ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Not trying to excuse anyone for breaking a vow, but I find the other adult in these type situations pretty disgusting. Who knowingly consents to break a priest's vow of chastity, and one that could drastically affect his life and career? How could you do that to someone you supposedly care about? Even if his self-control was weak, it's still pretty loathesome to take him up on it.

---

Quote:

---

I would hope that if they fell in love, and by definition God is Love - then "disgusting" is the farthest word from the truth.

I think the word we are searching for is "scandalous." Precisely because the Priest has taken a vow of celibacy and now finds himself in love with a woman! We should not assume any more (sexual) than that. I can imagine the difficulty he must have faced during this time. A man of character will remain celibate while making the necessary arrangements for his next chapter in life - a Deacon! In another parish of course.

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation...

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. SIXTY NINE percent of active Catholics do not believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. One of the most fundamental teachings of the church, if not the most!!! That is a clear failure in leadership. Something needs to change. Again, I don't know if allowing married priests to practice is the solution, but I believe that would give us more priests. More dynamic men would feel called, I believe.

---

Something did change in the 1960s, and belief in the real presence has plummeted. It has nothing to do with the dynamism of the preaching.

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. SIXTY NINE percent of active Catholics do not believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. One of the most fundamental teachings of the church, if not the most!!! That is a clear failure in leadership. Something needs to change. Again, I don't know if allowing married priests to practice is the solution, but I believe that would give us more priests. More dynamic men would feel called, I believe.

---

Something did change in the 1960s, and belief in the real presence has plummeted. It has nothing to do with the dynamism of the preaching.

---

It is mind boggling to me that many faithful Catholics actually think this.

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. SIXTY NINE percent of active Catholics do not believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. One of the most fundamental teachings of the church, if not the most!!! That is a clear failure in leadership. Something needs to change. Again, I don't know if allowing married priests to practice is the solution, but I believe that would give us more priests. More dynamic men would feel called, I believe.

---

Something did change in the 1960s, and belief in the real presence has plummeted. It has nothing to do with the dynamism of the preaching.

---

It is mind boggling to me that many faithful Catholics actually think this.

---

If you believe in the the divinely inspired and authoritative Magesterium, but don't believe that Vatican II was licit, valid, a good idea, or whatever, you are in a bit of a double bind.

Philosophically, it's why the Orthodox position is striking me as more cohesive personally lately, though that may just be because I don't know it well enough.

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. SIXTY NINE percent of active Catholics do not believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. One of the most fundamental teachings of the church, if not the most!!! That is a clear failure in leadership. Something needs to change. Again, I don't know if allowing married priests to practice is the solution, but I believe that would give us more priests. More dynamic men would feel called, I believe.

---

Something did change in the 1960s, and belief in the real presence has plummeted. It has nothing to do with the dynamism of the preaching.

---

It is mind boggling to me that many faithful Catholics actually think this.

---

If you believe in the the divinely inspired and authoritative Magesterium, but don't believe that Vatican II was licit, valid, a good idea, or whatever, you are in a bit of a double bind.

Philosophically, it's why the Orthodox position is striking me as more cohesive personally lately, though that may just be because I don't know it well enough.

---

I was referring to the latter half of your statement. I should have bolded it in my initial reply.

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

chimpanzee said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

As a lifelong Catholic, I really struggle with the concept of a celibate priesthood. I don't understand how having a wife and kids would make a priest any less holy or any less capable of leading a parish towards Christ. I especially struggle with the idea that this regulation (not dogma) came about around the twelfth century so that priests' land couldn't be inherited by their descendants, rather it would be returned to the church. Christ's apostles were married.

Many protestant preachers that I have known or listened to in person or online seem to be much stronger in conveying Christ's message than some of the priests that I have encountered, despite having wives and kids. I think that one of the primary reasons that the 80% of Catholics no longer practice the faith 10 years after receiving the sacrament of Confirmation is because Christ's message isn't firmly delivered in mass and I think this is primarily because there is a shortage of strong, bold priests leading our churches. I think more men would feel inclined to become priests if they were able to live out that vocation while having a family of their own.

