Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

[AcolyteLector]

The pope could change mandatory clerical celibacy if he wanted to. Anyone who claims that he can’t is a heretic- because they are implying that there are no exceptions to the rule. As we know with the eastern catholic churches there have been exceptions to the rule going all the way back to the crusades. That is what I was saying.

**
We know.**

If it wasn’t, this discussion would be pure fantasy… on top of being more-than-slightly futile. As far as I can tell, no one is seriously suggesting that he cannot change this.

But just because he could, doesn’t mean he should, and the fact that he can doesn’t say anything about how likely it is that he will. Apparently this tediousness is necessary.

As you know, the Pope (and the episcopate acting as a collective) can change many things (e.g., liturgical practice, term lengths for parish pastors, what is taught in seminaries, &c.). Still, this doesn’t mean that he (/they) should.

 

[JReducation]

It’s also important to remember that when the Holy See says that it can’t change something, it may have nothing to do with dogma. In that case, it’s not heresy. Often, it can’t change something, because the benefit of keeping it outweighs the benefit of changing it. If we consider that celibacy is a form of asceticism, the Church can and does make a case for the necessity of such asceticism in the Roman Church. That’s why it’s called a point of discipline, not dogma.

That being said, this is a discipline that the Church takes very seriously. That’s why any priest or religious who attempts marriage after making either a vow of celibacy or chastity incurrs excommunication. We can see, by the consequences of violating celibacy, how seriously the Church takes this ascetical discipline. Even though celibacy is not a sacrament, the consequences for breaching the promise of celibacy or the vow of chastity are the same as those who breach the marriage vows by attempting a second marriage.

When we look at the level of seriousness that the Church places on mandatory celibacy, it helps us understand that she is not going to reverse this position unless their is a higher good to be acheived.

In the Oriental Churches, to impose mandatory celibacy does not achieve a higher good. In fact, it can potentially be catastrophic. Though, there is a practice that Oriental clergy in the Latin Rite countries are often required to be celibate. In those places where this is required, it’s because of a higher good that the Church sees.

We have to learn to trust the Church’s wisdom and understanding of the ascetical life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[m134e5]

I don’t think a man who *would *become a priest if he could do so without being celibate would make a good priest. It seems to me that a man with this attitude puts his own desires above his desire to love and serve God. Just as Christ offered Himself as a victim, the priest must offer himself as a victim. Men unwilling to offer themselves, who put their own desires above their desire to love and serve God don’t make good priests, whether they are married or not.

The Catholic population has grown, but I imagine God also calls more men to compensate- He knows shepherds can only look after so many sheep. The problem is men aren’t hearing and answering the call. Our culture is so noisy and selfish that it can be very difficult to hear and answer the call. People must make a conscious effort to hear the call, to help others hear it, and to not get discouraged in this world that sees no use for it (by praying for vocations, encouraging men they feel may have a vocation to the priesthood, etc.). Relaxing the celibacy rule won’t solve this problem. This problem is not a result of celibacy- if anything, it defends the importance of the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite. We need that counter-cultural statement.

 

[JReducation]

Had there not been a great exodus of religious brothers and sisters to get married, I would say that there is something wrong with a celibate secular clergy. But the fact is that we lost more religious, than we did secular clerics. We can’t say that religious life is unreasonable, because it requires celibate chastity. Without celibate chastity, religious community would cease to exist. In other words, it is essential to the religious life.

Let’s focus on males for a moment. We have to ask ourselves why did no many brothers leave? Why are there less brothers entering today than there were in 1950? As one who has done vocation ministry, I can tell you that the most common answer is “celibacy.” The second is “obedience”. The third is “I don’t agree with everything that the Church teaches.”

This suggests that the problem is greater than celibacy. Even religious life, where celibacy is essential for the vow of chastity to be valid, has suffered both a decrease in entrances and an increase in exits. My guess is that the problem is contemporary society. The whole idea of an ascetical life is foreign to contemporary Western man. Where does the Roman Church find itself? In the West.

