First off, when you quote someone and cut out text, it’s generally considered courtious to place a “…” between so that there isn’t misunderstanding between the two entirely seperate statements by future readers.
Why is a married priest a scandal to the faithful?
I never said it WAS a scandal to the faithful, just that it CAN be under certain circumstances, which is why the married priesthood was dropped in the first place. We can play idealistic, or we can look at history and make open and honest assessments that will help with future decision making on disciplines of the church.
Why do you think a married priest would excommunicate himself and put his soul in danger of hell by telling his wife what he heard in the confessional? If you knew how sacredly that trust is held you would not be so rash as to suggest that a priest, any priest, would break the seal of the confessional.
again, realistically, this HAS happened in the past with priests who AREN’T married. The bond between a husband and wife is even stronger than other normal bonds. I’m not saying it WILL happen, especially not in every case, but it IS something that needs to be considered under the responsible authority of rome.
Further, I take offense that you seem to think I don’t understand the gravity of breaking the confessional seal. I assure you, I’m FULLY aware of the sanctity of the sacraments and my noted concern is a protection of that fact, not a slight against the sacrament in question.
There are priests who teach non-literal transubstantiation… and that is every bit as grave as not recognizing the secret nature of the confessional. The reason rome is the authority is because they DO realistically and responsibly consider these sorts of issues.
Your next comment about a priest being in a bar and picking up on women is just simply inappropriate and if it is directed against married priests, then it is even more reprehensible. Even the Eastern Churches state that whatever state you are in when you are ordained that is the state you must remain in. Single, celibate priests (already ordained) would not be looking for a wife, and neither would priests who are already married… so you would not see either of them in a bar for that purpose.
Why read more than what I said into a sentence? Straw men arguments are not appreciated here. Obviously, a married priest is NOT going to be in a bar picking up on women. I take offense, again, that you would even insinuate that I was saying any such thing.
For the record, because I don’t believe you understand my position, I
fully support a married priesthood, albeit in the form that the eastern churches use. The point that was being made, which you so sublimely ignored in your righteous indignation at something I didn’t even say, is that if priestly marraige were allowed, and priests who WERE single were allowed to date and get married, is that those priests would have to meet a potential spouse SOMEWHERE. And yes, again with realism, there are potentially members of the laity who WOULD be scandalized by seeing the courting process with their priest.
FURTHER, let’s consider the potential for rumors and such if the priest started dating a member of their own congregation… after all, the perception of the priest is that of the shepherd. So the priest either dates someone from a different congregation… or a non-catholic entirely… more room for members of the laity to take offense in the second case.
ALL of these are important issues that have to be considered and dealt with in order to make reasoned choices for the church. Covering your eyes and ears and humming very loud to the realities of potential consequences doesn’t make those consequences any less real. No offense, but I’d say I’m farther along in hoping for the eventual restoration of a married priesthood than you are, since I’ve at least considered the realities such a decision would entail.
