Married Priesthood: Maintain celibacy as the 'norm' but allow dispensations on a case by case basis

[Gorgias]

Nowhere have I said that the ordination of married men will “alleviate” the clergy shortage problem

Really? Are you sure about that? Let’s look upthread…

We are short of priests - and that is not just hard on the priests; it is also hard on the laity. Additional priests - possibly married - could provide some more coverage of what right now is thin at best

Nope… that sure looks like an assertion of alleviation of clergy shortage.

That would not “alleviate” the priest shortage, but it most certainly would not cause the shortage to increase - that would be due to more priests dying. we are losing them faster than we are replacing them.

Let’s look at the other dynamic we’re facing: the number of the faithful who actively practice their faith is declining. I would assert that the two trends are operating roughly hand-in-glove. (Sure, there are exceptions, but in locales where we have increasing numbers of practicing Catholics, we also tend to have increasing numbers in vocations.)

Nor have I said that ordaining married men would “invigorate” the Church. I have no clue where you get that one, but it wasn’t from me.

Are you sure about that assertion, too? Let’s see what you’ve written:

Deacon Harold Burke Sivers … had some very good points to convey - and should the Church decided to ordain married men to the priesthood, those points would appear to be as valuable there as to his witness and evangelization.

If the point of your words isn’t that “witness and evangelization” doesn’t invigorate the Church… then what is the point you’re making?

As to what the Church needs, it needs more priests.

We had more priests, in the West, in the first half of the twentieth century. We had more priests, throughout history, when that vocation was more lucrative. Are you seriously suggesting that the ills being paraded publicly today aren’t concurrent with – if not the result, to an extent, of – those halcyon days of a glut of vocations?

 

[Gorgias]

Nor, as I have said elsewhere, do I have any idea who it is who is proposing eliminating celibacy - that again is a boogeymen in some people’s closet as they keep dragging it out

What’s particularly funny is that, when I agree that this is a strawman, but ask about “elimination of normative mandatory celibacy”, no one seems to want to step up and say, “no! that’s not what we’re proposing!” Wonder why…?

the status quo changed when the Church started ordaining married men, specifically Protestant pastors who converted.

Meh. Not a change in the status quo, since it already existed. And, very definitely, a difference from what’s currently being proposed!

As to your final question - it is not “eliminating” normative mandatory celibacy" as we currently are ordaining married men. There is no reason to presume that priests will be allowed to marry

Wow. Are you seriously moving the goalposts? No one is suggesting that current priests be allowed to marry! But, in the interest of doing all that’s possible to be precise: “eliminating normative mandatory celibacy for ordinands”. Does that help?

You may wish to wax eloquent as to “mandatory”; it is my position that even f the Pope should open priesthood as something more than the current exceptions in place and proposed (Brazil’s request) that the majority to the greater majority of men ordained in the future would continue to be celibate

That’s not the proposal being floated in this thread, though. That proposal is “allow married men to be ordained”. Period, full stop.

 

[goout]

That’s not the proposal being floated in this thread, though. That proposal is “allow married men to be ordained”. Period, full stop.

In my case, it’s “recognize a legitimate possibility and discuss it as a legitimate possibility” (not on the forum here where it means nothing…at levels of competence and authority where the discussion is meaningful).
That’s it. Open minds considering legitimate options.

 

[otjm]

Nope… that sure looks like an assertion of alleviation of clergy shortage.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) otjm:

I will grant you this one; I was crossing over alleviate with ameliorate.

You still seem to have a seriously negative attitude about married men being ordained. as I have known of several, I fail to see the source of your angst.

 

[otjm]

No, I don’t have a link; I was listening to the program either live or recorded, on a Catholic radio station. He has a website and you might be able to contact him through that (it won’t load right now for me).

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

Age 35 was considered the “mature” older age when Paul VI set the canonical requirements for married permanent deacons. The diaconate was not meant just for the retired the way it has evolved now in the USA and W. Europe. It is meant for thirty-something men raising families and providing that witness in marriage, work and family. It just so happens that they are twice that. In a certain large diocese that comes to mind, the average age of permanent deacons is 70, but this is not what the Council intended. An 18 y.o. seminarian is not canonically mature the way a (viri probati) married deacon is mature and older.