In Eastern countries and countries in the Southern Hemisphere, there are many more vocations than in the Northern Western countries. In fact, the largest number of vocations are to religious communities of brothers, where celibacy is essential. But one must also notice that those are societies where people are used to making great sacrifices for everything they want or everything they need, even the basic human needs such as food.

Our society is much more resistant to celibacy, not because the men want to get married and have a family, but because we are more resistant to the idea of asceticism. We have a shortage of men who are willing to take on an ascetical life. If marriage were the only concern, the religious communities of men would not have been struck by the exodus of men, since nowhere in the universal Church (East or West) do consecrated religious marry. The idea of sacrifice is becoming more foreign to us.

Here is another example of this avoidance of asceticism, the decrease in the number of marriages that take place each year and the increase in the number of divorces. People avoid sacrifices and challenges at all costs, even to their children who are the ones who pay the price in a divorce or a home where the parents are not married. Some people want to marry, but have 2.1 children. Others want to get pregnant at all costs, so they go for IVF and others want to marry members of the same gender.

The dissolution of the celibacy requirement in the Western Church is not going to bring the desired good, because people in the West lack the proper appreciation for marriage to begin with. As you go down the generation ladder, the more couples that you meet who skirt marriage or marry, but skirt the sacrifices that marriage demands. The real problem is a society where there is a shortage of men who are willing to respond to the call to asceticism, be it as priests, brothers, husbands and fathers.

We need to preach asceticism, not married clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t think a man who *would *become a priest if he could do so without being celibate would make a good priest. It seems to me that a man with this attitude puts his own desires above his desire to love and serve God. Just as Christ offered Himself as a victim, the priest must offer himself as a victim. Men unwilling to offer themselves, who put their own desires above their desire to love and serve God don’t make good priests, whether they are married or not.

The Catholic population has grown, but I imagine God also calls more men to compensate- He knows shepherds can only look after so many sheep. The problem is men aren’t hearing and answering the call. Our culture is so noisy and selfish that it can be very difficult to hear and answer the call. People must make a conscious effort to hear the call, to help others hear it, and to not get discouraged in this world that sees no use for it (by praying for vocations, encouraging men they feel may have a vocation to the priesthood, etc.). Relaxing the celibacy rule won’t solve this problem. This problem is not a result of celibacy- if anything, it defends the importance of the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite. We need that counter-cultural statement.

Go tell that to the descendants of the married byzantine catholic priests who suffered and died under the iron curtain.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Go tell that to the descendants of the married byzantine catholic priests who suffered and died under the iron curtain.

Trolls be trollin’.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Trolls be trollin’.

:shrug:Actually I think his response is to the troll.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Had there not been a great exodus of religious brothers and sisters to get married, I would say that there is something wrong with a celibate secular clergy. But the fact is that we lost more religious, than we did secular clerics. We can’t say that religious life is unreasonable, because it requires celibate chastity. Without celibate chastity, religious community would cease to exist. In other words, it is essential to the religious life.

Let’s focus on males for a moment. We have to ask ourselves why did no many brothers leave? Why are there less brothers entering today than there were in 1950? As one who has done vocation ministry, I can tell you that the most common answer is “celibacy.” The second is “obedience”. The third is “I don’t agree with everything that the Church teaches.”

This suggests that the problem is greater than celibacy. Even religious life, where celibacy is essential for the vow of chastity to be valid, has suffered both a decrease in entrances and an increase in exits. My guess is that the problem is contemporary society. The whole idea of an ascetical life is foreign to contemporary Western man. Where does the Roman Church find itself? In the West.

In Eastern countries and countries in the Southern Hemisphere, there are many more vocations than in the Northern Western countries. In fact, the largest number of vocations are to religious communities of brothers, where celibacy is essential. But one must also notice that those are societies where people are used to making great sacrifices for everything they want or everything they need, even the basic human needs such as food.

