I’m a Catholic, and for several years I attended a Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish where our pastor was married and a father and a grandfather.
But relaxing the discipline on the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite Church will do nothing whatsoever to address the fact that the Latin Rite admitted homosexuals into the priesthood, and those homosexuals did what homosexuals want to do, i.e., chicken-hawking.
The two issues simply are not related. We can expel gay priests from the priesthood, and keep them from becoming priests, any time the Church has the guts and the backbone to do what’s right.
We don’t need to do anything about the celibate priest status quo to fix this problem whatsoever. We just need to be Catholic again, and return to our former discipline of weeding out any and all homosexuals from the priesthood.
You bring up an interesting point that I had never considered. Are you saying that the abuse problem was for the most part contained within the Latin Rite churches?
Looking at this in what I feel is realistic, the apostle Paul was the exception to the rule...
Man was created to desire a woman...While Jesus said it's great to be a eunuch for the kingdom of God's sake, I suspect there aren't many who could handle this role...
So while your religion requires men to become these eunuchs when they enter the ministry, apparently many find out in the long run, they can't abide by that initial decision...
I believe that if somehow your religion could weed out those who can't live up to the commitment they made, your religion would be only a small fraction of the size that it is today...
Agreed, for the most part, on one primary level at least, they are two separate issues. Yet there can be overlap, for what are we talking but various form of sexuality itself? Still, as much as possible, the issues should not be confused. Simple declaration they are not related (for reason they not be identical or even close) isn't enough to make it be so, in every_single_aspect.
Possibly true enough, for the issues are not precisely one and the same. There is abundant justification for opposition to homosexuality, in and of itself.
Holding that thought in mind...the status quo for celibacy [for a Christian 'priesthood'] being truly a separate regard, then it should be addressed separately, not tied to calls from some quarters for there to be women "priests" either.
It is real simple. There is precedence for allowing married persons to become priests, even now (although there is a forcing of requirement that even "procreational sex" be prohibited?).
There is precedence from the earliest formations of Christian church both in biblical support and earliest understandings that individuals be allowed to marry if they were not, or remain so and function normally if married. The mandated continence idea, although having some early promoters, was not universal requirement for many centuries.
In comparison, there is no real precedence for female priesthood in Christianity, and there is firm scriptural and historical foundation for out-right prohibition of acceptance towards homosexual behavior or activity of any kind, even as that last has sadly enough, at various time and place in history, long been present in the narrow confines of the RCC, as in other places in the world also.
At this point, I'm not sure why traditional heterosexual marriage, as it can well enough serve primarily as bulwark against illicit extra-marital fornication, which Christians are instructed to flee from, can't be seen as being also helpful bulwark against temptation towards engaging in homosexual acts, at least for some. That there are indeed homo clergy whom are otherwise forbidden more normal sexual gratification, and could well enough end up with complicating results (like fatherhood) if tempted to carouse with females --- then why not allow clergy to marry, even as 1 Cor.7 explains? As it is now,if a priest wish to marry he must go against vows previously made. Yet those vows, though said to be taken voluntarily, are still not without some false pretext, for that sort of requirement was NOT passed on from the Apostles.
Perhaps it is difficult for some Roman Catholics to read that chapter of 1 Corinthians without seeing it through lens of "tradition", and with that lens skewed towards later developments (but in half-blind fashion, half-blind to critical examination of how such developments came about).
Regardless, there is still long historical precedence for opposing both; idea of female clergy, and/or acceptance of openly homosexual clergy.
Those outside of Romanist walls who have taken their own 'ecclesiastical communities' in direction of those two ideas are withering on the vine, even as more fundamentalist ideology is holding it's own, and in some quarters of the world increasing (for both better and worse, depending upon how much non-fundamentalist or non-traditional Christian worldview novelties like 'prosperity gospel' or 'liberation theology' is introduced to the mix).
Ministers being married, and functioning normally in marriage, raising children and so forth, hasn't itself been root of any particularly insurmountable, universal "problem". One may point towards some apparent present day nepotism, the likes of Billy Graham's son rather inheriting his father's "ministry", but what does that point us towards also but one of the reasons mandated celibacy rule arose within the Roman Catholic church in the first place?
Marriage in fact, can keep help keep a preacher honest. Though not every married minister has been in all ways perfect, if such persons did sin in a sexual manner, it wasn't marriage itself that made them do it?
Meanwhile, there has long been significant numbers of successful marriages among ministers of various stripe whom have served congregations large and small, with marriage itself not unduly hindering, and in many regards otherwise in fact helping, although being a "preacher's" wife perhaps isn't the easiest things in the world to do, and can be seriously demanding and challenging for those women who are in that position. Many of them are full-time in ministry of sorts towards the church, it's congregational membership, their own family, and the Lord too, all at once.
It's better to marry than to burn, with that 'burn' not be limited to only some later hellfire for having "sinned", but also to being subjected to burning in one's own natural desires, which desires we can see that the creatures that we are, were designed to have, as part of our own nature.
The Creator created the world...and said it was "good". Sex in and of itself, is not an evil. It is not evil in the bounds of marriage, from the very earliest times, reaching back to Hebrew traditions which themselves came forth and grew under the Law.
Why so fully abandon that earliest [Hebrew] sense? It doesn't make sense to do that, for it artificially creates a new sense which in many aspect is itself insensible.
We don't see the earliest bishops required to be either unmarried or celibate either. What was recommended by the those earliest Christians, in toto, not picking and choosing SOLO scripture passages to justify requirement for either marriage or celibacy as requirement for being in service to others by way of holding office or position in the church, is the true "tradition".