Celibacy: east vs. west

[malphono]

I, however, am not going to hold my breath or check on the odds makers in Las Vegas.

There are some individuals who advocate doing away with celibacy; but they seem to be a small minority, and from most appearances could not think their way out of a wet paper bag armed with a sharp knife and two synapses firing in sequence.

However, the tone and tenor from Rome seems to be that it is either the discipline or the other extreme, doing away with celibacy. Perhaps it is just me, but that is my recollection on public discussions which have emanated from somewhere in Italy… Both/and seems to entirely escape them.

I’m not holding my breath either, and I hate Las Vegas (I’ve never been a gambler --I’m one who, if I didn’t have bad luck I’d have no luck at all – you get the picture).

In any case, I think that Anglicanorum Ceotibus certainly gives a reason to open the issue. Perhaps if the issue is opened, a more balanced, pre-nepotistic perspective might prevail. Who knows?

 

[Layman]

Perhaps part of that is that those who were - to use your term “exercised” - have been laicised and are now married.

I am not sure what you have read; I have heard that a significant number ( not a majority) have indicated that celibacy was not and is not their charism. It would be interesting to see if any polls have been taken.

You sez take a hint. Well, perhaps Rome could take a hint too…

Being anything and being married is a hard station, particularly if one has something besides a 40 hour gig. Ask a doctor, ask a lawyer, ask a teacher, ask a CPA… you get the drift.

By people I mean lay people. Lay people seem very concerned about priests getting married. Priests don’t. JRed gave Rome’s position. From whom should Rome take a hint?

A priest is a spiritual father. Being a father to his own children would double his workload. And on a priest’s salary, as well. Plus the loss of the ascetic and sacrificial aspect; the prime reason for being celibate in the first place, I assume.

We would also enjoy the peculiar phenomenon Mrs. Priest, in the way that Anglicans enjoy vicar’s wives; as powers in the parish.

There are plenty of vacancies for priests, I think. There are plenty of more lucrative lines of work available, if you don’t have a vocation. No one is forced to become a priest any more. Can’t handle celibacy? Don’t enter a seminary.

All we need, now, is for more traditionalist Bishops to train and ordain priests with a proper sense of what it means to be an alter-Christus and the artificial vocations crisis will be a fading memory in due course. Root our effeminacy and heresy from the seminaries. Pick the right man to be your vocations director. Bring back the TLM and the other beautiful old sacraments. Put social-justice-for-peace on the back burner and make holiness your goal, I say. The rest will follow.

 

[otjm]

By people I mean lay people. Lay people seem very concerned about priests getting married. Priests don’t. JRed gave Rome’s position. From whom should Rome take a hint?

A priest is a spiritual father. Being a father to his own children would double his workload. And on a priest’s salary, as well. Plus the loss of the ascetic and sacrificial aspect; the prime reason for being celibate in the first place, I assume.

We would also enjoy the peculiar phenomenon Mrs. Priest, in the way that Anglicans enjoy vicar’s wives; as powers in the parish.

There are plenty of vacancies for priests, I think. There are plenty of more lucrative lines of work available, if you don’t have a vocation. No one is forced to become a priest any more. Can’t handle celibacy? Don’t enter a seminary.

All we need, now, is for more traditionalist Bishops to train and ordain priests with a proper sense of what it means to be an alter-Christus and the artificial vocations crisis will be a fading memory in due course. Root our effeminacy and heresy from the seminaries. Pick the right man to be your vocations director. Bring back the TLM and the other beautiful old sacraments. Put social-justice-for-peace on the back burner and make holiness your goal, I say. The rest will follow.

All of which misses the point entirely.

The Catholic Church has had married priests since its inception; it has also had celibate priests from its inception.

And the Roman rite has had married priests for a very significant part of its existence and has them now. That should make it crystal clear to anyone paying a bit of attention, that the Holy Spirit guides men to the priesthood, and seems to have no problem doing so if one or more of them are married.

This is not about social justice for peace. It is about being open to whome the Holy Spirit may be calling to the priesthood.

I don’t make any presumption that there would be a vast number of candidates were the rule to be relaxed; it is not some sort of panacea to the shortage of priests… Nor do I see it as some sort of cure for the sexual abuse issue; anyone who actually knows about sexual abuse of children would know that the number one abuser of children is a parent, guardian or close relative. It is simply a matter of being open to the Holy Spirit’s directions.