Our society is much more resistant to celibacy, not because the men want to get married and have a family, but because we are more resistant to the idea of asceticism. We have a shortage of men who are willing to take on an ascetical life. If marriage were the only concern, the religious communities of men would not have been struck by the exodus of men, since nowhere in the universal Church (East or West) do consecrated religious marry. The idea of sacrifice is becoming more foreign to us.

Here is another example of this avoidance of asceticism, the decrease in the number of marriages that take place each year and the increase in the number of divorces. People avoid sacrifices and challenges at all costs, even to their children who are the ones who pay the price in a divorce or a home where the parents are not married. Some people want to marry, but have 2.1 children. Others want to get pregnant at all costs, so they go for IVF and others want to marry members of the same gender.

The dissolution of the celibacy requirement in the Western Church is not going to bring the desired good, because people in the West lack the proper appreciation for marriage to begin with. As you go down the generation ladder, the more couples that you meet who skirt marriage or marry, but skirt the sacrifices that marriage demands. The real problem is a society where there is a shortage of men who are willing to respond to the call to asceticism, be it as priests, brothers, husbands and fathers.

We need to preach asceticism, not married clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think Br JR is on to something here.

In discussions with a mentor of mine we talked about the priesthood and monasticism and the views of the Western and Eastern Churches.

The ideal in the Western Church is the priesthood, in the Eastern Church it is the monk.

In a way of speaking the highest calling in the Western Church is to the priesthood while in the Eastern Church it is the call to the monastic life (this is why we call all monks Father, not just ordained ones and all nuns Mother, not just the superior).

This is why I think there is a difference in the traditions as to secular priestly celibacy.

In both cases the ideal (priest/monk) includes asceticism.

I think this is a necessary point that needs to be pondered and discussed.

 

[JReducation]

As Brother David has correctly pointed out, the Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, have a strong appreciation for asceticism that we in the West are quickly losing. We’re replacing asceticism with productivity. We want priests who will celebrate the sacraments, run parishes, meet our spiritual and temporal needs, run our Catholic institutions and keep the Church in line. It’s all about doing, not about being. We define the priesthood by what priests do. What is worse, we have defined the Christian life by what we do, not by how we live.

I have shared this example in many threads on this forum. There are parishioners in parishes run by religious that have a serious problem when the religious fail to produce what the parishioners expect or feel they need. They show no appreciation for the ascetical life of these consecrated men. When a friar or monk cuts confessions short or changes the schedule, or does not get involved in parish activities, in order to be present for conventual functions, people get upset. Well, when a married priest does the same in order to be present to his wife and children, are people going to react any better? I don’t think so. Because the people who are getting upset are those who do not appreciate asceticism. Their measuring stick is productivity.

I have always believed that a society that does not know and appreciate the asceticism of marriage, will never understand or appreciate the asceticism of celibacy. They go hand-in-hand. That’s why I believe that we must do what John Paul encouraged us to do. We must reflect on the ascetical life and we must teach it to our children, by word and example. Among the Oriental Catholics and the Orthodox, marital asceticism is understood. They do not ordain married men with the same expectations that we have in the West. Their married clergy are not available 24/7 or micromanage every aspect of parish life. They are husbands and fathers and this is highly respect, even if it means that Father is not available. Can we accept that?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

I don’t think a man who *would *become a priest if he could do so without being celibate would make a good priest. It seems to me that a man with this attitude puts his own desires above his desire to love and serve God.

Congratulations! You have just completely and totally dissed 2000 years of Church history, the entire Eastern Churches, and every convert married pastor from the Protestant faiths who has been ordained a priest. That is simply outstanding in its breadth and its depth.

Relaxing the celibacy rule won’t solve this problem. This problem is not a result of celibacy- if anything, it defends the importance of the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite. We need that counter-cultural statement.

You are right that relaxing the rule of celibacy will not solve the problems of the secularization of Catholics. You are wrong, in that the ordination of one married priest is one more priest we have after ordination than we had before. That is not “solving” the problem, but it for certain is not creating a bigger problem. You are also wrong in the unspoken implication that a married priest gives no witness. He gives witness by his daily life not only to priesthood, but also to another sacrament lived out faithfully - that of marriage.

