Replies

I would rather have maintained the ideal of celibacy but now I have come to believe that allowing more married priests would increase the pool of worthy men from which to choose.

Indeed it would. It would also create a class of part-time priests, rather than the multitude of good, honorable men we have today who have given their whole lives to Christ. A celibate priest never has to choose between going out at 3 AM to adminster last rights to a dying parishoner, or staying home to care for his sick child.

Personally, I pray that the Church retains the discipline of celibate priests, even if it meant that we are able to recruit fewer of them in our materialist culture. Once the homosexuals are rooted out, there will be a revival. Count on it.

A celibate priest never has to choose between going out at 3 AM to adminster last rights to a dying parishoner, or staying home to care for his sick child.

If the priest is married, his wife can care for the child.

This dilemma doesn't seem to be a problem for the married doctors I know.

We have married priests in the Church today: Anglican converts, three of whom are pastors of very large parishes in Ft. Worth.

That's far from "part-time."

A celibate priest never has to choose between going out at 3 AM to adminster last rights to a dying parishoner, or staying home to care for his sick child.

Personally, I pray that the Church retains the discipline of celibate priests, even if it meant that we are able to recruit fewer of them in our materialist culture.

I think sinkspur gives the quantitative response to the full time / part time argument about married priesthood. I know several married priests that are holy and VERY hardworking priests. Their wives are extremely understanding and the Church benefits just as much. Heck, give me a HOLY part time married priest any day over some of the celebate beauties I've had to deal with in my life.

Also, this brings up some very real questions. Can a married priest be as holy as a celibate priest? I would have to say yes! Otherwise, one would have to say that any of the married priests, lati rite or otherwise, are deficient somehow or other. If a married priest can be as holy as a celibate priest, then wouldn't it be logical to make the discipline optional as it was for 1000 years. Yes, most were celibate, but the discipline that the eastern rite follows I think has merit. Will this gain the church any more priestly ordinations? I don't know! But one thing is for certain. An all male priesthood (which it must be) coupled with the discipline of celibacy, has been a closet space, so to speak, for a lot of homosexually oriented men. The percentage in the clergy is far greater than in the general population. And the seminaries are loaded with them.

A celibate priest never has to choose between going out at 3 AM to adminster last rights to a dying parishoner, or staying home to care for his sick child.

Cut me a break .
How often does ANY priest go out at 3AM to administer the last rights
And how often would it occur with a sick child that needs attention at 3AM

If this is the best you can come up with your argument is worthless

"Personally, I pray that the Church retains the discipline of celibate priests, even if it meant that we are able to recruit fewer of them in our materialist culture. Once the homosexuals are rooted out, there will be a revival. Count on it."

I agree. There are LOTS of candidates out there who have been turned away from one seminary or another because they weren't "conformist" enough: They didn't flit. They didn't pluck their eyebrows. They prayed the rosary and spent time before the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, they will all try again as soon as it is safe for them to knock on the door of a seminary and not have to run the risk of being hit on by Father Brucie.

Once the homosexuals are rooted out, there will be a revival.

But that's just the problem....it will not be rooted out. They have not the stomach for the fight that would ensue. I can hear it now: Why if it's OK to have openly homosexual scout leaders, why not priests?

Neither the Pope nor the Cardinals nor the Bishops have offered any evidience that they are serious about eliminating this cancer from the priesthood. They are allowing the institution to sink deeper and deeper into the cesspool and have not dared to even identify it for what it is, instead choosing to hide behind that false lable of pedophilia.

Rather than root it out, they ask for ever more money (some of which will go to pay reparations if not hush money--even while it is still on-going!) and for forgiveness for those aflicted under the guise that this is a sickness and not a perversion. Just let them try to claim that homosexuality is a sickness. Then you would see the mainstream press come alive, and not just to gloat.

Practicing Catholics are left with only one way to protest, to let their deep dissatisfaction with the leadership's failure be felt: stop giving. This is the only thing the Church understands. Nothing else will work.