Get Rid of the Celibacy Requirement

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Go read what you posted. It did not say 90%. As far as putting words in your mouth, I quoted your entire post.
 
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.
Oh, they are, too! Priests minister to sometimes hundreds of people. And they minister to immortal souls, not secular worries!
 
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.
@MikeInVa I was referring back to this earlier post.

Edit: you put words in my mouth when you said a Catholic hit by a car in the middle of the night should “just hold on until business hours”.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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’ve addressed this already. Scroll up.
 
Last edited:
If you dont wan to show me we will let it pass.
 
Last edited:
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.

ZP
 
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.
But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.
 
Last edited:
40.png
ziapueblo:
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.
But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.
This kind of reasoning should never be definitive. It is simply lax. Or fearful. Or both.
 
But celibacy is the tradition now, for excellent reasons. We have to take things as they are now.
I’m not suggesting that the Latin Church do this. Just pointing out that Rome had a long tradition of a married priesthood.

ZP
 
To the naysayers, we already have married priests currently serving in the Latin Rite.

Are you saying that your arguments against married priests apply to them? If so, the Church disagrees.
 
Churches are closing due to the priest shortage, faithful Catholics are being abandoned and souls are being lost!

We’ve been praying for more vocations to the priesthood for decades and the crisis has only worsened. God is telling us it’s time to act!

I hope the naysayers remember when their parish closes that they argued to preserve a “beautiful tradition” and against opening the door to more priests who could save souls of Catholics who are being abandoned!

Catholic Churches Close Due to Priest Shortage
 
Are you saying that your arguments against married priests apply to them? If so, the Church disagrees.
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.
 
Last edited:
Churches are closing due to the priest shortage, faithful Catholics are being abandoned and souls are being lost!
That’s die to the increasingly secular lifestyle, the emphasis on the secular, not a prohibition against marriage.

Marriage is a vocation; the priesthood is a vocation. God doesn’t call a man to both. He doesn’t give him his cake and let him eat it, too.
 
This kind of reasoning should never be definitive. It is simply lax. Or fearful. Or both.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top