Replies

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?

The church is troubled right now; hatred and bitterness will only make things worse.

For my part, I admit to neither. I highly enjoy these exchanges and I harbor neither hatred or bitterness. I think it apparent I love to argue and I do not take these discussions, arguements, fights, exchanges, dialogues, critcisms etc personally. I always assume, probably too innocently, that others don't also. My intent isn't to hurt another's feelings but to enjoy the competition for truth.

My skin is thicker than Algore's head (and my head is thicker than my skin)