Pope Francis answers questions from journalists in return from Holy Land

Vatican City, 27 May 2014 (VIS) – At the end of his trip, during the flight from Tel Aviv to Rome, Pope Francis spoke for over 40 minutes with the journalists who accompanied him on the flight, answering their questions on various issues linked not only to his pilgrimage to the Holy Land, but also in relation to the abuse of minors, remarried divorcees, his upcoming trips, priestly celibacy, and so on. Below is a summary of some of the Pope's answers.

The Holy Land and the prayer meeting in the Vatican with Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas.

The most authentic gestures are those that we don't think about, those that come to us, aren't they? I thought about suggesting it during the trip, but there were many logistical problems, because each one has to consider the territory, and it's not easy. So I thought about a meeting, and at the end, I came up with this invitation. It will be an encounter to pray, not for the purposes of mediation. We will pray with the two presidents; prayer is important, it helps. Afterwards, each person will return home. There would be a rabbi, a Muslim, and myself.

Abuse of minors

At the moment there are three bishops under investigations: one has already been found guilty and we are now considering the penalty to be imposed. There are no privileges. … A priest who does this betrays the Body of the Lord, because this priest must lead this child, this boy, this girl, to sanctity, and this boy or girl trusts in him; and instead of leading them to sanctity he abuses them. This is very serious. It is like, by way of comparison, holding a black Mass. You are supposed to lead them to sanctity and instead you lead them to a problem that will last their entire lives. In a few days' time there will be a Mass at the Domus Sanctae Marthae with some survivors of abuse, and then a meeting with them. … But we must move forward on this issue, with zero tolerance!

Contradiction between the poor and austere Church and the financial scandals within

The Gospel tells us that Lord Jesus once said to His disciples that it is inevitable that there will be scandals, because we are human and we are sinners. And there will be scandals. The key is trying to avoid that there are more of them! Economic administration calls for honesty and transparency. The two Commissions, the one which has studied the IOR and the Commission that has studied the Vatican as whole, have reached their conclusions, and now the ministry, the Secretariat for the economy directed by Cardinal Pell, will carry out the reforms that the two Commissions have advised. … For instance, in the IOR I think that around 1,600 accounts have been closed, belonging to people who were not entitled to hold an account at the IOR. The IOR exists to help the Church, and accounts can be held by bishops, Vatican employees, and their widows or widowers, to draw their pensions. … But other private individuals are not entitled to accounts. It is not open to all.

European elections

There is a key word: unemployment. This is a serious matter. It is serious because I look at it this way, simplifying somewhat. We are in a global economic system which places money at its centre, not the human person. A true economic system should revolve around men and women, the human person. This economic system we have today places money at the centre and to maintain its equilibrium, it has to carry out various “waste” measures. Children are discarded, as the low birth rates in Europe show, and the elderly are abandoned.

Stable and lasting peace in Jerusalem

The Catholic Church has established its position from a religious point of view: it will be the city of peace for the three religions. The concrete measures for peace must come from negotiations. I agree that from the negotiations perhaps it will emerge that it will be the capital of one State or another, it would be madness on my part. But these are hypotheses, and I do not consider myself competent to say that we should do one thing or another. I believe that it is necessary to negotiate with honesty, fraternity and great trust in the path of negotiation. It takes courage to do this, and I pray that these two leaders, these two governments will have the courage to take this path. It is the only route to peace.

Priestly celibacy

The Catholic Church has married priests – Greek Catholics, Coptic Catholics, those of oriental rites. Celibacy is not a question of dogma, but rather a rule of life that I greatly appreciate, as I believe it is a gift for the Church. But, since it is not a dogma of faith, the door is always open.