Further, if one actually wants to make celibacy the shining example that it should be, then one shows it to be the charism that it can be, one freely chosen by those to whom that gift has been given. What we have now is not a gift of a charism with all who are celibate; we have a discipline that says if you are called to the priesthood in the Roman rite, guess what - unless you are a convert minister already married, you are gonna be celibate. We need, in this world of hyper sexuality, to breathe real life into the gift of sexuality that God has given us all. Something that is demanded is not a gift, it is just that - a demand. Making the gift of celibacy just that - a gift - heightens the value of the gift that is given. Making a priest be celibate leaves the viewer with the message - “well, he has to do that to be a priest.”

And by the way, we have plenty of beautiful sacraments, whether they be in the EF time or the OF time. We also have wonderful young priests, who do not have the agenda of those ordained before and after Vatican 2; they are called the John Paul 2 priests as they were captured by their Pope and have dedicated their lives to the Church.

Celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood, no matter what you might think. It is time to make celibacy the shining gift that it can be, by not requiring that those who are called to the priesthood to be celibate, but by allowing the Holy Spirit to bring us great priests whether they are married or not before ordination.

Oh, and by the way, ascetical life is only one way of sacrifice. I know of no married couple who are not engaged in daily sacrifice; and I have met not a few priests who are glad they are not called to that type of sacrifice. More than a couple have shared how little demand is actually placed on them in the priestly life. Let’s not get carried away with emotional layering where it is not deserved. Diocesan priests are not called to the ascetical life; monks are. Some diocesan priests may live an acetical life, but they are certainly not demanded of it.

 

[diggerdomer]

I respectfully disagree that such has been taught infallibly by the Catholic Church. Reference?

Thanks.

 

[Layman]

It is simply a matter of being open to the Holy Spirit’s directions.

…

We need, in this world of hyper sexuality, to breathe real life into the gift of sexuality that God has given us all. Something that is demanded is not a gift, it is just that - a demand. Making the gift of celibacy just that - a gift - heightens the value of the gift that is given. Making a priest be celibate leaves the viewer with the message - “well, he has to do that to be a priest.”

Suppose, instead, that the Holy Spirit has decreed that R.C. priests should be celibate? That God is pleased with men and with a Church who make that sacrifice, especially in a world of hyper-sexuality? The Holy Spirit has been used to justify a lot of nonsense since the 60’s. “Breathe real life into the gift of celibacy”? That’s just about meaningless. Be a celibate R.C. priest, or don’t. Asceticsm is one of the distinguishing marks of a Christian Way and celibacy is identified with it.

As I think a previous poster mentioned, celibacy has allowed R.C. priests and religious to be very effective missionaries. Remove the rule of celibacy so some married men might become priests while men who don’t want to marry will still become priests?** I don’t see the benefit to the Church and I can see it causing yet more ructions in a Church I think is weary of them.**

 

[otjm]

Suppose, instead, that the Holy Spirit has decreed that R.C. priests should be celibate? That God is pleased with men and with a Church who make that sacrifice, especially in a world of hyper-sexuality? The Holy Spirit has been used to justify a lot of nonsense since the 60’s. “Breathe real life into the gift of celibacy”? That’s just about meaningless. Be a celibate R.C. priest, or don’t. Asceticsm is one of the distinguishing marks of a Christian Way and celibacy is identified with it.

As I think a previous poster mentioned, celibacy has allowed R.C. priests and religious to be very effective missionaries. Remove the rule of celibacy so some married men might become priests while men who don’t want to marry will still become priests?** I don’t see the benefit to the Church and I can see it causing yet more ructions in a Church I think is weary of them.**

You don’t see the benefit because you don’t want to see the benefit.

Celibacy is a charism (or, if it makes your socks roll up and down, a vocation). Priesthood is also. So is marriage. Making a person who has the vocation to priesthood live a vocation to which they are not called does not lift up that second vocation as a model. You don’t like the term “breathe life into”? Fine. Forced celibacy does not make celibacy an example of a vocation one is called to. Allowing those who are called to both vocations - priesthood and celibacy - to respond to them and allowing those who are called to both vocations of marriage and priesthood to respond to them holds up both the sacrament of marriage and the vocation to celibacy as freely chosen examples of living out the call God makes to individuals.

I am not using the Holy Spirit to justify anything. And the Church has not used the Holy Spirit to justify the discipline; they have made it clear that it is a discipline, and if anyone chooses to look at history, they will see that the issue of discipline of celibacy received impetus when the Church was rocked with scandals of clergy with concubines. Not one of the problems we face now.

 

[Layman]

You don’t see the benefit because you don’t want to see the benefit.

