If priestly celibacy is not a dogma, why can't it be changed?

[RyanBlack]

That is true but they can not give themselves fully to the Church.

Of course, and celibacy is no guarantee that a priest will give himself fully to the Church, and there are more than just a tiny handful of them who don’t. Celibacy is no proven cure against divided loyalties or divided priorities.

 

[Abu]

AndyP2010 #193
I guess recent scholars haven’t read 1 Timothy or Titus where it clearly shows that married clergy where allowed from the beginning

Such a view of the scholarship of the illustrious clerics merely shows the incomprehension which is so prevalent.

See post #59:
That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

 

[seaton2005]

Of course, and celibacy is no guarantee that a priest will give himself fully to the Church, and there are more than just a tiny handful of them who don’t. Celibacy is no proven cure against divided loyalties or divided priorities.

Ryan - Good point. I would also add that the argument “celibacy will allow a priest to give more fully to the church” is a very weak. Why wouldn’t they be able to give fully to the church? Can a doctor not give himself fully to the practice of medicine? Can a police officer not give themselves fully to their jobs, what about firefighters, paramedics, surgeons, etc. If they were celebrant they could give more fully… I think my point is made here.

 

[Abu]

seaton2005 #196
the argument “celibacy will allow a priest to give more fully to the church” is a very weak. Why wouldn’t they be able to give fully to the church? Can a doctor not give himself fully to the practice of medicine? Can a police officer not give themselves fully to their jobs, what about firefighters, paramedics, surgeons, etc. If they were celebrant they could give more fully… I think my point is made here.

Hardly, as reality confirms:
The Case for Priestly Celibacy
Re an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism:
‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
George Sim Johnston
This article originally appeared in the September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
Printed with permission from InsideCatholic.com
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/priestly-celibacy/the-case-for-priestly-celibacy/

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this factual account which is strong, and proclaims the reality:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **
At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.”

 

[otjm]

I misread your prior post.

How do you explain BXVI’s use of “this doctrine”?

I have seen the text and he was specifically speaking to the issue of proposals for women’s ordination. That has nothing to do with whether or not a married man can be ordained.

It also is a matter of not just the history of the Catholic Church but also the history, before Christ, or the Jewish religion. Their priests were only men.

The Church has a history, of 2000 years, of married clergy, and a history of married clergy having children. It was not until the middle of the history of the Roman rite that only unmarried men would be ordained and currently in that rite, married men are being ordained they are convert pastors from Protestant denominations.

Read the whole statement Benedict made; I think you will understand.

 

[AndyP2010]

Such a view of the scholarship of the illustrious clerics merely shows the incomprehension which is so prevalent.

See post #59:
That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

Abu
The protestant error in interpreting the quoted scripture involves their attack on the idea of celibate clergy in general which is clearly not what Paul is saying. Paul is clearly stating that married men are allowed to be chosen. It is also clear from tradition that celibate priest are preferred. To say otherwise would be foolish. The major concern of the church isn’t whether or not to ordain married men but the fear that the witness of celibate priest would disappear because many churchmen assume that the majority of the clergy would end up being married in a relatively short period of time if the discipline where to be relaxed. Regardless with Anglicanorum coetibus the end has come to an exclusive celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite. I will note that you didn’t address my quote of Anglicanorum coetibus in your response.

 

[babochka]

Hardly, as reality confirms:
The Case for Priestly Celibacy
Re an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism:
‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
George Sim Johnston
This article originally appeared in the September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
Printed with permission from InsideCatholic.com
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/priestly-celibacy/the-case-for-priestly-celibacy/

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this factual account which is strong, and proclaims the reality:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **
At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.”

Bishop Virgil of the Romanian CAtholic Church doesn’t seem to be opposed to having married priests at all. He simply acknowledges that some difficulties come with the practice of ordaining married men. If he believed that the ordination of married men was too problematic, he would surely show a preference for the ordination of celibate priests. I don’t think he does so in this quote.

For every anecdote you can share highlighting the problems of married clergy, I can share one in which a priest’s experience in family life or the support of his wife has enhanced his ministry.

We can have these battles of anecdotes ad nauseum (although I note that you offer the same two anecdotes over and over), but I don’t think this is really the appropriate way to discuss this issue. Anecdotes have limited usefulness. They can always be countered with another story.