Relations with the Orthodox Churches

Patriarch Bartholomew and I spoke about the unity we create as we walk together. Unity cannot be created in a congress on theology. He confirmed that Athenagoras said to Paul VI: “We go ahead together, calmly, and put all the theologians together on an island where they can discuss among themselves, and we walk ahead in life!”. There are many things we can do to help each other. For instance, with the Churches. In Rome, as in many cities, many Orthodox go to Catholic churches. Another thing we mentioned, that may be considered in the pan-orthodox Council, is the date of Easter, because it is somewhat ridiculous to say, “When is your Christ resurrected? Mine was resurrected last week”. Yes, the date of Easter is a sign of unity. … We also spoke a lot on the problems of ecology, and the need to work together on this issue.

Forthcoming trips and the problems faced by Christians in Asia

With regard to Asia, two trips are planned: the one to South Korea, for the meeting of young Asians, and then, next January, a two-day trip to Sri Lanka and then on to the Philippines, to the area affected by the typhoon. The problem of the lack of freedom of worship affects not only certain Asian countries, but also other countries in the world. Religious freedom is something that not all countries have. Some have a certain level of control … others adopt measures that lead to a real persecution of believers. There are martyrs! There are martyrs in our times, Christian martyrs, both Catholic and non-Catholic. There are places where it is forbidden to wear a crucifix or to possess a Bible; where it is forbidden to teach the catechism to children.

Abdication from the pontificate in the case of failing strength and the issue of Popes emeritus

I will do what the Lord tells me to do: pray, and seek God's will. But I think that Benedict XVI is not a unique case. It happened because he no longer had the strength and in an honest way – he is a man of faith, and humble – he took this decision. Seventy years ago bishops emeritus barely existed, whereas now there are many. What will happen to Popes emeritus? I think that we must look to him as an institution. He has opened a door, the door of Popes emeritus. Will there be others? Only God knows. But this door is open, and I think that a bishop of Rome, a Pope who feels that his strength is declining – because we live much longer now – must ask himself the same questions that Pope Benedict faced.

Beatification of Pius XII

The cause for Pius XII is open. However, there has been no miracle, and if there are no miracles it is not yet possible to go ahead.

Synod on the family and remarried divorcees

The Synod in October will be on the family and the problems it faces; its riches and its current situation. I do not like the fact that many people, even within the Church, have said that it will be the Synod about remarried divorcees, as if it could simply be reduced to a case study: can they receive communion or not? The issue is much broader. Today, as we all know, the family is in crisis, and it is a global crisis. Young people no longer want to get married, or prefer simply to live together; marriage is in crisis, and therefore the family is too. The problem of family pastoral care is very broad. Pope Benedict said something about the family three times: it is necessary to study the faith with which a person approaches marriage and clarify that divorcees are not excommunicated, and very often they are treated as if they are.

Reform of the Roman Curia

The council of eight cardinals is studying the constitution “Pastor bonus” and the Roman Curia. It has consulted many people and with the Curia and is still studying certain issues, such as bringing together various dicasteries to streamline organisation. One of the key points is the economy, and it is therefore necessary to work in collaboration with the secretary of State. … The obstacles are those one encounters in any process of this type. Planning the approach, the work of persuasion is very important. There are some people who do not see this clearly, but any reform involves these things. But I am content, in truth.

If you read Paul carefully in all of these passages, yes you hear him saying he has chosen to remain chaste for the remainder of his life.

I read it carefully (as I did before), and I don't see the word "remainder" anywhere... nor did I see anything which implies it. Nothing in the passage indicates any previous marriage, whatsoever; theologians who speculate in that direction are pulling that idea out of thin air.

He says this is best for him at this stage in his life.

Again: I see no reference to "this stage of his life". In fact, he specifically directs his instruction (which is an exhortation, not a command) at ALL AGES (young men and women, as well as old--see 1 Cor 7:28 and 7:34, etc.). To cap it all off, St. Paul writes:

"So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better."

You seem to be going through very many mental gymnastics in order to avoid the plain sense of what St. Paul actually said (quite clearly); he made no qualifier for age, here or anywhere in the text.

He is in his sixties when he wrote most of his letters which was quite old for that time in history-—considering life expectancy at that time was about 40.