Given this, I nevertheless venture to say the same canonically “maturity” age of 35 should be true of the Latin rite married priesthood where it is for those on a case by case basis, but it will most likely be the case that they will be older in practice when implemented. (In the East, I think it is 23-25, but they are not viri probati.) The idea is that proven men with a ‘fruitful diaconate’ would be selected after a ‘suitable preparation’. Age 50 was not mentioned at the synod. Thus, the diaconate would reflect a real stepping stone to the priesthood, which would coexist w the current model of 1-year transitional deacons stepping up to the priesthood.

This age is the case for a celibate bishop too who had to be 35. Karol Wojtyla became bishop at 38. Stephen Lopes became bishop at 41 to lead the Ordinariate for the USA & Canada. Deacon H. was ordained at 35. And I think there is even a clause reserved to the Holy See which can ordain married deacons at age 32.5 with dispensation. Deacon Harold is spot on that we need younger clergy raising families, but they need to be following the Church’s teachings on marriage, sex and family. Younger deacons with kids exist, and if viri probati is approved or whatever it is called, we will most likely see more mature married deacons take the next step to the priesthood, but it doesn’t preclude the younger deacons with kids being called to it if it is proven during the laboratory of the diaconate that the younger deacon can handle it. That’s what I mean by “older” men-- they are canonically older.

The diaconate is testing ground for the priesthood. Their priesthood will look like their diaconate for the most part. Select those who have had a fruitful diaconate first if they are past the canonical age of 35.

As Fr. Longenecker said, if husband and wife are willing to make it work, it can work. Practical arguments either for or against are secondary. These are red herrings. For every practical argument against (eg, finances, time, kids, getting up in the middle of the night to do Last Rites, etc), there is an argument in favor. So essentially I think we’re agreed.

Finally, if the devil is attacking family and marriage, then select some proven men that can defend both Sacraments of Service (both Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony), and prepare them to be saintly married priests. The wife of clergy, whether priests or deacons, need to be saintly wives for a married Catholic clergy to work practically and theologically, regardless of what happens on Feb. 12.

 

[Gorgias]

In my case, it’s “recognize a legitimate possibility and discuss it as a legitimate possibility”

Fair enough. Let’s talk about what makes it a legitimate option of solving a problem, then. Reasonable enough?

You still seem to have a seriously negative attitude about married men being ordained

Nah. Just skeptical of the value of changing the norm in the absence of any data that suggests it will be helpful. From all I’ve seen, the primary argument is “why not?”, and that doesn’t build up confidence in the proposition…

Age 35 was considered the “mature” older age when Paul VI set the canonical requirements for married permanent deacons.

Let’s be honest: at that point in time, 35-year-olds had children who were on the cusp of being 20-year-olds. In other words, it’s the same dynamic as we have today: ordain permanent deacons who aren’t raising children and young teens. Marriage age – let alone child-bearing age! – have increased significantly, on average, since then!

Given this, I nevertheless venture to say the same canonically “maturity” age of 35 should be true of the Latin rite married priesthood where it is for those on a case by case basis, but it will most likely be the case that they will be older in practice when implemented.

Yeah. I might’ve said differently when I was 25, but these days, I’d offer 50 as a reasonable age. Maybe 45, if not a deacon (and therefore, requiring more time in formation).

This age is the case for a celibate bishop too who had to be 35.

I think that the practical effect of that was meant to be “ten years’ experience as a priest”, don’t you?

The diaconate is testing ground for the priesthood.

Wow. That’s absolutely 180 degrees from how the diaconate is perceived! The entire formation / discernment experience is centered around the notion that “deacons aren’t mini-priests”. Now you want to change that approach and tell deacons “you’re really just mini-priests in discernment”?

 

[Gorgias]

Select those who have had a fruitful diaconate first if they are past the canonical age of 35.

Prescription for disaster. From a pastoral perspective, what do you do with the guys who you’ve “weeded out”? Especially since they’ve been led to believe that they’re being groomed for the priesthood, and have failed? And now, they’re “stuck” in a vocation they didn’t want, and it’s a vocation for life? Nothing good comes from this. You want to see toxic effects? Take that tack with your deacons.

These are red herrings. For every practical argument against (eg, finances, time, kids, getting up in the middle of the night to do Last Rites, etc), there is an argument in favor.

