The RCC should accept change. There’s nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time. If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
No, it shouldn't. It has its commission, and that defines its discipline, not fashion.
There’s nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.
Until the point where he needs to put his family above his flock.
If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
Married pastors violate their marriage vows quite often.
The so-called Roman Catholic Church accepted radical change as a result of Vatican II. As a matter of fact an entire new religion was created as a result of that confab.
The Novus Ordo (as in New (World) Order) is as different as the religion headed by all popes prior to Pope John as night is from day.
It wouldn’t surprise me if in the future married same sex priests would be found in the Novus Ordo. Of course confession and absolution would be out the door as sins committed would outweigh anything good that might be happening.
That's a pretty broad statement. What kind of change? Why? Change for change's sake? It's just a silly statement.
There's nothing wrong with a man taking a wife and serving God at the same time.
No one ever said there was. The Church's law regarding priestly celibacy is just that... a changeable law. Even the most right-wing Catholic recognizes that. However, it is a law that has proven to bear much fruit, and it would be unwise to change it based on the experiences of a few years, as compared to the many centuries of experience of fruitfulness. There are many sound and profound theological and practical reasons for it. Read the post just before yours.
If anything it removes a sexual stumbling block from his life.
One fact that people usually ignore when they talk about priestly celibacy is that everyone who is not married is required by Jesus Christ to be celibate. So it is not only priests, but also single people, widows, and widowers, too, who must be celibate. So if you're going to do away with priestly celibacy simply as a way to remove a "sexual stumbling block", then you're on very shaky ground, from a moral theology point of view.
Whether priestly celibacy should continue is a prudential decision of the Church, in the person of the Pope, whoever he may be at any given time in history. We, as Catholics, are part of a hierarchical Church, which means that some people get to make decisions and others must follow them. This is one of those decisions, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I have neither the right nor the responsibility to make that decision. I'll just follow it.
The Church does not need to change. Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul taught and lived lives of celibacy. The question you should be posing is not why the Church employs the discipline of celibacy for its clergy and religious but why don’t the so called “Bible believers” do the same?
note that the Church has always had married men who become priests — in the Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar etc. In the Latin rite it is a discipline, not a teaching nor a dogma/doctrine. Celibacy had a sensible origin beginning with +Paul’s example.