Be careful. That sounds as though you are suggesting that Eastern Rite Catholics are less 'hardcore' in their devotion and the way they live out the priestly calling. You are seriously underestimating the contribution that married priests make if you assume that it's a soft option for the weaker sort of Christian.



You mean masturbation.

Your definitions of modesty and chastity, as people have noted in other threads, are not always particularly healthy or realistic. True chastity is about much more than being able to resist the urge to touch your genitalia for a marathon two or three months at a time. It is about being happy with your station in life, comfortable with yourself, accepting of God's will, and content in your friendships. Consequently, it is possible for a married priest to be far purer and more balanced in this respect than his celibate counterpart. The reverse is also possible.

I think that Margaret Clare said it best. Men who are called to a life of celibacy as a priest will be given the grace for that. Men who are called to marriage will be given the grace for that. None of us can aspire to something that is not part of our divine calling.

Good way of looking at it; that it's God's choice rather than our own.
Still, it's often difficult to find out what exactly one is being called to do. In the end, as always, we trust that things work out, and that we don't know nearly as well as God does.

Just as a side note, we hadn't mentioned converted Protestant priests before, I suppose, because they would be the exception to the rule, largely irrelevant to this particular topic, except to point out that the issue of clerical celibacy is waived in some cases.

In the ancient Church both East and West ordained married men, but beginning in the 5th century the West began to impose the discipline of celibacy upon all men receiving holy orders (i.e., to episcopacy, priesthood, or the deaconate), and even imposed celibacy upon men receiving ordination to the sub-deaconate. Finally, in the late 1960s the Roman Church changed its discipline and once again began ordaining married men to the deaconate, while still requiring celibacy of men entering the priesthood. Clearly, celibacy is not inherently connected to holy orders, because if it were it would be impossible to ordain a married man, and the West has never claimed that to be the case.

Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

The Words of Jesus Christ Himself.

The Roman Catholic priesthood accepts it.

Others do not.

This is all quite true, however even you have to admit that "for the sake of the kingdom of God" could very well not be refering exclusively to Holy Orders. I'll grant that it makes an extremely compelling argument, and I'm not saying in the slightest that I disagree with the Church's position. In this case, however, the way I interpret this passage is that it refers more to the vocation of celibacy, which of course is extremely admirable, and as it says above, not for everyone.
It is quite right, by the way, to say that there is great room for differences of opinion among Catholics...
...and the post above about deacons versus priests was extremely welcome. I had almost forgotten that it's still Holy Orders! You're right, this obviously shows that celibacy is not required for the sacrament... just for certain aspects? Within the Roman tradition, of course.

Yeah, no, I totally understand that.

Exactly

This thread reminded me last night of this article from the National Catholic Register from a couple years ago.

Thanks for posting the article.

As a Byzantine Catholic I fully support the tradition of married clergy in my own Church, and I will resist to my dying breath any attempt at Latinization.

The historical imperialism of the Latin Church, which in the past has forced its own discipline on Eastern Churches, is most distasteful.

Thanks for posting that!
It explains things more clearly than anything I've read in the past, and now I'm entirely satisfied on the subject.

Second the feelings entirely.
As said, I support the Magesterium completely and have pledged allegiance to all of her doctrine, however I would also be far more likely to become a priest if celibacy was not a requirement. In fact, as thankful as I am to have been brought to Christ's Church so early in life, sometimes I wish I'd been able to be Episcopalian so I could have been a minister and then done the whole switchy-over deal (We actually have a priest in our diocese (now retired) with a wife and children - he was one of those who was a minister (pastor/reverend? I don't know how the Episcopalians call them) in the Episcopalian church and converted and became ordained in the Church).

Too bad it would just be so entirely wrong to convert to Protestantism, get married, become a minister, then convert back. Hahaha.

Great! I'm glad it helped you. Yeah, it really is a well written article.

...or 'convert' to one of the Eastern branches, which many Latins find attractive.

I imagine that this is being done. I don't know if the Eastern seminaries have any stats on this. "Converts' in their ranks...

I suppose that they wouldn't really keep track of that...
After all, it's not as much of a conversion as going over to Protestantism or the Orthodox Church.
They might though...