I notice that you don’t quote any “in favor”. Yet again, my perception is that the dynamic is that the upside is presumed, and not specified (let alone substantiated). Am I wrong in this? Even in this thread, too, I see nothing that substantiates the benefits. Why?

(And, BTW, what would you say about a proposal that we take kids straight out of junior high and train them to be priests? After all, for every practical argument against (sexual abuse of children, stunted psychosexual development, lack of real-word experience), there is an argument in favor, right?)

The wife of clergy, whether priests or deacons, need to be saintly wives for a married Catholic clergy to work practically and theologically

So… as if it isn’t difficult enough to form “saintly priests”, now you need “saintly priests with saintly wives”? You realize you’ve just increased the requirements by a power of two, right? Now you’ve got 1/4 the chance of success!

(p.s., I don’t have anything against you personally or your proposal. I’m just quite skeptical about its prospects, so I’m playing “devil’s advocate”. I’m just interested in seeing whether you have workable responses…)

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

and

… because I maxed out my allotted posts, and CAF wouldn’t let me comment for 24 hours. Until now.

Moving beyond my technical issues, I am very happy to say with you, “No! That’s not what we’re proposing!” Even more ‘progressive’ bishops at the Amazon Synod have said that abolishing celibacy was not on the table. The Vatican Press Office said that exceptions to the norm does not mean eliminating the norm.

It is a bogeyman, as @otjm said. But whether real or perceived, I think your angst can be addressed by looking at what Pope Pius XII did in 1952. He maintained celibacy as the norm but granted dispensations from the norm on a case by case basis. I continue to hold that as of today. I say this bc TLM Catholics and some traditional Ordinary Form Catholics point to before Vatican II as being more reliable. Traditional Shane Schetzel blogged that TLM and traditional Catholics should accept married priests on a limited basis, otherwise they fall into the Modernist trap that pits them into a corner. Thus, Pius XII’s approach is the safest way forward.

So there. I said it. The goal is not the abolish celibacy as the norm. What say ye, @Gorgias?

Also, we are having this conversation on Feb. 11, the eve of the document Querida Amazonia being issued on Feb 12. So this thread will become obsolete in a few hours. I will comment w as many posts as I can, and I won’t mind if others have the last word, and we let this thread expire. The posts were wonderful! I want to say how much I thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone’s comments, as the new kid on the block here. I wish I came across CAF sooner. Where have you been my whole life?! I’ve commented on both traditional and progressive, Catholic and secular, etc., blogs and news outlets, and I have to say that this is by far the best experience I’ve had. Traditional online sites tend to be aggressive and uncharitable even resorting to name calling. So for anyone reading this but not commenting, you’re more than welcome on my posts. Dont be afraid. I wonder if someone will start a thread on Querida Amazonia after Feb 12, but if it is me, everyone is more than welcome in my book.

So Rome time for the release of the document Querida Amazonian will be 12pm, and then the Vatican Press Office will hold a press conference at 1pm. This is 6am and 7am, respectively, Eastern Time. Which means that we will find out tomorrow.

 

[Gorgias]

Even more ‘progressive’ bishops at the Amazon Synod have said that abolishing celibacy was not on the table.

It is a bogeyman, as @otjm said.

Wow. When I assert, time and again, that the “elimination of celibacy” is a strawman, ya’ll still stick with it, doncha? “Elimination of mandatory celibacy as a norm for Latin Rite priestly ordinands” is what’s in play. If you’re gonna assert it’s not the case, please do. If not, we’ll all realize what the real game is, here.

(After all, as you willingly admit, “celibacy with exceptions” is already the case. So… what’s the proposition, if not the status quo, then?)

So there. I said it. The goal is not the abolish celibacy as the norm. What say ye, @Gorgias?

I say – yet again – that you refuse to address the elephant in the room. It’s ok, though: we all realize it’s there, no matter how much you look away and pretend it’s not there.

So this thread will become obsolete in a few hours.

It really won’t, since the proposal here is, in its very substance, distinct – and more far-reaching and progressive – than what the Synod discussed.

I wish I came across CAF sooner. Where have you been my whole life?!

Be careful… it’s addicting!

I wonder if someone will start a thread on Querida Amazonia after Feb 12

Oh, boy… you haven’t been around, have you? That’ll just open the floodgates, no matter which way it goes!!!

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

While all 3 are true, no, it is not the heart of my platform. Btw, I would also add No. 4 which is the elephant in the room: homosexuality in the priesthood. But even here, this is not the heart of my platform.

