Catholic mag: Let’s discuss married priests

1. It is about time.
2. their first thought is letting priests marry? How about giving more responsibility to women? The church will recover only when it begins to include both sexes in all aspects of its endeavors.

The logic of this article is so obvious that one has trouble gleaning the difficulties that prevent the adoption of its ideas. Tradition? Perhaps. There is no real underlying theological mandate against married priests. Or is there something else that underlies the tradition? The Church's primary concern usually seems to be control of its power and authority. Is there a connection?

Discussion of ideas is always a good thing! Open, honest discussion of the marriage of priests would be welcome by many of the Catholic faithful. If we as Catholics wish for continued priestly ministry in our churches, then we need to be open to new ideas and discussion. We need to accept the fact that there is a severe shortage of priests and we need to look for solutions. I agree with the author that the Holy Spirit can guide us in this discussion as we take "baby steps" to solve our problem of the shortage of priests. We truly need to open our minds and hearts to "what would Jesus do?"

Priests historically had been married. Because of primorgenial, whereby land and other property transferred to the eldest son and not the Church, the Pope decreed priests not marry. It is 2009, times have changed. Why not create two paths for the priesthood? One, the priest tends to his "flock" or parishioners, and the other he is more contemplative and is on the "Pope track"? If you are married, then you cannot be Pope. It's a kind of "reward" for those who choose to devote their entire lives to the Church. Just a thought.

Of course it should be discussed. I'm Eastern Orthodox Christian (not Eastern Catholic) and I've had married priests for my entire religous life. In our church the vow to the priesthood is the last vow the priest can take, so vows for marriage taken prior to becoming a priest are vaild.

The priest's wife is an honord and essential part of the church community and their children give vitality to the congregation. I married a Catholic and in order to get our marriage approved as a sacriment in the Catholic Church we had to do a pre cana through their church as well. It certainly made more sense getting marriage advice from someone who was married themselves, than an unmarried priest.

If the guidelines and disciplines are the same as the Eastern Catholic Churches & Orthodox Church, then great. However, parishes will have to be willing to step up to financially support married priests and their families. In many ways celibate clergy subsidized their parishes

In my opinion the Catholic Church will never allow married priest. They would have to increase their pay and extra benefits to support a family. After all, its all about money!!

Absolutely. My husband WAS an Augustinian seminarian and that was the Church's loss. Women should be ordained as well.

If the Catholic Church is to survive over the next 50 years, then this reform, along with many others, will be absolutely necessary. We have seen all too well how deprivation of adult human sexuality can pervert the mind and lead to what appears to be an epidemic of child molestation amongst Catholic priests (especially if the rumored report coming out of the Archdiocese of Dublin is true).

Further, it seems absurd that one would consult their priest as 'Father' when he has no wife, no children, and thus no experience in the matters that are of most importance to many lay persons. There is a clear disconnect in the authority of the priest to sermonize on such matters, and Jesus may himself have labeled it 'hypocrisy'.

Along with allowing priests to marry, women too should be allowed to serve as preists with full ordination. Ignoring the neanderthal tradition that only men can serve as priests, expanding the recruiting base seems the only logical route left to try and boost the ranks of Catholic priests in America. The numbers are dwindling, as are the church patrons, as are the dollars to support the church - the time has come to change or die.

Theologically, it makes more sense to allow women priests than it does married priests. The vows of priesthood imply the kind of spiritual communion with God that ideally a couple has through marriage. Therefore, it makes sense to me that priests should remain "married" to God only.

But you cannot tell me any good reason why women cannot also take vows of the priesthood with God. The historical underpinnings of unequal sexes in the cultures that gave rise to the Church are being eroded toward equality of the sexes. If we are equal in the eyes of God, remind me then why women cannot be priests?

This is precisely the kind of thoughtful, imaginative, faithful, and thoroughly pastoral response to a crisis that could lead to an infusion of vocations the likes of which the Church has never seen. The effects of such an infusion (especially of intellectuals, who are particularly attracted by such responses on the part of faith communities) cannot be foretold, but will likely include nothing short of a pastoral as well as theological Renaissance for the Church.

Catholics — particularly those who have come to rely and take comfort from a certain clericalism and theological rigidity in the face of a crisis — should think long and hard before allowing this to happen.

Of course I agree as a practicing Catholic.
The Church is denying many good men who would love to serve, by its policy.
Also, the faithful are being woefully shortchanged by the dwindling number of priests.
Hopefully, the Jesuits can help move this proposal along, and not at the glacier like speed of the Vatican.
Please.

Celibacy is only half the problem with the Catholic church - women should be allowed to be priests also....

As usual, the Jesuits lead the way...

What about women?

'bout time. A discussion can only bring about two results: (1) that having married priests would be good, or (2) that having married priests would be bad. There's no need to stifle the discussion unless the decision-makers are afraid of the result. Talk about it, and let the Holy Spirit sort things out.

Perhaps while they are at it, they could also consider the other half of the human race?

Ah...where the people go, the "leaders" shall follow!

America has been ready for married priests for a long time; it's just that the Church hasn't been ready. The acceptance of married Anglican & Protestant clergy is the best thing that could have occurred to bring this issue to the forefront: how can we deny priesthood to men who are good Catholics, invested in their faith, and willing to give of themselves to others but who happen to be married, when we allow new Church members to be both priests AND married?

I agree. In a world of failing marriages, the Church should see married priests as an opportunity to "lead by example." It's unclear to me what celibacy brings in today's environment. If the Church believes itself to be a family and marriage as a central institution to the family, then it should practice what it preaches. Plus, they can always do what the Orthodox Church does, priests can be married but only higher orders require celibacy.

Amen.

Are Lebanese Maronite priests allowed to marry in Lebanon, but not in the US? Is change really change if the precedent already exists? Inconsistencies and contradictions like this often troubled me as a youth and eventually led me to grow detached from my Catholic faith.

I think the Church should be open to this. I consider myself an active and conservative Catholic, but this is an idea who's time has re-emerged. Priests could be married until around 1075 when Pope Gregory VII declared priests couldn't marry in an effort to reduce cross influence as priests were marrying for money and lands like local nobles. Also, many of Jesus' disciples were married and still preached and administered, so I find the arguments against in today's non-feudalistic world a little weak.

As a Roman Catholic this is biggest issue that I disagree with the Vatican on and I wholeheartedly feel the time has come to allow priests to marry and have families.

People should remember that until about the Middle Ages, priests were allowed to marry. However because at the time they mainly came from wealthy aristocratic families, the Vatican was concerned that when they died, money and property would go to the surviving spouse and/or descendants, not Rome.

So in essence, the fundamental reason why Roman Catholic priests are not allowed to marry is purely an economic one.

That is simply wrong and should be changed. Although I don't expect to see that happen with a Pope as conservative as Benedict.

Interesting this would come up only in relation to the priest shortage, and not part of a broader attempt to get fully mentally healthy and -- dare I say it -- normal people into the priesthood, people not fleeing from internal demons.

Catholics believe that Jesus himself was God made man. It's not fair for their clergy to even pretend to live the kind of life he did.

Spiritually it should not be an issue. Focus is the issue. Can we expect a married priest to be able to handle his family and his entire flock? I think that is a fair question. Also how do we pay them enough to support his family? (Finally the sex abuse crisis has nothing to do with priests being married or not. )

Oh, the irony. I know Darwinian selection may seem like anathema to most people reading this post, but that is exactly what is in play here. Organisms that can adapt to change, survive. Organisms that have survival traits (for example, fur in cold climates), survive.

Parents give their traits to their offspring. A celibate priest has no progeny, thus killing off that heritage. As the editorial says, silent prayer is not going to create a new priest class. (I will not dwell on celibacy being the cause for the sexual abuse in the Catholic church--just mention it for the sake of completeness).

Yes, openness to dialogue about married priests is a practical necessity, an important step to a more just understanding of priestly ministry, and would in itself be a witness to trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance. It should not, however, be used as a way to avoid dialogue about the more profound issue of need and justice in the church, the status of the ordination of women. A celibate priesthood might be defensible; the exclusion of women from priestly ministry, on the other hand, is a subversion of the Gospel made more shameful by its exclusion from theological discourse within the magisterium.

The Church of the West should definitely meet with the Clergy of the Eastern Orthodox church. As a member of the Greek Orthodox community, the idea of a Priest who couldn't marry was as foreign to me as a non-celibate priest must be to a Roman Catholic. Why are the adherents of Western Catholicism so ill versed in history? Do your leaders not recognize the fact that their priests once were allowed to marry as ours still are? Do Roman Catholics know that the so-called "celibacy requirement" was nothing more than a land grab by the Vatican? What better way to hold onto inherited property than to ban your employees from creating heirs? With all due humility and respect, the time has come for your
church to allow priests that draw from a more representative population. For those
who may consider this blasphemy, please study history and visit any Orthodox church. Our priests are always willing to talk.

While not proscribed by doctrine, a married Priest would in my opinion would not be needed if more men would step up. If the issue is the shortage of Priests, then take the steps in that are to increase the numbers by actively reaching out.

Women Priests? It will never happen, because it cannot happen.

And while we are "talking" how about considering giving women a place at the table as well? Jesus did. What makes the leaders of the Catholic Church think their leadership is better than Jesus'?

1st Timothy 4:1-3.....READ CAPITALIZED PORTION OF SCRIPTURE
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3FORBIDDING TO MARRY and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
EVEN THE BIBLE PROPHESIED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM, IF THEY LET THE PRIESTS MARRY, FRANKLY THERE WOULD NOT BE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH CHILD MOLESTATION IN THIS DENOMINATION.