You state that I, and others, refuse to accept the facts as presented in the scholarly works that you cite. You also claim, without authority, that these works are definitive. I don’t understand why you can’t accept that there are, and always have been, differing perspectives within the church. Thanks be to God, we have a church that is truly universal and has adapted to different situations in East and West differently.

 

[babochka]

From Catholicism for Dummies
Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., Ph. D.
and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti

A rolling stone gathers no moss
Celibacy is legitimate for both the East and the West, even though it’s optional for the former and mandatory for the latter. But why the difference between the two? Well, politics and culture. Even before East split from West in 1054 and formed the Orthodox Church, the Eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire operated differently from the Western counterpart. (See Appendix A in this book Catholicism for Dummies] for more on the history of Catholicism.)

In the East, a close association existed between the secular and religious spheres, which was dramatically different from the situation in the West. After Rome fell in A.D. 476, no single, powerful, and influential secular ruler arose until Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in A.D. 800.

So from the fifth through the eighth centuries, the most powerful and influential person in the West was the bishop of Rome. As pope and head of the world-wide Catholic Church, he became the icon of stability and power as Western Europe survived the fall of the ancient Roman Empire, the barbarian invasions, and the so-called Dark Ages.

Instability in the secular realm meant that the clergy, especially the bishops, took on more than just spiritual leadership, just as the pope wielded more than pastoral power in Rome and around the world. And the West found that celibacy among the clergy was beneficial and helpful because that meant no divided loyalties.

Kings, princes, barons, earls, dukes, counts, and other nobility married first to make political alliances and second to establish families. Mandatory celibacy prevented the clergy from getting involved in the intrigue of who marries whom. Mandatory celibacy ensured that the priests were preoccupied with Church work and had no ties or interests in local politics among the fighting factions, which were trying to establish the infant nation states.

Priests with families would have been vulnerable to the local nobility, because their extended families would have been under secular dominion. A celibate clergy made for a more independent clergy, free from earthly concerns and corruption, enabling them to serve the people and the hierarchy with full attention and loyalty.

 

[Abu]

babochka #200
You state that I, and others, refuse to accept the facts as presented in the scholarly works that you cite. You also claim, without authority, that these works are definitive.

It is the renowned (EWTN) Fr John Echert who makes a most reasonable case from what several up-to-date studies have confirmed.

No reputable refutation of the Apostolic Norm of priestly celibacy can be substantiated after the illustrious scholarly works cited and quoted, including the following detail from Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network by the scholarly Fr John Echert of EWTN, Nov 10, 2003:
“Fr Cochini examines the question of when the tradition of priestly celibacy began in the Latin Church, and he is able to trace it back to its origins with the apostles. He examines evidence about the marital status of every known bishop, priest or deacon of the period and gives an exhaustive list of married clerics from apostolic times until the end of the seventh century, a list that includes not only the Western Church, but the East and also the Nestorian, Novatian and Pelagian Church. Then Cochini examines the relevant Church documents for the same period, including council and synod documents, papal letters, ecclesial and even secular legislation as it relates to the problem. He also provides a survey of scholarly literature on the topic. This is the definitive scholarly statement on the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Church East and West.”

For the record, Father Echert is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, ordained in 1987. He is a member of the faculty of The Saint Paul Seminary in Minnesota and teaches Sacred Scripture. He is also an adjunct faculty member of the University of St. Thomas. Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

Since definitive means “of recognized authority or excellence”, this is the case.

Fr Anthony Zimmerman refers to *Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy *“which argues cogently from the sources that the tradition of clerical celibacy began with the apostles. If that is true, then opponents of obligatory celibacy oppose not the pope, but the twelve apostles. The book, written by Christian Cochini, S.J. (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990), merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: ‘This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.’ And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: ‘This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate’ (Foreword to Cochini’s book).”

 

[chefmomster2]

I have seen the text and he was specifically speaking to the issue of proposals for women’s ordination. That has nothing to do with whether or not a married man can be ordained.

It also is a matter of not just the history of the Catholic Church but also the history, before Christ, or the Jewish religion. Their priests were only men.

