And the best argument, from a homeschooling mom:

Quote

Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.

:)

Agreed  :alcohol:! Why not give special Diocesan scholarships for the 12 kids while we are it, after all it would be irresponsible not to take them to college  .

Dr. Dollinger remarks similarly:

Nevertheless, when the Old Catholics abolished compulsory celibacy for the priesthood, Dr. Döllinger, as we are told by the intimate friend of his, an Anglican, was "sorely grieved" by the step, and this seems to have been one of the principal things which kept him from any formal participation in the Old Catholic communion. In reference to this matter he wrote to the same Anglican friend:

    You in England cannot understand how completely engrained it is into our people that a priest is a man who sacrifices himself for the sake of his parishioners. He has no children of his own, in order that all the children in the parish may be his children. His people know that his small wants are supplied, and that he can devote all his time and thought to them. They know that it is quite otherwise with the married pastors of the Protestants. The pastor's income may be enough for himself, but it is not enough for his wife and children also. In order to maintain them he must take other work, literary or scholastic, only a portion of his time can be given to his people; and they know that when the interests of his family and those of his flock collide, his family must come first and his flock second. In short, he has a profession or trade, a Gewerbe, rather than a vocation; he has to earn a livelihood. In almost all Catholic congregations, a priest who married would be ruined; all his influence would be gone.

or

When the once famous Père Hyacinth (M. Loyson) left the Church and married, this was the first point which once struck a free-thinker like George Sand. "Will Père Hyacinthe still hear confessions?" she wrote. "That is the question. Is the secrecy of the confessional compatible with the mutual confidences of conjugal love? If I were a Catholic, I would say to my children: 'Have no secrets which cost too much in the telling and then you will no cause to fear the gossip of the vicar's wife'."

or

With regard again to the effect upon a priest's work the following candid testimony from a distinguished married clergyman and professor of Trinity College, Dublin, is very striking. "But from the point of view of preaching", writes Professor Mahaffy, "there can be little doubt that married life creates great difficulties and hindrances. The distractions caused by sickness and other human misfortunes increase necessarily in proportion to the number of the household; and as the clergy in all countries are likely to have large families the time which might be spent in meditation on their discourses is stolen from them by other duties and other cares. The Catholic priest when his daily round of outdoor duties is over, comes home to a quiet study, where there is nothing to disturb his thoughts. The family man is met at the door by troops of children welcoming his return and claiming his interest in all their little affairs. Or else the disagreements of the household demand him as an umpire and his mind is disturbed by no mere speculative contemplation of the faults and follies of mankind but by their actual invasion of his home." (Mahaffy, The Decay of Modern Preaching, London, 1882, p. 42.)

I certainly would not take seriously a married priest  :shocked:, even if he were Eastern Catholic (there are very few among the Catholic clergy thankfully). This is not just an isolated opinion, but this is the practical consequences that have happened to the Anglicans, Orthodox and other heretics... You can't choose God and Mammon at the same time. Attend the Divine Liturgy, yes, go to confession with him no. This is of course if I have no other celibate clergy around and this is the only mass that is licit to attend to. Most of the Saints that were married previously and became priest/Bishop's abandoned their wives (St. Augustine etc...) to serve the Church fully so that someone cannot "cite" them as examples of married clergy. What I mean is someone who is currently married (living the conjugal life) and a priest at the same time, big difference from someone who converted later to the Catholic faith and previously married. There are of course at times where the Apostolic See has allowed certain exceptions to the rule in some Anglican converts. Most of the time with these exceptions if it is possible the married man will obtain permission from his wife to stop living the conjugal life. None of this of course affects the teaching of priestly celibacy, because they are exceptions to the rule based on right reason and sound judgement. "St. Jerome further seems to speak of a custom generally observed when he declares that clerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands"."

 Not done yet!  

We have almost had near 2,000 years of experience and the only thing that has happened as a result from not keeping priestly celibacy has been nepotism. It has not fared well for the Church by not keeping Apostolic tradition which comes straight from Our Blessed Lord. Not our will, but Thy will be done. That is what we should be thinking about, don't forget this debate has been over since a VERY long time ago. No need to keep beating a dead dog, this heresy was dealt with a long time ago. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Amen.