Perhaps one day even married homosexual priests, we can only hope that one day Catholics and other homophobic religions will become truly accepting of all God's creations and truly love thy neighbor as thyselves and let them live their lives with equality.

when the doctrine requiring celebate priest was adopted the world was a much different place. It was always belie ved,(but never proven) that Jesus was celibate,and the idea of married priests,with the huge families that was the norm then,and the church having the responsibility of supporting them,was among the major factors in keeping priests celibate.Times and circumstances have changed,and the only way I can see that people are going to feel comfortable around priests is if they are more of the mainstream,in situations familiar with their congregations.

There is no logical reason in modern society to forbid priests from marrying or to forbid women from becoming priests. We shouldn't have to import priests from other states or countries to lead our parishes, that's been happening far too much lately in order to fill vacancies. Allowing priests to marry and women to become priests are the easiest ways to increase the number of priests here. I hope they seriously consider those changes.

While there is no biblical text forbidding married priests the Bible is clear that a good pastor be a man in a monogamous, traditional marriage. See 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5-16 fro information on the biblical qualifications for a pastor.

I have no objection to women serving the Church in the highest levels.
However, I don't see how we advance the concept of women priests, unless we can get the Vatican to seriously consider married priests first.

I am just basing this on what I have observed from watching the Vatican over the years.

Yes, I believe that priests should be allowed to marry. I am sure that some of the original apostles were married. Perhaps it is an economic reason that the Holy See disallows these marriages, but that can be remedied, because Catholics have responded in a charitable manner whenever funds were needed. I believe that there are many fine and holy men out there who would want to serve Christ and our Catholic faith, if given this opportunity.

I am Catholic and liberal and have long been a proponent of both priest marrying and women priests. This should have been allowed decades ago, but I guess sometimes it takes a crisis for people to suddenly become "open minded." Allow current priests to marry if they so desire and welcome both married and single men AND women into service. AMEN!

Hey, the Polish National Catholic Church has had married priests (legitimately acknowledged by the Roman Catholic Church, for what it is worth) since the early 20th Century. Bishops, priests, deacons, all married since they broke away from Rome in 1897. Food for thought...

While celibacy will continue to be a special charism given to the few, there is no inherent connection between a call to celibacy and a call to the priesthood. Nor can a charism be "mandated" as it is a gift from God.The priest shortage will be what finally prompts serious conversations about solutions that presently are not on the table, but the anomaly of making celibacy a requirement of ordination to the priesthood is the more profound and unresolved issue. The National Working Group for Priest Support of Voice of the Faithful (www.nwgps.org) has been advocating for such changes and invites your participation in our efforts.

Sign me Up!

Good article. The Jesuits are right. Women also need to have leadership roles on the church. It won't happen until the Vatican shows real leadership, which is unlikely under the current regime.

Priests should definitely be allowed to marry. Also, women should be able to be priests. While I guess I would say I am a Catholic (raised that way) these are two of the many reasons I feel disconnected with the church.

I don't think there is any harm in discussing the matter. Few people know that there are in fact married Catholic priests, by some estimates, several hundred. They are former Episcopalian priest who were allowed in due to various disagreements with their own church.

Always remember that the people who claim to speak for any group also claim that you can not disagree with them. If you are smart you disagree and work for positive change and that is what has been going on here. Change takes time and patience don't forget that.

Since we already have a small population of priests within our midst who are married without the church turning upside down, why wouldn't this idea be easily adopted? It does not surprise me that the dialogue for this idea has come from the Jesuits. As I have told many Jesuit Priests who I have come to know over the years, "Their example represents my Faith to the world in a way that makes me most proud."

As a non-Roman Catholic, this issue doesn't directly concern me; but I grew up in the Episcopal Church, and knew quite a few ministers who were married and who did their duty to us as their congregations and to their families as well. While my disagreements with Roman Catholic doctrine are neither trivial nor few, I care very much about the vitality of the RC church; and if allowing priests to marry would put more priests in more parishes, I hope that the RC church will see their way to permitting priests to marry.

Hopefully, they will also look at women Priests too.

Most Nuns I have known in my life are much more
connected with the people of the Church, far less arrogant,
and therefore much better positioned to provide the leadership
and spiritual guidance to the flock than most priests.

Time is running out. U.S. Catholic Bishops ... Wake up!!!!!

I've mentioned these historical items in this forum before:

1) the Rule of clerical celibacy has its very worldly origins as an attempt to do an end-run around the medieval Frankish legal doctrine of primogeniture whereby the eldest son inherited all of his father's property. If a priest's son didn't have The Call himself, the Church was out of a lot of wealth.

2) Observing the sorry state of the Renaissance clergy with its whore-monger monks and concubine nuns, no less staunch Catholics than Erasmus and More thought that Clerical celibacy was a miserable failure and had to go. Unfortunately for the Church Luther and the Protestant Reformation came along and derailed ultramontane (i.e. non-Italian) attempts at internal reformation.

When has the problem ever been vocation? The problem is love. How do I love Christ in my given situation. That is what people don't know how to do, and beg for. WE don't fix the priest shortage, Christ does. Hell, people do not stay married in the church anyway, we don't care about marriage either. Really what these guys want is to open up the priesthood to the laity, not more priests. First we need to understand celibacy, vocation, and love. Then we can have this dialogue.And just so we are all clear, I was raised in the Eastern church and we have a WORSE problem than the romans with vocations! The problem is love, and it does not go away when priests start marrying.

My grandfather was an Eastern Orthodox priest and in my opinion having a married priest with a family creates a greater community between the congregation and the priest. The priest is no longer an aloof higher presense but able to dispense wisdom from true experiences. I can't tell you the number of times my grandfather adapted stories of our teenage angst into his sermons.

I would welcome married priests and have felt that way for a very long time.
Have not been able to fathom why this has not happened sooner.
I was in Florida in February and the church was packed with adults over 65 -
very few young people. Most of our priests are also up there - we need to recruit the younger generation to keep the Catholic religion alive. The only way to encourage younger men is for them to be able to marry. Why not?

JB:

"Perhaps one day even married homosexual priests, we can only hope that one day Catholics and other homophobic religions will become truly accepting of all God's creations and truly love thy neighbor as thyselves and let them live their lives with equality."

Yes JB, right after Satan himself takes over the Church..

"While not proscribed by doctrine, a married Priest would in my opinion [not] be needed if more men would step up. If the issue is the shortage of Priests, then take the steps [to] increase the numbers by actively reaching out."

Normal people lead sexually fulfilling lives. Not sure any amount of "reaching out" is going to change that.

Over the course of 2000 years, the word "Eucharist" has lost its meaning through "translation". Originally, it stemmed from the Hebrew "BRKH", meaning "bless" and was used as the opening words of the sacred meal prayer over the "breaking of the bread". Since God needs nothing, to "bless" YHWH meant to proclaim God as the source of all blessings. We are thus called to "remember" God in this way. Earliest Christians began their "Lord's Supper Memorial" in the same manner, with these words spoken by the homeowner-table leader be they man or woman, married or celibate. Thank you Jesuits for reminding us of that earliest source.

There are 17 rites in the Catholic church, 16 Eastern rites (ex. Maronite, Coptic, Carpatho-Rusyn) and one Western rite (Roman or Latin). The priests of the eastern rite had their right to marry taken from them in the 1940's or early 50's. They were still able to become priests and marry, but had to take churches outside of North America. The reason I was always given was to avoid conflict with the celebate Roman priests. I can vividly remember our married priests and their families as a child. They were wonderful! I have one word to describe our parish priests that followed....unhappy.! Our married priests were a joy.

As I understand, there is a very active group of former Roman Catholic Priests,who are now married however their web site escapes me for the moment. As I have heard they are very devout, and would jump at the opportunity of resuming their ministry, and remain married. It would certainly solve the shortage of Priests situation
Finally, Kudos to the Jesuits.

All of Gods prophets were married (most plurally) and they constitute the best of humanity as they were afterall Gods chosen representatives. I understand Jesus did not marry but perhaps he may during his return. Shouldnt we all, including the clergy, emulate the prophets and messengers?

1 Corinthians 7:9 "However, if they cannot control themselves, they should get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Paul writes that if you cannot devote 100% of your life to the Lord then GET MARRIED. If you don't you may burn hell for the lust of the flesh.

Never in the bible does it state that you have to be celibate or unmarried. In fact in the book of Timothy it gives a run down on what is required of a church leader (Pastor, Priest, etc). Read 1 Timothy 3:1-13. In there it even touches on what type of wife a bishop or leader should have.

The Catholic Church insists on enforcing it's own doctrine that is not Biblically based. The requirement of celibacy is 100% wrong. Let these men and women enjoy the type of life GOD has ordained not the type of life that men falsely require.

Michael

Jesus is the model for the Church. For instance, we stick very strictly to what he said about divorce, making it hard for parishioners to be divorced and receive communion. Murder someone, go to confession, and you can receive communion. Yet, there is no forgiveness for divorce, except to dishonor your new marriage vows. On the other hand, we completely disregard the fact that some of Jesus' Apostles including Peter were married when we don't allow married priests who are said to be in a direct line from the Apostles. The Church doesn't want parishioners to be cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose among doctrines. Well the Church ought not to be a pick and choose Church with the doctrines that Jesus laid out by His words and by His actions.

1. Jesus was celibate (unmarried.) Surely such an important fact would have been mentioned if he were not.

2. Catholics, want more priests? Have more than our culture-of-death's 1.8 kids per family. When you have that few children, it is difficult to 'give one' to the Church.

3. Celibacy had nothing to do with the clergy sexual abuse crisis. It had to do with chastity (or rather the lack thereof), mandated on all single people.