The Church has a history, of 2000 years, of married clergy, and a history of married clergy having children. It was not until the middle of the history of the Roman rite that only unmarried men would be ordained and currently in that rite, married men are being ordained they are convert pastors from Protestant denominations.

Read the whole statement Benedict made; I think you will understand.

Thank you!

 

[seaton2005]

Hardly, as reality confirms:
The Case for Priestly Celibacy
Re an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism:
‘As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can’t help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as “father,” and people who call a married priest “father” would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).’
George Sim Johnston
This article originally appeared in the September 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.
Printed with permission from InsideCatholic.com
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/priestly-celibacy/the-case-for-priestly-celibacy/

The difficulty with married priests is well illustrated by this factual account which is strong, and proclaims the reality:
**A Bishop’s Experience with Married Priests
VATICAN CITY, OCT 22, 1999 (ZENIT).- **
At the Synod of Bishops for Europe Bishop Virgil Bercea of Oradea Mare of the Rumanians, is young, joyful, strong in faith, polite, candid, clear-thinking and certain. Like other countries of Eastern Europe, Rumania has Catholic priests of the Eastern rite who are married.
“Celibacy is not a problem for us, it is a choice,” Bishop Bercea said. “I think the debate that has taken place in the West is characterized by ignorance on the subject. In our Church, 20% of the priests of the Greek-Catholic rite are married, while the others, of the Latin rite, are celibate. In my diocese, I have married priests with children and, in general, they have more problems than the others, as those who are celibate can dedicate themselves full-time to the mission, while those who are married must give part of their time and concern to guide and support a family. I understand them and help them, but it must be admitted that family life is a huge commitment.”

You’re right. Let me see, I guess the surgeon performing emergency open heart surgery at 2 am or the police officer responding to a hostage situation, or the firefighter responding to a four alarm fire with people trapped in the middle of the night is not the same. They all seem to be able to give their first thoughts to their jobs, human life depends on it.

 

[Abu]

Those who feel that they know better than St Paul and the Magisterium who exalt celibacy in the priesthood can ignore anything.

St Paul understood this perfectly when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).

Nothing can obscure the continence held in such esteem. Further, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580).

 

[babochka]

Those who feel that they know better than St Paul and the Magisterium who exalt celibacy in the priesthood can ignore anything.

St Paul understood this perfectly when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided” (1 Cor 7:32-34).

Nothing can obscure the continence held in such esteem. Further, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580).

I do not deny the exalted state of celibacy, in the priesthood or in the consecrated lives of nuns and monks. I do not recall a single post in this thread which denies this. I do, however, firmly believe that the Eastern tradition of ordaining men to the priesthood who have not received the high calling of celibacy is legitimate, goes back to the early days of the church and is a good thing for our churches, for the sanctification of the married priests, their wives, and their children. I also believe that the witness of a celibate priesthood is unmatched in our world and is a powerful symbol of the reality of total sacrifice for Christ. It really doesn’t have to be either/or.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Such a view of the scholarship of the illustrious clerics merely shows the incomprehension which is so prevalent.

See post #59:
That confused view of Scripture is often found among Protestants, and has been thoroughly refuted by the eminent testimony presented in the studies identified, and shows the lack of understanding of the reality from the beginning.

In fact, in 1 Tim 3:2, “St. Paul declares that a deacon, presbyter or bishop must be a ‘husband of one wife’, the reason being that a second marriage after widowhood was a sign that a man could not live in the dedication demanded of a cleric.” (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press, p 580). The same applies exactly as St Paul reiterates in Titus 1:6.

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, the Apostolic Norm, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes. Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.

Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels, but no mention is made of his wife or children. Tradition tells us that he was a widower who was caring for his wife’s aged mother. Some of the others might have been married, but there is no indication of this and it is a clear that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.

St. Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).

I think you may be, at times, conflating celibacy and chastity. While chastity is a requirement, that a married cleric may not have a concubine or sexual relations with someone other than their spouse, I doubt all the Apostles, all their ordained disciples, and all future clerics from the Early Church on were non-sexual perpetually, even with their spouses. Sure, for a time, such as the Great Fast or other Fast, not in perpetuity.

