[sinkspur]

The anti-clerical liberal establishment foists the notion that celibacy is an unnatural state for any man to maintain. They do not accept that a consecrated priest is something more profound than a man.

While it is not unnatural, celibacy is not the calling of many men or women. Jesus Himself says as much when he declares:

Let him accept it who can.

A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II.

In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves.

[jt8d]

"A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II."

Really? So you are stating that the priest is just like "one of us ordinary laity," correct? There is no difference between a consecrated priest--a man who is given to absolve sin, to make oblation for sinners, and most importantly--to have the authority to call upon the Lord, to propitiate the offering of bread and wine into the the consecrated body and blood of Jesus Christ... This man is not rendered profound?

"In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves."

We are not discussing the Eastern Rite, we are dicussing the Latin Rite. We are not concerned here with the "Permanent Diaconate," we are concerned with the Priesthood. Don't muddy the waters.

Moreover, by what measure do you introduce the "Anglican dispensation" into this conversation? Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?