Chesterton’s quote about not tearing down fences is valid yes, and your point well taken. As an old Irish monsignor I knew once said in a one-line homily, “If it ain’t broke, dont fix it.” But Chesterton also said that an open mind is like an open mouth since you open it to some things and close it on others. We should be closed to abolishing celibacy since that’s not what is being proposed. Exceptions to the norm do not mean abolishing the norm.

And if you dont mind, @MNathaniel, i will also reply to @Gorgias here, since both of you are asking “why” and i dont know if I will be maxed out again:

@Gorgias & @MNathaniel, I dont think what is being proposed is “why not.” It depends on the circumstances in the Church, the object and intention. St. Thomas Aquinas even spoke of these three fons (sources) for evaluating the moral act. (1) Circumstances: While secondary to evaluate the act, the married priests issue does depend on the circumstances in the Church’s history. When the Elvira Synod of Spain in 305 mandated continence, it was bc the Latin Church needed it at the time and in that location of Spain. Carthage came later. (BTW, the Elvira Synod was like the Amazon Synod.) Fr. Delis who wrote a recent book on celibacy even admits, along with Stickler, Conchini, and Cholij (who left the priesthood I think after writing a book on celibacy), and now Sarah, that the earliest legislation on mandating continence and celibacy was the 4th Century. When Pope Siricius in 400 affirmed it and made it more Latinized and not a local synod/council, it was needed at the time. When celibacy was made compulsory by Lateran I & II, it was necessary as a prudential matter at the time. The church taketh away but the Church also giveth. It was needed at the time. When Pius XII dispensed a married man to the Latin rite priesthood, it was a perceived need at the time. Ergo, today, how does the Church respond? Just like the seven deacons were first ordained, it was bc the Church was responding to a need of our time. Ecclesia semper reforma. The law of the Church is the salvation of souls. Today, what is being proposed is because the Church is responding to the needs of our time. These are the circumstances, secondary, but valid. (2) Intention: if it is to bring an agenda to abolish, then dont do it. (3) Object: To provide priests in areas where needed. So why? Because there is a need, perceived or real, to feed the flock with the Eucharist, to absolve them in Confession, to administer Last Rites. Who on this thread has had problems getting priests, even in the affluent West which has more and more African and Asian priests filling its parishes? Most of these parishes are not the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter with seminarians bursting at the seams. As the 'conservative’s U.S. Bishop of Knoxville said: If a group of bishops asks the Pope for dispensation for married priests, and the Pope approves, then it is a legitimate step.

 

[otjm]

and if viri probati is approved or whatever it is called, we will most likely see more mature married deacons take the next step to the priesthood,

It is my understanding that the permanent deaconate, when constituted, was specifically to bring back the charism as deacon, and that it was not to be seen as a step towards entry of a married deacon into the priesthood. And from deacons I have known, they have expressed a distinct “not interested” as to even any discussions of it becoming a long transitional matter.

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

I was referencing the 2/3 of Amazonian bishops that asked for married deacons to be ordained as priests. That is not just my opinion. I’ve done my homework. No matter what, every man must serve as deacons before being priests. @Gorgias was too quick to “wow” me again, but that is what was proposed by the bishops themselves. (@Gorgias also is too quick to see the trees of your posts, btw, and misses the forest of what you’re saying. I do think he’s right that we shouldn’t just ordain men and eliminate celibacy in the process.) The diaconate since Trent was only a stepping stone to the priesthood, so anyone who thinks otherwise thinks against the Council of Trent. I restated what Trent did with the diaconate. Vatican II restored it as a permanent rank for married men, so we’re not diminishing the 45,000 permanent deacons in the world. The Church has every right to call them if she sees a need. I was also citing Cardinal Schonborn, general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, who said, “Start with the deacons” if married priests are allowed. “They have to serve as deacons anyway.” Diaconate is a type of “laboratory”. His words, not mine. While there are deacons who won’t do it if asked, there are many others that will AND will not get paid for it! Married priests would function like married deacons. They are not paid for their ministry. They have their own homes. They’ve been examined before applying, during the 5-6 candidacy process, and are expected to go to continuing formation. Deacons and their marriages are already under a microscope. They are ‘tested men’ (viri probati). Sure, they get a little a stipend here and there, but they are expected to be financially stable. Men who are not deacons cannot become priests cold turkey but they need to be deacons first anyways. In the East, some stay was deacons, but some become priests. This is why they have to have a ‘fruitful diaconate’ first before being called by their bishop to the priesthood. Of course, not all permanent deacons should be priests.

