thats fair. do we know whether there is docuмentary proof that the marriage was definitely invalid

Right.  Let's always try to be fair.  There COULD be something awry there that could have rendered the "marriage" null even according to the most dogmatic SVs, e.g. she had somehow been validly married before.

But, then, let's say it was a bogus annulment.  He hasn't shacked up with someone else, and his Holy Orders, if he had received them conditionally, would still be valid, although during normal times illicit and uncanonical in the Roman Rite.

his Holy Orders, if he had received them conditionally, would still be valid, although during normal times illicit and uncanonical in the Roman Rite.

While true, are there any examples of Bp.Williamson having ordained anyone under such circuмstances?

Yes, the Eastern Rites permit some mixing of the two vocations. But they are wrong. The Roman Rite is SUPERIOR in that it totally forbids marriage among the clergy. In this respect, the Roman Rite is superior, more pure, and more consonant with Christ's teaching and example. In other words, more doctrinally faithful and pure.

Christendom (Christianity incarnated in public life, infused in society) was in the West (Europe) for a reason. It was not an accident. The West is superior to the East in every way. In this matter, as in all other matters.

Matthew, I have to wholly disagree with yoh here. Your statement is filled with the hubris of the Latin Church and is the sort of nonsense that has precipitated and perpetuated schisms between Latin and Greek Catholics. Your statement also presents a very narrow and incomplete understanding of the Greek Churches of the East as well as Christendom in general.

I loathe having to say this to you as you are both the administrator of CathInfo and a fellow former Winona seminarian. Yet, it must be said.

You probably do not interact with many (any?) married priests given your location. I interact with several -- Greek Catholic and Orthodox. I also interact with a couple married Novus Ordo priests, although I doubt the validity of their Orders, not because these men are married but because said Orders are derived through lines tanited by the new, doubtfully-valid rite of episcopal consecration.

My point is that these men are good priests and good husbands and fathers. It needs be said that the Greek Churches understanding the nature of the priesthood in the same way as the Latin Church, but the Greeks conceive the rôle and function of bishops and priests differently than the way that this developed in the West, especially as manifested in the last 500 years, which is different from how this manifested during the 500 years prior to that and which, in turn, differed from the 500 years before that.

To say that the West is superior to the East in every way is a rash, dangerous, schismatical, and possibly heretical statement that needs to be retracted and repudiated.

The priesthood and the married life are incompatible. You can be a good father or a good priest -- but not both. If one attempted both vocations at once, he would end up being lousy at both.
...
Yes, the Eastern Rites permit some mixing of the two vocations. But they are wrong. The Roman Rite is SUPERIOR in that it totally forbids marriage among the clergy.

Yeah, that's a huge stretch, Matthew, to declare the Eastern Rites WRONG.  Well, not only the Eastern Rites but the Roman / Latin Rite as well for about the first millennium.  So for the entire FIRST MILLENNIUM of Church history, the CHURCH was "wrong", not just the Eastern Rites.  Unfortunately, that's the kind of thinking that results from the R&R mentality.

We do know from Sacred Scripture (i.e. from the Holy Ghost) that virginity/celibacy are superior to having marital relations, but that does not mean that the priesthood and marriage are incompatible in any way, or otherwise the Church would not have permitted it for over a thousand years, and in fact continue to permit it for the entire history of the Church in the East.

As for not being able to be a good father and a good priest at the same time ...


Highly subjective, can easily vary from case to case (where there can be many lousy celibate priests but good married priests).  MAYBE you could argue that, with all things being the same, the celibate priests can do a BETTER job, but not that doing a GOOD job is inherently incompatible with a married state, both as a priest and as a father/husband.  Again, to say that such a priest cannot do a GOOD job is a huge overstatement of your case.  At best you can say a celibate priest would be able to do a BETTER job.

Again, not only does that vary from case to case, as I've known many celibate priests that really don't seem to care all that much about souls, whereas some married ones do.  AND a married priest with children might be in a much better position to help married couples, parents, in knowing in real terms what that might entail, vs. speaking from an ivory tower when they literally have no clue what it's like to be a parent or a husband, speaking in abstract and often condescending terms.  I know just for myself that until I had children I had literally NO CLUE what it would be like and what it was like, and then 2, then 3, then 4, then so on.  It's a life-changing paradigm shift.  See, when you're a parent, and your child is sick in the middle of the night, you just get up and take care of it, and you don't think you're some kind of hero.  There are quite a few priests who would do well to have that same attitude toward the faithful and who could learn a lesson about what being a "father" actually means, since that term is derived from fatherhood itself.  Too many celibate priests have a condescending arrogant attitude toward the married faithful, and think that the term Father is just some kind of title of authority rather than a vocation of service per Our Lord's mandatum, where they have the same attitude towards the faithful entrusted to their care as a father would have toward his natural children.

