The good bishop needs to consider re-reading the most recent encyclicals on such matters, go to confession, and reflect on what he has said.
For our part, we need to pray for him, and the whole of Ireland.
With luck I have only another 25 or so years on this little blue ball we float on - I do not even want to think what the USA or the church will be in 50 years.
Does he not know that the are many “churches” out there that he can join, and leave mine alone?
Ah, the good bishop needs to join the good German bishops - and they can all join the Episcopal Church, where, these days, you can embrace all these things and more.
There is a strong argument to be made in favor of permitting priests to be married. First of all there is absolutely nothing in the Bible, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament prohibiting priests from being married. In point of fact the New Testament specifically permits clergy members to be married, 1 Timothy 3:2. Priests were married men with families all throughout Bible. Priests were also married men in the first half of Church history for centuries at least. Many of the early popes were married men as were most of the bishops and priests.
Compulsory clerical celibacy was implemented during the Middle Ages and was introduced in the Church canon at the First Lateran Council in 1123. The purpose for the policy had absolutely nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Bible. Rather, the policy was implemented largely to confront rampant corruption in the Church, specifically nepotism and simony.
Of course Church leaders who implemented the policy back in the Middle Ages would have had no way of knowing how the policy would manifest itself many centuries later. Of course no one could credibly argue that celibacy causes homosexuality or pedophile behavior. However what the policy did end up establishing was a homosocial environment within the Church very attractive to individuals with little interest in the opposite sex or little interest marriage or having children. It also provided an escape for such individuals-—and even the perfect cover. Back in the day no one would ever ask a priest, why aren’t you married, and few people would ever suspect a priest of any sexual improprieties. And moreover, you had many bishops willing to cover up for deviant priests and shuffle them around from parish to parish whenever any trouble arose. In addition with altar boys and among parishioners and in Catholic schools and orphanages there was certainly no shortage of victims for priests to prey (no pun intended) upon. Priestly vocations were the perfect cover for homosexuals and child predators with no shortage of potential victims and higher up bishops willing to cover for them.
In contemporary society, with homosexuality glorified and exalted in the media, in the political discourse, and in the entertainment industry and in our schools and universities, there is little need these days for homosexuals to join the priesthood as an escape. However that does not mean that we don’t have the right to question this policy. We have many married priests (mostly converts from the Episcopalian Church) in my own archdiocese and they do just fine. Further, compulsory clerical celibacy is not considered a dogma or a doctrine of the Church. It is considered a discipline at it always subject to change.
Some might argue that only liberals want priests to have the right to be married. Nonsense. Since most priests and bishops and many of the early popes were in fact married men, one could argue that a married priesthood is the more traditional position. The Lord Commands us to be fruitful and multiply. The Lord created Eve because He did not want Adam to be alone. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is precious gift from God, not be denied to anyone, certainly not our priests.
This bishop cannot oppose faggotry and will not support his priests should be defrocked.
No Western institution has the spiritual strength necessary to withstand a leftist assault. We will be the only civilization in history to be conquered solely by means of words. That being said the Roman Church will have female priests.
Gee! What an original idea.
Given that the issue of whether Priests can marry is a matter of Catholic tradition, and I am not Catholic, I have no position on it. I can appreciate and respect the arguments for each side of that issue. However, Deacons should be male as a matter of scripture (1 Tim, Titus) and I would certainly hope that my Catholic brethren stick to their guns on that one.
Why? The only Church without a married lower clergy is the Latin Church. All the rest of the Churches ordain men who are married prior to ordination.
As for female deacons, to the best of my knowledge, there are no Churches with female deacons, though they certainly existed in the past. Their deaconate was composed of widows and unmarried virgins, mostly elderly widows. Their function was to deal with adult women converts usually at baptism. The order fell into disuse centuries ago, before the Great Schism if I remember correctly. I don’t know if there were ever female deacons in the West.
Uh...NO!
This first (married priest) is possible. There are good arguments pro and con. At worst it would be a bad idea. The second (women deacons) is heresy.
I would not be surprised if in the next half century, married men who are currently deacons, are given the option of further ordination to the priesthood. This I think would need to be restricted to men whose wives are above a certain age and whose children have moved out and are independent. This I think would be most useful for filling a gap concerning marital problems or people who are unsure about getting married and want advice.
he wants attention.