4. Seems to be a fair amount of advice from our Orthodox friends. While obviously that Church is the closest to the Catholic, and we recognize all your sacraments, including Holy Orders (though your Church fails to return the courtesy), I can't remember the last time i presumed to offer any member of your Church advice on how to run itself.

5. Granted that the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, does not forbid the marriage of priests, how about 1Cor7:25-38, especially v. 38 "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better." RSV What's the matter with "better?"

Catechism of the Catholic Church "1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

I think the smart Jesuits should have spoken sooner on the need for "creative revisioning" of the priestly life. As an increasingly older group of priests, they know the depth of the shortage problem. An older practicing Catholic myself, I think Eucharist trumps celibacy. Check out the John Ryan comment ,www.nwgps.org.

Does it matter what the general Catholic community wants? In the end, the Pope is the rulemaker of the Catholic church and despite what a majority wishes, he will decide solely on his own and, according to church law, as a spokesperson for God.

It's not only the most rational idea to be raised in the Church in ages, it's a fait accompli if the Church (particularly in America) is to survive in any recognizable form. That said, women should be ordained first, as has been articulated very well in a few preceding comments.

HEY THE GREEK ORTHODOX PRIESTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO MARRY AND ITS DONE GOOD FOR THE COUNTY JAILS THEY ARE ABLE TO LEAD NORMAL LIVES YOU KNOW LIKE START A FAMILY HAVE THERE OWN CHILDREN HEY LETS HAVE A VOTE LIKE GAY MARRIAGES

Actually just watched a show on the history channel about the history of the Catholic church (I have not confirmed the information, even though I am going to reference it) and according the show at one time priests in the church were allowed to marry, the Catholic church then halted the marriages as at the time it was common practice to leave all of your worldly goods to your eldest son when you died. The church wanted the property (being the blood sucking leeches that they are) so they decided priests could not longer get married and bear children thus leaving them no one to leave their property to. I mean really think about it. Did Jesus say priests could not be married and had to be celibate? Nope some old man wearing a funny hat made that one up.

A young man (in his early forties) who is a deacon in my parish lost his wife to a terminal illness this past year. A requirement of becoming a permanent deacon is that one remain celibate for the rest of his life under such circumstances. This requirement, along with the requirement of celibacy as a condition of ordination to the priesthood in the Latin Rite, is one that is purely arbitrary and one that has no inherent connection with ordination to either the diaconate or the priesthood. It is well known, or it should be, that a good number of our current priests struggle mightily with this requirement, and that there are more breaches than we would like to believe. In the case of our good deacon, with three young children to boot, tell me how the church will be better served by requiring his lifelong fidelity to this requirement.

Pope Benedict XVI, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Sacramentum Caritatis," 2007

The Eucharist and priestly celibacy

24. The Synod Fathers wished to emphasize that the ministerial priesthood, through ordination, calls for complete configuration to Christ. While respecting the different practice and tradition of the Eastern Churches, there is a need to reaffirm the profound meaning of priestly celibacy, which is rightly considered a priceless treasure, and is also confirmed by the Eastern practice of choosing Bishops only from the ranks of the celibate. These Churches also greatly esteem the decision of many priests to embrace celibacy. This choice on the part of the priest expresses in a special way the dedication which conforms him to Christ and his exclusive offering of himself for the Kingdom of God. (75) The fact that Christ himself, the eternal priest, lived his mission even to the sacrifice of the Cross in the state of virginity constitutes the sure point of reference for understanding the meaning of the tradition of the Latin Church. It is not sufficient to understand priestly celibacy in purely functional terms. Celibacy is really a special way of conforming oneself to Christ's own way of life. This choice has first and foremost a nuptial meaning; it is a profound identification with the heart of Christ the Bridegroom who gives his life for his Bride. In continuity with the great ecclesial tradition, with the Second Vatican Council (76) and with my predecessors in the papacy, (77) I reaffirm the beauty and the importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God, and I therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition. Priestly celibacy lived with maturity, joy and dedication is an immense blessing for the Church and for society itself.

I think there is no harm in discussing the matter.

However, would somebody please remind me how things have gone for other Churches that have attempted it, for instance the Anglican Church, which has tried both married priests and female priests? I mean their seminaries must be just about to burst at the seams from this openness of every vocation to everyone....

In all seriousness, are Catholics ready to make the sacrifice that a married priest would entail. The salary increase it would necessitate. What about this scenario: your grandmother is dying in the hospital at 2am and she needs to be anointed, and Fr. Jack has a sick two year old at home, which is his first priority?

Lastly, to those who claim that married priesthood was the norm for much of the history of the Church, that’s factually untrue. The Council of Elvira in 314, stressed the importance of the celibate priesthood, and the tradition of celibate priests comes straight down from apostolic times. Yes, many of the apostles were married, but both Jesus and Paul state that a celibate single person is more available for doing the Lord’s work.

I find the occasional comments scattered through this thread about priests and child molestation to be intriguing. Posters seem to think that priests getting married would stop such incidents from occuring. However, do those same posters realise that the greatest incidences of child molestation come from inside a victims family? Do we also forget those perpetrators that are teachers, scout leaders, community leaders who are married and still commit such horrible acts against children. I am sick of ill-informed hatred against the Church.

While I don't have a problem with the discusssion of married priests in the church, this magazine article leaves out some important details. First, according to a study from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, there are 465 men preparing for ordination this year. This is a significant increase from 401 in 2008 and the first increase in many years. Also there were 480 ordinations in 2008 this is up from 454 in 2005 and 442 in 2000.

Also left out of the article was the difference between the traditional (orthodox) diocese and the more liberal diocese. Human Life International conducted a study of 15 unorthodox and 15 orthodox diocese in the United States from the period 1956 to 1996. Brian Clowes Ph.D. found that orthodox dioceses have five times more ordinations than their unorthodox counterparts during the same time period. The orthodox dioceses also had 12% more priests in 1996 than in 1956. (Source: Call to Action or Call to Apostasy? Brian Clowes Ph.D. ) For example, the diocese of Lincoln NE, with a population of just 84,000 Catholics has 45 seminarians. Compare that to unorthodox dioceses such as Milwaukee (Catholic pop. 680,000) and Los Angeles (Catholic pop. 3 million) and their seminaries are empty.

Considering that America magazine is very liberal in its views and is often full of articles which are openly dissenting from Church teaching, its not surprising that it would not mention the above statistics that prove that "Silence and fervent prayer for vocations" are indeed working.

As for women in the priesthood, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have already declared that discussion is closed. Excluding women from the priesthood has nothing to do with trying to oppress women as dissenting groups like Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful would have you believe. Christ chose only men as his apostles, his representatives, to symbolize God's relationship to us is as a Father and his children. The Church does not have the authority to change that tradtion in which the priests act as representatives of Christ and symbolize that same Father and child love. Those advocating for women's ordination are more interested in obtaining stature and power in the Church and not truly serving God.

Well, gee, isn't that nice - more freedom in the Roman Catholic family for men. I support the effort and conversation, certainly, but the real challenge in our Church is under the big umbrella of sexuality. This is where homosexuals are still labeled "disordered" and women are still considered anatomically deficient for ordained ministries, even while this same Church appears to stand by a fundamental tenet of Christian faith: That each of us is created in God's image. Good enough for God but not good enough for the hierarchy.

A thoughtful and well reasoned article from "America"; it merely calls for the issue to be discussed; it suggests working within the current Church structure by having it discussed by the Bishops who could then forward their feelings to Rome, and most importantly, unlike this blog, the discussion wouldn't be opened to people who then would want discussions about female ordination, abortion, contraceptives, or any of the usual issues raised by cafeteria Catholics.

"Speech to the Fathers of the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus," February 21, 2008

Read these few paragraphs. How many times does the Pope remind the Jesuits that they need to be faithful to their 4th vow, obedience to the Holy Father? No one makes these reminders unless those to whom they are directed have not been performing them. There are some good, faithful Jesuits. But far too many of them are infected with the modern, contemporary feeling that "i know better than the Church, the Body of Christ, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and has perdured for 2000 years." This is called egotism. This is why so few men have entered the Jesuits these last several years. Too many of these guys, like the Holy Cross priests at Notre Dame, think that the highest accolade in the world is to be part of the 'Catholic Ivy League;' try selling that to the Lord at the Final Judgment. That is why the former editor Thomas Reese was forced to resign.

"In its history the Society of Jesus has lived extraordinary experiences of proclamation and encounter between the Gospel and the cultures of the world – suffice it to think of Matteo Ricci in China, Roberto de Nobili in India, or the “Reductions” in Latin America – of which you are justly proud. Today I feel I have the duty to exhort you to follow in the footsteps of your predecessors with the same courage and intelligence, but also with as profound a motivation of faith and passion to serve the Lord and his Church. All the same, while you try to recognize the signs of the presence and work of God in every part of the world, even beyond the confines of the visible Church, while you endeavour to build bridges of understanding and dialogue with those who do not belong to the Church or who have difficulty accepting its position and message, you must at the same time loyally fulfil the fundamental duty of the Church, of fully adhering to the word of God, and of the authority of the Magisterium to preserve the truth and the unity of the Catholic doctrine in its totality. This does not apply solely to the personal task of each Jesuit; since you work as members of one apostolic body, you must be attentive so that your works and institutions always maintain a clear and explicit identity, so that the purpose of your apostolic work does not become ambiguous or obscure, and many other persons may share your ideals and join you effectively and enthusiastically, collaborating in your task of serving God and humanity.