Would this prevent something like what Fr. Brian did? I think so, but maybe not. Maybe he would have just cheated on his wife and broken his vows.

---

I would argue that married clergy with children are better examples to follow than those that remain celibate. Life experience aids in guidance. Being able to relate to the layperson.

---

I agree.

---

Talk to any experienced priest about any of your lay problems, and you will be shocked by just how experienced they may be. Not directly, of course, but from the hundreds and thousands of other like you they've counseled.

I have talked to a few priests that have done an incredible job of understanding, helping, and relating to my problems as a lay man. A priest that was my spiritual director in middle school and high school seemed to understand everything that I was going through. However, I have encountered far more priests that struggle to help or understand the problems of a lay man. Confessions where a priest has nothing to offer, bu

The point of a celibate priesthood is to better serve their flock. Can you imagine all the baptisms, the confirmations, the last rights, the funerals, the church functions, etc, etc, etc. that these guys go through? Now do that with a family. There is a reason why "the pastor's kid" is such a common meme. I can't imagine trying to be a father, working 80+ hours a week and having to be the emotional and spiritual guide to thousands.

Is that the point? My father is close friends with the pastor of one of the largest protestant mega churches in the world....a church that is bigger than any Catholic Church in the country. He has three kids, an incredibly happy marriage, and is one of the best men that I have ever met. I don't see the responsibility of either inhibiting him from fulfilling the responsibilities of the other. The argument could be easily be made that if the celibate priesthood was removed, we would have more priests, and thus those responsibilities could be more evenly distributed, lessening the load on each priest.


Tradition says even the married apostles chose a life of celibacy within their marriages.

Everything that I have read about this seems to be pure speculation and there is little to no evidence that proves that the apostles didn't have sex. Eastern Catholic priests can be married. Married Anglican priests that convert are allowed to be Catholic priests.


The second advantage of a celibate life is that they SHOULD be free to much more bold in their proclamations and evangelizations. There is no one depending on them to keep their job, stay out of the fire of cancel culture, or even avoid martyrdom. The greatest Saints we know we're celibate because there was no earthly connections binding them to the worldly life. That's why they would cross continents and face torture and murder for their faith. Saint Francis can walk up to a Muslim army and try to evangelize a sultan, in part, because he wouldn't be leaving behind a widow and orphans.

This feels like complete nonsense to me. Many lay men have died for their faith over the years. Many protestants have died for their faith. People die for their country. People die for things as trivial as gangs. And you think that because a man is married, he would be less willing to lay down his life than someone who isn't? That kind of boldness is in a man or it isn't. It isn't inhibited because you are married or not or because you have sex or don't have sex.


Celibacy did not turn off strong men from the faith. There is a mountain of evidence and testimonials showing that men of certain inclinations took on leadership in the seminaries and made it very, very difficult for strong men on fire for God to make it to our pulpits. The priesthood was neutered from the inside, not by celibacy. And it's tragic.

While the latter part of your assertion here is likely true, I would certainly believe that. There is absolutely no way that is the case. We would have exponentially more priests if celibacy weren't a requirement.

---

---

On mobile, so sorry I can't make this an easier read:

1. The confessional is not a place for spiritual guidance. It is a place for the metaphysical cleansing of the soul. While it is great to get advice from your priest, it's not the point. A priest acting as a spiritual director is a radically different, and vital, piece of the spiritual life. Just like a priest that gives an excellent homily is a true blessing, even the weakest orator still offers the Eucharist to us.
I understand that the primary function of confession is the forgiveness of sins, but to say that it is not a place for spiritual guidance is asinine. Yes, there are opportunities for spiritual direction. Yes, one can talk to a priest. But a priest should be able to sense if someone is struggling with sin and give them guidance in the confessional. Like many of my points earlier, why would someone who gets nothing out of a priest's homily in mass, gets nothing out of their interaction with a priest in confession seek out a priest for spiritual direction???

