Priestly Celibacy (I)

Over the last weeks as new news of Francis's Den of Perverts and their filthy corruption has become a daily occurrence many Catholics are proposing a 'solution' to the homosexual problem in the Church. Their 'solution' is simple. Have a married Priesthood!

Some are well meaning, but ignorant of the history and theology behind the discipline. Others are actively working to destroy the Divine Constitution of the Mystical Body of Christ. Over the next few minutes I'm posting four separate posts on the subject, so that no single post is overly long.

A couple of days ago, one of the former proposed the married Priesthood 'solution' on Fisheaters Forum. The thread now has 85 posts.

A friend posted the following and I answered with my own experience in the Anglican Church.

The tradition of the Roman rite is celibacy. The tradition of the Eastern rites isn't. There's absolutely no good reason to change either one, and there's less of a reason to change it in a time when making the change will cause people to interpret the old way as bad. The abuse problem is a homosexual one, not a celibacy one. Heterosexual men do not seek to have sex with teenage boys.

Thank you! As an Easterner, I have absolutely no problem with a married Priesthood in the Eastern Rite! I do have a serious problem with people, Eastern or Latin, who want to change the immemorial tradition of the Latin Rite to 'solve' a problem that is not caused by celibacy.

Many years ago (long before the homosexual abuse scandals broke), an Eastern friend wrote a letter he intended to send to the Latin Diocesan paper in his Diocese arguing for a married Priesthood. I dissuaded him. I told him, and I've repeated this argument countless times in the last 30 years, that whilst it might sound like a good idea, in reality it was horrific. Why?

Because, since the Council 'small reforms' tend to become sweeping, revolutionary changes as we have seen too many times. In these revolutionary times, allowing married men to be ordained Priests as the discipline of the entire Latin Church would inevitably lead to the demand for Priests to marry.

In fact, just a year or two after the Council closed, I lived downstairs from three Dutch Priests who were studying in the US. At the time, I was still an Anglican, but I participated in many Masses celebrated in their apartment with ordinary bread and an ordinary table goblet of wine. They told me that it was probably too late for them, but the Council 'deforms' meant that before long ordained Priests would be allowed to marry.

My point is, that if you change the discipline of the Latin Church in such a revolutionary way, the floodgates are opened. Next, Priests marrying, followed by married Bishops. When those redoubts of orthodoxy have fallen, the demands for female deacons will begin (tho' I've already heard rumours of that), followed by demands for priestesses and bishopettes.

I left the Anglican Church for Orthodoxy because of the same sort of progression. Of course, they already had a married clergy at all levels, but the demand was for deaconettes. We were assured that it would go no further. I left for Orthodoxy at that point because once females were ordained at any level, there was no logical reason not to go further. I had a good friend who argued with me trying to convince me to remain. I told him I was tired of fighting and I wanted a rest. When priestesses were 'ordained' Anglicans who remained were again assured that that was it, but I ran into my friend in a bookshop. He, his family, his entire parish, and their priest had been received into Orthodoxy in the meantime. Before I could say a word, he said, 'I know. You warned me'.

So we both missed the ordination of bishopettes, but I watched as that happened, followed by open, but 'celibate', homosexuals (of either sex) being ordained, then active homosexuals, and now, IIRC, 'married' homosexual clergy.

I know that Our Lord promised the gates of hell would not prevail, but I don't recall the verse that said much of the Church wouldn't fall into heresy and apostasy. Start messing with the constitution of the Church in such a fundamental way and I foresee decades, if not centuries, of chaos.

And, just awhile ago, as the original poster bowed out of the thread, I answered him thus.

OK - my guess is there is no single thing causing all the issues in the Church.

I'm going to let this thread go, as I guess I'm in the way minority here thinking mandatory celibacy may have some impact on the whole mess.

MB, the thing is that historically it is obvious that mandatory celibacy has not been a major problem until the 'normalisation' of homosexual perversion. We've had mandatory celibacy in the West for at least 1500 years. I'm sure there have been isolated incidents of perversion in the clergy throughout those centuries, but there weren't many, probably because if found out, the perpetrators were laicised and handed over to the secular arm for execution.

It's only in the last decades as secular society, heretical sects, and the 'psychiatric' community have come to say that homosexual perversion is 'normal' that the massive problem has arisen.