As you well know because you have so often made the meditation “of the Two Standards” in the Spiritual Exercises under the guidance of St Ignatius, our world is the stage of a battle between good and evil, with powerful negative forces at work, which cause those dramatic situations of spiritual and material subjection of our contemporaries against which you have repeatedly declared your wish to combat, working for the service of the faith and the promotion of justice. These forces show themselves today in many forms, but with particular evidence through cultural tendencies that often become dominating, such as subjectivism, relativism, hedonism, practical materialism. This is why I have asked you to renew your interest in the promotion and defence of the Catholic doctrine “particularly in the neuralgic points strongly attacked today by secular culture”, some of which I have mentioned in my letter. The issues, constantly discussed and questioned today, of the salvation in Christ of all human beings, of sexual morale, the marriage and the family, must be deepened and illumined in the context of contemporary reality, but keeping the harmony with the Magisterium, which avoids creating confusion and bewilderment among the People of God.

I know and understand well that this is a particularly sensitive and demanding point for you and not a few of your confreres, especially those engaged in theological research, interreligious dialogue and dialogue with contemporary culture. Precisely for this reason I have invited you. and am inviting you today, to further reflect so as to find again the fullest sense of your characteristic “fourth vow” of obedience to the Successor of Peter, which not only implies readiness to being sent in mission to far away lands, but also – in the most genuine Ignatian sense of “feeling with the Church and in the Church – to “love and serve” the Vicar of Christ on earth with that “effective and affective” devotion that must make of you his precious and irreplaceable collaborators in his service of the universal Church."

Rob A - you are correct about the reasoning given by the Church to justify its decision not to open the priesthood to women.
I am fairly certain about one thing though - if there had been a few women priests in the Church hierarchy in the Boston archdiocese in the past 30 years, the culture of tolerance and hiding of priest-pedophiles would not have been tolerated. You think a woman would allow a man do what those men did? No way.
I said it once, I'll say it again - if we are all equal in the eyes of God, then why can't women become priests?
Let's take the scenario that Jesus only wanted men to become priests. Then let's suppose that the Vatican opened ordination to women. Is God going to be angry with them/us for this? Is this a God who would say, "This is sinful to allow women as priests. They are not fit because of their gender/sex to be priests?" Is that really consistent with a Catholic concept of how loving and inclusive Jesus is?

I've read the above comments thoroughly and respect everyone's opinion and realize how strongly that they connect with their faith. As an Eastern rite Catholic, I came froma small coal mining village in northeastern Pennsylvania. I believe our population was approximately 2400. In this small town we had NINE churches, Every ethnic group had their own. God forbid that the Lithanians would attend church with the Slovenians! So nine churches, one was eastern rite, an episcopal, methodist , presbyterian, and 5 Latin rite parishes. Of the 5 latin priests,, several were involved in affairs with female parishioners. When my Byzantine priests were no longer able to marry, the new priest aslso became involvec in an affair which lasted more than 20 years. That must tell you something.....

The Church either has the authority to make these pronoucements or its doesn't. If it DOES have the authority, then why all the dissent from the women wannabe priests? Are you comfortable in your dissent - even believing that it is of proper authority? How prideful !

If it does NOT have the authority, then WHY DO YOU CARE? Go out, start your own Church and declare yourself pope, since the Church lacks the authority, and you reject it anyway. It is NOT a democracy.

Dear Mr Paulson,
What would you expect for answers in asking this question to readers of the globe? The comments here make me laugh. I could have wrote them in my sleep....

Look - think of this - can anyone be happy and live a fulfilled life if they aren't sexually active? IMAGINE THAT?!? Horror of horrors. Are we simply slaves to our passions...

The smugness, self-certitude, and total lack of self-awareness with which conservative Catholics pretend that they own the Church would be risible if it didn't have such devastatingly tragic consequences — on a pastoral as well as theological level.

With all due respect, I think these individuals are confusing the Body of Christ with the military. They also seem to be confusing loyalty and obedience to mortals with faithfulness to the Church.

And they don't seem to have read or understood Paul when he talked about the Spirit vs. the Law; unless, of course, they're deliberately trying to emulate the Pharisees.

In my humble opinion, people who claim to know — beyond a doubt — exactly what the Spirit intends are not being completely truthful with themselves or others. You know who you are.

A thinking Catholic (nice smug, self-certain, lacking in self-awareness sobriquet) tosses in phrases such as "in my humble opinion," and "with all due respect," when he/she exhibits no humilty or respect. The article called for discussion, but those on the left don't really want to discuss, they want to dictate. 'Thinking' adds that "they [conservative Catholics] don't seem to have read or understand Paul..."--oh, but you do, oh exalted one. Bet my koine Greek is better than yours. As with politics, liberals in religion can not imagine that someone on the opposite side might actually know more than they do. They always assume: "oh, if you really
understood, you would agree with me."

This would have been big news 30 years ago. Next step is having a transparent parish and diocesan administrative process. Power is concentrated among a select group of men, with little to no input from the church community. Married priests will not change that, its a shame that the modern church is destroying the community that raised it up for 2000 years, to stubborn and to stupid to change for the better.

I'm for having female priests AND letting priests marry. Both issues are ones that stem from patriarchal attitudes regarding sexuality. It's time to bring Catholicism out of the past and into the present.

Every human being should be able to be a candidate for priesthood based on the quality of their character and their embrace of the Holy Spirit within them.

I am as impressed by Gaudete's powers of discernment and mind-reading as I am by his/her intellect (especially the reference to the common dialect).

I am further humbled, because s/he is exactly right. It is true that I want to dictate. It is true that I cannot imagine that someone who thinks differently than I might know more about some things. It is also true I assume that if others understood things (like Catholicism) properly, then they'd agree with me.

In short, I am a totalitarian.

And no, Gaudete is not projecting.

And no, people like him/her aren't chasing souls away, in droves, from the Church we are both blessed to be a part of.

Let's see the Globe run coverage over and over and over again that begs and begs and begs the question: Why Can't Local Jews Eat Pork?

Or ask the question: Why Can't Local Skinheads Attend Services at Temple
Beth Israel in Natick?

Why can't I play for the Red Soxs or the Celtics? Why couldn't I go to Harvard?
Or write for the Globe? Because every private institution has a right to there own rules, that's way.

The Globe and Mr. Paulson don't want dialogue, they want activism. The want to ruin institutions so they can re-make them into their own image. Radical feminists, homosexuals, and socialist are just tools, a means to an end. And what is the end game: power.

Bopanapawitz

When you say "charactor" are you talking about the same charactor like "Reverend" Robinson, the first gay bishop has? The same man who abandoned his wife and kids for gay sex? The same guy who has had nothing
but gushing praises from the "press." Where is the coverage that asks how a so called holy man can attain such a position? He is yet another too.

There are rules to religion. Any real religion looks at abandoning your wife and kids for sex as a dark dark sin and a seperation from God.

Hypocrites.

Filtering me?

You folks crack me up, really. Tell me, what have I said that was untrue. Where did I flame or swear? Because I don't believe what the Globe believes you filter me? Or is it because what I am saying is true and too painful; too powerful a mirror?

Vampires hiss at mirrors and can't see their own reflection.

Imagine the power Kerry is going to have around here when he bails you out?

And I thought that good family man John Edwards had a free pass.

Very common pattern on these blogs: 1. Michael Paulson blogs a story, most often about the Catholic church. 2. Atheists, agnostics, secularists and other liberals attack the Church, or its leaders, or its doctrines. 3. Conservatives weigh in to defend the Church, leaders and doctrines, often by pointing out left's illogical arguments or overheated rhetoric. 4. Liberal commenters cry that conservative commenters are harsh, judgmental, viscious, etc., when it was they who started the ad hominem remarks, and the conservative 'attacks' were only defensive measures.

Gaudete,

I like this word play technique. Put Catholics in boxes. Call them "liberal" Catholics and "conservative" Catholics. Get it in the lexicon. Much like calling "illegals" "undocumented workers." Now you own the debate.

The truth is there are no conservative or liberal Catholics. Either you are a Catholic or you are not. If you believe in abortion (and its heinous sister partial birth abortion) you are not a Catholic according to the "articles" of the Catholic faith. Simple. Whether you consider yourself a Catholic is no matter. You are not.

"Look mom, I am a Celtic player because I say I am." This debate is only a tool for the Globe and its obsessive journalistic activism. Liberals can't stand the idea that for example you might try to keep your family together simply because a religion
believes divorce is a sin. "Be like us they say. We are uncomfortable when someone tries to do the right thing because we can't meet a standard."

Back to topic: Married priests

Concept works for other faiths; Catholic laity generally favorable, some against.
Concept used to work historically for Catholicism, but not since the Middle Ages; Catholic hierarchy generally unfavorable, some for.

People like to blame the shortage of priests on the celibacy requirement. However, they fail to mention that other denominations that allow clergy to marry also have a shortage of clergy.

I don't think the celibacy rule is the real problem, the problem is that our society is becoming more secular and placing greater emphasis on material well being than spiritual well being.

That said, I do think that allowing married men to be priests would be a good idea. The Vatican has the authority to allow it.

As for the pedophile scandal, not to justify it in anyway, I'm disgusted by it, but a few things to consider:
1. Children are more likely to be molested by a family member, a teacher or a coach than by a priest. This just doesn't get the publicity that the Church's problem did.
2. Until the 1970s every body believed that pedophiles could be cured of their hideous desires. The church believed that they could reform some sick priests, just as the APA believed other sick individuals could be cured. Unfortunately both the Church and the ABA were wrong.

gaudete - the "reformist" ideology is based on self-centeredness, relativism, and a disdain for authority, all based in pride. Look at "A Thinking Catholic"... his very handle implies that he has all the answers, and no one else "thinks". We are all "Non-Thinking Catholics", apparently, because he is the only one "Thinking".

The Episcopal Church is the best example of an institution pandering to moral relativism. It is imploding was will at some point in the future, cease to exist.

gaudete - keep up the good work!

