[NYer]

We've had a good experience with married deacons, but they are all over 35 when ordained.

Do the married deacons reside at the rectory with their families or do they own their own homes? If the latter, how do they pay for them? Are they independently employed outside the diocese or do they rely on a church stipend to finance their family arrangements? How would they fund their living arrangements if they were allowed to be ordained? Would they continue to work outside the church? How would they ration their time between church requirements and those of the family?

Christ, who initiated the Sacrament of Holy Orders on His disciples, led a celibate life, as did His forerunner, St. John the Baptist. He set the example. Why should this example be broken other than to fulfill personal gratification? If the Catholic Church were to allow a married clergy, would married clergy be eligible to accept the role of a bishop?

Curious minds want to know.

[Kolokotronis]

Well our priests almost exclusively support themselves and their families on their salary from the parish. In the GOA we have no deacons who are not "full time" with the Church that I am aware of. They are paid either by the diocese or a parish. There are a few priests who have outside jobs; one I know of is an Assistant United States Attorney. Priests generally live in their own homes; parish houses tend to be a bad idea and are seldom worth it for the parish or the priest but in the case of very small parishes it sometimes is a necessity. As kosta pointed out, hierarchs in the Orthodox Church come from the ranks of the monastics and therefore are celibate.

As you know, NYer, celibacy of the lower clergy has not always been the rule in the Church, East or West. The Canons of the One Church are very clear on the role and appropriateness of married clergy, even married hierarchs. With all due respect, I think you are confusing the vocation of Holy Orders with the vocations of celibacy and marriage. Celibacy has always been seen as the "gold standard" of vocations, but married life is no lump of clay. The married couple represents Christ and His Church, no mean role! Holy Orders per se as a vocation does not exclude the vocation of marriage. We are dealing with three vocations here, not two. I believe it is important to remember that we are talking about vocations, callings from God, not the fulfillment of "personal gratification"! You seem to have a rather low opinion of the God ordained state of Holy Matrimony, the first sacrament established by Our Lord.

[kosta50]

If the Catholic Church were to allow a married clergy, would married clergy be eligible to accept the role of a bishop

Well, no of course not. A Bishop is a direct descendent of an Apostle. A priest is merely a bishop's assistant. Without a bishop, a priest has no authoirty.

[sinkspur]

Christ, who initiated the Sacrament of Holy Orders on His disciples, led a celibate life, as did His forerunner, St. John the Baptist. He set the example. Why should this example be broken other than to fulfill personal gratification?

Jesus Christ was God.

If a man marries simply to fulfill personal gratification, he has no business being married, whether he feels called to the priesthood or not.