First: St. Paul was roughly 52 when he wrote 1 Corinthians (hardly a dotard in the grave). Secondly, re: life expectancy: that's simply not true... and it's a fallacy of equating the average (.e. the mean) with the norm. The *mean* (i.e. average) life expectancy might have been in the 40's... but that was not due to everyone turning gray, wrinkly, arthritic and senile at age 39, and dropping dead at age 40! Infant mortality was much higher, for example... which does quite a number (pun not quite intended) on an arithmetic mean of the ages:

Example:
5 people of ages 60,60,60,60,60; mean = 300/5 = 60.
5 people of ages 60,60,60,0,0 (2 infant deaths); mean = 180/5 = 36.

No one in their right mind would insist a young 20 or 30 year old would refrain from marriage in order to the join the priesthood.

Are you Catholic? Because you're saying (here) that no one in the Catholic Church has been in his or her right mind for nigh until 1000 years! I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but that sounds rather arrogant, frankly...

It also smacks of the spirit of the age, rather than the Spirit of the Gospel; "it's so hard to be celibate, so we should stop!" Is that what Jesus came to preach? Is this what the Holy Spirit empowers us to do? Cave in to the inflamed passions of the secular society? The idea that young men are "dogs in heat" who cannot possibly do without sex is not only wrong, but it's insulting.

Paul is simply saying that is saying that he is very old and being single is best for him at this point in his life.

FRiend, I don't see how you could be reading the same chapter that I read, and still say that! What part of "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" suggests that St. Paul was "musing exclusively about himself"? The chapter is *replete* with references to this being St. Paul's strong advice to ANYONE and EVERYONE who can bear it, and who has the grace for it. Not all are called to it; true. But it'd be a sad mistake to assume that NO ONE is called to it, or that the priests of Christ's Church are not called to it (in the Latin rites, anyway).

He has no issues with the married state. You are reading into the Bible rather than reading it the way it is written.

I'm afraid YOU are reading into what *I* said! Nowhere did I say that St. Paul had any "issues" with the married state. It's not a "zero-sum" game, where "celibacy" wins and marriage "loses"! One might as well suggest that nuns can only exist so long as every last woman enters a convent!

Paul never insists that anyone adopt celibacy unless they choose to.

St. Paul plainly says that he who is *weak*, and who is not "firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control" should marry, rather than burn in lust and sin... but he says quite plainly that those who DO have their desire under control will do better not to marry.

Because of his advanced age, it is no surprise that he prefers that for himself.

:) Um... you just suggested that *I* was "reading into the Scripture" what I wanted to see; but I see nothing at all of this (that you just wrote) in the text, AT ALL. It's speculation on your part (and on the part of the modernist theologians who inspired the idea), without any clear data. Nowhere does St. Paul say, "I say this because I am old and tired of intercourse with women", or any other such thing; it's pure invention, and it flies in the face of virtually everything St. Paul (and the entire NT) teaches about self-control, living in the One Who "empowers me to do all things, through Him Who strengthens me", and such.

The policy was instituted in after the Middle Ages largely as a response to rampant corruption in the Church, primarily nepotism and simony.

Source?

Many Catholic priests are already married. And they do just fine.

Again, source? reference?

Mandatory celibacy should not be a requirement for service in the priesthood. They should be free to marry if they want.

Let's clarify any possible misunderstandings. There are 22 churches that make up the Catholic Church; 21 are Eastern, 1 is Western. Only the Latin (Western) Church mandates priestly celibacy. The exception arises from married protestant ministers who convert. The understanding, however, is that they may not remarry should their wife predecease them.

The Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests. Since marriage and ordination are sacraments that entail vows, the order determines the relevance. Hence, in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, marriage precedes ordination. As such, the marriage vow takes precedence over that of the priest.

In 2005, the Vatican convened a Synod that addressed the topic of married priests. At that meeting, it was the Patriarch of the Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church, who addressed the topic as follows.

