A response to Fr. Joseph Wilson's defense of mandatory celibacy

In principle, I am not opposed to priests being married, and in theory, what would work best is if a parish is served by a celibate pastor, while the vicars would be married priests. The role of the married priests would be mainly liturgical in nature.

That said, it would be a disaster in the present day if the church allows a married priesthood on a universal scale. The biggest problem is many of the men who would be first in line for the priesthood, those who are semi retired or retiried who are in the 50s and 60s, also hold views on liturgy and often on church teachings that are in severe conflict with tradition. Also if this is allowed in the present day, it would further extend the life of the modernist heresy, it would give the dwindleing numbers of progressives a dramatic boost.

Maybe in 30 years time, after the liturgy is retored using the real objectives of Vatican II, after the modernist heresy and the "sprit of Vatican II" fade away, after the dissent retires and passes away, this issue can be taken up, but now it would be a disaster.

I have no problem with married priests in the Eastern rites. But they have a culture that already knows how to do it. Sink is resentful of the Anglican priests who have been ordained as RC priests. But, again, they have a history. Sice 1965 we have had far too much experimentation and, I must say. failures to admit failure. The message of the early reformers was "WE DON'T NEED so many PRIESTS. The result ws that the seminaries emptied and so did many rectories. Why accept the sacrifices of the traditional priesthood if ordinary professions offer the same opportunities for service?

I remember a visit I had in 1965 with a young priest was was serving two parishes in a Texas country district. He ws full of strange talk, such as whether the priests authority came from the bishop or from the people. He also said something that also bothered me. I was single and teaching school. "he said, "Well, that is your whole life." I stared at him and said, "Well, father, I hope not." I never darkened his door again. Luther was written across his forehead. although I did not think that at the time. Just that what he was saying was false.

We hsve been fed with so much baloney by priests whose education was shallow and which wholly inadequate to enable them to honor the Holy Tradition. Many of these men have become theologians and bishops and have never in their whole lives bothered to revisit the past and ask if the master plan for remaking the Church might not have been flawed and their youthful impulses misdirected? I fear that like Gary Wills, the only thing they regret is that their will has been frustrated.

I have no problem with married priests in the Eastern rites. But they have a culture that already knows how to do it. Sink is resentful of the Anglican priests who have been ordained as RC priests. But, again, they have a history. Sice 1965 we have had far too much experimentation and, I must say. failures to admit failure. The message of the early reformers was "WE DON'T NEED so many PRIESTS. The result ws that the seminaries emptied and so did many rectories. Why accept the sacrifices of the traditional priesthood if ordinary professions offer the same opportunities for service?

I remember a visit I had in 1965 with a young priest was was serving two parishes in a Texas country district. He ws full of strange talk, such as whether the priests authority came from the bishop or from the people. He also said something that also bothered me. I was single and teaching school. "he said, "Well, that is your whole life." I stared at him and said, "Well, father, I hope not." I never darkened his door again. Luther was written across his forehead. although I did not think that at the time. Just that what he was saying was false.

We hsve been fed with so much baloney by priests whose education was shallow and which wholly inadequate to enable them to honor the Holy Tradition. Many of these men have become theologians and bishops and have never in their whole lives bothered to revisit the past and ask if the master plan for remaking the Church might not have been flawed and their youthful impulses misdirected? I fear that like Gary Wills, the only thing they regret is that their will has been frustrated.

How did it do that?

Didn't he say he was willing to subject his personal opinions about married priests to the Magisterium and hasn't the Pope said the matter is closed and that celibacy is a great gift to the Latin Rite?

The correct response to the sins/crimes associated with the Vice of Lust is a return to the old school ways of priests centering their lives on Christ and embracing the Virtue of Temperance.

I think that a married priesthood can be of great help to the Latin rite, but only after the liturgical and theologoical nonsense the church has been experiencing for the last 35 years is done away with, and married priests status is clear, that they should not be pastors, and their functions would by mostly liturgical in nature. But again as I said, introducing a married priesthood right now would be a disaster because the men thatw ould be in first in line also by in large hold views that push modrenism.

Other problems by the introduction of a married priesthood that have to be ironed out before this is introduced is it may further devastate the vocations of celibate men, also dramatically shrink the pool of men that can be elevated to the level of Bishop. Again I can not say this enough, untill any steps towrds a marriued priesthood are taken, the mess the church is now has has to had long since been dealt with.

Well, I agree with your implication that none of those priests who jumped ship should ever be accepted again. I will always think of them as "unreconstructed" rebels.

You are so right. I think in 20 to 30 years when they have cleaned up the messes they have made,the question of celibacy can be revisited,if it seems that there is still a problem.