Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense
(01-24-2020, 08:46 PM)austenbosten Wrote: 1) Although sex can be a distraction for many, it does not mean that there cannot be married men who can control themselves.
A) Agreed, but given that lust is the sin that draws most to Hell as Our Blessed Mother at Fatima stated: "More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason." It is important that we do not trespass against the cardinal virtue of Prudence and revoke a practice older than the Rosary in a time when Lust is the chief cause of scandal in the Church.  While any inordinate passion is evil, let us not fool ourselves into thinking sex doesn't have more sway over one's desires than food.

Agreed on prudence, and agreed that sex has more sway than other passions.  I guess I should clarify that, even though I'm an adamant supporter of married priests, I'm not arguing that this is something the Latin Church should necessarily adopt on a broad scale.  I definitely agree that married clergy will not in anyway solve the sex abuse problem.  I think there is a very good argument to be made that, ignoring the debate on whether married priests are appropriate in general, now is probably not a prudent time for the Latin Church to adopt the practice.  My argument is against the position that allowing married priests is basically heretical, or that ordaining married men is inherently contrary to the nature of holy orders.

Quote:2) Married men can be focused too.  Married men can be as focused as celibate men on the needs of a parish.
Quote:A) Utterly false!  A married man is husband to his wife and family.  When pressed between servicing the needs of the Church and his family, either his family is forced to suffer, or the Church.  Unless the man is blessed with the gift of bilocation, he cannot be two places at once.  A celibate priest is married to the Church and does not have to share his time with a wife and family.

I can accept that God rarely grants the grace necessary for a man to be both a priest and a husband and father, and to do all well.  But I've seen married priests who do it, and I believe they have managed both well because their children don't grow up to show any signs of a troubled childhood, or harbor any anger towards the Church or rejection of it.  Regarding balancing the needs of a parish and family, a celibate priest can just as easily be torn between the needs of different parishioners.  I'm sure it's happened once or twice that a priest has been called to urgently administer last rites to different parishioners at the same time, and was not able to see both before they passed.  We're talking about practical matters, nothing that is beyond God's grace if he wishes to bestow it.  From a purely practical standpoint, I would agree with you: it makes sense for priests to not have a family so that they can devote themselves solely to the needs of the Church.  With man, some things are impossible.  With God, nothing's impossible.  So, I guess you could say, "How hard is it for a priest to also be a husband and a father?  As hard as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle."

Messages In This Thread
RE: Clerical celibacy, Eastern defense - by Melkite - 01-24-2020, 09:29 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)