A priest opines on the effect of optional priestly celibacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This letter seems to imply a single unworkable solution to incorporating married clergy into the Church, ignoring the fact that the Church originally allowed for married priests and bishops (1 Timothy 2 demonstrates the historical inaccuracy of his claim in this regard), and that numerous other denominations have successfully incorporated married clergy as the majority of their ordained ministry.

The fact of the matter is that there are a few things standing in the way of allowing for married clergy: 1) Canon law, which can be changed; 2) tradition, which similarly can be changed given there is ample scriptural support to demonstrate that celibacy is not a scriptural requirement and that how one manages his family was a key component in evaluating the suitability of a priest/overseer or deacon; 3) logistics considerations for ensuring that married priests are capable of supporting their families. Of the three of these, the logistics considerations would be the most difficult to address.

Just food for thought.
 
Sadly, Fr Z’s post is heavy on the rhetoric and light on the facts.

For starters, the Latin Rite already has married clergy (albeit in small numbers) who have converted from other Christian Churches. This was in fact envisioned by Paul VI under the heading “particular cases” in Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. The ordination of viri probati or older, married men for service in remote communities could be another exception akin to the ordination of married men to the diaconate (itself part of Holy Orders).

Granted it’s easy to argue that the exception will before long become the norm (some slope really are slippery) but the same argument could no doubt be made about the pastoral provision yet that exception has not become the rule. Likewise, the Eastern Rites seem to manage just fine.

I’m not arguing for a change - the culture and practice of priesthood in the Latin Rite has developed the way it has as a result of over 1000 years of mandatory celibacy. At the same time, exceptions already exist and further, limited exceptions would not be the harbinger of doom which some claim. Any change will not be made by this Synod, not would I expect it to come in the Pope’s post synodal exhortation - it’s something which affects more than just the Amazonian region and as such would require consultation with Bishops’ Conferences around the world.
 
I found this posted article to be awful! It is a ridiculous scare tactic!

After describing his opinions, he ends by saying…
In short, this would seem to be a very useful way to strengthen the “Lavender Mafia,” no?
Click to expand...
Seriously?!
 
Last edited:
Don’t be so naive, there is most definitely a lavender Mafia in the Vatican. Homosexual Predators like disgraced former cardinal Mccarrick do exist for a reason. Read up on the testimony of Bella Dodd, a former Soviet that defected to America ( and received back into the church by venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen), and openly admitted that she and her former comrades we’re purposely finding corrupt and homosexual men and encouraging them to join Catholic seminaries.


Pope Francis himself even admits there’s a sodomite Lobby in the Vatican

www.nytimes.com

Pope Is Quoted Referring to a Vatican ‘Gay Lobby’ (Published 2013)

The remarks appeared to be part of an effort by Pope Francis to take on the entrenched interests in the Vatican.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Pllease, don’t be willfully ignorant about the homosexual Predator abuse crisis in the church.
 
Last edited:
My massive concern was that the article was implying that allowing married priests would give the “lavender mafia” far more power. The logic that led to this is bananas.

I stopped being a naive kid who loved to read comic books quite a while ago…😉
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top