Replies

What we DO know is that celibacy has been a written rule for Roman Rite priests (often broken, like other rules, by sinners...) since around the year 300 AD, and the WRITTEN rule may have been long preceded by the OBSERVED rule.

I think what bugs me the most about non-Catholics who think that our celibacy rules for priests are archaic or non-scriptural or whatever is, why do they care? Is like when the Democrats talk about how if the Republicans just accepted a "woman's right to choose" they would win more elections. Since when do Republicans take advice from Democrats? Since when do Democrats offer advice so Republicans can win?

Should the Church ever change the 1700 year rules on celibacy, it should be done after long and thoughtful prayer and meditation, study, debate, analysis, and opening our hearts to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I, for one, strongly support celibacy among our priests, and I think that most priests (the ones who keep their vows) agree. Married priests would do nothing to solve the problem: active homosexuality in certain seminaries. Let's fix the problem.

I think what bugs me the most about non-Catholics who think that our celibacy rules for priests are archaic or non-scriptural or whatever is, why do they care?

Amen. This is a decision for Catholics to make.

You said a mouthful. Completely ignored in this whole thread is the theological reasoning. In a nutshell, the priest is an alter Christi (another Christ.) Since Christ is the model for priests, the imitation of Christ is the objective. He did not take a wife.

Lost in the dust and din following the II Vatican Council (I hasten to add that I do NOT disagree with its teachings, although a few are vague) is a large theological segment having to do with the nature of ordination (and the Mass.)

The results of the new "spin" put forth by a variety of not-orthodox Catholics (and some who are also internal enemies of the Church) have been questionable, at best.

Thank God that the efficacy of the Mass has not changed.