[sinkspur]

Sinkspur probably didn't read it either. He just didn't want to miss an opportunity to attack Fr. Martin because deep down he knows he can't present an intelligent argument against what Fr. Martin says about celibacy, or I would wager anything to do with the faith.

I agree with what Martin says about celibacy. It's valid for those who are called to celibacy.

I just disagree that celibacy should be mandatory for Latin Rite priests.

You've been nothing but a naysayer since you signed up for this website. Why not make a positive contribution, if you can, so you don't get the reputation of a "Dr. No"?

[murphE]

Sinky,

I don't know what to say to your response, because it makes no sense. It is as if

a) you really didn't read what Fr. Martin said

b) you did not understand a word of it, or

c) you are so "wedded" to the idea that a married priesthood in the Latin Rite will be a good thing that you refuse to understand what Fr. Martin said.

Now I don't doubt that some day you may get your wish, and the Latin rite will relax its discipline on celibacy, but it will not be a good thing. The decision will be an error which will only cause more damage to the Church. Which is the point that Fr. Martin makes. The supreme law is salvation of souls, a celibate priesthood best serves this law.

You've been nothing but a naysayer since you signed up for this website. Why not make a positive contribution, if you can, so you don't get the reputation of a "Dr. No"?

How is taking the side in support of celibacy negative? Besides, I may already have the reputation of being a "Dr. No", for different reasons, just ask my husband. {:^O

That was a joke, by the way, I couldn't resist.