Vatican: U.S. Catholic Sex Scandal Was Overstated

Perhaps the answer to the priest shortage in the Church is for married men - and somw women - to quit complaining about their inability to become priests, and to spend a little more time praying for good candidates for the clergy. "Those who feel called" to the priesthood aren't actually called unless,in fact, they are eligible for it. If this were not true, how many feminists who feel "called" would now be priests? Ans what about those married men who feel called to be Orthodox priests, but, oops, got married first? Is that unfair also? I have an MA in theology. It would be easy enough for me to become a deacon. I sometimes think it would be nice to be a priest, but I'm simply not eligible for the office. For that matter, I've been discouraged from becoming a deacon until my kids are grown and unless my wife approves.

I fully agree that we need more priests, and I don't like listening to homilies I can barely understand because the speaker is not a native English speaker. But I despair at the infrequency with which I hear any encouragement from the pulpit or anywhere else for that matter for young men to actually consider the priesthood. Same holds true for any vocation. Instead of abandoning a practice that has worked pretty well for centuries, maybe we should actually try a little harder. I'm not sure how it helps a young man considering the priesthood to hear others complaining that they should get rid of celibacy anyway.

In any event, I can speak from some experience about married clergy, since my father is a retired Protestant minister, and pastored churches through much of my own upbringing. Having a family and trying to be a minister can be a great strain on a man and his family, and while I am sure there are many success stories, such as a good friend of mine who manages this beautifully in a Protestant denomination, there are also a lot of problems, particularly where the pastor heads a struggling church. God bless them all, but they often pay a price, and so do their families.

My question No. 1 was largely rhetorical - Obviously the Eastern church sees some advantage in unmarried clergy, or they would not require celibacy among some of their clegy.
But according to your logic, even the Orthodox practice is ludicrious and dishonest since it is also a double standard - allowing married men to be priests only in some cases, but not others, and allowing priests, but not bishops to be married? And so is it also a double standard to allow men, but not women, to be priests?

Celibacy is *not* at the root of the Church's problems, whether it be the child abuse scandals, or the Novus Ordo, or whatever issue one wants to have with the Church.

Riddle me this: Considering the Church has mandated celibacy for its clergy for well over a millennium now, it's only been over the last, oh 50 years (and that's being generous) that the amount of clergy and celibacy has become an issue.

Logic would indicate there's something else going on. My guess is modernism and materialism of the outside culture. Especially in the Western world. Do we see issues with ordination in Africa or Eastern Europe?

The answer then, is to reassert the values of Catholicism in the faithful, but that's a lot harder then issuing a decree that all clergy can marry of course.

Exactamundo my friend!!!! I've never ever understood this "Celibate priests have never done xyz so they aren't in a position to offer advice" argument. So lame.

Guess what, no one here or elsewhere, whether they are sexually active, married, a father, or a mother, took a training course or earned credentials on how to do it.

A priest is just as qualified as anyone else to offer advice and counseling on these things.

These same people have no problem with marriage counselors that don't' have spouses or school teachers who don't have kids or making comments about gays when they aren't gay themselves.

An Orthodox who is say Greek lives under the same rules as a Russian as a Bulgarian as a Romanian, etc. There is no double standard as it applies to each position.

A Western Catholic does not live under the same ordination rules as an Eastern Catholic.

Yes there is value in celibacy but it seems the Vatican thinks that celibacy is something only Westerners need follow. The Eastern Catholic clergy can boink all they want (in marriage of course).

That is the double standard.

So your position is,then, that it is OK in the East for some priests to be married and others to be prohibited from marriage because everyone is bound by the same rule,while in the West it is not because they are note all bound by the same rule. Is that right?

If so, two problems.

One, it is still a double standard in the East just as much as the West, since you are still excluding some clergy from marriage while allowing others to marry. The rule is just as consistent in the West as in the East. It is just a different rule.

Two, you believe that priests should be allowed to marry, yet when the Roman church allows it in some limited circumstances - in none of which, by the way is it allowed to marry after ordination, as in the East - you criticize the practice, arguing, it would seem, that every priest in union with Rome should be celibate.

You have now admitted that celibacy among at least some clergy has value. Both East and West require this. So what's the big deal? Isn't there something more important to argue about than this?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.