppose that like so many Catholics, they can also join the rank and file of those who listen to their own inner light as opposed to the actual teachings of the Church. But Prof. Kaveney is absolutely correct that the Anglicans would be dripping in hypocrisy if they refused to see that the Church’s ban on homosexuality is rooted in their opposition to contraception (sterile sex, no matter what its form, is opposed to the life-giving purpose of the procreative marital act).
I do have to disagree with Prof. Kaveney’s analysis of the moral theology that lies behind this divide. Natural law theory, last time I checked, is also a theory of moral and intellectual virtues. And the act of contraception is a morally bad act precisely because it is opposed to the virtue of chastity (a species of temperance). And last time I checked, the Bible had a good deal to say about chastity and its importance, and alot of it comes straight out of the mouth of Christ himself. So the opposition is not that between a RCC that is obsessed with individual acts as opposed to the authority of Scripture, or a neglect of the Church’s understanding of the broader relationship between husband and wife. I’m not sure what the correct diagnosis is, but I’m sure that it is something the Anglicans will have to grapple with.