You don't have time? Or is it that you can't come up with anything else? I'm not trying to be snarky.. That's a serious and honest question.

And you have actually not given any kind of substantive reason that married priests would be right.

Have his attention, time, and resources totally devoted 100% to the needs of a parish. That's one thing.

What's an 'ordinary Catholic'? 'Ordinary' as opposed to.... what? .... Fringe Catholics? so-called Conservative Catholics? Anti-Married-Priest Catholics?

Do you mean that term very generally? Such as, nothing more than the 'average Joe Catholic'?

...Because I know a LOT of 'average Joe Catholics', and of the ones that I know personally, many could easily be classified as 'less than orthodox.' Some might easily be labeled as 'cafeteria catholics,' having explained to my face that they do not agree with going to a priest for confession (ergo, they don't go to confession), they do not agree with the Church's teaching on artificial abortifacients, they do not agree with the Church's stance on divorce/remarriage (they love Amoris laetitia for that reason), etc.

Is that what you mean by 'ordinary Catholic'?

Honestly, none. For those people --- I'm sticking to the 'cafeteria catholics,' many of which may be born to the religion and not converts like us here --- they practice religion out of rote. They are poorly catechized at best. They don't know why they do what they do, and quite frankly, they don't care to know. They just want to show up when they feel like and get their 'piece of bread'... For many, it's nothing more than a social gathering, hanging out with 'Father Bob' and all the other soccer moms or whatever. They have lost sense of the holy. Being in the presence of the tabernacle with Our Lord present means nothing to them, as evidenced by the sheer noise that occurs in larger churches immediately after a Mass. They are ignorant of the Faith and have no desire to understand why the Faith is what it is, or why it's important. Many fail to understand the difference between protestants and catholics, boiling it down to nothing more than "simply two (or more) different ways of practicing christianity and having a relationship with God." So to those people, I think you're right ---- they don't care, and the issue of allowing married priests is really no big deal.

Note, these are the same people who do NOT know (or care) about the Sunday obligation, don't know or care about the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, don't know or care about the concept of sin and the necessity of confession, or the connection between confession and the Eucharist, and about receiving the Host in the state of grace. Sadly, this is who *I think* makes up the vast majority of Catholics in the world today, or at least, the vast majority in the United States. That's just my opinion though.

Anyway, it seems that you want to look at this issue of a married clergy as a social justice issue, and you want to ignore the apolitical nature of the subject. As Amon rightfully pointed out ---- "The Church is not a Democracy."

The Church has been going on for 2000 years now, and a celibate, unmarried clergy has been the norm of the Roman Rite for about a thousand years. Prior to that, I don't know if it's accurate to say that a married clergy was the 'norm', but a married-but-continent clergy did exist. That's the whole thing about men leaving their wife and family behind and taking on the yoke of a celibate priest, which is how a non-married/celibate priesthood developed.

A non-married/celibate priesthood seems to have worked out pretty ok for, y'know, a thousand years .... up until WHEN exactly --- 1900? 1962? 1985? 2000? 2015? ..... How long has the Amazonian 'problem' been an actual problem? (Rhetorical, yet serious question because I have no idea) ....

When started the decline of men going to the priesthood? When did those numbers start falling off? I believe some years ago, somebody around here actually researched that and posted the results on this board. Hint: It hasn't been 100 years that this has been a problem.

So, do you think this is, say, a generational problem? Meaning, young men today aren't like the young men of yesteryear, and whereas in the past, men would be open to accepting a celibate priesthood, it's an actual barrier that the young men of today simply don't accept [i.e., being a product of their own generation]? Maybe another way of couching those questions would be to ask, "It's a different world today than it was yesterday?"

I get the fact that you're in favor of allowing married priests with full rights to the marriage debt, but I fail to understand how or why you think the Church should go in that direction.

Here is how I understand the essence of our back-and-forth to have developed:
You: I think the Church should allowed married priests.
Me: Why?
You: Because the Church used to have married priests. Currently does allow some married priests.
Me: You do understand that when you say "The Church used to have married priests," that included the caveat that said men would give up the marriage debt [read: they would remain continent] and most often would set their wife/family aside, right? Do you understand what it means to use "The Church used to have married priests" as some kind of support for allowing a married clergy today? Do you understand how and why a celibate priesthood developed? Are you familiar with the background and history of all this stuff?
You: What does that have to do with anything? A married man can do anything a celibate man can do.