I respond to your forum designed to bash Catholics, and get no response from the troops?

Wonder if the bloggers know the technique where the Globe moderator filters comments such as mine, so that my responses appear only on my screen but no where else?

Maybe if those who run the Globe respected all readers, the Sunday edition would be a little thicker.

I believe that in the Eastern Rite Bishops and above have to be unmarried and celebate. By allowing the Latin rite priests to marry, they would likely follow the same road. So, if you're a married priest you are by default not on the pope track.

excluding persons because they are married makes as much sense as excluding half the population (females) from serving because of their sex. It's time to approach these issues from a rational viewpoint.

"Wonder if the bloggers know the technique where the Globe moderator filters comments such as mine"

Your inane comments are indeed visible, tumbleweed. There must be some . . . other reason you failed to get the response you wanted.

"The Globe and Mr. Paulson don't want dialogue, they want activism. The want to ruin institutions so they can re-make them into their own image. Radical feminists, homosexuals, and socialist are just tools, a means to an end. And what is the end game: power."

HA, HA, HA. This is rich.

KJR, I apologize and stand corrected — my choice of moniker was most unfortunate, and I by no means meant to imply you or anyone else were "not thinking."

With further apologies to you, Gaudete, and others for anything else about my style or delivery that's offended, let me make a couple of points:

1) You conservatives are a members of a Church family I belong to, but do not own or presume to speak for. I am what you would probably call a liberal. And I am also a part of our Church.

2) You will continue to speak, and be heard, on topics such as abortion, female priests, a married clergy, the sexual abuse of children, and sexuality. So will I.

3) Calls for dialogue are not attacks on our Church.

4) Imagine approaching each and every conversation knowing exactly what you were going to say and exactly what you were going to think when it was over.

How much fun would such encounters be? How much would we learn and grow from them? At the end of the day, would they open and strengthen our hearts, or harden them?

Last but not least, what kind of conversational life do you think our Lord would want for His children?

I agree with Karen (the first post).....but I think priests have enough to think about without having to contend with a wife!

Hear hear #96. If celibacy is next to godliness, then married people of either gender are probably ideal candidates for priesthood! (HA HA, a little humor there people). If celibacy is considered the important tenet of the faith, then open the priesthood to women. I am sure that there are women who would take this on.

Tumbleweed,

I usually agree with the comments you post, as I do with KJR, and your 'devout' alliance is very much appreciated. As for myself, though, I can honestly say that Michael Paulson has never censored one of my comments out, unless I inadvertently did something wrong mechanically, like not hit the 'submit' button.

A [formerly Thinking] Catholic,

Thank you for the attitude which you express @11;36 a.m. I agree whole-heartedly. I too am sorry when i go overboard rhetorically. Vigorous, candid debate does not have to be malicious. It does no good to 'beat someone's head in for the love of Christ.'

"gaudete - the 'reformist' ideology is based on self-centeredness, relativism, and a disdain for authority, all based in pride. Look at "A Thinking Catholic"... his very handle implies that he has all the answers, and no one else 'thinks'."
Posted by KJR April 29, 09 09:31 AM

Actually, KJR, his very handle states that he thinks. Period. You don't - you've proudly admitted as much when you stated on a previous thread that you get your perspective entirely from the Vatican. Both you and gaudete are classic right wingers who seem to feel that you are "authorities", as you show incredible disdain for those who refuse to buy the nonsense that you sell. You want to talk pride, let's discuss your own arrogance. For it is you who sees himself as always right. It is you and gaudete who equate refusal to kneel before a corrupt elite in robes as hate and bitterness. As typical right wingers, you exhibit a self-centeredness that is absolutely staggering in its scope. You are the ideological descendants of the very Sadducees who insisted that Jesus of Nazareth be tortured and put to death. So, KJR, feel free to respond to this with your usual paranoid whining about being hated. And, KJR, there is a contemporary term for the values taught by Jesus of Nazareth. That term is "liberal values".

If you don't think this "issue" isn't trumped-up by the Catholic bashers at the Globe
you are not paying attention. There IS no ground swell for priests to marry. Once again, a Catholic accepts the teachings of the Church. If you do not accept them you are not a Catholic. No such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Catholic.

What bothers liberals is the idea that a man would give up sex for something greater than self. After all, feeling good and pleasure is only what life is about; Me, at any cost. It is what John Paul called the culture of death.

What the Globe hopes for ulitmately is female priests. No man likes to be preached to by a woman. If it ever happens it will be the final nail in the coffin, which is what these haters really want.

Can't you all just attend your rainbow churches and leave ours alone?

There are churches for you folks too. They fly rainbow flags. Go ruin them with your

For centuries priest could marry, then in the middle ages the church imposed the ban on priests marrying, the church did not expcet priest to be celibate that came later the church just did not want the priests to have heirs.

Priests would inherit property from parishioners, if priests were married and had legitimate heirs their property would pass on to their children, if priests were not allowed to marry they would have no legitimate heirs and their assets would pass to the church. The marriage ban was simply a way to raise revenue, it has no doctrinal basis and should be abolished or the church will die.

For me, the point has always been mute; we know from the gospel story the Jesus cured Peter's mother in law. If a married person was good enough for Jesus to serve a the rock upon which all was built, then its good enough for me. Dual tracks should be allowed, those woh make a choice to be celibate and those who choose not; both are valid expressions of a spiritual life. Women need to be brought into full communion as well, as not being able to fully participate in a priestly role prevents them from full participation.

Selective celibacy is one of the great inconsistencies of our Church and the reason for much of its trouble. As noted in the article, many married priests already serve. Although it is rarely discussed in official channels, priests were married for the first thousand years of our Church's existance and its was only property rights and other minor considerations that led to the vow of celibacy. A friend of mine wanted to be a Deacon but had to sign a pledge that, if his wife died, he would remain unmarried. He declined. Our church needs to start worry more about serving the flock and put aside its tendancy to major in minors.

And what does Scripture have to say on this issue?

Yes - there should be married priests. Not only will this make priesthood more attractive to many, but I believe it will help open up the gates for women to become priests. Also, it makes no sense to me that a priest is not eligible to receive one of the sacraments (marriage)... just as it makes no sense to me that women can't receive one of the sacraments (holy orders) if they would like to follow that path.

So, long story short, I agree with many of those who responded - bring it on!

let them marry... you do know the bible is fiction yes? come on... it's all about power, leaders & followers and MONEY. do the 1000's of years of religious wars have anything at all to do with a 'higher power'?! no... money. and let women become priests as well...

why not gay priests too? we've already had the pedophiles...and incest in the families

This discussion is degererating to the level of labeling, finger pointing, and is generating some otherwise cynical comments. For the most part, however, I believe there has been a tone of civility, serious efforts to put forth a point of view, and to raise substantive questions, The Boston Globe and Michael Pualson are to be applauded for providing this opportunity for public discourse on a sensitive but highly important matter to Catholics, old and young, practicing and on the fence, and other interested parties.

I'm continually amazed at how others cite a different religion that allows married priest, as reason to allow all Catholic priests to marry. Especially in the U.S., where people are a bit self-righteous in describing their freedom of choice or freedom of thought, if married priests are that important to their religious philosophy, then why can't one exercise their freedom of choice and religion and leave the Catholic church to join that other religion? If you excercise freedom of choice to pick a political affiliation or lover, why are you so reluctant to excercise your same freedom loving tendencies and pick a religion that better suits you, rather than being miserable and staying in the religion into which you were born (I am talking to the married-priest-idea loving Catholics out there) and making your fellow Catholics miserable in the process? Just a thought.

#2...the reason the Catholic Church prohibited marriage for priests originally is that it wanted to make sure it had the only claim to any property/estate upon the death of its priests. Not all priests originally took vows of poverty. How do youthink the vatican became the richest state? That, and the "catholic guilt trip". #110 is right. Organized religion is all about "man's" self serving greed.

Robroy, its because the left (and ontheleft) demand that they have all the freedom for themselves and at the same time, dictate to others what freedom they will have. If you disagree with that concept, you are a (pick one) bigot, homophobe, non-human, idiot, moron, loser, Sadducee, racist, misogynist, robot.... .... ....

Mr. Paulson,
I think it would be interesting to read a story about former Episcopal/Anglican/Lutheran ministers that have become Catholic priests and their views towards celibacy.

I'm sorry, but the church seems to be stuck in a time warp, and darwin, not creationism or intelligent design rules the hierarchy. In a few dozen years, it will shrink drastically, and so many of us will move to more liberal, more welcoming religious communities. And this also includes church communities that recognize the dignity and grace and humanity of our gay citizen.

As a news item I saw said - "sources high up in the vatican are saying that Benedicts Papacy is becoming a disaster for the church. From the support he gave to Holocaust deniers, his offer of becoming Bishop of Austria to a right wing priest who said that Katrina was God's revenge, he has become a source of embarassment to the whole church. And hsis trcomments about gay people are nothing but a call for their being turned into pariahs, and a lilicense to bash and yes murder them in the minds of some demented individuals.

Bottom line - we are all out of here. The whole family. Prob to the Episfcopal church or the UCC

why doesn't the congregation stop fornication, perversions of all sorts, pornography, rape and incest and be role models for other Catholics?

The Vatican is well aware of the shortage of priests in many countries, and sooner or later something HAS to be done. I find the situation rather intriguing, because whatever action is taken, will most certainly be historical. Maybe allowing priests to marry is the answer, and maybe it isn’t. I personally think it would help to some degree, but that it will still not be sufficient to address the shortage. In any case, I wouldn’t expect any hasty decisions from the Vatican on this particular matter, as they tend to act very cautiously and slowly.

