Replies

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!