But apparently, witness to faithfulness in marriage is not witness. Strange, considering that the Church considers marriage a sacrament (and if there is a sacrament in need of witness, it is marriage). And if there is need of a counter-cultural statement, it is for the sanctity of marriage.

 

[otjm]

When a friar or monk cuts confessions short or changes the schedule, or does not get involved in parish activities, in order to be present for conventual functions, people get upset. Well, when a married priest does the same in order to be present to his wife and children, are people going to react any better? I don’t think so. Because the people who are getting upset are those who do not appreciate asceticism. Their measuring stick is productivity.

I have always believed that a society that does not know and appreciate the asceticism of marriage, will never understand or appreciate the asceticism of celibacy. They go hand-in-hand. That’s why I believe that we must do what John Paul encouraged us to do. We must reflect on the ascetical life and we must teach it to our children, by word and example. Among the Oriental Catholics and the Orthodox, marital asceticism is understood. They do not ordain married men with the same expectations that we have in the West. Their married clergy are not available 24/7 or micromanage every aspect of parish life. They are husbands and fathers and this is highly respect, even if it means that Father is not available. Can we accept that?

Well, to begin with, we have had experiences of deacons in parishes who are not there 24 - 7 and that is not causing the crisis one would expect; people are accepting that. Having a married priest who is not the pastor of the parish would be in the same mold - he is not there 24-7 (not that I know of any pastors who are; it is just everyone’s impression they are).

There are plenty of parishes now which don’t have a priest in residence; they understand the limitations. It is the parishes which have priests in residence that seem to get their knickers in a knot (particularly, as you have pointed out, where the priests are in community and community duties and rights take precedence).

There will always be some who will not be educated - those who are too dense to be, and those who don’t listen. However, a goodly portion of the problems you have detailed may be in part to poor teaching - part of which is catechesis, and part of which is simply making clear who does what when, rather than waiting for the what - when ti arise. If you say it once and presume everyone got it, your mistake. Some get it the first time; some take several times to get it, and some will never get it.

 

[otjm]

**
We know.**

If it wasn’t, this discussion would be pure fantasy… on top of being more-than-slightly futile. As far as I can tell, no one is seriously suggesting that he cannot change this.

But just because he could, doesn’t mean he should, and the fact that he can doesn’t say anything about how likely it is that he will. Apparently this tediousness is necessary.

As you know, the Pope (and the episcopate acting as a collective) can change many things (e.g., liturgical practice, term lengths for parish pastors, what is taught in seminaries, &c.). Still, this doesn’t mean that he (/they) should.

You are right - just because they can does not mean they should.

So is the reverse: just because they haven’t doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.

If you find the discussion tedious, you might try another thread.

And as a matter of fact - they have changed it; their changes have been limited and appear to be on-going. the question is no longer “should they”, since that is already accomplished - by them. The question is, should it be expande3d in any way. A point that may seem too fine for you, but is really the substance of the discussion.

 

[AcolyteLector]

:shrug:Actually I think his response is to the troll.

Not to put words in OP’s mouth (or ‘Reply box’, as the case may be), I think that he was making a statement only about Latin Rite Catholics interested in the priesthood but attempting to evade the celibacy discipline by agitating for ‘optional celibacy’.

I’m all for remembering the descendants of Byzantine/Eastern Catholics and their holy priests, but I’m not sure it should be invoked at the drop of a hat or because some Latin Rite’er can’t deal with the celibacy requirement…

 

[JReducation]

Not to put words in OP’s mouth (or ‘Reply box’, as the case may be), I think that he was making a statement only about Latin Rite Catholics interested in the priesthood but attempting to evade the celibacy discipline by agitating for ‘optional celibacy’.

I’m all for remembering the descendants of Byzantine/Eastern Catholics and their holy priests, but I’m not sure it should be invoked at the drop of a hat or because some Latin Rite’er can’t deal with the celibacy requirement…

If I may insert my two cents here, there are two points that I like to make.