Vatican City, Oct 7, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Speaking to the 11th General Synod Fathers, gathered for their eighth meeting this morning at the Vatican, Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, who is Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites in Lebanon--a Catholic rite which allows for married priests--addressed the issue, which has been brought up by many, particularly in light of the U.S. sex abuse scandal, of commonly permitting married priests in the Roman rite. The Cardinal defended the practice of the celibate priesthood and discussed the beauty of the tradition, calling it the "most precious jewel in the treasury of the Catholic Church."
While pointing out that "the Maronite Church admits married priests" and that "half of our diocesan priests are married", the Cardinal Patriarch said that "it must be recognized that if admitting married men resolves one problem, it creates others just as serious."
"A married priest", he said, "has the duty to look after his wife and family, ensuring his children receive a good education and overseeing their entry into society. ... Another difficulty facing a married priest arises if he does not enjoy a good relationship with his parishioners; his bishop cannot transfer him because of the difficulty of transferring his whole family.
He noted that "married priests have perpetuated the faith among people whose difficult lives they shared, and without them this faith would no longer exist."
"On the other hand," he said, "celibacy is the most precious jewel in the treasury of the Catholic Church,"
Lamenting a culture which is all but outright opposed to purity, the Cardinal asked: "How can [celibacy] be conserved in an atmosphere laden with eroticism? Newspapers, Internet, billboards, shows, everything appears shameless and constantly offends the virtue of chastity."
Suggesting that their are no easy solutions to the problem of priest shortages in the Church--an oft brought up point during the Synod--he noted that, "Of course a priest, once ordained, can no longer get married. Sending priests to countries where they are lacking, taking them from a country that has many, is not the ideal solution if one bears in mind the question of tradition, customs and mentality. The problem remains."

I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith in a Maronite Catholic Church. Our pastor is a Lebanese missionary who is monastic and a priest. He has chosen priestly celibacy but supports a married priesthood. Due to a family emergency, he is currently in Lebanon. In his absence, we have been served by celibate priests and one who is married. All delivered excellent homilies but only the celibate priests proffered extended outreach to our parish because they can adjust their schedule whereas the married priest cannot.

FRiend... after reading your latest post, I'm thinking that either you didn't read my previous posts at all! To sum up:

1) In NONE of these passages to do you ever see Paul say that in order to serve as a priest you must be single and celibate. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you on this point? (cf. "As to your point:)

2) To the contrary priests in the Bible were married men with wives and children. Did you also miss the part where I agreed with that (and strengthened it, including bishops), as well? (cf. the exact same paragraph; see above link)

3) "Yes Paul was in his 50s and 60s when he wrote most of his letters-—the equivalent being in your 80s and 90s in today’s world considering that average life expectancy in that time was about 40. Now, I can only believe that you either missed or ignored my math-related post on this point, completely. See here, re: average age not equaling typical age. Your assumption about St. Paul's age is--forgive me--just silly... and it had nothing to do with the point, anyway (unless you're suggesting that all 50-year-old men lose all interest in sex--and you're also suggesting that St. Paul was (even if we grant your false premise, for the sake of argument) so shallow as to mistake a "personal low libido" for "reason to recommend that no one else marry". Honestly: if St. Paul had (hypothetically) lost his taste for salted fish, do you think he would then have exhorted his followers to give up fish altogether, in general? That makes no sense at all.

4) The pastor at our church recently said the average of a person entering into the seminary today is 35. And that average continues to increase with each passing year.

Let's assume that this is true, for a moment (and it's not at all true for the seminaries which are actually orthodox, as opposed to 1960's-hippie-professor-taught seminaries; Mt. St. Mary's Seminary in Maryland, for example, has a waiting list of young (below age 25) men waiting to enter). Your conclusion of, "Oh, it must be because people can't bear to be without sex!" would only affect young men who've completely lost sight of what it means to be a Latin Rite priest in the first place. If these men were married, and their wives then suffered some sort of disorder which rendered it impossible to have sex, would you then advocate polygamy for these "poor, deprived men"? Would you advocate "easy annulments" on the basis of sex deprivation? Would you advocate a loosening of the Church's "policy" on extramarital sex and/or masturbation and/or pornography, in an effort to give such men an outlet?

