“…we propose to establish criteria and dispositions on the part of the competent authority, in the framework of Lumen Gentium 26, to ordain as priests men who are apt for it and who are recognized by the community, who are fruitful permanent deacons and who receive an adequate formation for the priesthood, even if they have a legitimately constituted and stable family…With regard to this, some wished that the topic be addressed in a universal way.”(Final Document, 111.)
Ping
Need a Saint Constantine about now.
Pedophile priests are doing a good job of destroying it themselves. We had pedophile priests back in the 60s when I was an altar boy.
Speaking as a Catholic, I don’t see a fundamental scriptural requirement for celibate priests. Eastern Orthodox priests can marry.
The problem was corruption. A bishop would make their son a deacon for their 1st birthday. A priest for their second, and finally a bishop for the next. The bishop holds the property of the church. So the corruption became inherent over time.
The east and west handled things slightly differently.
In the east the Episcopate (Bishops) could not be married and this effectively ended the problem. In the west (RC) they decided that none of the ordained clergy could be married. This also solved the problem.
When we look at 2nd Timothy we see that neither solution is ideal. A married clergy is definitely mentioned (to include Bishops). To say an unmarried clergy (or just episcopate) was the way always intended flys in the face of this epistle).
I believe the RC needs to look at the Eastern Churches (including those within the Catholic Church, not just Orthodox). The clergy is allowed to be married prior to ordination. While this has not always been perfect it seems to work adequately well.
I do however share the fear of many Catholics that this is just a smoke screen. A way to introduce homosexual marriage with the clergy. Those making the proposals are the chief enemies of traditional Catholics are probably should not be trusted. A careful approach should be followed.
Please remember that the unmarried clergy is a tradition with a small ‘t’. This is not dogma, no matter how many people try to pass it off that way.
I think the proper question is, to what use has the selection of men who will not marry women as priests been put?
It is tradition, it may or may not be sacred tradition, it is not dogma or the law.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
What are the fruits of priests turning away from marriage with women in our day?
Can. 266 §1. Through the reception of the diaconate, a person becomes a cleric and is incardinated in the particular church or personal prelature for whose service he has been advanced.
Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
…will this aspect of canon law throw a monkey wrench into things?
I have talked to two Priests about this [one is a Jesuit so he sorta of counts] both see this as married Priests who left the church following the laicized rules and just didn’t walk away, will be welcomed back first as married Deacons, then will be readmitted to the full Priesthood.
Both guys didn’t think the numbers will be significant, but it will open the door for other Priests to return to the flock.
I don’t think it’s wise to have such obviously heterosexual men in the Catholic leadership.
It might give people the wrong idea.