Celibacy is a charism (or, if it makes your socks roll up and down, a vocation). Priesthood is also. So is marriage. Making a person who has the vocation to priesthood live a vocation to which they are not called does not lift up that second vocation as a model. You don’t like the term “breathe life into”? Fine. Forced celibacy does not make celibacy an example of a vocation one is called to. Allowing those who are called to both vocations - priesthood and celibacy - to respond to them and allowing those who are called to both vocations of marriage and priesthood to respond to them holds up both the sacrament of marriage and the vocation to celibacy as freely chosen examples of living out the call God makes to individuals.

I am not using the Holy Spirit to justify anything. And the Church has not used the Holy Spirit to justify the discipline; they have made it clear that it is a discipline, and if anyone chooses to look at history, they will see that the issue of discipline of celibacy received impetus when the Church was rocked with scandals of clergy with concubines. Not one of the problems we face now.

So, because some men might have a vocation to be both married and priests, the R.C. Church should change the rule on celibacy? I can see how that might benefit the individual, but not the Church. It just increases the possibility for scandal and administrative tangles and it might change the laity’s attitude to the priest and the priesthood.

A priest is an alter-Christus. Christ didn’t marry and the apostles gave up marital relations. Celibacy has always been a virtue in Christianity. People admire priests for the same reason the admire monks and nuns**; they see a living sign of self-denial, of holiness. They know what he has given up for Christ and for them.
**
I can see giving up the celibacy rule also as causing yet another earthquake in our Church. One more Roman thing dumped in the headlong rush to embrace the notions of the day. Coupled with the new vernacular Mass and the general blanding out of our religion, what would then be Roman about the R.C. church any more?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have said this elsewhere but I will say it here.

God does not Call one to where they can not go.
God works thourgh His Church.
A feeling is not a Call though it may be a sign of a Call. (Otherwise if you say a feeling is the Call then how do you tell a woman who claims a feeling of a call to the priesthood that she is not called?)
The Church confirms the Call when it actually Calls the individual forward.

So in the Latin Church if one does not have the Charism of celibacy then they are not Called to the priesthood.

Otherwise you think God is a cruel being for Calling someone to a place they can not go and also a liar for not working through His Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother David,

I have said this elsewhere but I will say it here.

God does not Call one to where they can not go.

According to one theory.

Theoretically then, it is also conceivable that some people go where God does not call them.

 

[otjm]

So, because some men might have a vocation to be both married and priests, the R.C. Church should change the rule on celibacy? I can see how that might benefit the individual, but not the Church. It just increases the possibility for scandal and administrative tangles and it might change the laity’s attitude to the priest and the priesthood.

That’s a hoot. The Church has had married clergy since its’ beginning, and for the last several hundred years there has been little or no scandal or problem. It has been beneficial to the Church to have priests whether thay are married or not; and by the way we have them now in the Roman rite.

A priest is an alter-Christus. Christ didn’t marry and the apostles gave up marital relations. Celibacy has always been a virtue in Christianity. People admire priests for the same reason the admire monks and nuns**; they see a living sign of self-denial, of holiness. They know what he has given up for Christ and for them.**

That is an absolute non-sequitur. Having married priests takes nothing away from having celibate priests, but it does serve to show that those who choose celibacy do so for some reason other than that it is simply required.

I can see giving up the celibacy rule also as causing yet another earthquake in our Church. One more Roman thing dumped in the headlong rush to embrace the notions of the day. Coupled with the new vernacular Mass and the general blanding out of our religion, what would then be Roman about the R.C. church any more?

The rule has already effectively been “dumped” when they started admitting married men to the priesthood, because they were married before they converted. No earhtquake. No rushing. And as to the last question, if you don’t know what is Roman about the Roman rite, explaining it would be pointless.

 

[Layman]

That’s a hoot. The Church has had married clergy since its’ beginning, and for the last several hundred years there has been little or no scandal or problem. It has been beneficial to the Church to have priests whether thay are married or not; and by the way we have them now in the Roman rite.

Where are these married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, when did they arrive and under what circumstances?

 

[otjm]

Where are these married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, when did they arrive and under what circumstances?

They come from several faith groups: primarily Anglican/Episcopalian; then Lutheran, Methodist, and our archdiocese had one who converted from being a Presbyterian minister. Every one of them had to go through Rome tyo be ordained; and all follow the general rule for the Church which says that if your wife dies, you may not remarry (which applies to both East and West).