In the short term, they will likely try to address the shortages by exporting priests from areas of the world that currently have a surplus, such as Africa. That’s unlikely to completely address the need, and so additional action will be needed. I can only speculate, but I suspect that next step will be to give greater responsibilities to the deacons of the Church. A deacon can perform marriages and baptisms, and also conduct a communion service. A communion service is very similar to a mass, and if someone isn’t paying close attention, they might not realize that it wasn’t a mass.

If there is a shortage of priests, I think the fundamental cause is that young men aren’t being “called” to the vocation. Consequently, the permanent deacons, the religious, and the laity of the Church - will all likely need to assume greater responsibilities in activities of their parish. And, perhaps that’s what God had in mind ;-)

In 2003 the National Federation of Priests’ Councils (www.nfpc.org) issued a statement favoring consideration of a married priesthood. The following is taken from their position statement on the matter:
“The NFPC understands that the issue of married priests is raised out of love for the Church and a concern for the pastoral care and sacramental life of the church in the face of a declining number of priests. It shares this concern and, therefore, encourages a dialogue on the ordination of married candidates to the priesthood in the belief that open and honest discussion about the priesthood is healthy and beneficial to the Church,”
In a 2005 press conference Cardinal Francis George, now President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated he favored a review of making celibacy a requirement for ordination to the priesthood.
The following statement was issued in 2008 as part of the overall position taken by the National Working Group for Priest Support (www.nwgps.org) on the matter:
“We appreciate the charism of celibacy as a unique and graced witness to the transforming power of the Spirit and the surpassing glory of the Risen Christ among us. For those few to whom this gift has been given it becomes a special quality in their personal relationships with God and with others, manifesting itself in joy and compassion, and enhancing their ministry. But for those who have not received this unique gift celibacy is experienced as a heavy burden attached to their vocation of priestly ministry. It also has become a major obstacle preventing many young men from responding to a call to the priesthood but who do not feel called to a life of celibacy.”
Whatever we do as we move forward in these discussions, let us not make the mistake of framing this issue in terms of ideology or a left or right leaning to matters fundamental to our faith. This should be a matter of concern for all of us for the good of the church.

John Ryan,

There is no "left" or "right leaning" in the Catholic Church. The Church and its doctrines just are. You can save yourself a lot of keyboard time with this thought.

Anyone can troll the internet for articles and ideas (political movements in this case) and if they have the power the Globe and Mr. Paulson has, publish this information as a foil for their own beliefs. In my opinon as an observer of the Globe and Mr. Paulson these are not just fair discussions, they are an attempt
to over throw society.

And what is one place in society these 60's trained activists haven't gotten their hands on? The Church. Heather may have two mommies in the public school systems and dodge ball is outlawed because the game has too much boy in it and the girls, gee for some reason? are now the head of the class, but get your paws off of the one place that trys to keep families together.

To the Catholics out there. We need to fight this stuff because where the Church does have weaknesses it is here, when it comes to defending itself. Don't be afraid of taking on these socialists/communists who want your kids smoking pot, carrying condoms, and not thinking about their futures as fathers and mothers. As parishoneers we have to help our priest feel our support and not tolerate these attempts at separating us by using "word" tactics like equating "liberal" Catholics with the real thing.

To you "liberal" Catholics go find your own church where what matters most is how good the chorus sounds and how good you feel about whatever you happen to be telling God to do that day. Practice your witch craft else where. Fly the rainbow flag, laugh at us all you want. If you truly are a liberal allow your phony "everyone should be free to do what they want" philosophy to apply to us!

As I glance through these comments I have seen statements like being able to marry would make being a Priest more attractive.

The vocation of Priesthood is a calling not a career/employment search. I believe one of the major problems with the Church particularly in the US and Europe is men where choosing the Priesthood as a job and weren't really called by God to this wonderful vocation. In other words we ended up and continue to have many mediocre Priests whom are more concerned with not offending people and less concerned with speaking and following the Truth of the Church.

The other problem is young men aren't asking or aren't open to the Priesthood calling they are receiving from God. Much of this also has to do with them not receiving proper instruction in the faith and of course not being taught that above all each individual must develop a personal relationship with Jesus.

I belong to a small genuinely active parish. Our Pastor would no way be able to serve us in the Capacity God wants him to if he had a family. He is everything a pastor should be. He leads his flock with the truth and is always available to counsel and of course administer the Sacraments. Not once has he not made time for anyone who requests the Sacrament of Confession.

I spend most of my free time serving God and the Church and what we need is many more Priests like ours. I truly believe gradually young men are returning to the priesthood for the right reason, being called. The last thing we need here in America is more mediocre Priests.

Are we missing the message? Are we not understanding God's plan for us in this century? Is it possible that God wants us to keep our priest, those who celebrate the Mass, male, celibate and special? At the same time, does he want us to be more than a liturgical religion? Does he want us to be an evangelical church as well, with an army of married and unmarried deacons and deaconesses preaching the Word, in the pulpit, in the community, identifying with other christian denominations, reading the bible, in church and at home? It seems to me that is where God is taking us and that seems to be a nice place to go. So lets go with the flow that God is creating for us.

Proud,

Not only do we have to defend ourselves with the barbarians at the gate but we also have to look at ourselves as hypocrites. Many comments critical of our church are on the mark. Money is very important to the church. Afterall money is important to any institution. And just like any institution those who rise to the top are often yes men and those adept at compromise.

Catholics are seeking the truth. Hardly ever do I hear a priest step up to the pulpit and say "do not come up here for communion if you think abortion is ok." I think it is because they are afraid of losing parishoneers. BUT the exact opposite will happen. People will come back eventually in droves if they feel what they have is real.

When a priest is afraid to say what needs to be said because of this insidious disease called politcal correctness it creats a vaccum. It emboldends those who would destroy us. Often these agitators take advantage of weakness and suggest ridiculous things like changing lyrics to a song because they are insulted that the lyrics don't have "diversity." "ohhh, the song only mentions brother and not sister.
Can't we just change it to "people." You can never satisfy this person because the root is hate. This agitator hates calling a priest "father." She has been educated to think feminism trumps all and the same thing goes for all liberal environs,
movements that have been created to destroy.

If Mr. Paulson couldn't find an article suggesting priests get married. He'd find another one that suggests some other radical change. To me this debate is about destroying our Church by any means. It has nothing to do with married priests. Perhaps I'd be open to debating this issue but the spirit of openess isn't really here.

It is another spirit, a darker one.

When I read comments from people like tumbleweed and others, I weep for our Church. More and more we're resembling the Republican Party, and not just with regard to voting habits.

We're contracting as a community, increasingly dominated by our most loudest and most hateful voices. And while these sentiment used to come exclusively from the pew, now even our clergy are telling us not to vote for Obama or marriage equality at the risk of our Catholic identity, membership in the communion, or our very souls.

I am under no illusion that any organization is immune from the vicissitudes of history, social forces, or the human condition that discussion boards like these uniquely lay bare. Nevertheless, I do get disheartened, from time to time, that a religion that used to define itself in positive terms increasingly understands itself in terms of what it is against. And that a Church so ostensibly based on love becomes so infected by sexism and homophobia.

I'd be more comfortable saying tumbleweed and others were outliers did I not hear the very same sentiments emerging with greater intensity and clarity from clergy as well as laity.

I was raised to believe the Gospel was transcendent and above the temporal political and social struggles my faith seems increasingly obsessed with. But more and more it seems the Church spends more time playing tennis (or opposing) the Pharaoh than bearing witness to the Good News. Of joy, not hate.

It may be time for me to seek another parish community or even leave the Church, I don't know. All I know is it would break my heart if, after allowing priests to marry, members of my Church family like tumbleweed felt obliged to leave. It also breaks my heart to know they would probably delight if I did.

A Catholic,

Jesus was no push over. Jesus did not preach feeling good. Doing whatever you want and then saying "you hater, you should forgive me." And then doing it again, and again, and again, and saying "you hater, forgive me." Is not what Jesus taught. This is not love. This is being employee the techniques of a bully.

Jesus was not a 60's hey man hippie. Jesus violently threw the moneychangers out of the temple. And yes he acted in a physical "masculine" way. In the context of this debate this is important because in my opinion what Mr. Paulson is doing is also begging the debate of having woman ordained. Your brand of feminism is a threat because radical feminism will not tolerate the question "are men and woman different?" Witness what happened to Summers a fellow liberal over at that bastion of liberal tolerance, Harvard.

Yes, this is at the crux of this debate (thank you Mr. Paulson, sincerely) If men and woman are the same then "mother" and "father" are the same. If mother and father are the same then a father is not needed in a family. If a father is not needed in a family then we can forward our homosexual marriagge agenda.
If you can forward the homosexual agenda of re-defining family the family no longer exists. If the family no longer exists other radical agenda can get a foot-hold in our society. Mommy government will be the family. And who loves it when the government controls everthing. Those who are in love will power. And since you invoked history, shall I mention a few of those in history who got ulitimate power?

A Catholic, how can you be one if don't even acknowledge the beautiful difference between the role of a father and of a mother? How can you go to a Catholic mass and not even understand this most basic centerpiece? How can you hold Mother Mary sacred?

And you are correct, I will not be sad to see you leave the Church. By your own definitions of what is "good" you do not belong here. Call me a racists, a hater, a Republican whatever works, whatever makes you feel good. Find a church that has a really good choir group. That will make you feel really good about your choice.

I can't help it if you want to label me as a Republican to politicize this debate. It is another technique of the bully. There are rules to being a Catholic.

