No argument from me. Someone asked for the sources for the rule, I obliged.

I know. I was just adding a comment/opinion to your post.

UKMF, the priest at St. Mary's has a son, not a daughter. I know because he used to be my pastor at St. Anthony's. Nice, polite teenager. The circumstances of what happened have been discussed in another thread. I will not be commenting further on that situation because, over the years, it was dealt with in an appropriate manner for all involved.

 

He could play some hoops back in the day…Great guy. Very few have issues with this out this way

He could play some hoops back in the day…Great guy. Very few have issues with this out this way

 

And still makes it a point to attend the Sweet 16 every year no matter who is playing.

I have never understood the ruling and how it came to be.

I think priests should be allowed to marry and have a family if they wish.

 

Priestly celibacy took place over the course of 800 years or so. It was not a hard and fast rule until the Second Lateran Council in 1139. Previously, there were some mandates for priestly celibacy, but none were completely definitive until Lateran II. The practice has a variety of reasons behind it. There are some roots in tradition; for example, Jesus and some of his apostles lived celibate lives. There are also roots in pragmatism. Three main issues apply there:

1) Before well organized laws were established and were able to prevent it from taking place, there was the issue of priests' children inheriting church properties.

2) The financial burden of supporting a single person can be quantified within reason. However, it can take on an entirely different measure when the parish is not only supporting a single priest, but then also supporting that priest's wife and children. I'm not saying it wouldn't be manageable by the Catholic Church to some extent, but still...think of the number of church ministries and services that would be cut because of those financial implications. For example, instead of two or three single priests living at the church rectory/parsonage, the Church has to pay mortgages for two or three separate residences so those married priests and their families all have a place to live. If you look at that on even just a diocesan level, much less worldwide, think of the amount of money to be spent on priests' residences, children's schooling, and children's vehicles that is going to be diverted out of the Church's ministries.

3) The idea of vocation, or what a person's calling in life is. If a person is to commit their life to the church through the vocation of Holy Orders, then that is what they are being called to commit ALL of themselves to. Complete commitment to serving God's people on earth. If you are called to the vocation of marriage, then you are committing yourself completely to your family. If you allow for those two vocations to both apply to one person, then somewhere, someone is missing out.

Woops.....didn't nearly read through the end of this thread before posting. I think the second and third points that I listed in my previous post have some real validity that has not been addressed thus far in the thread, though.