The one in our archdiocese was an awesome priest, quiet, prayerful, very respected and loved by his congregation, and died recently of a heart attack. He is a great loss.

 

[Biedrik]

By people I mean lay people. Lay people seem very concerned about priests getting married. Priests don’t. JRed gave Rome’s position. From whom should Rome take a hint?

I can concur with this. I see none of my fellow seminarians, or any priests, really complain about this. This seems to largely come from those who are not and never will be priests. My advice is, let the priests decide for themselves. It is their discipline. The laity has no business in it. Do you see the laity telling Carmelites how to run their monasteries? Do you see the Jesuits telling bishops how to run their diocese? No, because we each are in our own respective part of the Church. Do not make demands or presumptions outside your jurisdiction.

Also, I’d like to add my own view on this, as a seminarian. Celibacy is not a curse, nor a punishment, nor some great looming horror as some people view it. It is a sacrifice, a challenge, and a joyous thing for us to have. Few are the ones who are discontented with it.

I must say, that the claim “it will give us more vocations” is really not justified. If you have men who would become priests, but decide not to because they want sex, are those really men who would be good at the job? Men to whom sensual pleasure matters more than answering God’s call?

So my final word is this. Leave the issue alone. Almost no one here is a priest. This is an issue for the priests, and nobody else. Specifically, this is an issue for secular priests. Religious priests go by different rules. So let the secular priests discuss it. This is a discipline for them, and not anybody else. There are more pressing issues for the laity to discuss than a discipline that will never be enforced on them.

 

[Hesychios]

So, because some men might have a vocation to be both married and priests, the R.C. Church should change the rule on celibacy? I can see how that might benefit the individual, but not the Church. It just increases the possibility for scandal and administrative tangles and it might change the laity’s attitude to the priest and the priesthood.

Interesting perspective.

What kind of scandals do you envision might occur?

Could you explain what you mean about changing the laity’s attitude?

A priest is an alter-Christus. Christ didn’t marry …

Agreed.

…and the apostles gave up marital relations.

That is a popular theory. However there is really no proof of that I am aware of.

Apparently the early church did not see it this way at all, because it was known for bishops to be married and have children. What this points out to me is that the Apostles did not pass this instruction of celibacy on to the bishops. It is more likely that we are reading this charism of celibacy back into past, a conceivable “what might have been” being mistaken for what was.

Celibacy has always been a virtue in Christianity.

Absolutely.

I can see giving up the celibacy rule also as causing yet another earthquake in our Church. One more Roman thing dumped in the headlong rush to embrace the notions of the day. Coupled with the new vernacular Mass and the general blanding out of our religion, what would then be Roman about the R.C. church any more?

In the west, celibacy was optional for hundreds of years, and was only mandated in fits and starts across western Europe over a several hundred year period. In the formative seminal years of Christianity in the west celibacy was not mandatory, so I don’t see how it could be any less Roman if the rules were changed back.

In any case, while they are up there on the altar most people would not be able to distinguish the married clergy from the unmarried clergy. They would simply be unable to tell.

The Host is the same, however one receives it.

The Blessing is the same, regardless of the language.

The Grace is the same, it is all of God.

 

[JReducation]

I respectfully disagree that such has been taught infallibly by the Catholic Church. Reference?

Thanks.

You’re going to have to diagree with Pius XII. He calls it a dogma that is divinely revealed.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Hello brother David, According to one theory.

Theoretically then, it is also conceivable that some people go where God does not call them.

This is not a theory. This is a teaching of the Church concerning both religious life and Holy Orders. God only calls those who can, not those who cannot.

There are many who cannot who attempt it. That’s not because God called them. I call it stubborness.

I’ll give you a simple example. I can only speak from my own experience. In my religious order, when you enter you may state that you would like to be what we call an ordained brother. You can go through seven years of formation, make solemn vows, finish all of your theological studies and never be ordained.

Why not? Because unless the superior says that you are called, you are not called. After all that, you can find yourself being bound to religious life until death by solemn vows that cannot be dispensed, unless the Holy See agrees to it and never be ordained. The final decision to ordain you happens about two years after you make solemn vows. You enter knowing that this may happen, even though it rarely does. But Christ only calls those who can and through the means defined by the Church and within the parameters that the Church establishes. Christ does not usurp his Church.