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #207
I doubt all the Apostles, all their ordained disciples, and all future clerics from the Early Church on were non-sexual perpetually, even with their spouses. Sure, for a time, such as the Great Fast or other Fast, not in perpetuity.

That has been quite a common misconception concerning the first several centuries of the Church which post #22 considered, showing that:
‘The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

‘The reality is that priestly continence is an Apostolic Norm. From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).’

It is now the recognised and scholarly authorities quoted who show the reality of the continence which was mandated.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That has been quite a common misconception concerning the first several centuries of the Church which post #22 considered, showing that:
‘The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

While it is just dandy for the Council of Elvira to do what they wish in 305 in their region, in no way does that extrapolate to the Entire Christian Church, both East and West. Elvira’s canonical solution was to solve Elvira’s canonical problem. This in no way extends beyond Elvira, and neither does it apply to the end of time.

 

[BEHanner]

Firstly to Abu, works that are heavily apologetic are never accepted as definitive, no matter how good they are. While you have interested me in what those books say you if they are as definitive as you say you have not done a very good job of conveying that. Your posts sound like this. Book X says that Y is the right way to interpret Z. Book X is definitive therefore you are wrong. People rarely accept that kind of argument especially from books where the titles themselves indicate a bias. You might be right but we aren’t going to take your word for it.

To the original question. The rise of the current state of this issue came about during the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century. And ironically is one of the earliest hints of the friction that would eventually lead to the Reformation. While the leaders of the Church in the north and south agreed on the need to end the practice of clerical marriage, their reasoning was very different. The south was generally driven by a desire to purify the Church and so was opposed to it from a purity of the clergy point of view. The north generally was driven by a practical need to separate the job from the position and property being inherited, with very little emphasis on the purity issue.
The problem continued through the later Middle Ages with a good number of clerical bastards following their fathers footsteps requiring dispensations for ordination. To my knowledge they are never allowed to serve in the same positions as their fathers with the exception of possibly Ireland.

It is important for Latin Rite to remember when talking about this issue that the East does not allow Presbyters to marry just married men to become Presbyters. So any plan must take that into account. It would be devastating to the Church to decide one day to start allowing married men to be ordained because it would exclude large numbers of men are priests from the option. The best path forward should that be chosen would be to set the precondition to be a married Deacon with 20 years of service and all children grown up and out on their own. It would provide a path that would create slow change with a lot of time to adjust.

 

[drforjc]

You’re right. Let me see, I guess the surgeon performing emergency open heart surgery at 2 am or the police officer responding to a hostage situation, or the firefighter responding to a four alarm fire with people trapped in the middle of the night is not the same. They all seem to be able to give their first thoughts to their jobs, human life depends on it.

In any case of a busy, on-call type profession, it is the family that suffers. Does that fact that some professions have an impaired family life mean that we should extend it to priests? Do we want to promote more of that?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In any case of a busy, on-call type profession, it is the family that suffers. Does that fact that some professions have an impaired family life mean that we should extend it to priests? Do we want to promote more of that?

“Impaired family lives” are hardly limited to the professions you cite. Marital stress happens in all walks of life, for all kinds of reasons. Ordaining deacons with grown children would also obviate issues with children. And you are discounting the obvious spiritual resources available to such a couple.

 

[otjm]

In any case of a busy, on-call type profession, it is the family that suffers. Does that fact that some professions have an impaired family life mean that we should extend it to priests? Do we want to promote more of that?

For starters, you make too much of the “on call” issue. Priests who have several parishes to cover obviously have a harder time than those in a suburban or city parish. and there are some priests who have heavier loads than others, and some dioceses have more priests than others.

Married priests could be assigned to parishes which already had a pastor I have seen that in one of the parishes in Oregon); in some places married priests have been assigned work in the chancery, so they do not have the parish load.

And there is no reason to presume that a married priest has to be assigned to any specific parish; they could easily be back-up to two or three local parishes.

In my years (I was born when Pius 12th was Pope) I have seen excellent parents who had demanding, more than 40 hour jobs, and lousy parents who had 40 hour jobs.

The Church has managed for 2000 years to have both a married and a celibate clergy, and the Roman tire currently has both. Life is difficult; and it is difficult if one is celibate (the lonliness can be intense) and married life is difficult (you don’t have the freedom of no responsibility to another). There is room for both.