The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. This is the last line of the Code of Canon Law. If ordaining married men will provide the Sacraments and save souls from Hell, then do it. But if more souls will go to Hell by having more priests, then dont do it.

 

[Gorgias]

Btw, I would also add No. 4 which is the elephant in the room: homosexuality in the priesthood. But even here, this is not the heart of my platform.

Wow. So… “priests with same-sex attraction” is a reason you advocate for a married priesthood?

St. Thomas Aquinas even spoke of these three fons (sources) for evaluating the moral act. (1) Circumstances

It’s very interesting that you lead with the quality that does not determine the morality of the act.

(Nevertheless, I’m not sure I’d agree that one might argue for the value of this proposition based on whether it could be seen as a moral act. After all, this feels like a straw man: no one is arguing that it’s a proposal that’s immoral. Therefore, this approach seems irrelevant. Nevertheless, let’s see where it leads…)

While secondary to evaluate the act, the married priests issue does depend on the circumstances in the Church’s history.

This would only be relevant – in the context of your approach – to help us understand whether it is “more or less good” or “more or less bad.” Not exactly the approach for providing a logical basis, no?

(2) Intention: if it is to bring an agenda to abolish, then dont do it.

That’s not the basis of the “intention” facet of moral action. Rather, it’s “good intentions don’t justify bad actions; bad intentions nullify good actions”. So… what’s the intention of “abolishing mandated normative celibacy for Latin Rite ordinands”? Still waiting for an honest – or even direct! – response…

(3) Object: To provide priests in areas where needed.

“Rubber meets the road” time, friend. What evidence do you have that shows that this will be the enduring effect? I’ve got a hip pocket full of statistics that show that mainline Protestant denominations in the Western world, in the modern culture, are facing the same – or worse! – crises in attracting and retaining ministers than the Catholic Church is. What do you have to contradict these hard data points? How can you demonstrate that your solution produces the effect you wish to assert it does?

Because there is a need, perceived or real

The fact that there is a need does not establish that any given suggestion will meet that need. Instead of crying “the sky is falling!”, shouldn’t you be demonstrating how this proposal solves the problem?

 

[Gorgias]

@Gorgias was too quick to “wow” me again

What can I say? Your proposals are shocking in their divergence from established Church teaching.

(@Gorgias also is too quick to see the trees of your posts, btw, and misses the forest of what you’re saying.

Meh. I keep asking for a description of the ‘forest’, and besides a whole lot of crickets, all I hear back is “look at the pretty leaves!”

The diaconate since Trent was only a stepping stone to the priesthood, so anyone who thinks otherwise thinks against the Council of Trent.

Nice try. Since it was a transitional diaconate, it was a celibate diaconate. Try again?

Diaconate is a type of “laboratory”. His words, not mine.

Yes – celibate diaconate is a ‘laboratory’ of sorts for the celibate priesthood. No one (to this point) has asserted that the permanent diaconate is a laboratory for a married priesthood. (BTW… did you catch that? The diaconate which you’re appealing to is meant to be a permanent diaconate, not a stepping stone. )

Of course, not all permanent deacons should be priests.

In fact, the entire body of all our permanent deacons have been formed explicitly under the condition that they’ve entered into a permanent vocation as deacon, and not as a stepping stone to the priesthood. Are you suggesting we pull the rug under them at this point?

If ordaining married men will provide the Sacraments and save souls from Hell, then do it.

I’m cool with this approach! Please provide substantiation of it, then, before suggesting that we commit to this course of action! Or… don’t merely wax poetic, without providing anything that shows that the desire will be met by the proposal!

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

my case, it’s “recognize a legitimate possibility and discuss it as a legitimate possibility” (not on the forum here where it means nothing…at levels of competence and authority where the discussion is meaningful).
That’s it. Open minds considering legitimate options

YES!!! Amen! Exactly!!! Eureka!! Bingo!!! You nailed it, @goout!!! Someone give @goout a cigar!

