If you’re saying there’s no reason to belief that ordaining married men to the priesthood would damage the celibate priesthood, all the data in the history of the world suggests otherwise.
The Anglicans have a married priesthood. Celibate Anglican priests are very rare.
The Orthodox allow married priests (but have celibate bishops). There are more married priests than celibate priests, and the number of married Orthodox priests will inevitability rise.
Celibacy is an intense discipline to hold. Jesus even says that one does not choose it, but one is called to it. It is held in the Catholic Church that married life is the common vocation, and celibacy is the exception. This isn’t a discipline you can realistically expect to flourish in any considerable number from the bottom up. It has to come from the top down to keep it alive.
ah, the old fear that celibacy will fall apart…
the Catholic Church has had a married clergy for 2000 years, and celibacy did not fall apart.
The Roman rite has had celibacy only from some time between about 1000 and 1215, with 1215 seemingly the date from which celibacy was enforced effectively, or at least the point where the Church was making progress in enforcing it.
Celibacy and priesthood are two separate and distinct callings. and lest you challenge that, there are numerous men who choose a professed life of celibacy - we call them Brothers. Not to mention the women who are professed celibate, generally grouped in sisters and nuns, although there are professed celibates who are not members of a community.
Ordaining married men will not impact those groups - last I checked, women were not being ordained, and those men who become Brothers are not seeking to be ordained.
Anglicans also have a head of state as head of their religion, so let’s not go there as if that was some sort of indicator of much of anything; they also have professed religious. Neither are particularly relevant to the discussion except as imitators (with no disrespect to them) of the Church.
The Eastern rites in union with Rome have not fallen apart in 2000 years. they manage to have both a married and an unmarried clergy. Whether there are more of one or the other is not an indicator of what the Church should find, if it were to allow married men to be ordained.
It is always a possibility that the Church, if ordaining married men, would find that it had significantly more applicants who were married than those who would choose celibacy; but unless and until we get to that point, it is pure and unadulterated speculation without any merit in reality.
And there is one factor which you appear to not be acquainted with, and that is, that if a married man feels called to the priesthood, the admission process is likely to be very similar, if not identical to, the process of being admitted to the married diaconate. And that is, the wife is going to have a major say in the matter. The wife is not completely on board? Guess what: NEXT!
and even if the wife is completely on board, the bottom line is that the Church makes the final decision as to whether or not a man is called to ordination; having had a second cousin in class with me in college seminary, I found out he was invited, about the time he would have been ordained a deacon, to find something else. I also have a first cousin of my dad who went through the same seminary, to about the same point, where he was invited to do something else. One does not hear much of that, but it is a reality, and the same could apply to a married man seeking ordination.
It is highly unlikely that there will be a veritable flood of applicants, should the Church change it’s discipline. And it is highly likely on the whole, that should there be a change, most will be vetted closely (I say most because of variations in the multitude of dioceses).
I am also old enough to remember the flood outward, of priests who requested and receive laicization (I have a family member among that group), which speaks in part of whether or not they were gifted with the vocation to celibacy, or only agreed, albeit grudgingly, because they felt a strong calling to the priesthood - which is a different vocation.
Celibacy has always survived in the Church; it survived in the Roman rite when there were married priests; and it ahs survived in the Eastern rites to this day. Allowing ordinations of married individuals will not tear the Church apart; it will not cause a loss of celibacy as a vocation separate and distinct from the priesthood, and it will not cause a loss of celibate clergy. There may be fewer, percentage wise if for no other reason than that if there is one, worlds wide, there is less than 100% celibate clergy. But it will also allow people who have the distinct calling to both to answer those calls, and those who have a calling to one but not both to also answer that call.
And frankly, having been in the seminary at one point and having known literally dozens and dozens of priests, I would be very comfortable knowing that if one was ordained and celibate, that he was called to both. I have seen the results of otherwise too many times.
