Nothing happened to it.
The fact is that most Latin Rite priests for over a millenium were cradle Catholics ordained between the ages of twenty and twenty-five.
It is impossible to discern at that age whether a man will be able to responsibly balance a pastorate and a married life. Therefore, the discipline of making his pastorate the center of his personal life.
In a circumstance when we have a man of 51 who is a happily married husband and father who has also been a successful non-Catholic pastor for decades, a discernment can be made.
Such cases should be rare, because in real life such felicitous combinations of circumstances truly are rare.
HEY, BRING ON THE WOMEN PRIESTS!....sure must be some exceptional cases!
If you really cannot tell the difference between a married man and a woman, you should probably refrain from thinking too hard about these matters.
For anyone else reading this post, I remind them that priestly celibacy is a discipline exercised by the Church solely in the Latin Rite, while the exclusively male priesthood is a matter of doctrine for the universal Church and therefore cannot be modified.
Ordination of married men, from Saint Peter down to Paul Schenck, has always been possible and has been practiced with discernment through every age of the Church. Ordination of women is impossible and has never been practiced at any time by the Church.
I appreciate your informed post, but don’t appreciate the sarcsam.
I have reviewed your post carefully.
My point is...The Catholic church MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL out of ‘can’t be married or a female to be a priest “...on and on, even putting down those who said maybe we should allow married priests.
If they had said, back then, well, we will look into that, there may be exceptions,its church doctrine but not irreversible...that would have been different. Now here comes the explanations why THIS OR THAT person is an “EXCEPTION”. The church has done the same thing with THE JOKE ABOUT ANNULLMENTS, in lieu of “divorce”.
For a religion and a church that is so dogmatic and black and white ( which is very ok with me, no problem having clear focus)....to here and there “make exceptions” with extensive “explanations” defeats the whole purpose of WHY we have the doctrines. You can’t have it both ways, be very traditional and INSIST on the boundaries, and at the same time modify them,then you might as well be Episcopalian.