Christ calls ONLY through the major superior. Christ limits his action to what has been bound by the Church. The Church has bound that: one can only go when one is called. One is called to go to and only according to the parameters that she has established through her Ordinary authority. Since Christ promises to uphold whatever the Church binds or unbinds, there is no room for doubt that he will only call as the Church mandates, through a bishop or a religous superior and he will only call those who meet the Church’s criteria. This was his promise to uphold what she binds and unbinds. Christ makes no exceptions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

Hi JR,

This is not a theory. This is a teaching of the Church concerning both religious life and Holy Orders. God only calls those who can, not those who cannot.

There are many who cannot who attempt it. That’s not because God called them. I call it stubborness.

That’s fine as far as it goes, but what are we to make of the cases where a person is interested in holy orders but gets refused more than once, then finally finds a home later through dogged persistence? Does the initial refusal (or several refusals) mean God was not calling him? Or does his own dogged persistence mean God actually was calling him after all? I don’t think this idea was thought through very well.

Then there is the case of the unworthy who have been accepted by the church and given Holy Orders, among whom were heretics and morally corrupt (some of whom eventually became bishops), are we to say God must have called them because the church accepted them? God called Father Martin Luther? God called Archbishop Milingo? God called Father Marcial Maciel?

With respect I must say that as far as I am concerned it is theory, a particularly flawed theory.

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re going to have to diagree with Pius XII. He calls it a dogma that is divinely revealed.

**Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer **and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That teaching does not qualify as infallibly taught. As Canon Law prescribes. Thank you, though, for the reference, it is very insightful.

Regarding this issue, though, of course we cannot simply stop with what Pius XII taught, but need to consider what the second Vatican Council taught, what Popes after Pius XII taught, etc.

Again, though, thanks…interesting source and I appreciate it…

 

[otjm]

I can concur with this. I see none of my fellow seminarians, or any priests, really complain about this. This seems to largely come from those who are not and never will be priests. My advice is, let the priests decide for themselves. It is their discipline. The laity has no business in it. Do you see the laity telling Carmelites how to run their monasteries? Do you see the Jesuits telling bishops how to run their diocese? No, because we each are in our own respective part of the Church. Do not make demands or presumptions outside your jurisdiction.

It is not a jurisdictional matter, to begin with; further, it is the laity who receive the call to priesthood so the laity has an interest in it. Anyone who is married who may feel called to the priesthood has no option to approach the issue, unless they happen to be a protestant married minister. It is beyond presumptuous that only married protestant minister might have a call to the priesthood, and not married Catholic men of the Roman rite.

Priests are not the ones who will decide the issue; Rome will decide it. But the comment is an oxymoron; once one is a priest, the issue of marriage is precluded. The issue is not about priests deciding the issue; the issue is about Catholic married men who may feel called to the priesthood. And as far as the laity having (name removed by moderator)ut, there is nothing in the definition of the Church that says that any and all ideas must start at the top.

Also, I’d like to add my own view on this, as a seminarian. Celibacy is not a curse, nor a punishment, nor some great looming horror as some people view it. It is a sacrifice, a challenge, and a joyous thing for us to have. Few are the ones who are discontented with it.

With no disrespect to you, you are a bit young to be espousing on the issue. I was in the seminary in the mid 1960’s, and have lived long enough to have seen far, far more than you have about who is /was or is/was not discontented with celibacy. Many priests, starting with those who were ordained prior to Vatican 2, left the priesthood over celibacy issues. And an issue that is little discussed is the drop-out issue of those who start seminary and do not get ordained - far exceeding 50% in years past.

I have not suggested, and do not suggest that celibacy is a “looming horror”, or a “curse” or a “punishment”. It is a charism, a gift, and one given to some who are ordained, some who are professed, and to some who simply live that life.

I must say, that the claim “it will give us more vocations” is really not justified. If you have men who would become priests, but decide not to because they want sex, are those really men who would be good at the job? Men to whom sensual pleasure matters more than answering God’s call?

To begin with, I have not said and do not hold that it would be any cure to the shortage of priests. Taht it would give us more priests if married men could be ordained any upper level grade school child could figure out. I do not think there would be any rush to the seminaries by any large group.

But more to the point, if “wanting sex” is your understanding of marriage, God help the parish you are assigned to. and as to men who are married, you have just slandered 2000 years of men who were or are married and have been ordained in the Eastern rites, and those who were ordained in the Roman rite in the past and those who have converted from being a married protestant minister and been ordained. “Men to whom sensual pleasures matter more than answering God’s call”? You had best hope that your bishop and director of formation don’t get hold of that comment.

So my final word is this. Leave the issue alone. Almost no one here is a priest. This is an issue for the priests, and nobody else. Specifically, this is an issue for secular priests. Religious priests go by different rules. So let the secular priests discuss it. This is a discipline for them, and not anybody else. There are more pressing issues for the laity to discuss than a discipline that will never be enforced on them.