A Catholic,

Based on what I've read I don't believe any Catholics including myself and tumbleweed whom believe in following ALL of Church doctrine would or do delight in anyone leaving the Church. I'm not sure what is going on at your parish that would cause you to search out another parish or sadly even consider leaving the Church. Personally I can't imagine ever being without the Mass and the Sacraments.

If anyone representing the Catholic Church is hating any individual for any reason then they aren't pleasing to God and aren't following the Truth of the Church. If it's coming from the Priests and/or Pastor of any parish I would most certainly suggest you find Another Catholic parish. I would advise you to pray about it and make sure you are hearing the true message. Our pastor regularly preaches about the Church's and what we believe God's truth about gay marriage and abortion. As Catholics' we can judge the act but never ever the individual and never assume culpability of any individual. I believe sometimes people forget that to those of us whom are pro life the murder of an innocent unborn child is just as sinful and morally wrong as the murder of a 1 year old. Those in the Church should not endorse a candidate but they have the responsibility to point out those issues which the Church deems intrinsically evil. Again don't forget that for many of us voting for somone whom is pro abortion in any case is like voting for someone whom believes it's Ok to murder a child outside the womb. We also believe that we weren't made for earth but for paradise with God for all eternity. We believe leading a gay lifestyle or having an abortion threatens an individuals eternal souls. We can still love them but how much love would we really be showing if we didn't point out that we fear for their eternal souls based on their actions. Of course we must continue to love them no matter what they decide.

Personally I work with a woman who is married to another woman. She said to me once, "you don't agree with my lifestyle." My reply was No I don't but I love you." She allows me to disagree but we can still be friends. I work in youth minstry and I have a young man whom deals with same sex attraction. He has no doubt I will love him no matter what. He is clear on why I believe it is wrong but also knows I won't judge him or treat him like any less of a person.

I use the Church to help guide me but it is also my relationship with Jesus through daily prayer, Mass, the Sacraments, and service. I know Jesus and I feel He has made right and wrong clear to me. I also know everything flows from love of God and of my fellow man unconditionally. This is also a major theme of Christianity inclduing the Catholic Church.

A catholic -

What in the world does tumbleweed, gaudete, I, ontheleft or any other "pundit" have anything to do with anything? You are considering leaving the Church over comments on this Board? Your prior handle betrays you. Focus only on what the Church teaches through its official proclamations and all will be fine. You can ignore the increase in volume from some of us, who feel it is sometimes necessary to drive the point because of the rhetoric spewed on this Board. Get a copy of the Cathecism and you will be fine. On the other hand, if you reject the authority of the Church, you will be conflicted always.

There is plenty for thinking people to debate: Married priests, women in various roles, the means to accomplish the salvation of souls, reverence, respect, economics - all within the context of Church teaching. But there are some non-negotiables: abortion, "gay" marriage, sex outside of marriage, women priests.

If you reject Matthew Ch 16... you will always struggle.

Peace.

tumbleweed, I agree with the substance of all you said, except one thing.... I is always sad to see someone leave the Church, because in my opinion it invariably results from either ignorance of Her history or Her authority, OR, the person is so focused on self, and "what is the Church doing for me".

I see much good in A catholic. I hope he stays to be enriched with the grace, Her history, and most importantly, the Eucharist.

For those participating on this blog who are despairing because of what people like tumbleweed and others represent in our church, I encourage reading a recent 143 page paperback by Fr. John Dietzen called “Doors of Hope” (Templegate Publisher). Fr. Dietzen is a name some of you may recognize from his widely syndicated column in many diocesan newspapers (including some of the more conservative) in which he responds to questions from readers about matters of faith and practice. I would for that matter recommend this short paperback to tumbleweed as well, with the assurance that Fr. Dietzen cannot be viewed as a person out to destroy the church or for that matter, as someone who engages in political correctness. Having had the courage to read George Weigel’s book “The Courage to Be Catholic” and come away from it unscathed and unharmed , I would hope tumbleweed and others in the tumbleweed camp would have the courage to check out what this good priest, pastor, and accredited teacher in matters of our faith has to say.

John Ryan -

I do not know about Fr. Dietzen, but I do infer from your post that you are referring to those of us who defend the teaching of the Church as a "cause for dispair". I take exception to that, and point out the fact that gaudete, proudtobecatholic, myself, tumbleweed and others are here to simply defend the unambiguous teaching of the Church (along with unjustified attached from the likes of ontheleft, kai, et al), and the challenges to Church authority. It is that simple. So please, pay closer attention. It is not about conservative or liberal. It is about obedience and faithfulness.

proud2b

The issue I take with you is with the word "judgement."

It is another word which has been hijacked by those who play hard ball. The ones who want all behavior to be equal. Actually, those who want bad behavior to be ok. They say "don't judge me you hypocrite!"

We make judgements every day. Every day. "A Catholic" would be more likely to open the door to her house to a boy in a boyscout uniform or a cop in uniform, than if someone who is knocking looks like he might hurt her. "A Catholic" I bet will mouth all day "all people are equal and you shouldn't judge." But when it comes down to brass tacks like her safety, the guy that looks like a thug is out.
Just like I want all the charlatans out. I apologize for presuming this but you want to shade it less you feel guilty or lose a friend.

Shame by the way is another word that gets a bad name. I have been ashamed in my life and the fear of that feeling helps keep me on the right path. The kind of judgement you mean is not righteous, the kind you mean is hateful, the proud kind that makes the person who is condemning feel good about themselves.

When you say you are concerned for someone's soul you too are making a judgement. I find that those in the Church who are caught up in whatever defines them i.e. being a radical feminist, a homosexual, an advocate for divorce when the going gets tough ought to be given a chance to change. How long? And aren't you assuming the radicals are sincere in trying to be a Catholic. What if they are not?

I find these radicals are the most proud among us and the loudest. I hope Catholics will recognize these tactics and say enough is enought. I think it entirely appropriate to tell them to leave. Why can't I walk out while the Celtic's on the floor and say I want to play?

Jesus threw the moneychangers out. The Church has a mommy female spirit that needs to be excercized. "there there, it's ok keep sinning venial or mortal, we love you anyways." That is not love They are the same ones who care more about how the music makes them feel than what kind of week they had as a christian.

The Church and its leaders need need more daddy and less mommy.

While there is an undeniably personal (for me) and pastoral dimension to the question of married clergy, I think it's important to keep in mind that the issues involved are deeper, larger, and ultimately much more complex than one individual's conversation with Catholicism.

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments, prodding, and direction. It is clear that your faith is a fountain of energy, sustenance, and comfort to you — may it always be so.

OK tumbleweed, KJR, gaudete, and other anonymous defenders of the teachings of the church. We charlatans and money changers seem to be missing the point, I must say. But now that you have cleared up just what role you are playing in our church, we more than ever really just want to hear what you think about the matter of the institutional church leadership making celibacy a requirement of ordination to the priesthood in the Latin Rite. What do you have to say about the fact that one could be called to the priesthood but may not be called to a life of celibacy, which is a gift from God? Would you acknowledge that may be a reason (not the only reason) why there is a critical vocation shortage? Tell me how the church is better served by requiring that a young deacon I know with three young children who just lost his wife and their mother to terminal illness to live out the rest of his life as a celibate. Would you acknowledge that what you seem to be “defending” is the notion of mandatory celibacy, and not the gift of celibacy, which is a charism given to the few, and which will always be a special way to witness to the Kingdom of God? In other words, can we just get back to the topic at hand, especially now that you have consumed so much of our time setting us straight in your self-appointed roles as Defenders of the Faith?

Mr. Ryan - aside from your rhetoric, I don't think gaudete, I, proudtobe, or tumbleweed has taken the position that a celibate priesthood is absolute. I think the argument is that it is in the opinion of the above aforementioned, it is preferrable, just as Paul stated in his epistles. No one called you a charlatan or moneychanger, so please ....

I will not acknowlege that the fact that the current Latin rite has no married priests is a cause of the shortage. That is riduculous. There is a shortage because formation of Catholics in this country has been miserable and the secularization of this country have both diminished the value and worth of the priesthood.

There are millions of men who could be joining the priesthood, and at one time, there was no shortage. The "married" issue is irrelevant. Not that married priest can't happen - it just has nothing to do with why the roles of priests are diminished. It may happen someday, but please stop blaming the lack of priests on the current celibacy requirement. It is far more complicated than that.

John Ryan,

Nicely stated and you do have a valid question. As I believe I stated before I KNOW my Pastor would not have the time needed to effectively shephard his parishoneers if he had a family. A family should be a man's number one commitment if his vocation is marriage.
That being said although I believe 100% that the Catholic Church is divinely inspired by Christ in it's doctrine I also know that certain teachings will never change but some can and have and probably will. I guess what I'm saying is if Priest being married is one that can be changed (i will check on this with those wiser than I) I would trust the leaders in the Church would make the right decision inspired by God and it would not effect my standing as a Catholic.
I know as Jesus said the Church will never fall and I believe gradually (I believe it's already started) young men will be open to the call of the Priesthood and celibacy and like throughout her history the Church will bounce back stronger then ever.

Mr Weed,

I'm not sure where your coming from with the judgement issue. Jesus most certainly taught only one has the right to judge man and it aint one of us.

I get your example about not opening my door to someone whom appears in my mind to be dangerous. That doesn't mean I'm judging them specifically I'm just being prudent. It's as I said before we can judge an act but not the person. I can disagree with someone's lifestyle and believe the acts they commit to be eveil without judging them as evil. Just like love being a decision and not an emotion I sometimes have to trust in God and use my mind to not judge as that is what God wants and expects.