2. I'm happy for the pastor you describe and know several myself. Same as with our priests, one good one does not describe the whole. Also (and I speak with experience here) the situation is not always as it seems. I pray and hope that pastor's children are in Heaven with all on this board. But the meme is still a meme for a very, very good reason. It is extremely difficult for the modern pastor to raise children because of their roles, if they are truly serving in their role correctly. Furthermore, all denominations that allow for married pastors are doing no better in their vocations that the Catholic Church is. It is a significant problem we need to address, but it's not unique to our celibate priests.
In research on religious statistics regarding the decline in faith, it is difficult to compare. The number of people that identify as "Christian" has declined dramatically lately. The number of people that identify as "Catholic" has declined as well. Catholicism has seen a greater net loss to other religions than any other Christian denomination. 69% of Catholics don't believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Roughly 80% of Catholics are no longer practicing their faith 10 years after their confirmation. I am not sure if there are numbers in protestant faiths that can compare to those.

3. You can either believe Church tradition or not. You're not obligated to. But it's important to note that married Catholic priests that are in communion with Rome require their priests to be married prior to ordination and (at least in the case of Anglicans) are required to stay celibate, even in marriage.
Where is the Church tradition that holds that Christ's apostles were celibate?? There is no Biblical basis for this and nothing in the CCC that pertains to the celibate priesthood ties back to the tradition of the apostles. This doesn't feel like a church tradition, it feels like pure speculation based on the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible that Christ's followers had sex. Even then, if that was a tradition that was held and passed down, why were priests married with kids up until the 12th century? That doesn't add up at all.

4. Many lay men have died, for sure. But just look at the lives of the Saints. Look to the martyrs. Do the math. White martyrdom or red, you have to either be an unmarried, fatherless individual, or naive to think a married father of multiple children can take on the same level of sacrifice as a man with nothing to lose. St Paul flat out says it's better to stay single for this exact purpose. When you have a lot to lose on this earth, it's much, much harder to lay down your life. Even using your military or gang examples, the analogy still fails, as most men who have died in modern wars were either unmarried, or not yet a father. Same with gangs, which is obvious. Sure, there are many good men and women who have assumed the responsibility of martyrdom anyway. But if you want to talk sheer numbers, you'll lose. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'll side with Paul on this.
This point is almost irrelevant as a whole. What percentage of priests in the United States today are going to ever be faced with martyrdom? The number has to be a fraction of one percent.

5. Again, there are articles on this. Vocations are struggling across denominations. It's not a "Catholic problem". Allowing priests to marry won't solve our problem, and it should not be used as a reasoning. Listen to Patrick Coffin. He's had several men who left the seminary speak on the sexual exploitation their rector attempted to subject them to. Listen to Father Altman's homily on silent clergymen. It's very, very, very difficult for a traditional Catholic man to make it through the seminary without hiding it. That is a revolting truth you can find with just. A little searching. The saddest part is that the men who were forced away from their calling are so devoutly Catholic that they reluctantly speak out about their experiences because they don't want to turn people away from the true faith. Say your rosaries for these men and the rectors/priests/bishops who forced them away

---

Again, the overarching point of all of my arguments is that a whopping eighty percent of Catholics are not practicing their faith 10 years after they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. SIXTY NINE percent of active Catholics do not believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. One of the most fundamental teachings of the church, if not the most!!! That is a clear failure in leadership. Something needs to change. Again, I don't know if allowing married priests to practice is the solution, but I believe that would give us more priests. More dynamic men would feel called, I believe.

---

Something did change in the 1960s, and belief in the real presence has plummeted. It has nothing to do with the dynamism of the preaching.

---

It is mind boggling to me that many faithful Catholics actually think this.

---

If you believe in the the divinely inspired and authoritative Magesterium, but don't believe that Vatican II was licit, valid, a good idea, or whatever, you are in a bit of a double bind.