On that point: are you against the celibacy requirement for religious sisters and brothers, as well? Why keep them "in sexual chains", while releasing priests to marry? With all due respect, I don't think you (or your pastor) have thought this through; the celibacy requirement didn't come out of thin air... and you have no sane basis for saying that it was instituted foolishly, thoughtlessly, capriciously, or the like.

You may not intend it, FRiend, but your view of manhood (and womanhood, for that matter) is so low that it makes me shudder. Caving in on a Scripture-urged discipline, simply in the name of secular "expediency" (and an indulgence of an animal passion, at that), is not the way to go, to put it lightly.

I guess we’re talking over each other but you don’t seem to be addressing ANY of MY points as well:

1) The Bible does NOT require a policy of celibacy for service in the priesthood.

2) Priests in the Bible were in fact married men with families.

3) Mandatory clerical celibacy was not instituted in the Church until after the Middle Ages and for reasons that had nothing to do with either the Old Testament or the Gospels.

4) St. Paul chose to remain abstinent in his final years, says it is a gift, but also has high praise for Holy Matrimony, and does not say that married people cannot be priests.

5) The current Pope says the policy is subject to change which is in fact mentioned in the article above.

6) Catholic priests in the Eastern Europe and the Middle East are permitted to remain married. Same with Orthodox priests.

Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As the Pope said the policy is subject to change. I agree.

I guess we’re talking over each other but you don’t seem to be addressing ANY of MY points as well:

I don't agree... but let's try again:

1) The Bible does NOT require a policy of celibacy for service in the priesthood.

I agree... and I've said so explicitly, at least three times, now! I (and at least one other person) also said that this is largely irrelevant, since Catholics do not hold to the false notion of "sola Scriptura" (i.e. if it isn't in the Bible, don't trust or use it in matters pertaining to faith/salvation). Confessionals aren't in the Bible, either, but their purpose (which is to supply privacy and anonymity for the penitent) is a good one, for example. Finally, I also said that the Bible (i.e. Jesus Himself, and St. Paul) *strongly endorse* the idea of celibacy for those who minister to others. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of, "If the Bible doesn't say it, then the Church has no business mandating it!" That's simply not true at all.

2) Priests in the Bible were in fact married men with families.

And for at least the fourth time: I AGREE. I said so, myself (do a text search for "St. Peter" and "bishop" in my comments above, for just one example). How can you have read my comments, and not know that?

3) Mandatory clerical celibacy was not instituted in the Church until after the Middle Ages and for reasons that had nothing to do with either the Old Testament or the Gospels.

Okay, I'll bite: what do YOU think are these "non-OT, non-Gospel" reasons why the Church instituted the practice? (And did you leave out the letters of St. Paul, and the other non-Gospel NT books, in your example for a reason?)

4) St. Paul chose to remain abstinent in his final years, says it is a gift, but also has high praise for Holy Matrimony, and does not say that married people cannot be priests.

You have no evidence, WHATSOEVER, that St. Paul was ever married, romantically involved, etc. NONE. No such evidence exists in Scripture... or in any other reputable extra-Biblical source. As such, your insistence on pointing to St. Paul's "final years" (as if 50-year-old men somehow lose interest in sex and are not prone to sexual temptation--an idea which is laughable and provably false) is a pure red herring.

You also keep mentioning the idea that St. Paul praises Holy Matrimony (I have the sneaking suspicion that I said the same thing... yes? See above for multiple references...). *I KNOW.* Of COURSE he does! He praises it because it's praiseworthy! He simply praises celibacy MORE. ("So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better." -1 Corinthians 7:38) I've posted that THREE TIMES, now. If you don't get this after the third repetition, then I'll be forced to conclude that you're either not capable of comprehending what I've written, or you're deliberately ignoring it. Come off it, man!

5) The current Pope says the policy is subject to change which is in fact mentioned in the article above.