Priestly celibacy:

From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jєωs and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood.

Its also interesting to note from the article on Schism on the Catholic Encyclopedia how it lists this particular heretic Abbe Chatel, notice what sort of company you are with when you consider priestly celibacy as optional. How there are ENDLESS amount of heretics throughout the history of the Church attacking this doctrine it is almost unequalled to any other doctrine. Which is why I am so adamant about it. If the Conciliar Popes would have changed the rule Universally since before, that would have completely convinced me on that account alone. Now I know that Paul VI for all practical purposes abolished priestly celibacy de facto by "laicizing" the most amount of priest since the Protestant Reformation, Father John Hardon (who was deceived by the Conciliar sect sadly enough) says, "The Vatican, as I have said before, may not reveal the exact figures. It's close to one hundred thousand priests who have left the priesthood throughout the world in the past half-century. Nothing, nothing like it ever before!" However, it is still kept as De Jure in the New "Canon Law",  but who knows for how long:

In 1831 the Abbé Chatel founded the French Catholic Church, a small group which never acquired importance. The founder, who at first claimed to retain all the dogmas, had himself consecrated bishop by Fabre Palaprat, another self-styled bishop of the "Constitutional" type; he soon rejected the infallibility of the teaching Church, celibacy of priests, and abstinence. He recognized no rule of faith except individual evidence and he officiated in French. The sect was already on the point of being slain by ridicule when its meeting-places were closed by the Government in 1842.

...While this sect was declining another sprang up in antagonism to the Vatican Council. The opponents of the recently-defined doctrine of infallibility, the Old Catholics, at first contented themselves with a simple protest; at the Congress of Munich in 1871 they resolved to constitute a separate Church. Two years later they chose as bishop the Professor Reinkens of Breslau, who was recognized as bishop by Prussia, Baden, and Hesse. Thanks to official assistance the rebels succeeded in gaining possession of a number of Catholic churches and soon, like the German Catholics and schismatics in general, they introduced disciplinary and doctrinal novelties, they successively abandoned the precept of confession (1874), ecclesiastical celibacy (1878), the Roman liturgy, which was replaced (1880) by a German liturgy, etc. (Does this sound like some other sect more familiar to all of you: hint No_us O_do)

A Bishop is someone who has the fullness of the priesthood and even the Eastern Orthodox keep the rank of the Bishops among the celibate clergy. Just an interesting observation to note since it more fully explains the Roman Catholic doctrine of priestly celibacy.

Here are some of the respective canons from Nicea that deal with the topic respectively:

Canon 2: Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church's canon, with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it is agreed that it would be well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle's words are clear: "Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil". But if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.

Canon 3: This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.

Canon 10: If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the church's canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed. (My commentary here: So for example if someone would have ordained someone who was thought to be celibate was not truly celibate, he would then be able to be deposed later.)

As I have said mentioned before about the majority not following priestly celibacy is not a strong case for the opposite opinion. "Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church." Even if De facto the practice of priestly celibacy is not there anymore (like in Paul VI's case), the real important part is De Jure which will be a sure sign of a false Church.

In the controversies of this time the Masses said by these incontinent priests were sometimes described as "idolatrous"; but this word must not be pressed, as if it meant to insinuate that such priests were incapable of consecrating validly. The term was only loosely used, just as if it was also sometimes applied at the same period to any sort of homage rendered to an antipope. (Interesting analogy...)

...In 1897 there seem to have been 4025 parish churches in Greece, and these were served by 5423 married and 242 unmarried priests. (Greek Schismatics, please compare those numbers to the Greek Catholic priests...)

...

