[Catholicguy]

The ad hominem attack is unwarranted. And unChristian.

The facts remain. What the priest asserted is not only documentable but it has been documented. There is nothing "fishy" about what the priest stated. It wasn't "UnChristian." It was funny As I understand it, you can call what a priest says "fishy" (even though it has been documented) but I can't joke about your screenname?

Explain to me how you calling documented ecclessastical history "fishy" is charity while my rhyming your screename to highlight your ahistorical error is a violation of charity

[a history buff]

You know this is the sort of thing where we can look it up, and reach conclusions. So we may as well. What's happened is that the two sides keep different histories, and each says that theirs is authorative. In Europe the general concensus is that mandatory celibacy is a relatively novel general rule. This priest says otherwise. Facts are facts, and we can compare histories. I suspect there's some truth to both sides.

I personally think that celibacy, when lived, can allow those who understand it and truly live it, to be better priests than married ones ever will be. The downside is that when it's not understood, or not lived, the costs can be staggering. I truly lament the fact that the old traditions have been abandonded, but doubt that we can swim in the same river twice. (Ecclesia) fluctuat nec mergitur.

Let me go get some detailed histories, and I'm sure we can discuss this charitably. My other duties mean that this will take some time, but we can and should do it.

By the way, have you read the comments of the early fathers of the church about sexuality?