Replies

But those advocating the overthrow of a tradition that has served the Latin Rite well for centuries often are. Many of the proponents of this change also agitate for changing Church doctrine on contraception and the ordination of women, see nothing terribly wrong in sexual sins such as fornication and sodomy (as opposed to the made up sin of "sexism"), and are offended by celibacy precisely because it suggests that sex is not the summum bonum of human existence.

Do you understand the difference between a moral teaching and Church discipline? I contest none of those moral teachings.

Within the last 30 years, the Church has made EXCEPTIONS to celibacy for the Anglican Dispensation and the Permanent Diaconate. You may not know this, but the Church has accepted back into the priesthood men who left to marry, then later divorced. Since they did not receive laicization, they could just skate right back into the ministry. However, Catholic men who left, sought laicization, married, and whose wives die, are refused re-entry because they sought laicization. IOW, men who violated the promise of celibacy are re-admitted, while men who did not violate celibacy, and sought relief through proper Church procedures, are not. This is rather strange, don't you think?

The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is struggling to maintain a practice that limits candidates to men who will declare that they will never marry. That leaves out an entire group of married men who would make good priests, (as the Anglican converts do), but are stopped by a discipline that is not essential to the priesthood in any way.

>>>>>>Do you understand the difference between a moral teaching and Church discipline? I contest none of those moral teachings.<<<<<<<<

I understand the difference and am glad that you do not contest any of the Church's moral teachings. The same cannot be said, however, for many of the others calling for an end to priestly celibacy.

>>>>>>> IOW, men who violated the promise of celibacy are re-admitted, while men who did not violate celibacy, and sought relief through proper Church procedures, are not. This is rather strange, don't you think?<<<<<<

Yes, I think that is strange.

>>>>>>>The Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is struggling to maintain a practice that limits candidates to men who will declare that they will never marry<<<<<<<

There is no doubt that the condition of the priesthood and the seminaries in America is not optimal. I suspect we agree on that. The solution, though, is not to abandon a tradition that has worked well for centuries, but to address the root cause of the problem: liberalism.

Men will embrace celibacy for a cause larger than themselves, such as the fighting faith the Church embodied for centuries and still embodies in many places today. They will not embrace it for a tepid faith that is largely indistinguishable from that professed by the dying mainstream Protestant churches.