In the Russian Church, though a previous marriage seems to be, practically speaking, a conditio sine quâ non for ordination in the case of the secular clergy, still their canonists deny that this is a strict obligation. The candidate for orders must either be already married or must formally declare his intention of remaining celibate. I wonder how the Schismatics would argue that this somehow reflects to what St. Paul had advised that all would be like him especially among the clergy.This is why their is such an emphasis in Orthodoxy of the Angelic life a.k.a as the monastic life. Interesting how that works....

Although many others have treated this topic much more in depth, and I would highly recommend to read the works cited by Geremia (thanks for the souce) dealing with the topic. Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear or you would like for me to go more in depth. I stress this very much as their might be a possibility that the Vatican might soon approve of this pernicious error...

+Pax vobis+

They have been "talking" about this for as long as I can remember. I will believe it when I see them actually allow married priests.
 

The whole question boils down to this: Should the clergy father biological children?

The answer is definitely: "No!" Look at the Protestant "ministers"' children. They often turn out rotten due to a lack (although not total absence) of a fatherly figure in their lives.

I guess my question regarding whether celibacy is more than discipline is this:

If it was more than discipline, then wouldn't have it been instituted from the very beginning?  Was it?  I thought it was something the Church put into place in the Middle Ages.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Come one now, the Church would never have tolerated a practice in the Eastern Churches that was inherently incompatible with Apostolic Tradition ... just to "avoid schism" any more than the Church countenanced Henry VIII's "annulment" in order to prevent England from going into schism.  Give me a break.

Celibacy as an "evangelical counsel" was certainly of Apostolic origin, but it doesn't mean it was ever mandatory.  With all due respect to St. Jerome, when St. Paul writes in 1 Timothy about a bishop being the husband of one wife, it's just silly to claim that this referred to being married to the Church, for the next sentence goes on to state that if one cannot properly govern his own family, then how can he govern the Church?

Give me some time and I will answer later with regards to that. Yes, I can prove to you without a reasonable doubt that they did to avoid "schism." Also let me know of what you think of my previous response. Thanks for the chat, I am only singling you out because you happen to be defending that proposition. If it would have been anyone else I would be doing the same, hope you don't take it personal. God Bless and I hope you take seriously what everyone is saying.

+PAX+

"Odon Vallet, who can hardly be suspected of traditionalism, declared to MYTF1News: “In this matter, there is a real risk of schism and of divisions within the Church.”" (source).

Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear

"Unclear?"  Fascinating that you would ask: Where the (expletive deleted) did all the text in red inside the "Quote" boxes come from?  You seem to be abusing the straightforward formatting tools--easily used and understood--that CathInfo provides.

How's 'bout typing your original comments about the quoted text outside the "Quote" boxes that you're commenting on?  'T ain't rocket science.

Anyone whose postings in this topic are as lengthy as yours already are--which makes bailing out increasingly appealing with each additional line--really ought to make a special effort to make them as easy to read as possible.  Which especially includes making it very clear who wrote what.

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher (Sep 18, 2013, 1:49 am)

Hopefully no one remains unconvinced, if you do please cite where I was unclear

"Unclear?"  Fascinating that you would ask: Where the (expletive deleted) did all the text in red inside the "Quote" boxes come from?  You seem to be abusing the straightforward formatting tools--easily used and understood--that CathInfo provides.

How's 'bout typing your original comments about the quoted text outside the "Quote" boxes that you're commenting on?  'T ain't rocket science.

Anyone whose postings in this topic are as lengthy as yours already are--which makes bailing out increasingly appealing with each additional line--really ought to make a special effort to make them as easy to read as possible.  Which especially includes making it very clear who wrote what.

Thanks for the comment, I did not realize how I butchered it by not making clear my comments outside of the quotes. I will take your advice into consideration. Appreciate the criticism, I will do my best to fix that in the future. God Bless!

I've never argued that celibacy is not a good thing and not necessary for perfection in the religious state.  Nevertheless, as I said, the Church has always allowed it in the Eastern Rites.  Consequently, the lifting of celibacy would NOT constitute any kind of argument against the legitimacy of a pope.  If they can tolerate it for the Eastern Rites, then they can also tolerate it for the Roman Rite without losing their see and committing some kind of "heresy".

