M
MikeInVA
Guest
Go read what you posted. It did not say 90%. As far as putting words in your mouth, I quoted your entire post.
Oh, they are, too! Priests minister to sometimes hundreds of people. And they minister to immortal souls, not secular worries!Tha same goes for all men who have demanding jobs. But the responsibilities of the priesthood should be managed so they are no more demanding than any other job.
@MikeInVa I was referring back to this earlier post.I’d love for a priest on CAF to weigh in here and tell us how often they “drop everything” in the middle of the night. From my personal experience with priests, yes they’re busy, but 90% of their appointments are scheduled in advance. And believe it or not, they’re allowed to say “no” when they just can’t do something.
I’ve addressed this already. Scroll up.But for their own health these responsibilities should be managed. Even surgeons who have people’s lives in their hands rotate on-call and take days off.
I told you where it is. It’s not my responsibility to post things twice.If you dont wan to show me we will let it pass.
But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.I’m sure that this has been mentioned but the Eastern Churches have a tradition of a married priesthood and a married priesthood was part of the Latin tradition until about the 10th or 11th century.
This kind of reasoning should never be definitive. It is simply lax. Or fearful. Or both.ziapueblo:![]()
But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.I’m sure that this has been mentioned but the Eastern Churches have a tradition of a married priesthood and a married priesthood was part of the Latin tradition until about the 10th or 11th century.
I’m not suggesting that the Latin Church do this. Just pointing out that Rome had a long tradition of a married priesthood.But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.
I already said mine didn’t apply if a married priest converts to Roman Catholicism. I’ve no objection to that or to married deacons. But without a predominantly unmarried priesthood, the Church is going to lose much of its focus and spirituality.Are you saying that your arguments against married priests apply to them? If so, the Church disagrees.
That’s die to the increasingly secular lifestyle, the emphasis on the secular, not a prohibition against marriage.Churches are closing due to the priest shortage, faithful Catholics are being abandoned and souls are being lost!
It’s neither. It means we can’t begin to fix things based on the way they were in the past. We have to fix them based on the way they are now.This kind of reasoning should never be definitive. It is simply lax. Or fearful. Or both.
What makes you think that?But without a predominantly unmarried priesthood, the Church is going to lose much of its focus and spirituality.