I totally disagree also with you saying I am judging someone when I fear their actions may jeopordize their eternal souls. Just as I tell the teens I minister to about Confession. If someone has cancer and wasn't getting treated or changing their lifestyle for the better don't out of Love I need to be firm with them. To me their eternal soul is much more imprtant then their health on earth. I feel by not lovingly at least pointing out behaviors that might lead to eternity in hell I am not being loving or pleasing to God.

Well John maybe because the few who defend our faith see that those who would have us believe things that are not of our faith have done a good job at presenting Catholicsm as something other than what it is.

Maybe these forces and they are strong forces, have successfully vilified and marginalize and have made a mockery of the idea of being a celebate male that young men can not imagine there is beauty in such a sacrifice.

tumbleweed:

"Maybe these forces and they are strong forces, have successfully vilified and marginalize and have made a mockery of the idea of being a celebate male that young men can not imagine there is beauty in such a sacrifice. "

Isn't that the truth... and some used the pedophilia scandal to further weaken the Church knowing they could hurt the priesthood as a whole, so as to push that agenda. Why would someone want to join the priesthood to be mocked, spit at and accused for something they would have nothing to do with? Some strong young men still do, but it has certainly been impacted.

The severe decline in vocations clearly pre-dated by decades 2002 when the sexual abuse scandal became news and the image of the priesthood was tarnished. The fact that fewer than 30 percent of priests (per USCCB) were actively cultivating vocations in young men also pre-dated the news in 2002 of the scandal. Celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia or other forms of sexaul abuse by priests. But for heaven's sake, what will it take to convey the notion that celibacy is a charism, and cannot be mandated any more than the charism of preaching can be mandated. Some have it, and some do not. The priest shortage is a matter of numbers , the age demographics of the priesthood, the national increase in the number of Catholics, and having not nearly enough in the pipeline to keep pace. The priest shortage is a matter of practicality and will be what drives serious conversations sooner than later about solutions not presently on the table. The more theological notion of what a charism is, and the anomaly of mandating celibacy as a requirement of being ordained in the Latin Rite are matters calling for serious discussion with or without a priest shortage. This is further borne out by the sad facts that more priests than we would like to believe struggle mightily with this requirement, and that there have been and continue to be more breaches than we would like to believe. This is serious stuff calling for serious attention as Fr. Don Cozzens in his book “Freeing Celibacy” has argued, and argued convincingly.

Of corse this is a logical solution to the shortage of priests. But the whole issue is strictly a control issue by Rome, and celibacy is their Big Stick held over the priesthood. Is it any wonder that I entered the seminary in Boston in 1964 with 102 condidates, and only 22 were ordained 8 years later? (large by today's standards, but short of the 100 per year goal that Card. Cushing wanted. I pray for vocations- to the priesthood of the faithful, to lead the hierarchy out of their own manmade mess. I know too many good seminarians and priests who have left because of this rule of celibacy. The first disciple and pope was married, as were the many, many of the priests of the early church. It was a control issue instituted by Rome

Bob T - didn't anyone tell you about celibacy before you entered in 1964?

Bishops’ conferences from various parts of the world have called for the ordination of married men to meet the pastoral needs of their people. They understand that forced fasting from the eucharist is itself a form of oppression and remaining silent in the face of such fasting a form of complicity in injustice. Priests themselves, in growing numbers, refuse to be resigned to the present burden of mandated celibacy and are calling upon their bishops for a review of the celibacy law – a review favoured by most priests and an overwhelming majority of the laity.8
Certainly the dearth of priests and the pastoral needs of the people of God make the present situation urgent. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, there are more inactive priests in the US than there are active diocesan priests – approximately twenty-two thousand inactive priests and twenty thousand active diocesan priests whose average age is over 60. Many, if not most, of the inactive priests would be serving in our parishes if it were not for the law of celibacy. But even if our seminaries were full and our parishes adequately staffed, the issue of mandated celibacy would need to be addressed. It appears to growing numbers of clergy and laity to be in stark discord with the freedom of the gospel.

This is simply another example of the unwillingness of Rome to ever admit error. This was never a matter of doctrine; nowhere does either Scripture or Tradition require it, and in fact the early Church was led by married ministers, including Simon Peter, the bishop of Rome (Matthew 8:15, Mark 1:30).

If a man never admitted his mistakes, never confessed his sins, or sought redemption, could he ever be an effective messenger of Christ? It is the same for a group of men.

Those who would be ministers and bishops of Christ would do well to read Paul's first letter to Timothy, especially:

"1 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.

6 If thou put the brethren in mind of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast followed until now : 7 but refuse profane and old wives fables." (1 Timothy 4:1-7)

Who knows what God wants? Who knows His plan for us? But I can tell you the Catholic church, as mighty as it is, was not created by God. It was created by man. It is already flawed. It serves a valuable function; it brings the gospels and the sacraments to us, and preserves apostolic succession. The Catholic church was created to unite the Christians of the world, and was originally called the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The word "Catholic" is Greek for "universal". So these were clearly the quintessential purposes of the church; to be universal and apostolic. It is sad the Christians of the world are so scattered and self- righteous. The rule about keeping priests unmarried was practiced by the Roman Catholic church, not the entire Catholic church, primarily post schism. So it is unimportant. Jesus did not invent this rule. God did not want it. Men wanted it. As it stands now, this rule is just one more thing keeping the Catholic church from reuniting. How sad it is that the Christians of the world can not even agree to celebrate together on Easter Sunday, the most Holy of all Christian holidays? This breaks my heart. Jesus died, and rose from the dead, and the Catholic churches can not agree on a day to remember this event together. We allow petty thinking to infiltrate our considerations of what is important. So, in light of this, I do not see why anyone would care if priests start getting married.... could they still do their job? yes. I hesitate about women being ordained. It just seems tacky to me. Jesus revered women as mothers. That job is more important.

Emily - PLEASE! There are MANY objections to having married priests. Just to mention a few of the issues:

1. Economics: How much would it cost to support a priest, his wife and 6 or 8 children? $800 per month won't be enough. Are you willing to put more in the basket to feed ten mouths? Everybody, tithe eight times as much. The dilemma is, would that still be called tithing? The solution of this dilemma would create job security for all our canon lawyers!

2. What would our seminaries teach their students when they are no longer considered "special" - set apart from "laity" by their abstinence from sex—with women? Nota bene: sex with men or boys, or manustuprare for that matter, has been looked upon more as an outlet than a sin for quite a few centuries.

3. Same, shame, shame on you Jesuits! You encourage the discussion of married clerics in the first place and, to any God fearing Catholic, this is an open display of disobedience and faithlessness! Ask KJR or any self righteous priest if he knows God's will and he will not deny it . . . so, maybe it is God's will that the Catholic church slowly dies out. After all, 2012 or 2125 years of Catholicism is a proud number. Of course, silent and fervent prayers for vocations can never hurt.

4. No self-respecting woman would ever be caught being married to any straight member of the Arrogant Old Boys Club; since this would not only result in a martyr/saint complex but more importantly raise the question of how to make ends meet. How can she hold down a job to earn the necessary money for her flock and prepare dinner for ten, etc., in her spare time, while he tends to the flock of his parish.

4. The Infallibility issue: If priests are allowed to marry, then sooner or later we will have married cardinals, or even, God forbid, A Married Pope. What about the ramifications this would have on the infallibility issue? If our Pontifex Maximus were then just another man with children, or maybe with a mistress like Berlusconi, and if his marriage should end up in a divorce? Can anyone imagine the digits on that alimony check? Not to mention the endless questions (How could he have made such a mistake! He should have known . . .! OHMYGOSH!!!

5. Issue of Radicalism: we Catholics are simply not meant to be radicals, laity and clerics alike. We are the sheep that follow. Leave radicalism to others who recognize the personality of God, of freedom, of character strength, and of individual courage. We are a church for the masses, not for the individual. The Pope is the soul rule maker of the Catholic church and despite what a majority wishes, he will decide so(u)lely on his own and, according to (men-created) church law, as a spokesperson, infallible and all, for GOD!

6. The Authority Issue: We Catholics are taught to believe in authority, and when the authority tells us that married priests are not a thing we will celebrate in our life time, so be it. Let’s just accept it, for goodness sake! We are taught to focus only on what the Church teaches through its official proclamations and if we understand and accept that, all will be fine. We are taught to believe like children, not to object, not to think. Thus, it is not really important to bring out in each Christian the essence of being a "Christian.” Just keep awarenes of the sensual attributes of our church, kneel at the right time, be somber-faced, and last, not least, tithe.

7. Don’t forget the 1Cor7:25-38 Issue: St. Paul expressly says, “he who refrains from marriage will do better.” I always thought this to be a fragment. Does anyone know what the rest of the text chould be? Do better doing what?

8. The Eunuch Issue: We Catholic lay people are so brain washed to feeling sorry for our beloved priests (we are brought up to show them respect regardless of our personal feelings about them being exactly what or who) that we simply would be lost if we were faced with normal, healthy, married men as priests. Catholic males and females alike would downright be threatened by such a notion of normalcy!

9. The Love Issue: O yes, the problem is not married priests, but pure and simple love, lets just all love one another. Which kind do you (TimHerman) have in mind? Eros, agape, philia? Well, in the first and last cases, and optimally all three, you'd be stuck with . . . marriage, in the best of all possible worlds.

10. The Discrimination Issue ( KJR et al): Are you absolutely certain that Jesus, loving, non-exclusive Jesus, would differentiate between men and women as priests because of their specific sexual organs? Hmmm, I think not. But then again, you always know exactly, WWJD.

Misurina, I am an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and my priest is married. I do not know the specifics of their personal finances, but, I think they are making ends meet. If you are confused about this, please consider that the majority of the Christian community functions this way. This is the way it was in the beginning of the Catholic Church.

Misurina.... It occurs to me, that, perhaps you are being sarcastic??