Similarly, with communion under both species, the Eastern Rites have always practiced it, and there's nothing inherently evil about it, the Protestant-era condemnations of the practice notwithstanding.

If an Anglican convert that becomes a priest by special exception from the Holy See allowed to live the conjugal life, that is not for me to judge whether it was a good or bad decision. If that convert did not believe that the Universal celibacy does not apply, he would be a heretic. Likewise you are comparing apples and oranges, and quit talking double-speak. You either agree with the Roman Church, or you do not. You can't say like how the married priest movement, "How much they admire celibate priest." We know this is a pure con job to fool good Catholics into thinking that they still somehow are on the same side. Now I am not sure if you have heard of the schism of Photius and Celarus, both of them held communion under both kinds as necessary for the Roman Church + married priest, but despite these heretics, consistently the ecuмenical Councils of the canons of Holy Church have condemned as anathema sit such opinions:

934  Can. 1. If anyone says that each and every one of the faithful of Christ ought by a precept of God, or by necessity for salvation to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930 ].

935 Can. 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to layman and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema [cf. n.931 ].

936  Can. 3. If anyone denies that Christ whole and entire, who is the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both species: let him be anathema [cf. n. 930,932 ].

937  Can. 4. If anyone says that for small children, before they have attained the years of discretion, communion of the Eucharist is necessary: let him be anathema [cf. n.933 ].

Canon 4 is interesting because the Eastern Church gives communion to babies under both kinds. Now how is it that the Roman Church asserts that anyone who believes that this is absolutely necessary will be anathema sit?!

Seriously what part can't you get through your head, because there are exceptions somewhere, it does not imply that it is "optional" or "recommended, but even those who are given the exception they would be heretics for denying the Universal and constant teaching of the Church with regards to the Universal Church having celibacy as mandatory. Celibacy is not just a good "thing", it is MANDATORY. It is the prerogative of the Holy See to allow exceptions for certain people or groups (with an intent of not having them become schismatic). No it cannot be "tolerated" in the Western Rite period, cite me one SINGLE papal teaching that says so. Quit citing your opinion and start actually submitting your mind to the authority of the Church which has been as St. Vincent of Lerins, "(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally." Notice how it has NEVER been taught in the West in any official manner anything contrary to celibacy. Rome has always taught this as BINDING on the Church, just because there are dissenters does not make it right. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that the number of those who are saved are few because of schisms and heresies. The teaching of clerical celibacy was taught before even the Council of Nicea on some other local Synods in Spain and in different parts of Europe. Just because some local region accepted some error and it is tolerated for the sake of Schism for a particular group it would be a total break with tradition to apply this Universally. Remember the early Church was a catacomb Church and it did not have the same liberty until much later which is why it took so long to condemn certain heretical opinions.

If Bergoglio makes celibacy optional, then he is an anti-Pope (for that alone and nothing else). This is what can become dangerous from defending heretics because you will need to accept their errors in order to hold them as still Catholic. This is why so many in the Conciliar sect will be damned, because instead of being intellectually honest and remaining silent when they have no clue of what they are talking about, they speak up in defense of Assisi et al... I can keep quoting indefinitely papal teaching on this matter, good luck finding something defending your erroneous temerious position. The Pope when he used to take his Oath during his Coronation ceremony, promises to be held to the teachings of his predecessors.

Mirari Vos says it clearly:

11. Now, however, We want you to rally to combat the abominable conspiracy against clerical celibacy. This conspiracy spreads daily and is promoted by profligate philosophers, some even from the clerical order. They have forgotten their person and office, and have been carried away by the enticements of pleasure. They have even dared to make repeated public demands to the princes for the abolition of that most holy discipline. But it is disgusting to dwell on these evil attempts at length. Rather, We ask that you strive with all your might to justify and to defend the law of clerical celibacy as prescribed by the sacred canons, against which the arrows of the lascivious are directed from every side.

Even Paul VI as bad as he was defended clerical celibacy, Bergoglio is making anti-Christ's look like champions of Orthodoxy...