“Competence and authority” to regulate celibacy and continence belong to the Church. Thats what I’ve been saying. The Church maintains celibacy as the norm in the Latin rite but dispense on a case by case basis. Mt. 16. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” If married priests are allow on Feb. 12 for Amazonia, and the bishops ask and the Pope approves, then it is legitimate.

 

[Maximian]

“Exceptions on a case by case basis” are often the prelude to a wholesale reform.

Latin was supposed to remain the primary language of the liturgy apart from some exceptions.

Communion in the hand was supposed to be the exception not the rule.

Extraordinary ministers of holy communion were supposed to be “extra ordinary “

Etc

 

[po18guy]

The strongest argument for any and all things regarding faith, morals and Church discipline, is to pray and pray that the Church hierarchy will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

As we see, it is much easier to argue. As far as I know, God listens to prayer much more than argument or discussion.

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

Wow. So… “priests with same-sex attraction” is a reason you advocate for a married priesthood?

• No. I said it was not the heart of my position.

It’s very interesting that you lead with the quality that does not determine the morality of the act

• Irrelevant that I led with it. Weigh the merit of the argument. Circumstances are what you and others have cited, so circumstances is what I reply using Thomas. As in have noted, they are secondary to the issue.

(Nevertheless, I’m not sure I’d agree that one might argue for the value of this proposition based on whether it could be seen as a moral act…

• Not so. The human act and the moral act (in this case the Church discerning the married Latin rite priesthood in limited form) are one and the same.

(2) Intention: if it is to bring an agenda to abolish, then dont do it.

That’s not the basis of the “intention” facet of moral action. Rather, it’s “good intentions don’t justify bad actions; bad intentions nullif… ! – response…

• Agreed. In other words, what is the intention of the Pope & bishops in allowing exceptions to the norm? If it is to abolish celibacy, then bad intention nullifies good action. Whole moral act is then evil. But that is not the intention (abolishing celibacy). Can I have some popcorn?
• Furthermore, if you assert (as you most likely will) as a strict observance Thomist that the morality of the act rests in the intention as opposed to the object (as JP2 does in Veritatis Splendor taught, and as I do here)concerning the object of married priesthood, this would makes sense for you (arguing that mandatory celibacy is the intended goal) but that is where we part company, my friend.

-Finally, your argument is too aligned to the effect. But a moral evaluation of the act does not rest in its effect which you are doing but in its object. In other words, you are arguing from the effect of weakening celibacy as opposed to the objective of addressing a perceived need. Your position is just as fallacious as the proportionalists and revisionist moral theologians that determined the morality of the act based on the foreseen (real or perceived) consequences. Why not focus in the object or goal to address a need?

(3) Object: To provide priests in areas where needed.

“Rubber meets the road” time, friend. What evidence do you have that shows that this will be the enduring effect?

Argument from mere sociological statistics, while empirically based, is one of the weakest counterarguments against my claim concerning the object of the act. It is the heart, the rubber, and you cite mere statistics? C’mon now. For every sociological data set up as a premise to your counterargument, I can come up with a different conclusion. Do you have something better? Really, I dont mean that sarcastically. For example, premise #1 is this or that about protestants. Oh how terrible. Premise #2 married priests have statistically responded to these terrible statistics to help. Conclusion: allow married priests.

A better argument would be to attack the “need” case that I make, not cite statistics that can lead to different conclusions.

 

[MarriedRCPriesthood]

I gladly submit with my whole heart all my positions to Holy Mother Church for judgment not just on matters of faith and morals but in her discipline, am willing to be corrected in any errant theology and canons apart from her teachings contained herein, and i happily retract publicly that which the Church considers unorthodox if I have made them here, as is expected of any Catholic. I profess the faith of the Church in the Nicene Creed that we profess at Holy Mass.

As Vatican II taught in Presbyteriorum Ordinis, no. 16, celibacy is “not demanded of the priesthood by its nature, as is clear from the practice of the primitive Church” but nevertheless maintain celibacy as the ‘norm’ but grant dispensations on a case by case basis (as was done with Pius XII, Paul VI, JP2, and B16).

<<>> it’s been fun, but I gotta go for the night
As @po18guy said, we turn to prayer over argumentation. Feel free to have the last word for the night. Perhaps we’ll reconnect after the Vatican Press Conference tomorrow.

As the Venerable Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., signed his book for me: May Our Lady keep you close to the Heart of her Son.