This has nothing to do with priests marrying.
But the idea that the Church can allow married Protestants to convert, be re-ordained as Catholic priests and remain married, but will not, under any circumstances, consider ordaining a married Catholic man is theologically inconsistent.
The Church can do what it wants to do, but it will continue to hemorrhage priests in the west until some group of responsible bishops decides to force the issue.
This latest synod was nothing but three weeks in Rome for 256 bishops. They accomplished nothing.
Sinkspur,
You wrote: "This has nothing to do with priests marrying."
Yes, actually it does.
"But the idea that the Church can allow married Protestants to convert, be re-ordained as Catholic priests and remain married, but will not, under any circumstances, consider ordaining a married Catholic man is theologically inconsistent."
No, your thinking, or attempts at it are inconsistent. Look at what you wrote: "...be re-ordained.." There is no such concept. Once ordained, always ordained. You don't seem to understand these basic ideas. Also, none of this really has anything to do with theology so how can it be inconsistent? This is a discipline and not a theological point. Why do you claim otherwise? Again, you seem to be unaware of these basic facts. Also, the Catholic Church, under very specific and difficult circumstances (unlike the "not, under any circumstances" nonsense you're claiming) has ordained married men within the last few decades. There is the famous Czech case for instance where dozens of men, all married, were secretly ordained to make sure there were priests in a communist society that was attacking the Church. You never heard of that of course.
"The Church can do what it wants to do, but it will continue to hemorrhage priests in the west until some group of responsible bishops decides to force the issue."
Responsible bishops? Look, do you realize that the orthodox diocese are not really struggling with vocations? Lincoln Nebraska has two FULL seminaries. Care to explain that to me? I know the reason why. The bishop there is orthodox.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1993/sep1993p4_808.html
A bishop in Australia, in Wagga Wagga I think, opened a diocesan seminary with almost no money because he was terribly disatisfied with the seminary educations given his young men in liberal diocese. The other bishops said no one would come. It was full within two or three years. Teach the truth and people will come.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/mar2005p3_1865.html
You can keep living in the 1970's all you want, but that decade is long over.
"This latest synod was nothing but three weeks in Rome for 256 bishops. They accomplished nothing."
No, they did accomplish something -- they heard their pope put his foot down on the idea of watering down discipline and doctrine just to please people with little faith like you. It is the rest of us, those who actually have a clue, and don't want the Church to become more Protestantized, who will still be around (with full parishes and plenty of vocations) in the years to come.
I have presented proof of what I claimed. Care to respond in kind?
Your career goals are still stymied, eh?
Too bad. So sad.
They have opened up something of a door there.
Given the the prevalent mindset, the natural conclusion would be to eliminate the convert priests.
But given current efforts to bring over much of the Traditional Anglican Communion, that seems unlikely.
Interestingly, those bishops at the Synod most opposed to the idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline were the Eastern Rite bishops, who argued that the married priesthood had, for them, created as many problems as it solved.
They have opened up something of a door there.
Given the the prevalent mindset, the natural conclusion would be to eliminate the convert priests.
But given current efforts to bring over much of the Traditional Anglican Communion, that seems unlikely.
Interestingly, those bishops at the Synod most opposed to the idea of relaxing the celibacy discipline were the Eastern Rite bishops, who argued that the married priesthood had, for them, created as many problems as it solved.