May 12, 2004
BEST OF BOTH WORLDS:
A father for the 11th time: Samuel Leonard was married 42 years and had 10 children. Then he became a priest. (Bella English, May 12, 2004, Boston Globe)
The Rev. Samuel Leonard must be the only Roman Catholic priest who met his wife at an Arthur Murray Dance Studio."I literally waltzed her around the room,'' he says. ``And then I made a date with her, which was verboten.'' He was a dance instructor, and dating students was not allowed. So Leonard quit his job. Two months after that first waltz, he asked Mary Steigerwald to marry him.
"It was just intuition. It wasn't sexual attraction or her perfume or the color of her eyes. I just knew the first time I met her that I was going to marry her.''
It was, you could say, a calling.
Leonard had felt a similar calling to the priesthood as a child, and attended a high school seminary in Canton, Ohio. Then he met Mary. They had 10 children and had been married 42 years when she died of ovarian cancer in 1998.
Within six weeks of her death, Leonard says, he was having constant thoughts of becoming a priest. He was 64 years old, the grandfather of 20. He called his diocese in Youngstown, Ohio, and was told that the cutoff age for new priests is 60. He wrote to two seminaries. One said he was too old. He never heard from the other. He went to a Catholic shrine in western Ohio and prayed. ``I asked the Blessed Mother to guide me, and then I put it out of my mind. The door seemed to be closed.''
Ten months later, he got an answer, one he considers to be divinely delivered. A young friend who was entering a seminary knew of Leonard's desire. He'd heard that the Institute of the Incarnate Word, a small order, accepted older candidates. Would Leonard be interested? After a 30-day retreat in July 1999, Leonard decided that he'd been called to the priesthood.
Widowers would seem a better pool to recruit from than homosexuals, which didn't work out too well. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2004 9:05 AM
I don't know if the moral of this inspiring story is whether it's widowers that the Church should seriously consider recruiting or former Arthur Murray dance teachers.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at May 12, 2004 9:30 AMWhat's more astonishing is the possibility that someone could be a dance teacher and a Catholic priest, say of his wife "it wasn't sexual attraction" that drew him to her, and that anyone could believe he was NOT a homosexual.
Posted by: Brit at May 12, 2004 9:39 AMThe recruitment of older priests, whether widowers or not, along with accepting married clergy from other denominations (married Anglican priests, for example, can become married Catholic priests) and from certain associated churches following the eastern rite, could end up being the salvation of the American Catholic church.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 12, 2004 9:39 AMMy godfather did a very similar thing: went to seminary after his wife of many years died. Unfortunately, illness prevented him from completing his study.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 12, 2004 10:27 AMIt's called "second vocation" or "late vocation" and has a long history.
The priest who gave me instructions (delegated to the local RCIA group) was a second vocation -- he'd been a Navy officer during WW2 and spent a few years in business during the Nifty Fifties before entering seminary.
And my former RCIA sponsor had been on some Jesuit-run retreats and said a lot of those Jesuits were second vocations -- often ex-military or retired military. (Appropriate for the "Vatican Marine Corps"...)
Personally, I'd be much more comfortable around a priest who was a second vocation -- he's had more experience outside the Church and seminary. He's been there.
Posted by: Ken at May 12, 2004 12:11 PMDavid, the 7 Eastern patriarchies are not "associated" with the Roman Catholic Church. They are fully Catholic, just not Roman in rite.
I believe all 7 allow priests to marry. I know for sure the Maronites and Mennonites do.
Another fine example of the moral confusion of those who would be our moral guides.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 12, 2004 1:53 PMHarry: Thanks for the correction. Do you think we could sell tickets to you and me discussing Catholic doctrine?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 12, 2004 4:43 PM>I believe all 7 allow priests to marry. I know
>for sure the Maronites and Mennonites do.
As I understand it, the Eastern Rite policy is this:
1) A married man may be ordained, so long as he married before his ordainment. Once ordained, he cannot marry.
2) If widowed after ordainment, he cannot remarry.
3) A single man who is ordained cannot marry.
4) Bishops must not be married.
5) In the USA, Eastern Rite priests (in union with Rome) cannot be married except under special dispensation. (I think this is to avoid confusing the issue with Americans.)
Posted by: Ken at May 12, 2004 4:49 PMStrangers things have happened, David. Making a living as a Rod Stewart lookalike, for one.
Orrin, priestly celibacy was certainly presented as a moral issue to us when we were being encouraged to 'recognize vocations.' You may disagree that it should have been, but you nor I cannot rewrite Catholic doctrine.
Ken, I had a Maronite priest teach me religion. At least as far as Maronites go, what you say is not exact. He said that he and other priests accepting assignment in N. America had to agree not to marry. It was still an option if he went back to Lebanon.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 12, 2004 7:05 PMAs is whether they are competent to offer moral guidance to anyone else.
If you'd gone to Catholic school as much as I did, you'd recall the torturous rationale about whether you could receive valid sacrament from a sinning priest.
Their answer was, incredibly, yes.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 12, 2004 10:06 PMSo Harry, you were expecting to receive the sacraments from Christ himself? I can see why you became so disillusioned...
Posted by: brian at May 12, 2004 10:25 PMHarry:
Since you mand Jeff are the only non-sinners any of us have ever met, our options are limited.
Posted by: oj at May 12, 2004 11:23 PMWell, the difficulty is, who gets to make the moral choices? On what grounds?
Do you put your money in a bank set up by Willie Sutton?
Some would, I guess.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 13, 2004 5:51 PMI use the power of the state to protect me from the Suttons in the banks, and I opt out of the Church.
Works for me.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 14, 2004 4:48 PMHa! Good one! The honest State...
Posted by: oj at May 14, 2004 5:53 PMMore honest than religion, at least.
Sometimes the state gets in league with the Suttons to fleece the lambs, as happened, memorably, on Reagan's watch.
But you take comfort where you can find it. I'm a checks and balances guy. I don't trust anybody all the way.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 14, 2004 10:16 PMHoohoo--yes, the low Reagan years breaking the string of good gov...
Of course, the only meaningful check on the State is the Church, which you despise, as you must.
It's always the 40s somewhere and Statism still might work...
Posted by: oj at May 14, 2004 11:17 PMHarry:
The biggest fleecer of all was Fernand St. Germain. Is he still around?
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 15, 2004 8:53 AM