Sunday, February 06, 2011

A Traditional Catholic's Argument for a Married Priesthood
Boy, am I going to get a lot of people mad at me!

Yes, I'm a Traditional Latin Mass kinda guy. I absolutely detest the Novus Ordo. I believe that the so-called "Spirit" of Vatican II has been one of the greatest threats that's ever faced Holy Mother the Church. I'm of the opinion that militant homosexual deviants have overrun our Sacred Priesthood (there's that 'fresh breeze' of V2 again).

I also believe there should be an option for a married priesthood for the Latin Rite (Western) Church.

I haven't come to that conclusion solely based on the frothing at the mouth arguments of the 60's-reject aging hippie Roman Protestants that populate more than a few rectories, convents and parish councils.

No, we shouldn't have a married priesthood in the Western Church because of this phony, manufactured, man-made "priest shortage" (or would that be 'person-made?)

Nor should we have a married priesthood in the Western Church because of that sappy argument of "they're men! They should have a woman in their life!" Celibacy is a discipline, a gift, a grace. It is certainly something that I could never master. I tip my hat to any man or woman who could live the celibate lifestyle. By the way... no one forces any man into the seminary, or any woman to take the veil, It's a life they choose.

And most of all, we shouldn't have a married priesthood in the Western Church because of the utterly moronic rationale of "if we had married priests, they wouldn't have to molest little boys". A married priesthood has absolutely nothing to do with molestation. The sexual scandal is because of the ordinations of open and militant homosexuals. Yet again, here comes that fresh breeze of Vatican II, fetid pollution and all.

My thoughts in regards to a married priesthood have nothing to do with the garbage arguments we are subjected to by the geriatric refugees of the Luv Generation.



Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

You are correct IMHO. The shortage has been "person" made! LOL

I don't necessarily agree with you, but I am not mad at you fr your opinion. I might even have a certain sympathy for your POV. Discipline means obedience, not a matter of "de fide." Thus, private opinions are OK. I have also sorts of non de fide private opinions myself on other or related Catholic issues. I even surmise you might object to some of those opinions. But what the hey!

The Orthodox have a tradition of celibacy too apart from monastic celibacy. E.g., a married man can be ordained but an ordained priest or deacon may not marry . . . not even after being widowed. There has been some oeconomia practiced here and there about this among the Greek Orthodox and there was a controversy in the AOC some years back re: a priest re-marrying and his Metropolitan allowing him to remain an "active" priest. And then there is Fr. John of Kronstadt (St. John) who together with his wife made a vow (or private promise) of continency in marriage. OK, continency is not celibacy, but you get my drift, I hope. Oh, and by tradition and practice, a man who marries a widow may not be ordained an Orthodox parish priest. Again, there might be some oeconomia practiced in this situation too, but I do not know for sure.

Before Pope Gregory VII there were married priests even though there already had been various decrees imposing celibacy on the parish priesthood. But even before that, in the Roman Rite, there was a long standing custom in the early Church and early Medieval times for a married couple to make a vow of continency prior to the husband's ordination to the holy priesthood (or perhaps the deaconate, and then priesthood).

One of my objections to the routine lifting of the celibacy rule for the secular Catholic priesthood is that in today's over-sexualized, liberal, modernistic, feminist, rebellious, demon-haunted, etc., culture, it would represent a surrender by Rome to the heterodox.

OK, that's not really a good reason to oppose lifting the celibacy rule, but it's the best I can muster in this wacky world in which we live.

Good post and article, Cavey! You stormed this beach like a crazed Marine! LOL

Please excuse the long reply.

12:55 PM  
Blogger cliff said...

Hey, I followed the link, read the article & never did positively tell WHY there should be a married priesthood. It seemed like you left off half your article. Did I miss something?

2:09 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Thanks Adeo!

Cliff, like I said, it's a matter of discipline, not doctrine. We've had a married priesthood for the first 1100 years (in the Latin Rite).

The Eastern Rites have proved for the last 2000 that a married priesthood works just fine.

Hope that answers your question.

Hmmm... maybe I should have taked that onto the article, as well! Thaniks for the food for thought, Cliff.

2:33 PM  
OpenID danightman said...

I think, especially with the arrival of the Anglican Ordinate, that the idea of allowing married men to be ordained (precision of language is no small blessing) priests.

We have to examine it in terms of the blessings a celibate priesthood has given the West, but also the practical implications of this. For starters, how about the children from such marriages, and the fact that the marriage and the family would have to be a witness to the priesthood.

9:27 PM  
Blogger VSO said...

Glad you see it our way Cavey. And you're right, married still priests still fall into sin too as you can read about at

I personally prefer my priests unmarried. They devote more time to their vocation.

But the fact remains that there have been married priests for 2,000 years and there are married priests in your Church today, just not in the Latin Rite. That CAN change. Besides, if Rome ever wants reunion with the Orthodox Church that rule WILL have to change...and those "spirit of V2" heretics will have to stay out.

10:51 PM  
Blogger Al said...