FRiend, either you have a reading problem, or you're skimming, or you're being dishonest, here. Go back and read virtually every comment I've written to you, and you'll find that I GRANTED this point of yours from the very outset! Celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma; disciplines can be changed when the need arises, whereas dogma is irreformable (i.e. it cannot ever change). Why are you under the impression that I haven't addressed these points of yours? I've addressed them all, REPEATEDLY, so far!

6) Catholic priests in the Eastern Europe and the Middle East are permitted to remain married. Same with Orthodox priests.

Yes (which I also granted, from the very beginning). Wht relevance does this have? The Eastern Church does [x], so the Latin Church is forbidden to do otherwise? Should the Latin Church be forced to adopt Greek as its official language, too? Should the Latin Church be forced to give Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation all in one shot to infants, as the Eastern Churches do? Why?

Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As the Pope said the policy is subject to change. I agree.

Are you arguing with some imaginary "paladinan" who's disagreeing with that, and who hasn't agreed with that REPEATEDLY? If so, I'd like to talk to him!

Well, it now looks like we agree on most of the points I was raising.

Well... okay. But I'm still not sure why you thought I hadn't said all of that from the very beginning; I didn't change my position in mid-stream... honest!

Hopefully I won’t be excommunicated, burned at the stake, or deemed a heretic.

I would hardly think so; and there's no honor lost in discussing them, in any case. But I'd gently suggest that there are lots of ill-advised things which are not quite heresy, grounds for excommunication, or worthy of the death penalty!

We seem to have some disagreements on what St. Paul is trying to convey here. I do not know if St. Paul was ever married or not. His marital status is never discussed in the Bible.

Right. My only reason for pressing that point was as a response to a suggestion that you'd made--i.e. that St. Paul's recommendation was due to the fact that he was old and disinterested in sex/marriage. I was pointing out (as gently as I could) that such a hypothesis is baseless, with no evidencde to support it (a bit like hypothesizing that there's an invisible teapot in orbit, directly above us).

Paul does in fact praise abstinence. He also praises Holy Matrimony. He does say abstinence is a gift and in his opinion is the best way to live. No where does he say it is a requirement for service in the priesthood.

All true. St. Paul, however, spent a good deal of time (and zeal) promoting the idea, though... and it's of a piece with his plentiful teachings elsewhere (especially Ephesians 5).

There are MANY Catholics who question the policy.

I only wish I could be impressed by that! I don't mean to disparage them... but popularity is a rather wretched standard by which to judge anything. Many Catholics question the Church's teaching on contraception, for example (some estimates say that over 90% of Catholic couples use artificial contraception, and don't think it's wrong). Over 50% of Catholics question the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist! No... merely counting noses and viewing opinion polls tells us nothing useful. I wish it did... because that would indicate a Catholic population which was well-catechized and well-formed!

We are not all liberals.

"Liberal" is a political term which doesn't have much use, here. (Granted: liberals are far more prone to reject Church teaching on sexual morality and life issues than are conservatives; but that's neither here nor there.) The question of celibacy for the Catholic clergy is not a political issue, so you'd never catch me (God willing!) calling a celibacy opponent a "liberal". I may well call him mistaken or misguided... but not "liberal".

I know many fellow Knights who question the policy as well

Ditto, my comment above: I wish I could be impressed by that! But after the Knights refused to institute a policy of removal for pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage members (cf. this link), and after a local KoC member was one of the deciding votes in allowing "Rainbow Boys" (an aggressively pro-gay book written for jr. high and high school children) into the school library at taxpayer expense, I don't allow myself to use the KoC's as a litmus test for anything, anymore.

as theologians who teach at Catholic universities.

Ugh! Triple the ditto, above! "Catholic" universities, such as Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, etc., are hotbeds of dissent... and they have been for decades. You can't swing a dead squirrel without hitting a dissident theologian at virtually any Catholic college in the USA (with a few blessed exceptions)!

Even the Pope has said the policy is subject to change.