One has to insert the Oriental priests when others say that it is morally wrong to ordain married men. It cannot be morally permissible for the East and wrong for the West, unless we explain the reason for the difference.

My second point is that we cannot use the East as a justification for changing the rules in the West. They are different Churches with very different histories. If we say that we’re going to change the celibacy requirement, because the East ordains married men, why stop there?

We should all stand during the anaphora as they do in most Eastern Churches. I visited one church that had no place to sit.

We may want to rethink Confirmation. In most Eastern Churches children receive Baptism, Eucharist and Chrismation in one ritual.

The list can get longer to the point where we blur the lines that make the Church catholic. Our catholicism is grounded in our universality. We embrace and include a diversity of cultures, traditions, and disciplines handed down by the different apostles to the different Churches.

Sometimes we fail to see the great potential for harm by dragging things cross the lines.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AcolyteLector]

You are right - just because they can does not mean they should.

So is the reverse: just because they haven’t doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.

If you find the discussion tedious, you might try another thread.

And as a matter of fact - they have changed it; their changes have been limited and appear to be on-going. the question is no longer “should they”, since that is already accomplished - by them. The question is, should it be expande3d in any way. A point that may seem too fine for you, but is really the substance of the discussion.

I was merely stating that being forced to tediously point out the modal relationships of what we’re discussing… ex: that the Pope can change the discipline of celibacy, but this fact in itself says almost nothing meaningful about whether he should… is depressing.

Its depressing because we’re obviously talking around each other, if 20+ pages into the discussion one of the original posters returns to the discussion to inform us that what we’re talking about is ‘possible’. Uh-duhhhh

Its not that I can’t ‘take it’, this tediousness–far from it–but I hate to think that we’re just blasting each others positions with harangues about the ‘Byzantine dead’ and not saying anything of appreciable value as a response.

Now, I hope to say something that might clarify why I disagree with your assertion that ‘they have changed the standards for Latin Rite celibacy in our clergy’.

1. I begin by assuming that you’re referring to the English Ordinariate and the clergy that have come over to us from the Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

If I am incorrect–I apologize, and please clarify what it is you meant.

1. Next, I argue that you’re conceptualizing this shift in the wrong way. I am not even a seminarian yet, and there are people with infinitely more knowledge on the Church and Her workings reading this thread–so if I am wrong please correct me–but I think that the reasons for the establishment of the English Ordinariate and the transfer of clergy are mainly an ecumenical issue. You, on the other hand, seem to consider this strictly a personnel issue.

So, the establishment of these procedures to transfer clergy might be the answer to the question of ‘How do we bring these extra-ecclesial (but still in almost complete agreement with our Church) clerics into our Church, when they inquire about transferring?’ rather than ‘How do we connivingly rustle up extra clerics, at whatever any cost besides compromising our corrupt ‘Men’s Club on the Tiber’?’

1. If you treat this question in its ecumenical form, you will understand that there is a very limited exception being made in the Church’s preference for clerical celibacy. This is an accommodation being made for a very small number of ministers. Nowhere, in our entire Church in the entire world, is a section of our Church being swamped, en masse, by married clergy… except in its traditional form in the Eastern Rites.

3.1. Therefore, you must recognize that swelling the ranks of our clergy and adjusting the Church’s policies on celibacy are both secondary… even tertiary concerns in this issue.

3.2. It doesn’t take Goedel’s mind to see that this so-called ‘precedent’ for waiving the discipline of celibacy is not in fact a precedent, at all.

It is like having a great dam set up, and then altering the dam by a few inches in order to allow a half-dry pool to release some of its water, as well. Then, arguing that the entire dam should be demolished because there was a precedent in doing so. Its summer and dry, and we need water in the summer, right? So do we demolish the dam or install a pump to help us get enough water to last until its no longer dry…

 

[AcolyteLector]

I think Br JR is on to something here.

This is why I think there is a difference in the traditions as to secular priestly celibacy.

In both cases the ideal (priest/monk) includes asceticism.