Agree whoelheartedly with the "person"made shortage. I would have no problem with a married clergy in the Latin Rite, for the reasons you gave. To some extenr, we already do have some married priests, those clergy from Lutheran & Episcopal churches who got special permission after they crossed the Tiber, for example. What Adeo said about Orthodox clergy applies to the Eastern catholic clergy for the most part as well. He also gave some good points about the dangers of doing that at this point in time as well.
Interestingly enough, many years ago it was a happily married Lutheran minister who gave the best argument for priests to be unmarried I ever heard.

2:54 AM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

Interestingly enough, many years ago it was a happily married Lutheran minister who gave the best argument for priests to be unmarried I ever heard.

Fr. Christopher Phillips, pastor of our Lady of the Atonement Roman Catholic (AU) parish in San Antonio, TX also favors a celibate parish clergy as a general rule and he is a married, former Episcopalian priest. Again, an opinion about a venerable tradition, not dogma or doctrine. His and Cavey's opposite opinions are both legitimately held IMHO.

I think the basis of the pro-married opinion vis-a-vis RC parish priests has to do with manliness. OK, not every married man is "manly" or even more colloquially looks and acts "macho." But I am not referring exclusively to overt and exaggerated manly behavior. Nonetheless, I perceive that the existence of weak-kneed to effeminately behaving Catholic priests in the modern Church motivates many people--such as Cavey--for a "real" man becoming a priest. For example, my Latin Mass priest, the friendliest and most personable guy you could ever meet, is a real man. He is built like an oak tree, looks like a bouncer for a bar, and could likely hold his own in a knife fight in a dark alley, including a spiritual knife fight with the Devil considering Father is under the grace of the Holy Priesthood.

The only thing that would perfect his priesthood would be a Marine Corps globe and anchor worn on the left pectoral region of his cassock. BTW, he wears his cassock just about everywhere as all parish priests should. LOL

One final thing--FINAllY!--is that the post-V2 RCC has become very feminized. I don't mean to offend the good Catholic (and Orthodox) ladies who inhabit the Cave, but it was a Church of rugged masculinity that conquered the Pagans of Northern Europe, the British Isles, and Ireland. For example: when I see the majority of EMoHC at the Ordinary Form of Mass being women, I think the masculine character of the Holy Priesthood is being vitiated. In any case, I don't favor the EMoHC practice because there is nothing extraordinary about their rather ordinary service. IMHO, the distribution of Holy Communion is a clerical act, and not the province of the religious or lay states of life.

10:55 AM  
Blogger Don said...

I agree with Cliff. Your headline promises an argument for a married priesthood, but IMHO you fail to make your case.

Your arguments boil down to that the celibacy rule can be changed. I don't think you'll find disagreement on that point from anybody knowledgeable with the facts. But nowhere do you state why it ought to be changed.

6:40 PM  
Blogger Alexander said...

Repression of celibacy in Latin clergy was warned against by St. Pius X in the Pascendi Dominici Gregis and identified with Modernism. Be careful.

11:34 PM  
Blogger Stella Oriens said...

I hate to say it but I think this time you've based an argument on an incomplete understanding.

The married priesthood of the universal Church was always perfectly continent - men presented for Holy Orders had to have the permission of their wives, because at marriage they had acquired the right to marital relations and the clerical state requires continence, which would violate that right. Therefore, the wives of deacons and priests had to willingly surrender their right to marital relations with their husbands, that they may live the perfect continence expected of clerics.

That the East has married clergy is due to an illicit council never ratified by the Roman Pontiff. Instead of perfect continence, Eastern clerics declared their right to transient continence, permitting married clerics to live with their wives (even sleeping in the same bed) and engage in marital relations - but not the night before they were expected to offer the Holy Sacrifice. This is why there is no tradition of daily Divine Liturgy in the East like there is in the West with Daily Mass.

No, if anything what we need is to return to the stricter enforcement of clerical celibacy on ALL clerics, and (this is what will get people mad at me) the abandonment of married clergy in the east.

Might I also point out that the picture in your article is of Eastern Bishops, none of whom are married. In the East, bishops can only be consecrated from the (unmarried) monks, and therefore the universal Church has maintained - at least at the episcopal grade of Holy Orders - a perfectly celibate and continent clergy.

10:55 AM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

No problemo, Stella. If folks disagree with me, that's cool. In all seriousness, thanks for posting!

11:25 AM  
Blogger Mona said...

I do not agree with married priests; but I do agree with the rest of your post. I am hard-pressed to find a staunch (OOH! We "shouldn't" have to say, TRADITIONAL!) Catholic who understands the problems and errors wrought by Vatican II. Go with God.

1:31 PM  
Blogger ignorant redneck said...


i am in agreement with you! But this article would torque of Cheeky Pink Girl--she doesn't think Traddy's think.

11:07 PM  
Blogger Helen said...

VSC ~ Am also in disagreement with you. Celibacy/Chastity is a Discipline. St. Peter, when Jesus formed the Church may have been married and was the first Pope. The Catholic Priest represents Christ, The Eternal Word and He Was and Is still "single".

Are you hinting that you'd like to become a Priest? ;-D

12:32 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home