Nope. It is an issue for any married Catholic man who believes he has a call to the priesthood.

 

[Biedrik]

It is not a jurisdictional matter, to begin with; further, it is the laity who receive the call to priesthood so the laity has an interest in it. Anyone who is married who may feel called to the priesthood has no option to approach the issue, unless they happen to be a protestant married minister. It is beyond presumptuous that only married protestant minister might have a call to the priesthood, and not married Catholic men of the Roman rite.

Priests are not the ones who will decide the issue; Rome will decide it. But the comment is an oxymoron; once one is a priest, the issue of marriage is precluded. The issue is not about priests deciding the issue; the issue is about Catholic married men who may feel called to the priesthood. And as far as the laity having (name removed by moderator)ut, there is nothing in the definition of the Church that says that any and all ideas must start at the top.

The majority of the laity will not ever even consider the call. Yet they still wish to say how things ought to be done.

Also, as Brother JR has pointed out, God would not call anyone to where they could not go. That would be insane of him. While God does have high standards for all humans, he does not demand that we do things like growing a third arm by sheer will. And so he will not call a married man to a place that he cannot go to. God may have called him before his marriage, but will not call him once he is married. The man may still be accountable for saying no to God and doing what he wanted instead, assuming he knew about his call, but I don’t think God would demand something impossible of him.

With no disrespect to you, you are a bit young to be espousing on the issue. I was in the seminary in the mid 1960’s, and have lived long enough to have seen far, far more than you have about who is /was or is/was not discontented with celibacy. Many priests, starting with those who were ordained prior to Vatican 2, left the priesthood over celibacy issues. And an issue that is little discussed is the drop-out issue of those who start seminary and do not get ordained - far exceeding 50% in years past.

I am aware that there is a dropout rate. I currently sit in a room in which 3 guys who withdrew stayed in over the past 3 years. It is not always because of struggles with celibacy. For example, one has decided to move to a monastery and become a religious priest instead.

Also, how exactly do you know that I am young? I do not recall having my age listed anywhere in my profile.

I have not suggested, and do not suggest that celibacy is a “looming horror”, or a “curse” or a “punishment”. It is a charism, a gift, and one given to some who are ordained, some who are professed, and to some who simply live that life.

Nor have I ever stated that you said that. Why you think I’m accusing you of such a thing, I do not know. However, I have met many that view celibacy as some annoying and cruel requirement that the Church inflicts upon its priests.

To begin with, I have not said and do not hold that it would be any cure to the shortage of priests. That it would give us more priests if married men could be ordained any upper level grade school child could figure out. I do not think there would be any rush to the seminaries by any large group.

Once again, have I said that you specifically said this? No. This was a general response to many things that are often said when priestly celibacy is described. Many would claim this will cure the vocation crisis.

Also, another point I would like to make on that subject (this is not directed towards you otjm). There’s an interesting book called The Priest is Not His Own by Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He makes an interesting point there that priesthood should never be advertised, because we will get too many men who are not truly interested, who shouldn’t be at the seminary in the first place. Now, in a day where men are probably getting the call but not hearing, this may be different. But this does apply somewhat to removing celibacy. If we get rid of it only to get more priests, then we will be doing it for the wrong reason, and possibly get an unintended effect.

But more to the point, if “wanting sex” is your understanding of marriage, God help the parish you are assigned to. and as to men who are married, you have just slandered 2000 years of men who were or are married and have been ordained in the Eastern rites, and those who were ordained in the Roman rite in the past and those who have converted from being a married protestant minister and been ordained. “Men to whom sensual pleasures matter more than answering God’s call”? You had best hope that your bishop and director of formation don’t get hold of that comment.

It is not my understanding of marriage. Did I state that I was specifically not talking about marriage? No. I would quite willingly show this to my rector, to my bishop, to the vocation director my diocese, or even the pope, because I am not giving a definition of what is good about marriage. I know many men for whom it is not the want of a family, or any of the other things that constitute marriage, which makes them afraid of celibacy. It is the lack of sex, and to some this is not sex within a marriage. We should not change the requirement simply to get men who are not suited in the first place.

Nope. It is an issue for any married Catholic man who believes he has a call to the priesthood.

As said earlier, God does not call us to that which cannot be done. God will not call you to grow a second head, he will not call a man to be a mother, he will not call a woman to be a father, and he will not call a married man to where he cannot go.