I think this is a necessary point that needs to be pondered and discussed.

That was very informative, thank you.

 

[JReducation]

I was merely stating that being forced to tediously point out the modal relationships of what we’re discussing… ex: that the Pope can change the discipline of celibacy, but this fact in itself says almost nothing meaningful about whether he should… is depressing.

Its depressing because we’re obviously talking around each other, if 20+ pages into the discussion one of the original posters returns to the discussion to inform us that what we’re talking about is ‘possible’. Uh-duhhhh

Its not that I can’t ‘take it’, this tediousness–far from it–but I hate to think that we’re just blasting each others positions with harangues about the ‘Byzantine dead’ and not saying anything of appreciable value as a response.

Now, I hope to say something that might clarify why I disagree with your assertion that ‘they have changed the standards for Latin Rite celibacy in our clergy’.

1. I begin by assuming that you’re referring to the English Ordinariate and the clergy that have come over to us from the Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

If I am incorrect–I apologize, and please clarify what it is you meant.

1. Next, I argue that you’re conceptualizing this shift in the wrong way. I am not even a seminarian yet, and there are people with infinitely more knowledge on the Church and Her workings reading this thread–so if I am wrong please correct me–but I think that the reasons for the establishment of the English Ordinariate and the transfer of clergy are mainly an ecumenical issue. You, on the other hand, seem to consider this strictly a personnel issue.

So, the establishment of these procedures to transfer clergy might be the answer to the question of ‘How do we bring these extra-ecclesial (but still in almost complete agreement with our Church) clerics into our Church, when they inquire about transferring?’ rather than ‘How do we connivingly rustle up extra clerics, at whatever any cost besides compromising our corrupt ‘Men’s Club on the Tiber’?’

1. If you treat this question in its ecumenical form, you will understand that there is a very limited exception being made in the Church’s preference for clerical celibacy. This is an accommodation being made for a very small number of ministers. Nowhere, in our entire Church in the entire world, is a section of our Church being swamped, en masse, by married clergy… except in its traditional form in the Eastern Rites.

3.1. Therefore, you must recognize that swelling the ranks of our clergy and adjusting the Church’s policies on celibacy are both secondary… even tertiary concerns in this issue.

3.2. It doesn’t take Goedel’s mind to see that this so-called ‘precedent’ for waiving the discipline of celibacy is not in fact a precedent, at all.

It is like having a great dam set up, and then altering the dam by a few inches in order to allow a half-dry pool to release some of its water, as well. Then, arguing that the entire dam should be demolished because there was a precedent in doing so. Its summer and dry, and we need water in the summer, right? So do we demolish the dam or install a pump to help us get enough water to last until its no longer dry…

It’s definitely an ecumenical issue. What the Church is trying to do is open the door for reconciliation. It’s not trying to boost the number of priests by drafting Anglicans. These are men who desire to be part of the Catholic Church. The Church, as a compassionate mother is making AN EXCEPTION for them only. That’s why it’s called a Pastoral Provision. It’s a provision that has one goal in mind, to bring these men into full communion with the Catholic Church. Men who are already Catholic, do not need pastoral provisions to bring them into full communion with the Church. They’re already inside.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

I don’t think a man who *would *become a priest if he could do so without being celibate would make a good priest. It seems to me that a man with this attitude puts his own desires above his desire to love and serve God. Just as Christ offered Himself as a victim, the priest must offer himself as a victim. Men unwilling to offer themselves, who put their own desires above their desire to love and serve God don’t make good priests, whether they are married or not.

The Catholic population has grown, but I imagine God also calls more men to compensate- He knows shepherds can only look after so many sheep. The problem is men aren’t hearing and answering the call. Our culture is so noisy and selfish that it can be very difficult to hear and answer the call. People must make a conscious effort to hear the call, to help others hear it, and to not get discouraged in this world that sees no use for it (by praying for vocations, encouraging men they feel may have a vocation to the priesthood, etc.). Relaxing the celibacy rule won’t solve this problem. This problem is not a result of celibacy- if anything, it defends the importance of the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite. We need that counter-cultural statement.