He's saying nothing new (though I seriously question his wisdom in saying so to an audience of secularists who are itching to do away with celibacy, and any other restriction on sex). That statement can apply to hundreds of things... such as the practice of allowing children to receive Holy Communion at age 7 (or the age of reason)--when it used to be age 13 or more; the practice of allowing the general public to receive Holy Communion every day, or even twice per day (the Church has the freedom to restrict Holy Communion reception to once per year, if it chose); or even the practice of private Confession (it used to be public, in view of the entire congregation, and penances consisted of years of brutal mortifications... not just the "3 Our Fathers" version we have today! Be very careful how freely you embrace the idea of "it can be changed, so it should be changed"!

It sounds as if you’re resurrecting the argument you’d used earlier: “in the interests of expediency, we should dismantle the celibacy requirement for priests! After all, look at the dwindling numbers!”

FRiend, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, here. First of all, I think you’re invalidly assigning the blame for the general USA priest shortage to celibacy; decades of secularism, the sexual revolution and its disastrous aftermath, a devastated reputation in the wake of the homosexual priest abuse scandals, a watering down (and even complete omission) of the Faith to at least three generations (to the point where almost no man even knows what the sacramental, ministerial priesthood IS, anymore... much less wants to surrender his life to say “yes” to it)... these are all more than adequate to explain the priest shortage in the west.

You might want to consider the fact that priestly vocations are BOOMING in Africa and Asia (and, as I mentioned, in the orthodox dioceses and seminaries and religious orders in the USA—where the seminaries [and monstaries and convents] are full to bursting!) and the celibacy requirement is very much in place, and the new priests (as a general rule) have no interest in ignoring or repealing the requirement. In fact, such a repeal would “gut” the priesthood of most of its sacrificial allure! If “giving up your life to be a priest” means no more than “picking another career with wife and kids”, who would anyone choose it, as opposed to being a deacon, counselor, teacher, therapist, etc.?

I confess to being reticent about committing any general enthusiasm to the supposed “good news” about deacons and their increase; to me, it depends entirely on the type of deacon being “produced”. If they are humble and orthodox men who want to serve, and who are not simply “priest-wannabe’s” or simply “social justice activists” (who bellow loudly about the poor, capital punishment, global warming, and any other DNC talking points, but not a peep about the evils of abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexual “marriage”, IVF, pornography, masturbation, or anything else enshrined as sacred by the DNC), then that’s wonderful! (We have one of those in our parish—God bless and prosper him!) But even with that: no deacon can absolve sins. No deacon can confect the Eucharist. No deacon can anoint the sick. No deacon can bestow the Sacrament of Confirmation. And so on. Deacons are all well and good—AS DEACONS. They don’t replace priests, and they never have, and they never can.

One last time: when you look at trends (such as dwindling numbers of priests in some quarters of the USA, for example), you can’t be content to nod and say, “Ah! If only priests were allowed to marry, this wouldn’t be a problem!” Tell that to the Lutherans, Methodists, Anglican, and other non-Evangelical Protestants whose houses of worship and seminaries are emptying. (N.B. The reason why Evangelicals have such a strong showing is directly related to the fact that they are, in general, NOT watering down the Gospel into some thin soup which is as insipid as it is powerless. Too many priests in the age-range of 40-80 [who were ordained and formed in the 1960’s-1980’s, when catechesis and Catholic formation were at their worst] have done the latter... and the results are predictable.) All of them allow their religious leaders to marry; they also allow women into their ranks (another cause celebre which uses the same points that you use against the requirement for priestly celibacy: “If only women were allowed to be priests, then the priest shortage would be fixed!” Poppycock!)... but none of those were the panacea for which you seem to hope.

No... it’s not a watering-down of the Gospel and its contents (and its demands and precepts) which will save anything; it’s precisely the opposite that we need!

BTW-—I did not say deacons could replace priests. They are, however, playing a bigger role in the Church as their numbers are increasing and the number of priests continue to decline.