Philosophically, it's why the Orthodox position is striking me as more cohesive personally lately, though that may just be because I don't know it well enough.

---

I was referring to the latter half of your statement. I should have bolded it in my initial reply.

---

One of my statements or one of Tony's? I'm not following (or meaning to be defensive) always trying to understand better.

I think I agree that both the belief in the real presence has plummeted and that it is indeed mind boggling.

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

I believe all of the documents that came out of Vatican Ii are valid. At the same time, the implementation of the documents as far as liturgy is concerned basically ignored the documents. The documents don't call for liturgical abuses, they just left the door unlocked for them.

For example, the Sign of Peace. A reverent greeting of peace could express the unity of the members of the Church. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's rarely done reverently. Instead, the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ sit on the altar as every moves to shake hands with their favorite person. Sometimes the priest leaves the altar. The ushers roam shaking everyone's hands. Kids shoot peace signs across the aisle to their friends. You don't think this detracts from the magnitude of what we're supposed to believe just happened on the altar?

I think there are a lot of good things that came about with the Vatican II rite. It contains a much deeper dive into scripture than the traditional latin mass.

And Saint Pablo, I was hyperbolic in stating that the dynamism of preaching has nothing to do with the decline in belief in the real presence. I do think that the "Protestantization" of the liturgy has a lot more to do with it however.

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

I believe all of the documents that came out of Vatican Ii are valid. At the same time, the implementation of the documents as far as liturgy is concerned basically ignored the documents. The documents don't call for liturgical abuses, they just left the door unlocked for them.

For example, the Sign of Peace. A reverent greeting of peace could express the unity of the members of the Church. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's rarely done reverently. Instead, the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ sit on the altar as every moves to shake hands with their favorite person. Sometimes the priest leaves the altar. The ushers roam shaking everyone's hands. Kids shoot peace signs across the aisle to their friends. You don't think this detracts from the magnitude of what we're supposed to believe just happened on the altar?

I think there are a lot of good things that came about with the Vatican II rite. It contains a much deeper dive into scripture than the traditional latin mass.

And Saint Pablo, I was hyperbolic in stating that the dynamism of preaching has nothing to do with the decline in belief in the real presence. I do think that the "Protestantization" of the liturgy has a lot more to do with it however.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

I believe all of the documents that came out of Vatican Ii are valid. At the same time, the implementation of the documents as far as liturgy is concerned basically ignored the documents. The documents don't call for liturgical abuses, they just left the door unlocked for them.

For example, the Sign of Peace. A reverent greeting of peace could express the unity of the members of the Church. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's rarely done reverently. Instead, the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ sit on the altar as every moves to shake hands with their favorite person. Sometimes the priest leaves the altar. The ushers roam shaking everyone's hands. Kids shoot peace signs across the aisle to their friends. You don't think this detracts from the magnitude of what we're supposed to believe just happened on the altar?

I think there are a lot of good things that came about with the Vatican II rite. It contains a much deeper dive into scripture than the traditional latin mass.

And Saint Pablo, I was hyperbolic in stating that the dynamism of preaching has nothing to do with the decline in belief in the real presence. I do think that the "Protestantization" of the liturgy has a lot more to do with it however.

---

I agree with a lot of this.
The reason why we don't have belief in the real presence like we should is because we don't treat the sacrament as we should. Allowing Holy Communion in the hand has been a plague. We should bring back the Communion Rail for a start. The TLM is so much more reverent, I wish we could just do it in the vernacular, although I do see a benefit of the Church having a common language. I believe all Catholics should be able to do basic prayers in latin.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

The Latin Mass was never made illicit. You can go to diocesan Latin Masses or particular orders like the Fraternity of St. Peter which are in full communion with Rome. Even the SPPX is licit, but i find the people in their ranks to be sedevacantist.

---

chimpanzee said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

The Latin Mass was never made illicit. You can go to diocesan Latin Masses or particular orders like the Fraternity of St. Peter which are in full communion with Rome. Even the SPPX is licit, but i find the people in their ranks to be sedevacantist.