Or, another way to put it, I KNOW that I would have been terrible giving advice to married couples and parents had I been ordained myself without really understanding what's involved or what it takes, giving abstract textbook answers that show I don't really have a clue what I'm talking about and perhaps do more harm than good.  I've heard some couples who relayed some advice they received from their celibate priests that was 100% absolutely HORRIBLE advice coming from someone who had NO EARTHLY CLUE what marriage and parenthood were about in practical terms (they could just give you a theological definition).  There's probably no harm in having a mix of some married priests and some celibate, where the celibate priests might be BETTER at some things, whereas the married priest might be BETTER at others (e.g. counseling married couples ... which would be the vast majority of the faithful) ... but to say that one cannot be a GOOD priest at all if one's a father, and vice versa, that's just plain wrong, i.e. that marriage/fatherhood is somehow incompatible with Holy Orders, that contradicts the mind of Holy Mother Church for the first millennium of Church history and for all 2,000 years of Eastern Church history.

Very often Fathers have to work long hours and may have to be away from the home for large parts of the day.  If a Father is a medical doctor, he too might be called out in the middle of the night for emergencies, depending on his specialty.  So is being an ER doctor also incompatible with and inadmissible for a parent?  What's really the difference between an ER doctor who might be called out on emergencies and might have to work long hours outside of the home and someone who puts that same dedication that others have to put into their "career" into serving as a priest?  I don't see the difference.  From the other perspective, so being married is an impediment to holiness?  Well, tell that to the Church, who canonized St. Joachim and St. Ann, although I'm sure a lot of Trads consider them "inferior" or "lower tier" saints.  Is there some weird assumption here that all married couples are engaged in marital relations in such as way as to be contrary to holiness?  Well, those same individuals might fall into impurity as priests also, except without the bond of matrimony, whether with women, or even worse, contrary to nature.

You gotta be kidding me! This is EXACTLY one of the attacks on the celibate priesthood from Protestant heretics. Are you really going to go there?

Seriously?  You know better than the entire Church for an entire Millennium and then the entire Eastern Church for 2,000+ years.  Before going into specifics about the different points, you need to start right there and not attempt to change the main subject.

You need to also stop it with the idiocy also, where even if the Prots use that as an angle of attack against celibacy, it doesn't mean that there isn't some validity to it.  You're just gaslighting here with "Protestant heretics".

Yeah, well, it's also the Prot heretics who claim that the Church would/could be wrong about this matter, and that Matthew here got it right for 1,000 years in the West and 2,000 years in the East.

Seriously?  You know better than the entire Church for an entire Millennium and then the entire Eastern Church for 2,000+ years.  Before going into specifics about the different points, you need to start right there and not attempt to change the main subject.

Judge a tree by its fruits. The West has never done married priests. And only in the West did we have Christendom. Which "path" (married priests or unmarried priests) resulted in the worldwide spread of Catholicism? All the huge religious orders and missionary work have been from the West. Rome itself is located in the West. The West is superior.

In the West you had the sufficient intellect (or the God-given religious sense) to intuit the fact that you can't be a good priest unless you leave all behind and "come, follow Me." Others tried to have their cake and eat it too, but the West was apparently wiser, looking at the results.

We're talking about the big picture here, not individual sanctity. I'm not condemning everyone in the East. I'm just saying the West more closely followed Christ's example and teaching. Jesus never got married. His apostles were all SINGLE. I don't care if some of them were formerly married or had children -- when they became followers, disciples, priests, bishops, apostles -- they knew they had to leave their families if they had them, if they were going to do this "priest" thing.

"No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Let's put it this way. You at least need SERIAL monogamy -- either have a wife, or be a priest. But you can only do one of them *at once*. So lets put aside the issue of virginity here. I don't want to make a big deal about that. I'm more concerned with a man's ability to juggle a family and a flock. How can he *focus* on both? That goes against the very definition of "focus".

Being a priest is a 24/7 job. It's not just a 8-hour clock-in kind of job. It's a FULL LIFE. It's also an on-call position. You never know when you will be needed to perform priestly duties. You best not commit yourself to OTHER on-call full time jobs at the same time!

You give examples of the sacrifices of married man -- what you don't talk about is what happens if one of your kids is sick (needing love/care at home and/or a trip to the doctor/hospital) AND someone needs the Sacraments? Most men only have one of those on-call jobs. Not both.

It would be like being on-call for multiple jobs. Not a bright idea.

Bottom line, at present he's not holding himself out as providing the Sacraments at any chapel any of us might choose to attend.

Right, and this is what i responded to the question of +Vigano's conditional consecration.  While it may be of curiosity for us, I don't know anyone who's receiving Sacraments from a priest ordained by +Vigano where it would be of direct signifcance to me, i.e. where on a need-to-know basis, I'd be one who needed to know.

I would certainly ask Father Mawdsley before receiving any Sacraments from him, except if I had no other option in danger of death.  As for his annulement or lack thereof, that's also between him and God.  Even the Nine really only cared about situations where the couple were now living with someone else.  If you remain separated, what does it matter.  And, then in terms of His Orders, they'd still be valid even if his marriage is still real in the eyes of God (for all we know that woman has since passed away ... we have zero facts), and whether or not he's married would be of no concern to me.