Read the first paragraph again. you make it clear that you think men who are “unwilling” to be celibate could never be good priests because they refuse to “suffer.” I then corrected you and told you that the eastern rites have had a history of married priests and they suffered quite nicely under communism in places like Ukraine, Estonia, and Lithuania. Will you now acknowledge that a married priest can in fact be a good priest, and even a martyr for the faith?

Also, what do you think of St. Patrick being the grandson of a priest and the son of a deacon?

I’m done with this forum, gives me too much headache and starts to put a drain on my faith. I just wish posters like yourself would stop trying to label posters like myself and OTJM as “liberal catholics” because we would like to see a discipline changed. I actually agree with you that a priest should be a symbol against a sinful culture, I just think a married priest can/could do that too.

St. John Chrysostom firmly believed in the spiritual beauty of consecrated celibacy, but he also believed that it should not be mandated on people- whether they be priests or the laity.

 

[joandarc2008]

Well, to begin with, we have had experiences of deacons in parishes who are not there 24 - 7 and that is not causing the crisis one would expect; people are accepting that. Having a married priest who is not the pastor of the parish would be in the same mold - he is not there 24-7 (not that I know of any pastors who are; it is just everyone’s impression they are).

This just is not a good comparison or parallel. A deacon is never in the position to act in persono Christi. The Sacraments where the priest needs to do this are needed at times in danger of death. It would be very tough for a parish to swallow for the priest to not be able to attend to these end of life duties due to their duties concerning their vows of marriage - which when one ways the weight of a vow over the weight of a solemn promise. It is an impossible position for a mere mortal to find himself in.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Read the first paragraph again. you make it clear that you think men who are “unwilling” to be celibate could never be good priests because they refuse to “suffer.” I then corrected you and told you that the eastern rites have had a history of married priests and they suffered quite nicely under communism in places like Ukraine, Estonia, and Lithuania. Will you now acknowledge that a married priest can in fact be a good priest, and even a martyr for the faith?

**I don’t think that this particular person is representative of the side in favor of keeping the Latin Rite clergy under mandatory celibacy. This person is either mistaken about the Church’s position on married clergy, or perhaps worded their statement very poorly. Keep in mind that the Church frowns on inter-Rite transfers for possible vocations to ‘escape’ the discipline of celibacy, so this is what I initially believed the poster meant. Its still possible that this is what they meant.

In either case they haven’t responded to your first post directed at them, so I don’t think there’s any use engaging this person further **

Also, what do you think of St. Patrick being the grandson of a priest and the son of a deacon?

Why don’t you tell us what YOU think about it. You’ve only mentioned it four times, so I assume you’re going somewhere with this.

I’m done with this forum, gives me too much headache and starts to put a drain on my faith.

I think that’s the right decision. We obviously have nothing to offer you, except as a soapbox for your tirades.

I just wish posters like yourself would stop trying to label posters like myself and OTJM as “liberal catholics”

**You’re “traditional”, fine! we get it! But… (1) no one called you a ‘liberal’ Catholic. (2) If they called you anything, it would be a ‘destructive’ Catholic: you’ve made it clear that you disagree with many things in our faith, and want them tossed aside because they’re inconvenient to you or you do not understand them. The Church is not a one-man show or a political party, my friend. It seems that too many people here want to be ‘Aragorns’, and rally the troops because the ‘alarm’ has been sounded and Gondor is in danger. A better understanding of Church history would probably be sufficient to remedy this. **

because we would like to see a discipline changed. I actually agree with you that a priest should be a symbol against a sinful culture, I just think a married priest can/could do that too.

**Obviously they can, or the Eastern Catholics would be a spectacular failure. But that–as Br. JR said above–doesn’t mean that we should adopt all of their practices, as our own. **

St. John Chrysostom firmly believed in the spiritual beauty of consecrated celibacy, but he also believed that it should not be mandated on people- whether they be priests or the laity.