---

Was it not strongly discouraged for decades for a priest to conduct the Latin Mass? I know they were hard to find, which seems like it wouldn't be an issue if all of its positive attributes were still appreciated by some substantial minority of the clergy and laity.

There's seems to me to be a lot of technicalities and formalities to a lot of things Rome puts out there (i.e licit or illicit), but if many eloquently and wholeheartedly defend the Tridentine mass now, surely some believed that its practice prior to 2007 was a good idea before Benedict XVI wrote his letter clarifying that it was ok for people to attend one. The need for that clarification tells me that if you asked different Bishops between VII and 2007 why it's not a more available option, the responses would have varied.

My "one thick skull at a time" problem again shows up when one lay person's primary vehicle to understanding the faith was one of these Bishops or the parishes that agreed with them that changed the experience of worship and the faith at the stroke of a pen.

One may try not to change how we engage with the faith, but inevitably we do and must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us right, which sounds a lot like Methodism to pick which Church Father/Pope/Bishop/Priest from what era to listen to. I'm sympathetic to C.S. Lewis' view (as I took it, poorly paraphrasing) that it's best to dig in with prayer and trust in the Lord with what you have to work with in front of you, yet we all want to do it better, and we keep butting into long winded and well spoken folks that say the other guy is wrong.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

It's hard to say. A week ago I would have said that Fr. Brian was probably on the fast track to be a Bishop since the last 2 pastors of St. Mary's have been elevated to be a bishop. There is a possibility for counseling I believe. Since it wasn't a student or a minor it may be likely he wouldn't be laicized, but is really up to the bishop. Considering that St. Mary's has been seen as a model of campus ministry for the whole country, I can imagine bringing scandal to it will not be taken lightly.

---

Potcake said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

It's hard to say. A week ago I would have said that Fr. Brian was probably on the fast track to be a Bishop since the last 2 pastors of St. Mary's have been elevated to be a bishop. There is a possibility for counseling I believe. Since it wasn't a student or a minor it may be likely he wouldn't be laicized, but is really up to the bishop. Considering that St. Mary's has been seen as a model of campus ministry for the whole country, I can imagine bringing scandal to it will not be taken lightly.

---

I would venture Fr. James Misko (Vicar General) will be the next from the diocese to become a Bishop. He was in the management group at Macaroni Grill in a previous life and he implemented several capital improvements at St. Louis before moving to his present position. He has really good homilies too.

---

UTExan said:

---

OceanStateAg said:

---

The resignation has already occurred.
The Vicar General announced it at Masses beginning Saturday evening. In short, an inappropriate relationship with an adult, not at St Mary's, a few years ago, came to the bishop's attention recently and Fr McMaster tendered his resignation as pastor Friday or Saturday.

---

I hate to admit it, but I am almost relieved it was with an adult. Given the track record of clergy (both Catholic and Protestant) I suspected worse.

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

Do sins stack like that? If something is already abhorrent to God and absolutely wrong, how can it be double wrong? I feel like sin is a binary, not a continuum.

How do Catholics assign how many Hail Marys etc. one has to say after confessional? Is there a point system?

---

Ag4coal said:

---

MidTnAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

OceanStateAg said:

---

The resignation has already occurred.
The Vicar General announced it at Masses beginning Saturday evening. In short, an inappropriate relationship with an adult, not at St Mary's, a few years ago, came to the bishop's attention recently and Fr McMaster tendered his resignation as pastor Friday or Saturday.

---

I hate to admit it, but I am almost relieved it was with an adult. Given the track record of clergy (both Catholic and Protestant) I suspected worse.

---

Catholics have decades of histories worldwide of sexual abuse of youth by their leaders. I was not aware of any other Christian religion having a similar abhorrent track record.

---

A simple google search will solve that for you. There have been studies on this, and the rate of abuse is similar across denominations. The Catholic Church was the most egregious in covering it up though. No doubt about that at all.

---