I don't think you're understanding what I (and others) are trying to explain.
If you want to suggest that, "A married man can conduct a Mass. A married man can hear confessions. A married man can conduct weddings and funerals. What's the big deal?" .... then I think you're missing a big part of the picture.
I can totally acknowledge and agree that a married man can do what a celibate man can do.
I can even acknowledge that a woman can conduct all the ceremonies specific to the priesthood just like a man can do, irrespective of the question of marriage.
I can acknowledge that even a teenager can actually go through the motions of conducting the Mass, a funeral, a wedding, and even sit there and listen to a confession and read the words of absolution off a sheet of paper.

Your position leads to that basic of a conclusion. ANYbody can "do" what a celibate male priest does for a living.... because, y'know, everybody is a human being. One could just as easily say that a married male priest can ride a bicycle just like a celibate male priest can, or cook breakfast, or watch tv, etc. etc.

The question of whether or not to allow priests to be married, though, is not a social justice issue. That's what it seems like you're making it out to be. Married male priests --- why not? For that matter, female deacons --- why not? married female deacons --- why not? female priests, married or no --- why not?

That's turning a religious issue into a social justice issue.
This is not a social justice issue, no matter how hard the liberal catholics, the cafeteria catholics, the Amoris laetitia-loving catholics, etc. want it to be. This isn't about misogyny (in disallowing female ordination) either.

The Church needs pastors to care for the souls of their parish entrusted to their care.
Families need a father to care for the souls of their household entrusted to their care.
Mixing those two things up is, at the very least, along the lines of trying to serve two masters.
Holy Orders is a sacrament. Marriage is a sacrament. You're called to one or the other (or NEITHER), which means those who would like to do both have to make a sacrifice. Do you want to serve the world as the alter Christus, or do you want to serve the world as the head of household? If you want both, then one of those two things (if not both) is going to suffer because you can't be a 'full time husband' and a 'full time priest'. A full time husband can have a 9 to 5 job and weekends off as part of his duties and commitment to family. The priesthood is not a 9 to 5 job with weekends off. The priesthood is simply not conducive to a normal, healthy marriage and family life.

Why do they allow some married clergy today? This typically only comes as a result of a married man who converts to the Faith, and more often than not, they come from the ranks of the Episcopalians. Personally, I don't think it should even be allowed, but the Church allows it, because why? Well I don't really know, because as I said, I'm already against the idea, but if they're going to allow it, the Church isn't going to tell the guy, "Well, you need to leave your wife and kids." Allowing it is the exception to the rule, and quite frankly, it is a very serious matter and it's not simply rubber-stamped when it comes up.

So, I've tried BRIEFLY to explain calmly and rationally why I think a married clergy should not be allowed.
Are you able to come up with something substantive like the above to explain why a married clergy SHOULD be allowed?

I mean, I've heard some catholic friends offer at least something like, "Well, they should let those married guys in because maybe it will get rid of all the gay, boy-touching, pederast priests."

Hey, that's at least an argument.

Let's get some Catholic Education about celibacy and how some married clergy can become Catholic priests.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html

Not intimately, I'm glad to say.

And the point of all that was what exactly? Boredom?

no, just the quirkiness of the board and its members... we do that from time to time... it lightens the mood

Especially me.

yeah, and sometimes the mood lightener turns into a whole thread in and of itself... we do have a tendency to drift from time to time

Ah, I see. Sort of...

you've only been around for a little over 3 weeks ... check the length of service of some of the rest of us

I would but the idea is too... uh, scary.

join date is listed right underneath the avatar.

I won't look! I can't! OK. I looked. Gasp!

Withdrawn.

I think married priests should be allowed (in places where there is a dire shortage of priests) because married priests are already allowed and it's not a problem. So I simply don't see why some more married priests would be a problem. You wouldn't even notice, tango.

If you think it's better for priests to be unmarried, I have no wish to argue with you, you could be right (or you could be wrong) but that doesn't mean married priests cannot also be good priest. There already are good married priests.

I think you keep missing the point, tango. The point is not that in an ideal world all priests should be unmarried, the point is, in the real world, in places where there is a dire shortage of priests, would it be better to have married priests in those places or no priests in those places? I see no problem in saying that it would be better to have married priests in those places, as there are already married priests in some places and it's not a problem.

Average this page is rising 17 years.

This is a tolerant board.

17 yeeeeeers? Wow.

I get out after 20. Unless the parole board lets me out at 18.

I'll be there to voice my opinion.

We are not quirky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1