As a result of the pedophile/homosexual priest scandal, the Church has dramatically (thankfully to avoid repeating the same mistake) raised the bar for entrance into the seminary. Potential candidates are now extensively screened complete with thorough background checks, physical examinations, plus a whole battery of psychological examinations. According to our pastor, only one in ten candidates who apply for the seminary actually get admitted.

I do not argue that the Church’s policy of mandatory clerical celibacy causes homosexuality or pedophilia. I do argue that the policy certainly helped create an atmosphere attractive to such individuals.

I certainly do not favor watering down the Gospels. But there is nothing in the Gospels which mandates celibacy as a requirement for service in the priesthood.

...and you know that I've agreed with you on that point at least 5 times now... right? I'm arguing that it's good, necessary, prudent, and not to be jettisoned simply as a concession to some secular idea of "expediency". I hope that's clear, at least.

The celibacy requirement was not institutionalized in the Church until about 1500 years after the founding of the Church.

Oh, come, now! Either this is a typo, or this is just silly! Just from a quick internet search, you can find the following:

1) As early as the end of the 4th century, the Pope (Siricius) issued an edict forbidding clerics (priests and deacons) from having conjugal intercourse with their wives. This isn't new.

2) Pope Gregory VII (11th century) placed clerics who insisted on marrying under interdict.

3) Virtually all scholars, no matter how modernist, agree that the Latin Church adopted universal celibacy for its clerics by the end of the 11th century... and that's beging generous to the skeptics! Even Pope St. Leo the Great (5th century) indicated that he found celibacy to be the norm for clerics in the west.

Priests in the Bible were married men as were priests, bishops, and popes for many centuries after the founding of the Church.

We've gone over this, again and again; do we really need to repeat the past 10 posts, or so? See above.

The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply.

If you can point out any comment of mine which indicates that marriage is somehow evil, or that marriage should be forbidden, then I'll happily conclude that this Scripture refutes my [allegedly Manichaean] position completely. Come on, now!

He created Eve because He did not want Adam to be alone.

Right.

That is God’s plan.

Hang on; that's so wildly vague, broad-brush and open-ended that it's utterly misleading. It is certainly God's plan for many people, and even for humanity in general; but it is NOT His *specific* plan for EVERYONE... unless you want to charge St. Paul, and all celibates who came after him (and even the Lord Jesus!) with "going against God's plan"! Careless turns of phrase can be dangerous, in weightly topics like this.

Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders do not have to be mutually exclusive.

For the 6th time (and counting): I know.

Is it wrong for priests in the Orthodox Church to be married?

No.

Is it wrong for priests in Eastern European and Middle Eastern Catholic Churches to be married?

No.

But it IS wrong to suggest that the last existing group of dedicated celibate clergy should throw away a discipline which has served so many so well, which has served as a much-needed example for humans who are all too prone to fixate on this earth alone (instead of Heaven, where marriage and sexual intercourse will no longer exist), and which follows the exhortation of the Lord Jesus and St. Paul (I wonder why you're so eager to throw away what they endorse! Is their word worth so little to you?) and free themselves of a divided life and heart... especially in the name of some secular, frumpery-laden cave-in to the insane idea that "men can't do without sex".

As G.K. Chesterton once wisely said: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried." It is not the Christian way to capitulate to human weakness... and those of us who try to do so should fear Our Lord's rebuke to St. Peter: "Get thee behind me, Satan! thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." (Matthew 16:23)

“The tenth century is claimed to be the high point of clerical marriage in the Latin communion (Catholic Church). Most rural priests were married and many urban clergy and bishops had wives and children.”

“The Council of Trent (1545-1563) considered the matter and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage AFTER (emphasis added) ordination was invalid.”

Source: Wikipedia.com Subject: clerical celibacy.

While St. Paul has high praise for both abstinence and Holy Matrimony, he never says abstinence is a requirement for service in the priesthood. Fact is no one in the Bible does.

So...I guess it is acceptable for a Catholic priest in Eastern Europe to be married, but not acceptable for a Catholic priest in Western Europe to be married. Apparently the rules of the Church are not universally applied.

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.